Annual Report 2003/2004
Introduction by the Chairman
Chapter 1: The Motorists' Forum
Chapter 2: Advising on Specific Topics
Chapter 3: Raising Issues of Concerns to Motorists
Annex A: Terms of Reference
Annex B: Other Positions Held by Members Relevant to the Work of the Forum
The Annual Report has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html
Introduction by the Chairman
Motoring issues have been at the heart of the transport
debate in the past 12 months as the Motorists' Forum
has continued to advise Government on the needs of
the motoring public and industry.
We are delighted that Ministers from a wide range of
Government Departments, including Transport, the
Home Office and HM Treasury, continue to attend our
Plenary meetings and hear at first hand how motorists
believe new policies will impact on their lives.
This is a recognition of the importance Ministers
attach to motoring issues and the value of the
feedback they get from our members who represent a
wide cross-section of motoring interests.
A lot has happened in the past year. The M6 Toll Road
has opened; London congestion charging has been
in force for a year; we have new legislation on
using mobile phones while driving; debate has
raged about the role of safety cameras; and there
is the wide-ranging Traffic Management Bill going
through Parliament.
During the year we ourselves have been the subject
of an independent, Government-appointed review
which found that our stakeholders valued the work
that we do.
As a result of the review, the Secretary of State for
Transport Alistair Darling concluded that the Forum
was a valued mechanism for getting the message of
motorists across and there was good reason to keep it.
We are proud that our work has been so recognised.
The most important piece of work we have conducted
in the past year has been our major review of road
safety issues. We made a number of recommendations
to improve road safety and reduce casualties while highlighting areas where further work is needed. We are
pleased to see that Government has decided to adopt a
number of these proposals.
The UK has a proud record on road safety but there is
more to do and we hope that Government will
continue to take action to ensure that the demanding
targets it has set itself in its Road Safety Strategy are
met or even exceeded.
We have also provided advice to Government on a
number of other topics. These include the
Government's Traffic Management Bill; safety
cameras; motor insurance; motoring taxation policy;
cleaner fuels; and vehicle crime.
In addition, we have continued to raise with
Government and other bodies issues of concern
to motorists. Issues we have raised include hard
shoulder running; traffic policing; parking at
railway stations; streetworks; unlicensed and untaxed
driving; local authority parking attendants; the
administration of the London congestion charging
scheme; and use of the hard shoulder by recovery
and rescue operators.
The positive light in which the Forum is viewed is a
tribute to the breadth and mix of expertise that
members bring to the Forum. I appreciate the
support I have received from members and the
Secretariat and I recognise the commitment that
all have made in what has been another successful
year for the Forum.
I am confident that over the coming year the Forum
will have an important role to play in ensuring that
motoring interests and car users' views are reflected
fully in the development of both Government and local authority policies affecting motorists. I believe
that the Government remains positive about the role
we can play and will be looking to work closely with
us in future, thus ensuring that our contribution
remains valued and our work influential.
Sir Trevor Chinn
Chapter 1: The Motorists' Forum
The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) - an
independent body advising the Government on
integrated transport policy - was asked by the Deputy
Prime Minister to set up a group in September 1999
to advise on policy proposals affecting motorists. CfIT
subsequently agreed to form the Motorists' Forum.
The Forum was launched formally by the Deputy
Prime Minister on 31 January 2000.
The Forum seeks to improve understanding between
the Government and motoring interests and car users.
It ensures that motoring interests and car users' views
are reflected fully in the development of both
Government and local authority policies affecting
motorists. The Forum also acts as a channel for early
communication with Government on its emerging
proposals affecting motorists.
The Forum works within the conceptual framework of
the Government's integrated transport strategy and
sustainable development policy but it also takes its
work forward in the light of the Deputy Prime
Minister's statement that the car will remain the
dominant mode of transport for personal use.
Over the past year, the Forum has continued its role
as a constructive and respected adviser to
Government Ministers, officials and other interested
parties in ensuring that motoring and motorists'
interests continue to be represented fully within the
transport agenda.
The Forum has continued to act as a useful vehicle for
debate with Government and others on emerging
policies - for example on the Government's Traffic
Management Bill, the new management arrangements
planned by the Highways Agency designed to improve
journey time reliability and enhance safety, the Government's road safety targets and its review of
motor insurance.
It has also continued to raise with Government issues
of concern to motorists where the Forum wishes to
challenge existing policy or priorities for action - such
as reduced levels of traffic policing, proposals to
compensate victims of crime utilising motoring fine
revenue, use of the hard shoulder by recovery and
rescue operators and parking enforcement by local
authority attendants.
Full details of the work of the Forum are contained in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.
The Forum's Terms of Reference are at Annex A.
Members
Sir Trevor Chinn, the Vice-Chair of CfIT, chairs the
Forum. Other members are drawn from leaders in their
fields from a wide cross-section of the motoring
community. Members are invited to join the Forum in
a representative capacity.
However, Forum members do not just speak for their
organisations. As well as being experts in their field,
they are also able to bring a strategic understanding of
motoring issues and concerns to the table. The Forum
is thus able to bring experts together to hear and
understand the views of other parts of the motoring
world within the wider integrated transport strategy.
The Forum is comprised as follows:
Sir Trevor Chinn CVO (Chair)
Councillor Tony Brown, Member, Local Government Association Transport Executive
Findlay Caldwell, Managing Director, RAC Consumer Services, RAC Motoring Services
Douglas Campbell OBE, Executive Director, The Disabled Drivers' Association
John Dawson, Director, The AA Motoring Trust
Chief Constable Stephen Green QPM, Operational Strategic Road Policing Portfolio Holder, Association of Chief Police Officers Roads Policing Business Area
David Holmes CB, Chairman, RAC Foundation
John Lewis, Director General, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association
Christopher Macgowan, Chief Executive, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
Richard Mills OBE, Secretary General, National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection
John Mumford OBE, Director, BP Oil UK Ltd, UK Petroleum Industry Association
Roger Putnam, Chairman, Ford Motor Company Ltd
Michael Roberts, Director, Business Environment, Confederation of British Industry
Archie Robertson OBE, Chief Executive, Highways Agency
Roger Wood, Managing Director, The Automobile Association
Steve Gooding, Director, Roads and Vehicles Directorate acts as the Department for Transport (DfT) advisor to the Forum
Secretariat
David Prescott, Secretary to the Motorists' Forum
Neil Williams, Assistant Secretary to the Motorists' Forum
Any other positions held by members that are relevant to the work of the Forum are at Annex B.
Over the past year, the following have also represented their organisations on the Forum:
Helen Carey DL, formerly Chairman, National Federation of Women's Institutes
Sir Christopher Foster, formerly Chairman, RAC Foundation chaired the Forum's Advisory Panel overseeing work on Road Safety
Stephen Hickey, formerly Acting Chief Executive, Highways Agency
Tim Matthews, formerly Chief Executive, Highways Agency
Robert Devereux, the current Director General, Roads, Regional and Local Transport Group acted as DfT advisor to the Forum until January 2004
The full Forum meets in Plenary session four times a
year. However, where appropriate, detailed work is
taken forward by free-standing Working Groups. These
Groups draw on the experience and expertise of many
relevant organisations going well beyond those
represented on the Plenary. Reports drawn up by
Working Groups are submitted to the full Forum for
consideration before being presented to Ministers.
Full details of the Forum's activities - including
reports, Plenary agendas and minutes - are published
on the Forum's website at www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/.
Independent Review of the Commission for Integrated Transport and the Motorists' Forum
The Secretary of State for Transport announced on
11 April 2003 a review of CfIT and the Motorists'
Forum. The review was undertaken by Charles Rice, an
Executive Director of P&O, supported by PA
Consulting Group.
The purpose of the review was to examine the roles of
both CfIT and the Forum. In accordance with protocols
governing the review of Government Advisory Bodies,
it examined the extent to which both bodies had fulfilled
their remits and whether they remained relevant and
necessary to the delivery of Government policy. The
review also considered the case for changes to the remit,
structure and processes of either body.
The Secretary of State announced the outcome of the
review on 15 December 2003. The review concluded that the Forum had demonstrated its capacity to do
good work, was useful to its sponsoring Department
(DfT) and other Government Departments and
provided good value for money. The overwhelming
majority of interviewees and questionnaire
respondents contacted as part of the review felt that
the Forum did a good job, praised the Forum for the
work that it did and considered that it was valued by
its customers and stakeholders.
After consideration of the findings, the Secretary of
State accepted the recommendations in full and
concluded that the Forum should retain both its
current remit and structure.
Chapter 2: Advising on Specific Topics
The Forum has continued to act over the past year
as a consultative body for Government in the
preparation of its policies on motoring issues. Areas
where the Forum has helped Government to shape
its policies are:
Road Safety
CfIT asked the Forum to provide the Commission with
advice on how delivery of the Government's Road
Safety Strategy by the target-date of 2010 might be
more effectively achieved.
In order for the Forum to provide the robust advice
necessary to enable CfIT to influence the environment
and manner in which the Government is delivering its
Road Safety Strategy, the Forum commissioned a major
research project to report on this matter. An Advisory
Panel was appointed to work with the consultants and
to help shape the consultants' report.
The consultants were asked to advise on:
- what factors, if any, may be preventing the
Government's Road Safety Strategy being delivered
as planned;
- what further measures might assist delivery of the
Road Safety Strategy targets;
- what further research and other investigation might
best help achieve further casualty reduction; and
- how far one might reasonably expect to target
further casualty reduction before reaching the limit
that is practically achievable.
The consultants identified a number of practical
measures that will reduce accidents and which would,
if delivery was accelerated, enable the Government to
meet its casualty reduction targets better.
The Advisory Panel made its own observations on
these recommendations and the Forum ultimately
endorsed these comments. A summary of each of the
Forum's recommendations is given below:
Road Safety Engineering
- Road safety engineering schemes giving at least
a benefit-cost ceiling ratio of 2:1 over the life of
specific projects should be implemented.
- Local and central Government should commit to
increasing the complement of road safety
professional staff by addressing recruitment,
training and career structure needs.
- Local authorities should consult widely within the
community emphasising the benefits associated
with road safety engineering schemes.
Crash Protection in Cars and Car-based Light Goods Vehicles
- Vehicle manufacturers should be encouraged now
to improve car design to provide increased
protection for pedestrians and cyclists.
- Consideration should be given to combining the
two Euro NCAP ratings denoting front and side
impact ratings and pedestrian impact safety.
Evidential Roadside Breath Testing
- A suitable legislative slot should be found enabling
evidential breath testing to be administered at
the roadside.
Penalties Specific to Traffic Offences
- Legislation should be introduced enabling a higher
level of penalty points to be awarded to those
exceeding the speed limit by a wide margin.
Speed Management on Rural Roads
- New speed management strategies for rural roads
should be implemented at an early stage to address
current unacceptably high casualty rates.
Deployment of Safety Cameras
- The Government should continue to emphasise the
casualty reduction potential arising from the use of
safety cameras to ensure continuing public support
for their usage.
Real Time Safety Advice
- An assessment of how the provision of real time
safety advice can help make travel safer should be
undertaken.
- Providers should ensure that the most up-to-date
traffic information is provided by such systems.
Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)
- The Government should continue to develop its
research programme on ISA and commit itself to a
date for the availability of digital road maps showing
speed limits in Great Britain.
Enforcement of Traffic Law
- A review of road traffic policing within the National
Policing Plan should reconsider appropriate criteria to
help inform what proportion of police time should be
devoted to traffic offences.
Reducing At-Work Road Casualties
- The momentum of work by the Health and Safety
Executive and the Occupational Road Safety
Alliance to engage employers in the reduction of atwork
road casualties should be increased.
Single/Double Summertime
- The Government should consider holding a new trial
to address the question of the adoption of
single/double summertime as a means of saving
lives on the road.
Drink/Driving
- Better targeting of offenders and greater
enforcement of the current limit should be
introduced to prevent a number of the current
drink/drive casualties. Strong public advertising
should be maintained.
- Other measures aimed at reducing drink/drive
fatalities should be kept under review in the light of
continued accident analysis.
Encouragement of Wearing of Cycle Helmets
- Ways should be sought to engage groups opposed
to wearing cycle helmets. Discussions should take
place in the context of other measures designed to
improve the safety of cyclists.
Extension of Community Sentences to Non-Imprisonable Traffic Offences
- Further work should be conducted to evaluate
the effectiveness of community sentences
before deciding whether such sentences are
suitable for those who commit non-imprisonable
traffic offences.
The Forum's report was presented to CfIT's Plenary in
September 2003. CfIT strongly endorsed the Forum's
recommendations as practical, effective and,
importantly, deliverable in the short term.
The Forum considers road safety to be of paramount
importance to road users. Although we recognise that
there are already many Government initiatives under
way designed to improve road safety, our view is that
the recommendations together represent a package of
measures which, if implemented, would contribute
significantly to the achievement or surpassing of the
Government's targets. Accordingly, we very much hope
that Government will move to implement these
measures as soon as possible.
Traffic Management Bill
The Traffic Management Bill, if enacted, will give the
Highways Agency and local authorities in England and
Wales far-reaching new powers and responsibilities to
keep roads clear, minimise the disruption caused by
road works and keep traffic moving.
It is intended that new powers for councils to manage
when and where street works are carried out will put
an end to congestion caused by poorly planned and
lengthy works. Neighbouring authorities will be
required to work together to keep traffic flowing
across the network. Additionally, the Highways Agency
will get powers to manage motorway incidents so that
motorists caught in traffic due to road accidents
or obstructions should benefit from a more targeted and
faster clear-up response.
DfT has consulted the Forum on the Bill. The Forum is
generally supportive of the proposals in the Bill, particularly those that will give greater control to
councils over when and where utility companies carry
out street works - an issue that the Forum has been
in the vanguard of raising with Government. However,
we have sought reassurance that in routine
breakdown incidents on motorways, roadside service
organisations will continue to be allowed to deliver
breakdown services to their members.
The Forum has also expressed its concerns over
proposals to allow local authorities to assume control of
certain traffic enforcement roles from the police,
including giving parking attendants greater powers.
Unlike the police, attendants would not be permitted to
exercise discretion and the Forum is concerned that this
lack of flexibility might limit the effectiveness of the
new powers by alienating motorists.
Safety Cameras
The issue of the use of safety cameras is one that
has continued to generate much public debate in
the media.
The Forum has continued to emphasise to
Government that it supports the installation of safety
cameras at sites that have a bad road safety record, as
we agree that properly targeted cameras can be
effective in reducing accidents at such sites. The
Forum welcomes the Government's acceptance of the
fact that Government, at the national level, and safety
camera partnerships, at the local level, must continue
to explain the road safety rationale for each site in the
programme and demonstrate that cameras are not
being used as a revenue-generating device. We
support making safety cameras visible to motorists
unless the police state that there is a strong reason for using covert cameras and are prepared to give their
reasons for so doing publicly.
Motor Insurance Review
The UK has one of the worst levels of uninsured
driving populations in Western Europe - estimates
place the level at 5% nationally or 1 in 20 car drivers.
DfT instigated an independent review of the UK
system of motor insurance in August 2003. The review
was particularly focused on reducing the levels of
uninsured driving in the UK and producing
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of
compulsory motor insurance.
In our response to the review, the Forum made
clear that it is in full agreement that more needs to be
done to tackle the growing problem of uninsured
driving. We support firm action being taken against
those who wilfully drive uninsured, although we do
not believe that higher fines in themselves will
necessarily tackle the problem.
Forum members had mixed views on the merits of
windscreen discs in tackling uninsured driving. Drawing
on the experience in other countries where discs are in
use, the value of such discs was recognised. However,
there was some doubt about whether discs would aid
enforcement, particularly given the pressures on police
time which would limit the effort they could put into
enforcing the display of discs.
Instead, the Forum agreed that the new technology,
which enables information on the licensing and tax
data held by DVLA and by the Motor Insurance
Bureau to be linked, offers the best way to catch
those driving uninsured in future. We have, however,
recommended that improvements should be made to
the accuracy of DVLA's database if such linkage is to
be effective.
Motoring Taxation Policy
The Forum has held discussions with Government
over motoring taxation policy.
In our discussions, we have stressed that motoring
taxation policy needs to be seen as fair and honest and
that the utilisation of revenue should be transparent.
We have also made the point that Fuel Duty rises need
to take into account the wider prices drivers face and
that environmental taxes are discriminatory if applied to
motorists but not to other areas of the economy.
The Forum is pleased to note the Government remains
committed to the development of cleaner fuels.
However, we have advised that Government itself
should not try to pick the 'winners' among the various
alternative fuels.
Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) - Fuel Duty Differential
Following on from our discussions with Government
over motoring taxation policy, the Forum subsequently
expressed its disappointment at the Government's
decision to increase gradually the duty rate for LPG over
the next three years with the aim of setting duty
differentials on a path towards a level commensurate
with the fuel's environmental benefits.
We believe strongly that the decision sends the wrong
message and that it undermines both industry and
public confidence in moves to encourage the use of
cleaner fuels. Government needs to be consistent in
its approach to sending out long-term indicators to
both motorists and industry if the drive for cleaner
fuels is not to be undermined.
Vehicle Crime
The Home Office asked the Forum in January 2003
for its views on what motorists' reactions would be to
measures that might be taken to reduce the risk of
keys being stolen to facilitate the taking of vehicles.
The Forum elected not to support such an initiative,
suggesting that the more widespread use of vehicle
tracking devices was preferable to introducing
increasingly sophisticated locking systems for cars.
Subsequently, the Home Office asked the Forum
to look at this matter again. They considered that
although tracking devices are helpful in recovering
stolen vehicles, they do not stop the crime being
committed in the first place. The police also
advised that some criminals are adapting their behaviour to take account of the risk of a tracker
device being fitted.
The Forum has advised that ultimately, the question to
be decided is whether the benefits of improving vehicle
security outweigh the disbenefits associated with an
increase in violence that greater security could
encourage criminals to adopt and consumer detriment.
It was agreed the Association of Chief Police Officers
should carry out research in this area and that once the
results are available, the trade-offs between improved
levels of security as against increased risks of violence
should be considered further.
Road Charging Feasibility Study
DfT set up a Road Charging Feasibility Study (RCFS)
in 2003. The key aims of the RCFS are to advise on
practical options for the design and implementation
of a new system for charging road users in the UK.
The Forum acknowledges the importance of this
work, particularly in the light of recent research that
shows that the motorist will accept charging as part of
a package if the benefits are transparent and
immediate. We have stressed to DfT that it is vital that
full consideration should be given to the distributional
impact of charging proposals on different groups of
people and on different areas.
Individual members of the Forum are serving on the
Steering Group taking this work forward and the
Forum itself will continue to keep a watching brief on
the subject.
DVO Strategy
The Forum has engaged with the Driver Vehicle
Operator (DVO) Group in DfT regarding its strategy
for providing 'One Stop' customer service operators.
The DVO aim is to provide fully integrated and
joined-up services to customers.
The Forum believes that DVO has made good progress
in moving towards its goal although we have stressed in
our discussions that integration and delivery remain the
key challenges as regards its operation. The Forum
stands ready to act in a consultative capacity on future
strands of DVO strategy.
Publicity for HSE Guidance on Work-Related Road Safety
The Forum contributed to the study that the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) undertook into
work-related journeys that expose workers and/or
members of the public to risks from vehicle accidents.
Our concern in this matter stems from research that
has shown that company car drivers are more likely to
be involved in accidents than private car drivers, even
taking account of the higher mileage driven.
The HSE has subsequently issued guidance giving
advice on managing work-related road safety
effectively and on integrating it into existing health
and safety requirements. We were very pleased to
offer Government a number of suggestions as to the
most effective ways that this guidance could be made
most widely available.
Chapter 3: Raising Issues of Concerns to Motorists
Hard Shoulder Running
The Forum is generally very supportive of the
initiatives that DfT is proposing to help ease
congestion by making better use of existing road
space. However, the Forum raised concerns over DfT's
proposal to use the hard shoulder as a running lane
during times of acute congestion.
Hard shoulders are an essential protection for
motorists and the Forum was keen to ensure that hard
shoulder running was not simply trading safety for
capacity. We also drew attention to the potential
safety risks that rescue and recovery operatives who
attended breakdowns on the motorway could face
and the dangers that disabled people in wheelchairs
could experience should their car break down on a
stretch of motorway without a hard shoulder.
The Forum has held a number of meetings with
Government over this matter. We are reassured that
hard shoulder running will only be contemplated for
short distances at pinch-points during those times of
the day when congestion is at its peak, and that safety
will be the overriding factor in any decision to
introduce hard shoulder running. We will watch
carefully the pilot schemes where hard shoulder
running is introduced to ensure that the safety of all
road users remains paramount.
Traffic Policing
Police presence on the roads is essential in detecting
and dealing effectively with a wide range of behaviour
that contributes to accidents and road casualties - for
example dangerous driving, drink driving and driving while under the influence of drugs. Research also
demonstrates that drivers who commit offences such
as drink-driving or dangerous driving are far more
likely to have committed other, non-motoring
offences than non-offenders. The targeting of
resources on traffic policing should therefore lead to
the detection of other criminal activity, as well as
improving road safety.
It is estimated that in the 1980s, 15% of all police
resources were targeted towards traffic policing. Today,
the figure is around 5% - and this is on the back of
significant increases in traffic levels during this period.
While we recognise both the increased use of
technology, such as Automatic Number Plate
Recognition (ANPR), for enforcement purposes and
the many and increasing calls on police time to tackle
serious crime, the Forum believes that curbing road
deaths and injuries should also be given appropriate
priority on the policing agenda. Accordingly, we have
called on the Home Office to review the role of traffic
policing in the context of the National Policing Plan.
Compensation and Support for Victims of Crime
The Forum noted with concern the proposal by the
Home Office that drivers who receive a Fixed Penalty
Notice in respect of a Road Traffic Offence under the
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 should pay a
surcharge which would be put to establish a Victims'
Fund in England and Wales.
We do not believe that this proposal would be helpful
in delivering the Government's wider objectives in the
road safety field and could simply be seen as an
unwarranted levy being placed on motorists. We have
advised Government not to pursue this proposal.
Parking at Stations
Insufficient parking provision at many railway stations is
a major issue for those who wish to drive to stations and
continue their journeys by train. The problem is
exacerbated by the proliferation of on-street controlled
parking zones in the immediate vicinity of stations.
While we obviously recognise the benefits to residents of
introducing such zones (and do not argue against their
introduction), their implementation and insufficient
parking provision at many stations means that motorists
are less able to interchange with train services. Left
unchecked, this is a deterrent to the development of a
fully integrated transport strategy.
We believe it is essential to integrate the car driver
into the public transport network and that ease of
interchange for car-users with rail - and bus - services
should be a priority. We have therefore suggested to
Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London that better car parking provision
should be provided at main line and Underground
stations where space is available for this and an
appropriate level of demand to use this parking
provision exists.
We have had positive responses to our requests from
these bodies and very much hope that improved
parking provision will be available in future.
Street Works
We have continued to press the Government to take
decisive action to tackle the unnecessary congestion
experienced by motorists due to the disruption arising
from street works.
We welcome the new powers contained in the Traffic
Management Bill that will give greater control to
councils over when and where utility companies carry
out street works and to prevent roads from being dug
up repeatedly.
Unlicensed/Untaxed Driving
As well as contributing to the work DfT is undertaking
on uninsured drivers, the Forum has continued to
comment on the need to tackle those who also drive
unlicensed or untaxed.
We are concerned that there are around a million
unlicensed drivers on our roads (compared with a total
of 32 million licensed drivers). Such drivers are up to
nine times more likely to have an accident than a
licensed driver and are involved in about 7,000 injury
crashes every year.
We welcome the Government's commitment to
tackling this problem through the widespread
introduction of ANPR. We also note the Government's
hopes that the introduction of continuous
registration, allowing DVLA to prosecute those
avoiding road tax, will help to improve detection as
many unlicensed drivers will also be untaxed and will
not have registered the vehicle in their name.
We shall watch developments in this area carefully
and will not hesitate to call for further action if the
currently unacceptable number of people driving
either unlicensed or untaxed does not fall.
London Congestion Charging Scheme
The Forum noted with some concern the large
increases in penalty and enforcement charges
proposed by TfL for non-payment of the congestion
charge. This concern arises from the number of cases
which continue to be reported in the press and direct
to motoring organisations about the difficulties that
motorists are experiencing when they have been
issued incorrectly with penalty charge notices.
In our view, the administration of the scheme is
currently too inflexible. The administration system is
geared specifically towards charge collection and does
not appear to deal fairly with penalty charge appeals - there appears to be no simple way in which charges
that clearly have been issued incorrectly can be
cancelled without going through the formal appeal
procedure. The appeal system also assumes that
those who have been issued with a charge are guilty
and we believe that a degree of reasonableness should be applied to those who have been issued
wrongly with a ticket.
Motoring organisations also continue to receive
complaints from members who become upset and
distressed at the lengths that they have to go to prove
that their vehicle was not in the zone. Innocent
motorists should not have to become private
detectives in order to track down cloned vehicles
using their vehicle identity.
In our view, priority must be given to the setting up of
an appeals procedure that is much more flexible and
allows charges which clearly have been issued
wrongly to be cancelled without the need to go to
formal appeal. It also must not be based on the
presumption that a motorist is guilty unless he or she
can prove otherwise.
Local Authority Parking Attendants
Concern has been expressed that local authorities are
adopting an over-zealous approach to parking
enforcement. This is supported by widespread reports
in the media that motorists are being unduly targeted.
The motoring organisations have also received
considerable correspondence alleging unscrupulous
enforcement activity. Consequently, many motorists
feel that they are being victimised, often at the
expense of others committing more serious motoring
offences. Inevitably, this leads to diminishing respect
for wider motoring law and the associated detrimental
effect this has on road safety.
The Forum has raised these concerns regarding
parking enforcement in London with the Association
of London Government. We were assured that there
was no evidence of the current system of parking
enforcement in London working incorrectly or that
there was a problem with the appeals mechanism. We
also understand that Government is seeking to make
the guidance to local authorities on civil enforcement
of traffic contraventions statutory. This national
guidance should help ensure consistency across the
country in the way civil enforcement is carried out and
by making it statutory, authorities will have to have
regard to it.
We will continue to watch developments closely.
Should proposed changes not address motorists'
concerns, this may well be an issue to which we
will return.
Use of Hard Shoulder by Breakdown/Recovery Operators
Resulting from its earlier work on Incident
Management, the Forum has continued to press
Government to permit accredited breakdown and
recovery organisations to use the hard shoulder to
access the scene of a breakdown in those situations
where traffic congestion on the main carriageway was
delaying attendance.
Following a series of discussions between interested
parties, the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO) has issued revised guidance to all police forces
in dealing with requests for access to the hard
shoulder. While accepting the ACPO guidance
document as a welcome short-term action to address
a particular weakness in the current arrangements, we
remain concerned that any process requiring case-bycase
consultation with the police will introduce delays
which place the broken-down motorist and other road
users at undue risk. We hope Government will
reconsider this matter and introduce an arrangement
that reduces the risk to the drivers and passengers of
broken-down vehicles who may find themselves
stranded on the hard shoulder for unnecessarily long
periods awaiting the attendance of a roadside
assistance vehicle.
Annex A: Terms of Reference
Working within the framework of the Integrated
Transport White Paper and of Government's
sustainable development strategy, and recognising
that for the foreseeable future the car will be the
dominant mode of personal transport in the UK, the
Motorists' Forum will:
- seek to establish a consensus of motorists and the motor industry with the Government in regard to the role of the car in our society;
- co-ordinate and represent to Government the voice of the responsible private and business car user;
- seek to ensure that the use of the car continues to develop in a manner which takes account of concerns for the environment, safety, and social inclusion;
- advise on how far the car fits into the integrated transport strategy and how the integration process can be further developed to offer motorists realistic alternatives to the car;
- advise on the development of policy issues by Government and its agencies, and by local government, relating to transport or affecting the motorist, so that they relate to motorists in an understanding way;
- advise the Government in regard to new technology which can be used inside and outside the car to help achieve these goals; and
- advise CfIT on issues affecting the motorist.
Annex B: Other Positions Held by Members' Relevant to the Work of the Forum
Sir Trevor Chinn CVO
Chairman: Kwik-Fit Group Ltd; ITIS Holdings plc
Vice-Chair: Commission for Integrated Transport
Life President: RAC plc
Directorships: Automotive Skills Ltd
Governor: Motability
Councillor Tony Brown
Member: London Borough of Ealing
Board Member: Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership
Advisor: Ealing Community Transport
Findlay Caldwell
Directorships: RAC Motoring Services; RAC Insurance Ltd; British School of Motoring Ltd; RAC Auto Windscreens Ltd
Member: RAC Foundation Public Policy Committee
Trustee: RAC Foundation
Douglas Campbell OBE
Directorships: Douglas Campbell Consulting Ltd; Mobility Roadshow Ltd; Baywatch Campaign Ltd
Trustee: Mobility Choice
John Dawson
Managing Director: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research
Policy and International Director: Automobile Association
Chair: AA Motoring Trust Trading Ltd; European Road Assessment Programme; FIA Foundation Safety and Mobility Committee
Member: Independent Transport Commission
Steering Group Member: Road Charging Feasibility Study Steering Group
Trustee and Honorary Secretary: FIA Foundation
David Holmes CB
Steering Group Member: Road Charging Feasibility Study Steering Group
Trustee: Motorway Archive Trust
John Lewis
Member: Cars QA Governing Board; Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation Group (VIPER); Retail Motor Strategy Group; Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (Passenger Car and Commercial Vehicle Groups)
UK Representative: European Car and Truck Rental Association
Christopher Macgowan
Directorships: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Ltd; Odette International Ltd
Member: Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT); Road Haulage Forum; CBI Trade Association Forum; Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board (MVRIB); Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation Group (VIPER); Retail Motor Strategy Group; Automotive Academy
Steering Group Member: Road Charging Feasibility Study Steering Group
Richard Mills OBE
Director General: International Union of Air Pollution Prevention and Environmental Protection Associations
Chair: Environmental Analysis Co-operative
John Mumford
Directorships: Cogent Sector Skills Council; Energy Saving Trust Ltd; United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association Ltd; Energy Institute; Alexander Duckham & Company Ltd; BP Oil Grangemouth Refinery Ltd; BP Oil Llandarcy Refinery Ltd; BP Oil UK Ltd; Lubricants UK Ltd; Shell-Mex and BP Ltd; Yasdan Ltd
Steering Group Member: Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership
Member of Advisory Councils: South East Development Agency; National Consumer Council
Roger Putnam
Directorships: Jaguar Switzerland; Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Ltd; Gateway to London; Automotive Skills Ltd; Air Music and Media plc
Chair: Ford of Britain Trust; Halcyon Days Ltd
Board Member: Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership; DTI Motorsports Board
Member: CBI President's Committee; Automotive Skills Council; Motor Retail Strategy Group
Michael Roberts
Non-Executive Director: The Carbon Trust
Member: Commission for Integrated Transport
Steering Group Member: Road Charging Feasibility Study Steering Group
Archie Robertson OBE
Chair: National Road Users Committee; National Environment Committee;
Member: Commission for Integrated Transport; Department for Transport Board
Roger Wood
Directorships: Centrica plc; AA The Driving School Agency Ltd; Institute of Advanced Motorists
Trustee: The AA Motoring Trust
