Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
120-139)
MR ROB
SALMON, MR
CHRIS LINES,
MR NEAL
SKELTON AND
MR PAUL
EVERITT
30 APRIL 2008
Q120 Mrs Ellman: Are we right to
pay so much attention to speed as a cause of accidents?
Mr Lines: Can I just come back
on something that Mr Skelton was saying? It is speed; we know
from all the research that casualties are very much linked to
speed, both numbers and severity of casualties, and there again
going back to technology there is a definite role there to be
played by having vehicles which actually keep to the speed limit,
and perhaps longer term we can use vehicle technology to actually
manage the speed situation.
Mr Skelton: I would just emphasise
the point that Mr Lines was making. The particular technology
there is intelligent speed adaptation, which has two forms: one
is the voluntary whereby a motorist is advised of the speed limit
and can conform to that; there is a second level which generally
speaking at this stage has not been perceived as a way forward,
and that is that it becomes mandatory, i.e. the vehicle is managed
as it goes past particular areas, for example a 20 mph zone past
a school, that sort of situation, that ends up with the vehicle's
speed being monitored. It does raise lots of issues with regard
to driver control because the driver has to maintain control under
the Road Traffic Act legislation; as soon as you remove that control
it does raise serious and severe issues regarding whom to prosecute
where needed.
Q121 Mr Martlew: Just on that point,
are you saying if this technology is to be introduced then we
are going to have to change the law?
Mr Skelton: In certain areas that
would have to be the case. I am not suggesting that technology
is a panacea to everything, I am just suggesting that it has a
significant role to play as part and parcel of daily monitoring,
but in certain circumstances there would be a requirement to redraft
legislation accordingly.
Mr Salmon: Two points: just to
respond on the question of speed, I agree that it is still one
of the primary areas of activity that we have to keep a focus
on. The danger in that is that the public at large tend to see
authorities, including central government, as over-interested
in speed management to the point where it turns off public perception
about responsibility, so it is a bit of a battle really. What
we have got to do somehow is get people to understand more widely
that speed is a component of all sorts of other aspects of collision
causation, so if you are overtaking in the wrong place actually
it is a speed issue. Controlling speed helps all these things,
but if you just go on about speed and nothing else then we do
not get the message across to the public about the responsibility
for the whole driving experience, and we need to think hard about
that. On the question of technology there is a fundamental principle
about whether we are starting to transfer risk and responsibility
from the driver to some other body, organisation or simply the
manufacturer of a vehicle. At the moment implementation is about
leaving responsibility with the driver, and I appreciate that
those involved in developing a technology, which is all a very
positive activity, are very conscious of that and that is the
line that we are taking at the moment. If we move that line to
the point where we are saying we will take responsibility away
from the driver, then you have a very tricky legal situation to
consider, so until we can take a view about whether we go beyond
the 100% driver responsibility situation, we are going to have
to live with the fact that it is the drivers we need to be tackling
in terms of their attitudes, irrespective of how much technology
can help us mitigate the effects of collisions.
Mr Lines: Can I just point out
that there is a third option that Mr Skelton was referring to.
There is the advisory ISA, there is the mandatory ISA and the
one in the middle is a voluntary ISA where people have the equipment
fitted and they can turn it off if they want to. There are advantages
in having speed adaptation on the vehicle if you run fleets of
vehicles or whatever and there are benefits in terms of fuel consumption,
there are benefits in terms of emissions, so it is possible that
some people might be happy to use it, and tests abroad and in
Europe have shown that people actually quite like using it after
a while and would voluntarily fit it.
Q122 Clive Efford: Can I just follow
up on that point about driver responsibility? Is that not a bit
overblown, because there is all sorts of technology involved in
vehicles now but some of the basic things like the driver is responsible
for ensuring that there are tyres on the car that have a tread
that complies with the law. The driver is responsible for all
sorts of aspects of the car to make sure it is roadworthy, so
specifically what is it about the technology that there might
be a third party other than the driver responsible for the performance
of the vehicle?
Mr Salmon: Let me just make the
point this way: there is technology out there that will control
the speed of the vehicle, bring it to a halt—
Q123 Clive Efford: Gears control
the speed of the vehicle now and the power of the engine controls
the speed of the vehicle.
Mr Salmon: Under the control of
the driver though. The point is that if you provide an external
mandatory control—I am not against that in principle, what
I am saying is that you need to determine the legal position if
that does not work and the crash occurs. If the police investigate
a fatal road collision, they will be looking for responsibility
and what I am saying is that we have to be clear in introducing
technology where the responsibility for the action lies. The technology
will help and if it is voluntary and informative and is done in
such a way that the manufacturers are doing it, which is to provide
an assistance to the driver, then the responsibility ultimately
still stays with the driver, but in theory it could be the other
way around, I could actually have a full control mechanism, technology
could do that for me.
Q124 Clive Efford: I am very suspicious
that people are listening to lawyers because it is very convenient
for them to do so and not make changes that are necessary to make.
Let me try this one on you: there have been occasions where there
have been faults with vehicles where they have been recalled,
so that sort of issue exists even now with vehicles—I can
recall one vehicle that was too narrow and tipped as it went round
sharp bends and that vehicle had to be recalled. So there are
areas where the pointy heads in the manufacturing industry get
it wrong and cars have to be recalled, but on the day-to-day maintenance
of a vehicle, whether it has a warning system about the proximity
of other vehicles on the road or not, is down to the driver.
Mr Everitt: That is absolutely
right and we would support that. The point being made about liability
is that in order for something like independent speed adaptation
to work there has to be an infrastructure that is outside the
vehicle that communicates with the vehicle and then influences
what the vehicle does. If it is a warning that says you are now
in a 30 mph zone you should reduce your speed, then it is the
driver who has the ultimate responsibility—either they do
or they do not and if they do not they face the court for breaking
the law. If it is an external signal that either does or does
not trigger then clearly if the motorist has some problem as a
consequence then there is an issue about whether it was the driver
who failed or whether it was in fact the technology either in
the vehicle or outside the vehicle did not perform as it should.
Q125 Clive Efford: Let us set aside
external technology and let us stick with the technology that
is on or in the vehicle. What is there out there that could actually
improve safety on our roads?
Mr Everitt: There are a number
of things that are already available and I think people will be
fairly clear that the focus for a number of years has been on
protecting occupants, what we call passive systems, whether those
are air bags, seat belts or crumple zone side impact protection,
so the physical framework of the vehicle and how it operates.
We are now into a phase where vehicle manufacturers are focusing
more effort on systems that help either minimise or potentially
avoid collisions or accidents, so that are at the basic level
things like ABS, assisted breaking system, which mean that there
is greater control, we are now seeing what we call electronic
stability control on vehicles so that the vehicle is more forgiving
if you like of some of the driver errors that occur so that the
vehicle will not move completely out of control if the driver
has not driven it in an appropriate manner. We have put a lot
of investment into commercial approaches at the moment for things
like adaptive cruise control, so a group of sensors that will
sense vehicles around you and ensure that you are an appropriate
distance from those vehicles. Similarly, we are now beginning
to see the first signs of what we call collision avoidance type
systems, which are essentially built around sensors in the vehicle
which can identify obstacles and have some impact, either in braking
the vehicle or steering the vehicle away from that particular
obstacle.
Q126 Mr Martlew: Just on technology,
you mentioned the ABS; that is not new technology, is it compulsory
yet on cars?
Mr Everitt: There was a voluntary
agreement and it has been fitted as standard on vehicles since
2004.
Q127 Mr Martlew: My concern is that
there are technologies out there, but because of costs and lack
of legislation they are not introduced quickly.
Mr Everitt: There are two issues:
one is the availability and, obviously, a legislative route is
always available and, again, that tends to be a time-consuming
process. One of the difficulties we as vehicle manufacturers have
is these things are available and, as you rightly say, if I am
selling a vehicle that has to still retail at £9,999 it is
quite difficult to include all the potential technologies in that
package. Where we would look to see greater assistance is in,
if you like, the fiscal incentives that are available, so insurance
companies as an example would clearly benefit from a significant
reduction in the number of accidents yet very few of the technologies
that could help that would lead your insurance premiums to reduce.
In some cases, if we were looking at things like sensor technology,
they would actually ensure that your insurance premium went up
because the potential damage that might be done if you were to
back it into a wall, because it has a whole bunch of sensors in
it, would mean that you would be paying more, so we have a perverse
incentive in some cases. From a vehicle manufacturers' point of
view what we are good at is responding to our consumers who are
society at large. It is not because we do not want to make it
available, it is an issue that we need to make it available at
a price the consumer actually is prepared to pay and we would
be prepared in a lot of situations to work with others to try
and find ways of doing that.
Mr Skelton: Just to follow on
from Mr Everitt's point there, the black box which has been looked
at by the European Commission's Project Veronica would help to
analyse a lot of the information that Mr Everitt spoke about,
which is about collating that data in order to make vehicles that
much better, safer and to allow user profiles to be that much
more readily identifiable. However at the same time as we are
looking at in-vehicle technologies we must not forget to look
at the issue of roadside technologies and the infrastructure and
the availability that is in those systems by the roadside and
having a whole series of acronyms of VMS and ATM and ANPR. The
reality is that these are roadside infrastructures which can offer
assistance and advice and direction to motorists to offer greater
safety. Where the really clever part comes into play is where
the in-vehicle and roadside technologies "speak" to
each other to give greater information to the motorist in every
respect, such as better route guidance, warning of problems that
are coming up ahead, congestion, unexpected delays et cetera.
It is the development of this range of technologies that give
greater Warning and anticipation so that action can be taken to
prevent the collisions which are the cause of the increase in
fatalities.
Mr Lines: If we are talking about
vehicles and how they benefit road safety, by far the biggest
one is in collisions with pedestrians. In most urban areas something
between 60% and 75% of killed and seriously injured are not in
a car, they are outside it; the majority of those are pedestrians
and the technology required to actually mitigate those collisions
and save lives has actually been known for a long time. I know
we are going to end up by having technologies that avoid them,
hopefully, but it seems a pity that that is often forgotten, that
we can improve vehicle technology to save those casualties. Cars
can be designed to be more pedestrian-friendly in terms of collisions;
at the moment they are designed such that they hit in the leg
region and accelerate the head throughout the momentum onto the
base of the windscreen, which is quite hard. We have known this
for 30 years and there is no doubt that by altering the design
of cars they could be much more friendly in collision with pedestrians.
Mr Everitt: That is actually happening,
it has been subject to legislation for a umber of years and there
are a number of vehicles that are going onto the market and have
been over the last three or four years that are somewhat different
to things that have been on the market before.
Q128 Mr Martlew: We do not have any
bull bars any more.
Mr Everitt: Not for a long time.
It is an EU problem to be honest.
Mr Salmon: Just on technology
there is a developing area of technology which is very exciting
with regard to in-vehicle capability and that is the ability to
monitor the behaviour of the driver whilst the vehicle is being
driven and use that to feed back that behaviour. I am not an expert
in this area directly and have been somewhat divorced from that
development for some time, but certainly the ability to analyse
how the driver is responding to the road environment and is being
driven is something we do not understand very well, so if we are
looking to improve driver behaviour and ability to cope with the
changing circumstances along the route, different levels of traffic
and so on the technology that can actually help us monitor this
and evaluate it would be very positive.
Q129 Mr Clelland: That sounds very
much like spy-in-the-cab technology.
Mr Salmon: That could be a problem,
but it is being trialled and tested.
Q130 Clive Efford: Mr Everitt, can
you tell me what sells cars most, speed or safety?
Mr Everitt: I do not think it
is speed that sells cars.
Q131 Clive Efford: They talk about
nothing else on Top Gear.
Mr Everitt: Do you buy your car
from having watched Top Gear? Top Gear is an entertainment
programme, I do not think too many people in the industry would
regard Top Gear as being particularly reflective of their
own approaches to the sales and marketing of vehicles. I would
acknowledge that in the course of the last 20 years and certainly,
I would say, positively in the last 10, the approach to selling
and marketing cars has changed and when you see vehicles being
sold and marketed today the focus very much is on safety and protection,
both of the passengers and the drivers of those vehicles but also
other road users. The focus is on its braking ability, its manoeuvrability
and the sense of safety and protection that it provides. I do
not think too many vehicles are sold on the fact that they are
very quick.
Q132 Clive Efford: Do you ever envisage
a time when we will be encouraged to buy a car because it is really
comfortable to drive at 30 mph?
Mr Everitt: I think you are; again,
if you look at the samples of adverts that you see those that
are in an urban environment are very much focused on their drivability
in those circumstances. Again, I think that the industry responds
to the environment and to the society in which it operates. Individuals
are much more conscious and when they look to purchase a car they
look to purchase a car that suits their individual needs and lifestyles
and, as an individual, the majority of people are very concerned
about their own safety and the safety of others.
Q133 Clive Efford: In your own evidence
you say that you are disappointed that people who buy cars do
not place enough emphasis on safety.
Mr Everitt: Did I say that? I
am not sure. Again, we need to draw a distinction because there
are a number of disappointments that I have on car purchases,
not least I think the biggest one is that they do not value either
the safety or, in our case as well, the environmental improvements.
Therefore, I cannot sell, we as an industry cannot sell, a vehicle
because it is safer or because it has an extra technology, we
cannot get any extra amount for that because consumers are driven
by the price of the vehicle and they want a package, the best
package they can get for the particular amount of money that they
are prepared to spend. It is not a question, therefore, of the
industry not wanting to but we have to be able to deliver that
package to the consumer at a price the consumer is prepared to
pay. As I say, there is a whole variety of technologies out there
that are available that are offered to the consumer, but the consumer
does not very often choose to buy them.
Mr Skelton: Just to supplement
the particular comment that has been made, our Society's dilemma
really is that road safety technology and environmental technologies
are inherently incorporated into vehicles and I think to a certain
extent they are taken for granted by purchasers as standard installations.
Therefore, purchasers' attention will be looking elsewhere and
I think it is very laudable that those have been introduced by
manufacturers. Overall, I believe it is fair to say that purchases
will not necessarily be made on road safety or environmental issues.
I think there has been a shift latterly because the escalating
cost of fuel has started to change people's opinions more towards
the durability and fuel consumption rather than the performance
of the vehicle; there has been a societal shift in that direction
but I think there is a long way to go. Certainly, I know the DTI
(now DBERR) has conducted a long term scoping study for future
recognition of what transport will look like between now and 50
years ahead. There are several scenarios which have developed
which are all markedly different, but there is no doubt that what
is common to all of them is that transportation as we know it
will change drastically.
Q134 Clive Efford: Is it good enough,
if we have got the technology and we know we can improve safety
by making alterations to vehicles, to sit back and say "The
market is not demanding it and legislation does not require it
so we are not doing it", is that satisfactory?
Mr Everitt: Do I feel comfortable
about having to answer that question? No, I do not but a vehicle
manufacturer has the technology available and is making it available
as an active choice that the consumer can make; are you saying
that they should override that irrespective of the cost?
Q135 Clive Efford: I am asking the
questions actually.
Mr Everitt: If we put it into
a vehicle it costs a certain amount of money; if people do not
buy that vehicle we are stuffed either way. There are more opportunities,
I would suggest, to find ways of incentivising the take-up of
that technology other than either legislating—because the
things are available now and legislation, as we have seen with
pedestrian protection measures, takes a long time simply because
the legislative process takes a long time and if the technologies
are there it is a question of people just buying them, so what
are the mechanisms available to persuade people or to encourage
them to buy those technologies or to buy that package? As I said,
there are probably a number of options available.
Q136 Graham Stringer: Is there any
engineering solution to men going through a midlife crisis?
Mr Everitt: I am not an engineer
so I could not possibly answer that question.
Q137 Graham Stringer: The worst statistics,
the ones that are going the wrong way, are for motorcycles driven
by men between 35 and 50. We would normally look at statistics
and say that is going the wrong way, what do we do about it? Is
there anything in road design or engineering, what action can
be taken to send those statistics going the right way again?
Mr Everitt: As a motorcyclist
of the age group you have identified I have to say that the best
thing we can do is actually to encourage more people to do some
form of training because one of the issues that everyone faces
on the road, particularly as they reach that sort of midlife crisis
point, is the fact that they have probably been driving for an
awfully long time and perhaps have not thought about some of the
things that they should be thinking about, simply because it has
become a habit, so additional training or encouraging people to
take training is actually a good thing but I think there is a
broader behavioural issue that we touched on in the early part
of this, talking about the Home Office and policing. We take safety
seriously, that is why we invest in technologies that hopefully
make a difference; it would be nice to think that the Government
was giving the police forces and traffic policing some of that
priority too because it does make a difference. We have cameras,
which are great on speeding whether in a bus lane or anywhere
else, but we have no direct intervention. As a young man, when
I first learnt to drive, it was actually quite frequently that
you would be stopped by a policeman, or you would see a policeman
stopping someone else, one of your friends, one of your colleagues,
and you would feel that the chances of you being stopped were
probably quite high. Many of the behaviours that particularly
inexperienced drivers may get involved in, whether that is because
they have been out drinking, are going too fast or just driving
badly will tend to be limited or mitigated against. These are
the things that will make a difference on the roads, both to safety
and to the environment in which people will be experienced.
Mr Skelton: Just to give an anecdotal
comment which reinforces the issues there, I have noticed quite
considerably the numbers of young male drivers who are not wearing
a seatbelt; there seem to be far less doing so, so you install
perfectly good technology which creates life-saving properties
or injury-reducing properties and it is not used.
Q138 Graham Stringer: I was particularly
interested in the group of men riding motorcycles and what could
be done about the deterioration in the statistics in that category?
Mr Skelton: Again, it is overall
the education in a wider context for those particularly identifiable
and vulnerable groups and I would include motorcyclists within
that group as well as the younger drivers.
Mr Salmon: We have had this as
one of our four key priority groups of road users and the difficulty
with engineering, even with enforcement through technology, is
that motorcycles are the hardest ones to touch in that respect.
Traffic calming is bad for motorcycling, it actually introduces
a potential risk if you try to use traffic calming on a high speed
road, for example; it is fine in an urban area. It is about education
and it is about working with the police. There are lots of initiatives
around the country in those areas that suffer worst through weekend
motorcycling. To give you some indication of the statistical story,
in my own authority's area every single motorcycle fatality in
one particular year was either on a summer Sunday or a bank holiday
and it was down to exactly that sort of motorcycle activity, so
it is about risk-awareness, ability and being involved with vehicles
that have to have more capability in the riders themselves in
many cases in the circumstances that they find themselves in,
so it is about education and enforcement; there is very little
we can do in terms of engineering.
Q139 Graham Stringer: Maybe you are
not the right group of people to ask about this but I will ask
this anyway; do you think that argues for a supplementary test
when you go beyond a particular area of capacity with motorcycles?
Mr Salmon: It argues for much
more rigorous training generally at test level and the suggestion
about moving up to a certain size of machine will require more
training. That is being done to a degree in parts of the country
but having some stronger, centrally influenced approach to that
would be a good thing.
| 
