Supplementary memorandum from Professor
John Whitelegg, Liverpool John Moores University (RS 73)
1. My name is John Whitelegg and I am Visiting
Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University
and Professor of Sustainable Development in the Stockholm Environment
Institute at the University of York. I am also editor of the journal
"World Transport Policy and Practice". I have worked
as a traffic planner in Germany in the Ministry of Transport of
the State of North Rhine Westphalia in Duesseldorf and one of
our projects was evaluating "Tempo 30" zones (20 mph
speed limited zones).
2. In this short written submission I want
to draw attention to a small number of key themes that I think
will be helpful to the Committee:
— The Swedish Vision Zero road safety
policy.
— Speed limits: the German and UK approaches.
3. THE SWEDISH
VISION ZERO
ROAD SAFETY
POLICY
3.1 The Vision Zero policy in Sweden marks
a significant departure from traditional approaches to road safety.
It says there shall be zero deaths and zero serious injuries in
the road traffic environment and it was passed by the Swedish
Parliament in October 1997 as the basis of official road safety
policy in Sweden. It puts road safety in an ethical context rather
than an economic or engineering context and in effect says that
the only acceptable level of deaths and injuries in the road traffic
environment is zero. It then sets out to deliver this result within
a rather more conventional model of specific interventions and
measures supported by intermediate targets.
3.2 In 2004 the Stockholm Environment Institute
was awarded a contract by the UK Department for Transport to investigate
the Swedish Vision Zero policy and its relevance to the UK. We
interviewed all the main people involved in producing this policy
in Sweden and conducted focus groups with over 230 individual
throughout England and we concluded that the Vision Zero policy
had a great deal to offer to UK policy in re-invigorating road
safety interventions, involving the public in a massive social
change aimed at rejecting the unacceptable and bringing all the
components of local and central government into a new and joined
up effort to strip "accidents" out of the system.
3.3 The core of the Vision Zero approach
to road safety is the principle expressed by the architect of
this policy (Claes Tingvall):
"It can never be ethically acceptable
that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within
the road system".
3.4 In early 2005 I interviewed the Swedish
Minister of Transport (Ines Uusmann) who was responsible for the
introduction of the Swedish Vision Zero project in October 1997.
One extract from the interview is helpful in understanding Vision
Zero:
JW: Why did Sweden introduce Vision Zero?
IU: For two reasons mainly. After a long period
of decline in deaths and serious injuries the rate had plateaued
and there was no more decline. We had to do something to sort
out this problem. It was not acceptable that the decline should
stop. Secondly we were very much aware of a general commitment
to vision zero principles in health and safety at work. The construction
of the Oresund Bridge and Tunnel between Sweden and Denmark was
a major civil engineering project and no one was killed (unlike
the Channel Tunnel project which had many deaths). There are no
logical reasons why this principle should not apply to the road
environment. This is probably a reflection of Swedish society
and the general view in the mid 1990s in Sweden was that this
was the right time to do it.
3.5 Our Vision Zero project revealed overwhelming
support from the 232 members of public in our focus groups in
London, Ulverston, Preston, Devizes, Leeds and York. It was opposed
by professional groups we consulted in an on-line questionnaire
survey.
3.6 The Swedish Vision Zero policy has a
great deal to offer to the UK policy and it should be adopted
as the basis for our efforts in road safety.
3.7 The Vision Zero approach has been endorsed
by the World Health Organisation:
— Vision Zero in Sweden and the sustainable
safety programme in the Netherlands are examples of good practice
in road safety. Such good practice can also have other benefits.
It can encourage healthier lifestyles involving more walking and
cycling and can reduce the noise and air pollution that result
from motor vehicle traffic. Colombia is an example of a developing
country that is beginning to implement a similar strategy.
Source: WHO (2004) World Report on Road
Traffic Injury Prevention, page 158
3.8 The essence of Vision Zero is also captured
in the same WHO report:
This report attempts to contribute to the body
of knowledge on road safety. It is hoped that it will inspire
and facilitate increased cooperation, innovation and commitment
to preventing road traffic crashes around the world.
Road traffic crashes are predictable and therefore
preventable. In order to combat the problem, though, there needs
to be close coordination and collaboration, using a holistic and
integrated approach, across many sectors and many disciplines.
While there are many interventions that can
save lives and limbs, political will and commitment are essential
and without them little can be achieved. The time to act is now.
Road users everywhere deserve better and safer road travel.
(Page 164)
Road traffic crashes are predictable and can
be prevented and we have to do more than we now do.
4. SPEED LIMITS:
THE GERMAN
APPROACH AND
THE UK APPROACH
4.1 One of the very clear conclusions of
the World Health Organisation report on road traffic injury prevention
is that reducing speeds and enforcing the lower speed limits has
a great deal to offer in eliminating death and serious injury:
— The probability of a crash involving
an injury is proportional to the square of the speed. The probability
of a serious crash is proportional to the cube of the speed. The
probability of a fatal crash is related to the fourth power of
the speed (38, 39).
— Empirical evidence from speed studies
in various countries has shown that an increase of 1 km/h in mean
traffic speed typically results in a 3% increase in the incidence
of injury crashes (or an increase of 4-5% for fatal crashes),
and a decrease of 1 km.h in mean traffic speed will result in
a 3% decrease in the incidence of injury crashes (or a decrease
of 4-5% for fatal crashes) (40).
4.2 The speed debate in the UK has not yet
taken on board scientific evidence. There is a gold plated, scientifically
robust argument for a total change in culture, attitude and quality
of life through the adoption of a general 20mph speed limit in
every urban area and in every village. It is simply wrong that
millions of citizens should be exposed to a risk greater than
we can achieve through a 20mph limit with effective enforcement.
The debate is advancing in the UK with a commitment to adopt such
a policy by the former Mayor of London, Portsmouth City Council
and a joint committee of Lancashire County Council and Lancaster
City Council.
4.3 A graph in the WHO report shows that
the point of inflexion is approximately 20mph/30kph:
(Page 78 of WHO report "World Report on Road
traffic Injury Prevention")
4.4 We can achieve widespread 20mph speed
limitation either through a blanket system-wide approach or through
extensive "home zone" work. Home Zones in the UK are
expensive and will never be implemented on a scale that is up
to the task of protecting citizens from death and injury on a
large enough scale. The Home Zone challenge in 2002 allocated
£30 million for 61 home zones and the Poulton Home Zone in
Morecambe cost £750,000 for an area with 150 residents. Pressures
on public expenditure and on value for money point unerringly
towards blanket 20mph speed limist in all urban areas and enforcement
through averaging speed cameras. The alternative approach followed
in Germany would be tens of thousands of zones with humps and
bumps and chicanes and build-outs and new surfacing at an average
cost of £0.5 million each and a total cost of several billion
pounds. This will not happen which leaves us with system-wide
approach as the preferred option.
4.5 The city of Graz in Austria adopted
a general system-wide 30kph (18.75 mph) speed limit for all roads
in residential areas in 1992. This has been very successful in
reducing death and serious injury and creating excellent conditions
for cycling and walking. The speed enforcement is managed by a
private company under the supervision of the police so as not
to take up expensive policing time and resources.
4.6 The city of Freiburg in Germany has
a general system-wide speed limit of 30 kph (approximately 20
mph) and a speed limit of 5 kph (walking speed) in the new residential
area of Vauban.
4.7 Cities in mainland Europe with system-wide
20 mph speed limits have a bicycle share of all trips around 25-30%
compared to 2-3% in British cities (excluding London).
5. WIDER BENEFITS
5.1 Dealing with death and injury in a road
traffic environment will produce benefits across a wide spectrum
of policy objectives. The wider benefits include the promotion
of so-called "active travel". More people will walk
and cycle in an environment that is perceived of as safe and secure
and more people walking and cycling will result in a reduction
in obesity, a reduction in NHS costs, a reduction in congestion
and a reduction in air pollution associated with vehicle exhaust
emission.
5.2 In 1990 I wrote a book with my colleagues
Mayer Hillman and John Adams (One false move: a study of children's
independent mobility) in which we drew attention to the massive
decline in walking and cycling to school by children in the period
approximately from 1970-90. The very low levels of walking and
cycling on the part of school age children in the UK are now directly
implicated in the so-called obesity epidemic and dealing with
this epidemic will require a major transformation of the worries
people have about road safety. The link between active travel
modes and obesity has been illustrated by the US academic, John
Pucher. The percentage of the population that is obese goes down
as the percentage of all trips that are walk, cycle and public
transport goes up:
5.3 A much improved and radical road safety
policy is needed to deal with the obesity epidemic.
5.4 Road safety policy also has strong links
with climate change policies. This is especially important now
that the UK will be the first country in the world to put greenhouse
reduction targets on a statutory basis through the Climate Change
Bill.
5.5 The links between road safety policy
and climate change is through speed reduction and can be described
graphically as follows:
Source: "Getting
the genie back in the bottle: limiting speed to reduce carbon
emissions and accelerate the shift to low carbon vehicles, Julia
Anable et al, UKERC and the Centre for Transport Policy, The Robert
Gordon University, January 2006
5.6 The study's findings are:
If applied in 2006, a properly enforced 70 mph
speed limit would cut carbon emissions from transport by nearly
5 million tonnes (MtC) by 2010, averaging 0.97 MtC per annum.
A new 60 mph limit would double this reduction
over the same period, reducing emissions by an average 1.88 MtC
a year, or approximately 9.4MtC in total by 2010.
These savings amount to a reduction of between
2.9% and 5.6% of emissions from the road transport sector in 2010.
The cumulative saving in 2010 of either 4.97
and 9.38 MtC (not including traffic restraint or knock on effects
on the car market) could more than match or even double the total
savings expected from the transport sector by 2010, as stated
in the Energy White Paper.
These figures assume that speed enforcement and
reduction will not affect travel demand. However, if restraint
were included in the calculation, the reduction in emissions would
be even greater.
A better enforced 70 mph limit on motorways would
prevent over 300 deaths and serious injuries per annum on motorways
alone. A 60 mph limit would prevent over 600 deaths and serious
injuries.
Lower top speeds and the safety benefits would
incentivise the market for lighter and less powerful cars, thus
increasing the carbon savings further.
Costing this policy requires further work. However,
initial indications are that this would be one of the cheapest
carbon abatement policies, across all sectors, especially when
ancillary benefits such as casualty and congestion reductions
are taken into account.
5.7 There is a significant amount of disjointed
thinking in government policy. There appears to be no understanding
of how a significant step-change in road safety policy can deliver
multiple gains in road safety, air quality, obesity reductions
and climate change. This is not good enough.
6. SO WHAT
NEXT?
6.1 There is a real need for a significant
governmental, public health and transport industry effort to get
the message across that the road safety environment will be made
much safer than ever before. This is the role of "Vision
Zero".
6.2 There is a real need to establish system-wide
20 mph speed limits in every urban area and in every village and
to makes sure that these are enforced. This will send a strong
message that human life, physical activity and health are of the
greatest importance and also that government attaches a very great
importance to the health and welfare of low income, disadvantaged,
children, non car owners and elderly groups. Traditional approaches
to traffic and transport do not prioritise these groups.
6.3 There is a need to get the sums right.
The costs of not doing these things is much higher than the costs
of doing them and this simple comparison has not entered into
the public debate. The costs of obesity, death and injury, air
pollution, respiratory diseases and the associated demands on
the NHS run into the tens of billions and there is not enough
recognition that these costs are a drain on public expenditure
and can be significantly reduced by a highly co-ordinated effort
to exploit synergy between policy areas and to deliver value for
money in public expenditure.
6.4 Public policy is not just about money.
There is a yearning in the general population which was put to
us repeatedly by our 232 focus group participants on the DfT funded
Vision Zero project. Death and injury on the road infects us all
with a degree of fear and nervousness which blights lives. It
is repeatedly quoted as a reason why those questioned do not walk
or cycle. They answer "it is too dangerous". The death
of one child in a road traffic crash blights the lives of hundreds
of people, who attend the same school or the same church or the
same scout group, read the same local newspaper or whatever. A
modern compassionate and thoughtful society should identify this
terrible blight and eliminate it.
May 2008
| 
