Memorandum from Rod King 20's Plenty For
Us (RS 77)
20's Plenty For Us—The campaign for 20
mph to become the default speed limit for residential roads.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the UK parents consistently cite the high
speeds of vehicles and the volume of traffic as the reasons why
they do not allow their children to walk or cycle to school. At
the same time public opinion is recognising that we are creating
roads designed and operated for motorists first, rather than equitably
for all users. It is our vulnerable road users who are "hardest
hit" by urban and residential vehicle speeds which are 60%
higher than those in Northern Europe. Whilst our pedestrians account
for 21% of all road fatalities in the UK, in the Netherlands it
is just 9.4%. A road fatality in the UK is more likely to be a
pedestrian than in any of our West European neighbours.
For an equitable use of our roads and streets
as shared public spaces it is imperative that we create a safe
environment that recognises the vulnerability of pedestrians and
cyclists.
There is clear evidence that the public is very
much in favour of a 20 mph speed limit on residential roads. Portsmouth
is the first city to implement such a scheme on an authority wide
basis. In doing so it initiated a "community-wide" debate
linking road safety to restraint and equitable use of its roads.
If we are to move to a society that is less
dependent upon the motor car (and its inevitable use of oil for
energy) then it is imperative that we maximise the opportunity
for people to walk or cycle instead. In reality this will not
happen unless a major shift road safety is made in support of
vulnerable road users. 20's Plenty For Us believe that the following
should be key factors in that initiative:
— 20 mph as the default speed limit
for all residential roads.
— Implementation of "strict liability"
in road traffic injury cases.
— Traffic authorities to embrace the
use of cycling and walking in day to day operations.
— Traffic Authorities to design-in
direct and safe cycle and walking facilities on all new road schemes.
— Random and covert use of speed checks
for enforcement of 20 mph speed limits.
— Driving bans should not be reduced
by consideration of offenders use of car for employment.
Together with public debate, these reforms will
bring the UK into line with best practice in Europe and provide
the foundation for a society whereby road safety will be increased
for all rather than only those who drive cars. Everyone should
have the freedom to choose a method if transport without fear
that the road laws or use of roads put them at greater risk because
of their vulnerability.
Such a change will considerably enhance the
country's ability to face the transport challenges which are expected
in the next decade. Regardless of the predictions for "peak
oil" or "global warming" we need a more flexible
transport policy that enables modal choice and shift without increased
danger to those making that shift.
There is evidence of an increasing awareness
by the public to such issues. Strong leadership, an honest recognition
of these issues and firm action to change the way we use our roads
and streets is now required.
INTRODUCTION
In 2004, Rod King of Warrington learnt that
its twin town, Hilden in Germany, enjoyed high levels of cycling
with 24% of in-town trips being made by bicycle. He cycled to
Hilden to gain a better understanding of how this had been achieved.
He found that the town was noticing that cycling levels were reducing
in the early 1990's and as a result they implement a reduced speed
of 18.5 mph (30 kph) throughout the whole town. This had therefore
become the foundation to their promotion of cycling. Whilst they
had some segregated facilities, these were generally low quality
and designed around a prevailing traffic speed of just 30 kph.
Since then Rod has campaigned for lower speeds
on UK roads, especially in residential and urban roads. This effects
not only cyclists, but also pedestrians who comprise a great percentage
of road deaths in the UK than any other Western European country.
In 2007 he founded 20's Plenty For Us to campaign on this issue
and the charity now has groups throughout the country campaigning
for 20 mph as the default for residential roads.
Over those four years he has noticed considerable
shift in public opinion on 20 mph for residential roads. Now most
residents favour it and there is increasing establishment recognition
that this is a sensible step forward.
Rod is a regular contributor to the debate on road
safety with particular reference to vulnerable road users. He
has presented at conferences and meetings organised by Velo-City,
CTC, Living Streets, Campaign for Better Transport, Cycle Campaign
Network and Dublin City Council. Rod has a degree in Automobile
Engineering and works as an IT consultant.
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
1.1 The primary target for casualty reduction
is the KSI figures. Whilst this is quite laudable as a measure
of the human and financial cost of incidents on our roads it fails
to take account of the specific conditions which exists in the
UK which effect the make up of these statistics, especially with
regard to vulnerable road users.
1.2 No account is taken of a differentiation
between "driver" deaths such as a motor driver accident
involving no other parties and the deaths of pedestrians or cyclists
as a result of actions by motor vehicles. Whilst the former are
most often the cause of their own demise, the vulnerable victims
are usually innocent road users who die because the motor driver
has not taken into account their vulnerability. In a recent conversation
with a Road Safety council officer, I was told that he agreed
that lower speeds would be of enormous benefit to the quality
of life for residents and particularly the safety of vulnerable
road users. However, his targets for KSI reduction required him
to focus on young drivers where it would give him the best potential
KSI reduction for a given budget. The KSI targets were therefore
causing a policy shift away from funding the safety of vulnerable
road users.
1.3 KSIs are a very blunt measure of the
safety improvement on our roads. In a recent PACTS conference
Fred Wegmann of Netherlands Institute for Road Safety spoke of
the need for a "paradigm shift" in our approach to road
safety. The focus on KSI leads to emphasising ways to prevent
KSI rather than create a safer environment. This may seem counter
intuitive, but the creation of safety barriers, complicated segregated
routes for cyclists and pedestrians often inhibits these transport
modes in convenience and directness to the extent that they are
discouraged. We are currently creating an environment whereby
safety is achieved only at the expense of discouraging the very
forms of transport which we aim to promote.
2. What further measures need to be adopted
to reduce deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?
2.1 It has been reliably established that
any consumption of alcohol degrades the ability of a driver to
control his or her vehicle. We need to widen the whole debate
on responsibility for the use of motor vehicles to recognise that
any pre-meditated impairment of judgement whilst driving is socially
unacceptable and will result in penalties.
2.2 Alcohol limits should be set at a "zero
tolerance" level of .2g/l. This will establish categorically
that if driving then no alcohol should be consumed at all. Thus
providing a clear message to all drivers.
2.3 Penalties for drink driving should not
be attenuated according to the reliance of an offender on his
car as a necessary means of employment. There should be a clear
scale of penalties that start with the mandatory withdrawal of
a license for a minimum of 12 months.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other
EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
3.1 For vulnerable road users such as pedestrians
and cyclists there is a very clear skewing of fatalities towards
this category of road user in the UK.
In 2004 the percentage of accident fatalities
to pedestrians was higher in Britain than any other EU country.
20.6% of road fatalities were pedestrians compared to 13.9% as
an EU average. In the Netherlands the figure was just 9.4%.[137]
See appendix.
In 2005 this figure increased to 21.0% however,
the introduction additional EU countries such as Malta, Poland,
Hungary and Estonia with even poorer statistics moved UK from
being worst in EU to being 5th from bottom.[138]
Hardly an indication that things were getting better in the UK.
See appendix.
3.2 20's Plenty For Us believes that the
following account for the very different statistics for percentage
pedestrian fatalities between the best practice in Europe (Netherlands,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden) and the UK.
3.2.1 Lower tolerance of accidents in these
countries.
3.2.2 Strict Liability. In Netherlands cyclists
and pedestrians cannot be more than 50% responsible since 1990's.
Sweden has had a no fault liability since 1975. Note that these
do not impose any automatic criminal guilt to the motor vehicle
driver, but simply the liability in the event of an accident with
a vulnerable road user.
3.2.3 A 30 kph (18.5 mph) speed limit as
the default for all residential roads. This dramatically reduces
both the incidence of accidents and their consequence. Most of
this is achieved through a combination of public debate and consultation,
low cost infrastructure (no need for physical calming) and random,
covert enforcement.
3.2.4 Higher levels of walking and cycling
as a result of the above create a culture with less polarisation
between walkers/cyclists and motorists. This in turn creates a
larger percentage of motorists who also walk and cycle.
3.2.5 Traffic engineers in UK local authorities
have long been motivated by increasing throughput in motor vehicles
on local roads without any recognising any economic or society
benefit for encouraging modal shift from personal car usage. Road
Safety has often become a "retrospective" exercise resulting
in compromised facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at junctions.
In other countries a "holistic" approach is taken whereby
cyclists and pedestrian accessibility is recognised on all roads
through a combination of either direct, convenient segregated
facilities or through lowering the speed limit to 20 mph. Funding
for such segregated facilities comes from the general road transport
budget and is not limited by a cycling or pedestrian budget.
3.2.6 In Northern European countries the
endemic use of the cycle as the primary mode of transport for
teens creates a subsequent generation of learner drivers who are
already skilled in road positioning and spatial awareness. Their
experience of using roads as a cyclist therefore enables them
to become better drivers more quickly and with more empathy towards
cyclists and pedestrians with whom they share the roads. This
experience of "teen cycling" therefore continues to
benefit the safety of the country's vulnerable road users long
after those teens have matured. Increasing "teen cycling"
could well be the answer to addressing the UK's poor record on
young driver deaths.
4. How do approaches in reductions in risk
on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
4.1 I suspect that this is a rhetorical
question. Clearly the manner in which we react to deaths on the
railways or airways is completely different to that for road transport.
As an example we have "rules and regulations" in such
industries which do carry approbation and swingeing fines if broken.
We have a central government that sets the rules for using the
roads, but the policing of this is delegated to local police authorities.
The police establishment had been reducing police resources for
enforcement of driving laws for some time. Police forces seem
to be content to delegate speed enforcement to Road Safety Partnerships
and some refuse to enforce 20 mph limits in any way.
4.2 Whilst many improvements have been made
by addressing "accident black spots" the remaining deaths,
especially for vulnerable road users, are spread out across the
whole road network with little clustering. Therefore these can
only be improved by changing the way people interact with vulnerable
road users rather than specific localised highway engineering.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by
shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff?
5.1 Yes, throughout most traffic authorities
there is little perception of the needs of vulnerable road users.
Responsibility for the "championing" of cyclists and
pedestrian rights is often delegated to a junior member of staff.
Most traffic engineers, and particularly senior management, have
no experience of travelling to work other than by car. Hence their
whole perception of transport is seen from behind a "windscreen"
looking out, rather than an objective view of the needs of all
road users. A number of changes would correct this.
5.1.1 Establish the mandatory use of cycles
by all traffic authorities for engineer trips of less than 5 miles.
If necessary this should be preceded by cycle training and the
provision of "pool" bikes. The only exemption would
be on health grounds and a doctor's certificate.
5.1.2 Avoid the marginalisation of cycling
and walking by recognising the need to include these modes in
all professional training and highway design. If cycling and walking
is to become a "mainstream" mode of transport then this
must be reflected in the concerns, attitudes and design skills
of traffic engineers and highway designers.
5.1.3 Rather than having junior "champions"
of cycling and walkers, make this a prime responsibility of all
traffic officers and highway engineers.
6. What further policies, not already widely
used, might be considered for adoption and what evidence there
is for their success?
6.1 20 mph as a default speed limit for
residential roads.
6.1.1 This is a clear policy which has wide
public support yet little widespread implementation. Portsmouth
has taken the initiative to implement this across the whole authority
without the expense of physical calming. Early evidence shows
that the community wide debate that preceded this decision sensitised
the whole population to the benefits of a collective community
decision to reduce speeds and coupled this with a personal commitment
to adherence. As a result average speeds have reduced by 3 mph
and the whole community is tuned to the correlation between speed
and safety reduction.
6.1.2 Unfortunately, those on the edges of
social responsibility still break those limits. A more robust
enforcement of these by the police with covert and random speed
checks would be effective in bringing these into line. Experience
from Northern Europe shows that police enforcement is a critical
factor in gaining near 100% adherence to such limits. The government
is not giving enough priority in resources to the police for the
enforcement of 20 mph speed limits. It should also enable the
use of covert and random enforcement.
6.1.3 Wider education and training is required
for traffic authorities and engineers who have often not taken
notice of the revised guidelines for setting local speed limits
as in DfT Circular 01/2006. Many link 20 mph to physical calming
and still refer to 85th percentile as the determining factor in
assessing prevailing traffic speeds and the need for any form
of calming. In fact this was revised to "mean" speed
in 01/2006. Most do not recognise the in-built contradictions
in 01/2006 which can be expected in guidelines.
Hence a priority such as paragraph
33 which states that:
"The needs of vulnerable road users must
be fully taken into account in order to further encourage these
modes of travel"
is ignored because a suggestion
in paragraph 82 that:
"20 mph speed limits are, therefore,
only suitable in areas where vehicle speeds are already low (the
Department would suggest where mean vehicle speeds are 24 mph
or below), or where additional traffic calming measures are planned
as part of the strategy".
We also have some LA's not recognising
that traffic calming is not limited to physical calming and can
include roundels, gateways, etc. Some authorities, such as Cambridge
Traffic Authority have even decided to go further than the 01/2006
recommendations and not implement a 20 mph speed limit unless
the average speed is already 20 mph or less!!!
Such ignorance of the needs of
vulnerable road users should be addressed so that the implementation
of 20 mph for residential roads can be universally implemented.
6.1.4 There is also a mistaken view that
20 mph speed limits in the immediate vicinity of schools is a
good thing. This takes the debate away from all residential roads
being 20 mph. In fact the presence of large numbers of children
around schools make this one of the safest places for children.
Evidence shows that they are far more at risk on parts of their
cycling or walking journey closer to their home where drivers
are less likely to be aware of their presence. Children need protection
for their complete journey home and this will only come from the
widespread lowering of vehicle speeds throughout communities.
6.2 Strict Liability should be adopted in
the UK. This emphasises the protection that vulnerable road users
should be afforded on our roads. We need to redress the balance
in the inherent safety of vehicle passengers compared to the vulnerability
of cyclists and pedestrians. Unfortunately all the recent progress
in vehicle passenger safety has increased danger to pedestrians
and cyclists. The concept of "risk compensation"[139]
means that where drivers feel safer then they compensate by increasing
speed. This inevitably increases risks to vulnerable road users.
In 1982 Lord Denning proposed that there should
be liability without fault where motor vehicles are in accidents
with vulnerable road users. Since then there have been several
attempts at bringing the UK law into line with that in other European
countries. Strict Liability is another foundation of the success
of cycling and walking policies in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany
and Sweden.
7. What should be the priorities for government
in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
The government should recognise that the equitable
sharing of the roads for all users is a priority if it is to gain
any modal shift to cycling or walking. Whilst Northern European
towns have cycle usage in excess of 24% for in-town trips UK levels
of 4% outside a few rare examples typify the view that our roads
are too dangerous for people, particularly children, to cycle
and walk.
Road safety must be viewed holistically within
the context of encouraging modal shift and it must be realised
that this cannot be done with low quality segregated pedestrian
and cycle facilities that lack convenience and directness, often
increase conflicts with motorists and only serve to maintain high
motor vehicle speeds through isolation.
This equitable sharing must be the foundation
of our road safety policies. Within all towns, villages or residential
areas vehicle speeds must be lowered to 20 mph to provide such
equitable sharing without fear for those too young to drive, those
not able to drive or those who simply wish not to drive. Higher
speed limits should only be allowed where continuous, high quality
segregated facilities are available. These should have priority
over side roads and entrances.
In the future, our society will become far more
reliant upon those citizens who do shift their mode of transport
and will receive considerable benefits from such active travel.
Those citizens will not make that shift unless society gives them
the respect on the roads that they deserve.
This foundation will become the basis to encourage
active travel with all the benefits that result from this, specifically:
— Better quality of life.
Most importantly this should be done as part
of a wider initiative and public debate to address the country's
needs for the transport of people for the next decade. Increased
safety for cyclists and pedestrians must be put into the wider
context of benefiting the whole community rather than simply making
better conditions for the current minority who walk or cycle.
With that need should come the acceptance of
"strict liability". The "innocent till proven guilty"
argument should be robustly resisted as a "red herring"
to the liability debate. The harmonisation of this with other
Northern European countries should be sought.
In conclusion:
The nation is changing its attitude to travel
and fact that we will inevitably have to change our transport
habits. But whilst a nation can change attitudes and become receptive
to the need for change it does need visionary leaders to implement
policies which will enable those aspirations to be met. I trust
that the Transport Committee can provide and encourage that leadership.
June 2008
APPENDIX
137 European Road Safety Observatory, Traffic Safety
Basic Facts 2006-Pedestrians/ Back
138
European Road Safety Observatory, Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2007-Pedestrians. Back
139
Risk by John Adams-ISBN 1-85728-068-7. Back
| 
