Westminster Hall
Thursday 4 June 2009
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Road Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Ian Lucas.)
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jim Fitzpatrick): I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over it, Mr. Benton. The subject of road safety has always attracted a good degree of cross-party consensus and I do not expect participants in this debate to divide on party political lines, even though this is an election day.
I begin by paying tribute to the hard work of the dedicated professionals in local and national Government, the emergency services and the private sector who have reduced the number of serious crashes and mitigated their consequences. They have done that by improving road design, enhancing vehicle safety and improving road-user behaviour. I also pay tribute to campaign organisations such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, led by Rob Gifford, and to bereaved families, who keep us focused on the key issues. However, although it is important to record our appreciation for the work that all those good people do, I do not want to dwell on past achievements. Today I want to talk about our long-term vision for road safety in Great Britain.
We all have an interest in reducing the number of casualties on Britain’s roads and tackling the root causes of a menace that still accounts for nearly 3,000 deaths a year throughout the country. That figure has been coming down steadily in recent years. Indeed, the total number of deaths and serious injuries is down by 36 per cent. in the past decade and the number of fatalities in 2007 and 2008, for example, was lower than at any time for 80 years.
At the end of April, we launched a consultation on our new long-term road safety strategy, which will come into force in 2010. Although it draws on many important lessons that we have learned from the current strategy, it also sets out a fresh range of initiatives and ideas to meet our future objectives. The proposed strategy starts from the clear premise that despite recent successes, current casualty rates and particularly death rates are still far too high. Although we have reduced the number of serious injuries on our roads by 37 per cent. in the period covered by the current strategy, deaths have come down by only 18 per cent. If the next decade’s strategy is to be successful, we need to be bold. That is why the consultation sets out a long-term vision not only to improve road safety, but to make Britain’s roads the safest in the world.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con):
I appreciate that I have stopped the Minister in his prime, only two minutes into his speech, but he has said that the number of deaths is still far too high.
Surely he would agree that motoring, like many other activities in life, can never be entirely risk free. He makes great play of the fact that there have been significant reductions in the past year and that fatalities are at their lowest level for many decades. Does he have a figure in mind for an acceptable number of deaths, given that inevitably a balance must be struck between addressing what is obviously a risky undertaking and ensuring that there is relatively swift movement on the roads for the many millions of our fellow countrymen who wish to go from A to B?
Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We have been having a discussion in the Department, pressed on us by outside campaign groups, about redefining what is happening on our roads by saying that people are not having accidents; they are having incidents, crashes and collisions. That is because analysing the incidents and the causes of deaths shows that the vast majority are caused by human decisions: people not wearing seat belts, people speeding or people drinking or taking drugs. Those are conscious decisions that people are making, which are putting their own lives and other people’s at risk. That is not to say that accidents do not happen. A tyre can blow out. Something unexpected can happen, such as trees falling. We recognise that there is an element of danger in any activity, and driving is no different. However, we can affect human behaviour and introduce technology, which I shall go on to describe—I am thinking of road engineering and car safety features—to bring down the number of deaths and injuries.
Eight people a day are still killed on our roads. Tens of thousands in the course of a year are seriously injured. Their lives are ruined and their families have to pick up the pieces. That is a social disaster, but we can improve the situation a great deal if we take the appropriate steps, and we have been doing that for many years and particularly for the past 10 to 20 years.
As I said, I genuinely do not see this as a party political issue. On one or two elements of the strategy—for example, speed cameras—there are disagreements between colleagues on Government policy. However, I think that those on the Front Benches are relatively well disposed towards the use of speed cameras. There is cross-party consensus on many of the issues. If we change the language so that instead of talking about accidents that happen to people, we say that they are incidents that are caused in the main by human behaviour, we shift the responsibility from society having accidents to individuals causing crashes, collisions and incidents that kill either themselves or other people. That switch of language is important. That is not to say that accidents cannot happen, but the vast majority can be prevented because they are caused by human behaviour.
Mr. Field:
Implicitly, the Minister understands that driving is inherently a hazardous activity and therefore, to a large extent, some accidents will genuinely be accidents. He is right to refer to the lack of a seat belt, drunken-driving and massively excessive speeding. All of those are factors in some accidents, but does he not agree that we will reach a level that might be regarded, although we do not want anyone to die on our roads, as acceptable? I am talking about a point at which a lot has already been done in all the areas that we are discussing, but there are still a number of deaths because of the
intrinsic hazard that comes with driving. One of the dangers, whether this is in relation to individual freedoms that are being upset or the concern that I have often expressed on speed cameras, is that too much is driven by money raising, rather than simply safety aspects.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am content to agree that we shall never be able completely to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the roads. However, we do collectively agree that the majority of deaths and serious injuries on the roads—we can statistically demonstrate this—are caused deliberately, by people flouting the rules of the road or doing something that endangers themselves or others. Given that, there is an awfully long way to go before we reach a point at which we might start thinking that we cannot go much further. At the moment, we know that we can go further, because we can see the progress in other European countries.
However, having made the reasonable progress that we have in the past 10 to 20 years, each year it becomes harder to improve because, as we reduce the element of risk—having improved our performance, whether by enforcement, road engineering, legislating or changing human behaviour—we reduce the space in which improvement can be made. We shall never completely eliminate deaths and serious injuries, but at the moment we are nowhere near the position that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): The Minister is right to say that this is not a matter for party political bickering. Does he agree, though, that unlike cases of aeroplane crashes, in which the air accident investigation is aimed at finding the cause of the accident, in some cases the police may be a little preoccupied with finding a person to prosecute, rather than looking at some of the wider issues that may have contributed to the accident?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure that I agree entirely. It may well be that different investigations lead to different outcomes and are driven by different emotions at the time or professional stimuli. However, a thorough and investigative procedure for each incident is needed to determine whether it was an accident or caused by something that could be eliminated by Government action or changes that car manufacturers could be asked to make.
There has been a strong push from some road safety campaign groups for road crashes to be taken out of police jurisdiction and handed to the Health and Safety Executive. They take that view because a big factor in causing deaths on the road is fatigue among people whose work is driving. It can often be demonstrated that they have been driving for too long and should have taken a break or been able to rely on a reserve driver. The Department has resisted that call. Notwithstanding the fact that they are accidents at work, we support the Home Office because we believe that the police are better equipped more thoroughly to investigate road crashes and have greater expertise to identify the causes. We can learn strong lessons from police reports to coroners courts, for instance.
I do not fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. It may be the case in some investigations, but I have not seen evidence of it. We will obviously do all that we can to ensure that police investigate the causes of accidents and are not simply looking to prosecute people—a tick-box conclusion to the fact that somebody has died.
In the long term, we are trying to make Britain’s roads the safest in the world. Our primary target for 2020 is therefore to reduce deaths by a further third. We realise that such a target is ambitious, but we believe that it is grounded in reality—and, most important, is achievable. We also propose reducing serious injuries by 33 per cent. over the same time frame.
We acknowledge our moral responsibility to protect children and young people, so we propose reducing annual road deaths and serious injuries among that group by at least half by 2020. Our progress on reducing child casualties since 2000 was an improvement: we reduced child deaths and serious injuries by 55 per cent. from the previous baseline. However, that was for the nought-to-16 age group. Progress has been much less marked for the slightly older age groups, and we therefore propose extending the target to cover 16 and 17-year-olds.
To meet those goals, however, we cannot rely on making lots of new laws, piling legislation upon legislation. Instead, our philosophy must be to concentrate on improving the delivery of road safety, in particular homing in on those roads, people and behaviours most associated with casualties.
We need to tackle the hard cases. For example, to improve safety on rural roads, which carry only 42 per cent. of all traffic but which see 60 per cent. of all road deaths, we propose to publish maps every year highlighting the main roads with the poorest safety records, so that highway authorities can take action with their partners to tackle those routes.
We will also encourage the authorities to reduce speed limits on rural single carriageways, on a targeted basis—I repeat that it will be on a targeted basis; I tended to get into some difficulty with certain parliamentary colleagues who thought that we were proposing a blanket approach, but that was never the case—and we would be looking to reduce speed limits from the current 60 mph national limit.
The level of danger on those roads varies widely, and we want the authorities to reduce speed limits on those roads that have the most crashes. We will continue to encourage investment in improved highway engineering, as it is clear that such schemes are continuing to reduce casualties at relatively low cost. We also want local authorities to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by establishing 20 mph zones and limits in streets of a primarily residential nature. Let me make this clear: they will not be major through routes that happen to have a few houses on them, but streets with the primary purpose of allowing access to our homes. These streets are for living in, not dying in. Over time, we expect the shift to 20 mph limits in those streets to make walking and cycling demonstrably safer, and to encourage people to do more of both.
We will not only continue to work in partnership with the motor industry to boost vehicle safety, but seek to raise awareness of driver and passenger safety. We expect crash protection improvements to focus on particular problems or types of accidents, and we believe that
advanced vehicle safety systems that help drivers and motorcyclists to avoid crashes will have the potential to reduce casualties significantly over the next decade. We recognise that people make mistakes in all walks of life, including on the roads, so we need to create a system where errors on the road are less likely to lead to death or serious injury, and more sophisticated vehicle safety technology and safer road engineering will help us to meet the challenge.
Alongside these technological advances, improving behaviour will continue to be at the heart of our road safety strategy up to 2020; we will support more responsible road use and tackle those who behave irresponsibly. Our consultation late last year on road safety compliance set out a number of proposals to crack down on those motorists who endanger not only their own lives but the lives of others by failing to adhere to the laws of the road. The proposals include higher penalty points for reckless speeding and strong measures to discourage the utterly irresponsible minority who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Mr. Mark Field: No one would want to defend the so-called rights of irresponsible or dangerous drivers. As the Minister rightly points out, the Government propose additional points for reckless or excessive speeding—perhaps as many as six for each such incident.
Would it not be sensible, in conjunction with that, to recognise that for certain technical speeding offences—such as driving only a few miles per hour over the limit, perhaps in the middle of the night, when there is not really any danger to other road users, and particularly in relation to speed cameras—there should be something less than the standard three-point tariff? In other words, we should have a slightly more flexible tariff system, as regular drivers committing four relatively small technical offences within a three-year period would, as the Minister said, automatically get a six-month ban. Surely Parliament’s intention was to have bans for the most reckless drivers.
Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman again makes a fair point. We considered the matter carefully. It was suggested last year, before we published our consultation document, that we might give licence for reducing penalty points for those people who slip over 30 mph into an excess speed.
Given that there are not many of us in the Chamber, may I say privately that we recognised when considering the matter that flexibility was already built into the system to allow for people who just slip over the limit? In addition, camera use is flexible and drivers can slip over a bit more. That is not the case everywhere, as some cameras are set to a rigid limit, but in a number of areas people would have to be doing more than 34 mph or 35 mph before being taken to task.
If we were to allow drivers to slip over the limit, they could be going at 38 mph or 39 mph—almost 40 mph—and still receive only two penalty points. “Think 30 for a reason”, a slogan that we all recognise and which is promoted in our communities, would therefore be undermined. The campaign says that there is a far greater chance of a child living if hit at 30 mph rather than 40 mph.
The police are introducing speeding courses for drivers as an alternative to penalty points. The courses have been successfully trialled and will be rolled out across
the country. That will allow drivers to take some refresher training rather than receiving penalty points. They will therefore be able to avoid topping up points on their licence. If double penalty points are introduced—we have not yet come forward with our conclusions on that—they will apply only to those who are recklessly speeding, which would be 20 mph over the limit. That would mean their driving at 55 mph or 60 mph in a 30 mph area.
We held discussions internally and with other groups when carrying out our informal consultation, and we found that it does not seem unreasonable for someone who is doing 36 mph, 37 mph or even 38 mph to be given a different penalty from someone who is doing 60 mph or 65 mph. The public are aware of that. The only thing that seems to bring speeders to book is the risk of losing their licence. We concluded, therefore, that accelerating that risk might also accelerate their move to more responsible behaviour. That is why we put that in the public domain.
The police speeding awareness courses have been successful. I was a bit sceptical myself when I heard about them, but I have since read some comments from participants who went along thinking, “This is great. I’ve avoided a penalty. All I have to do is sit through this for a day or two,” but who came out saying, “It’s changed my attitude to driving. It has really opened my eyes to the risk that I was putting myself and others through.” So the courses appear to be very effective. And they tie in with our attempt to create lifelong learning procedures for drivers. At the moment, if a 17, 18 or 19-year-old passes their test, that is it for life. Fifty years later they might still be driving without having thought about the deterioration of their driving procedures. We want to change that philosophy, culture and behaviour. Our approach, which we have considered very seriously, fits in tidily with that. Those were our reasons for not introducing such a points system.
We will publish our conclusions to the consultation in the final version of the new road safety strategy. Tougher penalties and better enforcement are potent weapons in the battle against speeding—a battle that will be stepped up with the next 10-year strategy as we seek to make speeding as unacceptable to mainstream society as drink-driving has become. We have made good progress in recent years, but far too many drivers still regularly break the limits. Illegal and inappropriate speed was recorded as a contributory factor in 26 per cent. of road fatalities in 2007.
Some self-styled “petrol heads”—there are none here, of course—argue that we are obsessed by speed and that safety cameras are merely revenue-raisers. However, the independent evaluation of the national safety camera programme found a 42 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites. That means that about 1,745 fewer people are being killed or seriously injured per annum.
Mr. Field:
Presumably, therefore, the Minister accepts that 74 per cent. of accidents have nothing to do with speed. No one wants to encourage the most reckless speeders, but speed cameras do not stop some of the worst offenders—the unlicensed and uninsured drivers—who can be a much bigger hazard. One of the problems surely is that the erection of a speed camera often comes cheek by jowl with a policy of the local authority
to reduce the number of police in an area. That makes road conditions ever more hazardous. Presumably, among many of those 74 per cent. of accidents not related to speed, there are unlicensed and uninsured drivers, who should not be on the road at all. They might keep within limits, but none the less will be a hazard to themselves and other road users.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes some interesting and good points. We are making good progress on uninsured and unlicensed drivers and those whose vehicles are untaxed. That is owing to automatic number plate recognition cameras and the ability to cross-reference between the Motor Insurance Bureau’s database and that of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The police can catch these people without having to be on the roads themselves. In recent years, the proportion of people in the categories that he mentioned has fallen from several per cent. to about 1 per cent. We are making very good progress and will continue to bear down on that.
We have always said—I shall return to this later—that speed cameras are a tool and ought not to be permanent, and that their performance ought to be reviewed by local authorities. There is no use in erecting a camera and just leaving it. If behaviour in that area improves, the cost of running the cameras might be better used by moving them to a different site. We have also made the point strongly that road policing is not stand-alone policing. If somebody is insured or unlicensed, if their car is not taxed, or if they are not obeying other road laws, they are much more likely not to be obeying the rest of society’s laws.
Police forces are now telling us that examinations of cars and individuals whom they stop for a road traffic offence are leading to arrests for very serious offences, including drugs trafficking, money laundering and gun possession—they might be found in the back of their car. That is a good way to bear down on the criminal fraternity, because if people are not obeying road traffic laws, they might well not be obeying other rules. Using the national police statistics—I cannot remember the acronym of the relevant body—the police are tracking the types of road traffic offence for which they are issuing penalty notices. In recent years, therefore, the Department for Transport and the Home Office have been working together very closely.
Our evidence suggests that, in addition to motorists slowing down in the immediate vicinity of cameras, they have been slowing down in the wider area. As for revenue-raising, as far as we are concerned, the best camera is the one that takes no pictures because motorists are sticking to the limits, improving the safety of the whole community. We will support responsible road use by channelling our road safety messages through the successful Think! brand, and by improving education and driver training and testing.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |