Annual Report 2006/2007
Introduction by the Chairman
Chapter 1: The Motorists' Forum
2006/2007 Highlights
Members
Secretariat
Chapter 2: Advising on Specific Topics
Better Driving: "Respect" on the Road
Road Pricing
Road Safety
Work-Related Road Safety
Driver Training and Testing
MoT Testing
Transport Taxation
Act on CO2 Campaign
"Eco-driving"
Wheel Clamping on Private Land
Motorway Service Areas
Chapter 3: Raising Issues of Concerns to Motorists
Traffic Policing
Active Traffic Management
Transport Energy Grants
Chapter 4: Work in Progress
Speed Limit Adherence and its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change
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
The issues facing motorists, the motoring industry and those who govern the roads are never far from the top of the news and political agendas.
The past year has been no exception, with road pricing continuing to dominate as a topic of intense debate, along with ever-present concerns over road safety and the environment.
The past 12 months have also seen a new team of ministers. It was in this very report a year ago that I welcomed Douglas Alexander as the new Transport Secretary and I must once again extend the same warm welcome from the Forum and its members to his successor, Ruth Kelly.
It is clear that she takes over a renewed and refreshed Department and I would like to thank Douglas and his ministerial team for the time they spent listening to us, and responding with thought and clarity to our advice.
The new ministerial team has plenty of challenges to face and the Forum is very much looking forward to meeting with them and continuing to advise and guide as much as we can, to ensure that the concerns of the motorist are heard where they matter most.
The Forum has produced several important pieces of work which I would like to highlight and which we feel are relevant to ministerial in-trays.
On road pricing, the Forum was asked to set up a working group to answer four questions regarding the efficient and effective introduction of road pricing using existing technologies and business systems and the opportunities (and disadvantages) that could arise for companies who align their technology to incorporate the calculation and collection of road charges.
Our report found that industry has the technology that is capable of providing the solutions that could combine to meet the road pricing needs of tomorrow and that the introduction of road pricing will bring clear opportunities for a range of industry sectors.
However, we also identified a number of significant risks, which together combine to severely inhibit any decision to develop a business case for investment in road pricing except on a project by project basis. The report therefore emphasised the need for a clear Government commitment to the principle of charging for road use and greater clarity around the impact on motoring costs.
For the Forum and its members, there is a clear and irrefutable link between the current lack of any such commitment and the willingness of private industry to invest in research and technology on road pricing.
Until there is more clarity on timescales, the legal framework and the nature of services needed from the private sector, the Government will not persuade industry to invest in it. Nor will they help to persuade the public of the merit of road pricing.
We would very much like to help the Government in its difficult task of convincing the public that road pricing, alongside whatever relationship it has to motoring taxation, is really the only way we are going to tackle sensibly the growing congestion on the UK road network.
We are looking for new, bolder leadership on this - and will be delighted to provide every help we can to achieve it.
Our second major report of the last year was on the issue of "Respect on the road". Here, our report concluded that if we could find ways of persuading drivers to drive with more consideration for the safety of themselves and others, there would be far fewer casualties and driving would be less stressful.
Our report recommended encouraging and recognising good driving through incentives, not just punishments. The Government should explore the incentives it can offer to reward safe and careful driving.
We proposed getting messages across in new, more up to date ways, such as involving role models, professional sportsmen and women, getting messages into "Soaps" and community involvement at a local level.
We also recommended reviewing the driving test to see if it best meets current needs and discouraging bad driver behaviour through active and visible enforcement, as well as using automatic devices.
All of these measures would of course help to achieve not just a more respectful driving environment for all road users, but also a safer one, and road safety is, as always, at the top of the Motorists' Forum agenda.
We continue to do all we can by working across industry and Government to reduce the dreadful toll of deaths and injuries on our roads. It continues to be one of the most serious issues we all face, whether we are motorists, manufacturers, road builders, policy experts or politicians.
As the Government moves to draw up its new Road Safety Strategy for post 2010, we urge it to be bold in drawing up new targets. It must also be willing to give the political leadership that will be necessary to meet these targets given the conflicting messages that sometimes arise between the public's concern about the number of people killed and injured on our roads and their acceptance of some of the actions necessary to reduce casualties.
Over the past 12 months, we have offered advice and guidance on a range of other issues. These have included MoT Testing, transport taxation, environmental issues, enforcement and the new Active Traffic Management pilot schemes.
We were pleased to welcome the Institute of Advanced Motorists to the Forum in the past year. Equally, we were saddened by the untimely death of its Chief Executive, Christopher Bullock, who had represented the IAM on the Forum. We offer our deepest sympathy to Christopher's family and colleagues.
During the year, a number of Forum members have stood down from representing their organisations on the Forum. I should like to thank them for their contributions over the years and wish them well in the future. Equally, I should like to welcome the new representatives on to the Forum.
As always, I should like to express my appreciation to the members of the Forum and its Secretariat for their hard work over the last year. I am particularly grateful for the efforts of those members who have led our working groups. We could not have made so much progress without them.
We are all looking forward to working with the new Secretary of State and her team in helping to continue to improve the understanding between the Government, motoring interests and car users.
Sir Trevor Chinn
Chapter 1: The Motorists' Forum
The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) - an advisory non-departmental public body that provides independent advice to the Government on transport policy - was asked 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 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 takes its work forward recognising that the car will continue to be the first choice of transport for most people for their employment, leisure and social activities. But it also recognises that unless the car is used responsibly, traffic congestion will take away the very convenience motorists so value in using their cars and will damage the environment.
The Forum meets in Plenary session four times a year. However, where appropriate, detailed work is taken forward by 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/.
The Forum's Terms of Reference are at Annex A.
2006/2007 Highlights
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 undertook two major reviews in the past year. The first review considered, as a contribution to the Government's review of road safety, how drivers could be persuaded to drive with more consideration for the safety of themselves and others. Our report identified a number of new approaches to the problem.
The second review advised on what can be done to introduce road pricing efficiently and effectively using existing technologies and business systems and the opportunities (and disadvantages) that could arise for companies who align their technology to incorporate the calculation and collection of road charges.
We are currently engaged, jointly with CfIT, in a major project that is considering the effects that the introduction of a voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) system across the entire road network would have in reducing deaths and injuries on the UK roads and in reducing carbon emissions, other pollutants and fuel consumption. We are due to report back to DfT with our findings in the summer.
The Forum has also continued to act as a useful vehicle for debate with Government and others on emerging policies - for example on reforming the driver training and testing regime and possible changes to the frequency of the MoT testing scheme. (See Chapter 2). We are pleased to have been able to meet officials from HM Treasury to discuss transport taxation.
In addition, the Forum has continued to raise with Government and others issues of concern to motorists where the Forum wishes to challenge existing policy or priorities for action - for example, where our desire to see a physical police presence on the roads has been taken direct to Home Office Ministers. (See Chapter 3).
Members
Sir Trevor Chinn chairs the Forum. (Sir Trevor's tenure as the Vice-Chair of CfIT expired in June 2004 but he continues to attend CfIT's Plenaries at the personal invitation of the CFIT Chair - thus ensuring the link between CfIT and the Forum is continued). 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).
Douglas Campbell OBE, Chairman, Mobilise.
Karen Dee, Head of Infrastructure, Confederation of British Industry.
Chief Constable Stephen Green QPM, Chief Constable, Nottinghamshire Police; Chairman, Association of Chief Police Officers Roads Policing Operation Forum.
Debbie Hewitt, Managing Director, RAC.
David Holmes CB, Chairman, RAC Foundation.
Chris Hunt, Director General, UK Petroleum Industry Association.
John Lewis, Director General, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association.
Christopher Macgowan, Chief Executive, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Phillip Mulligan, Acting Chief Executive, Environmental Protection UK.
Archie Robertson OBE, Chief Executive, Highways Agency.
Cllr David Sparks, Chair, Regeneration and Transport Board, Local Government Association.
Nick Starling, Director of General Insurance and Health, Association of British Insurers.
Andrew Strong, Chief Executive, The Automobile Association.
Roelant de Waard, Chairman and Managing Director, Ford Motor Company Ltd.
Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs, AA Public Affairs.
There is currently a vacancy for a representative from the Institute of Advanced Motorists to be appointed to the Forum.
Steve Gooding, Director, Road Pricing and Statistics Directorate acts as the Department for Transport (DfT) advisor to the Forum.
Secretariat
David Prescott, Secretary to the Motorists' Forum.
Joe Carey, Motorists' Forum Secretariat.
Over the past year, the following have also represented their organisations on the Forum:
Christopher Bullock MBE, the late Chief Executive, Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Kate Nash, former Chief Executive, The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.
Tim Parker, former Chief Executive, The Automobile Association.
Michael Roberts, Director, Business Environment, Confederation of British Industry.
Colin Skeen, former Chairman, The AA Motoring Trust.
Stephen Sklaroff, former Deputy Director General, Association of British Insurers.
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:
Better Driving: "Respect" on the Road
As a contribution to the Government's second three-year review of road safety, the Forum was asked to consider how the former Prime Minister's "Respect" initiative might be applied to road user behaviour.
To provide advice on this issue, the Forum set up a "Respect" Working Group:
- to consider the factors that cause people to behave disrespectfully on the roads;
- to consider the factors that cause people to behave in a respectful way when they are on the road and how such behaviour can be encouraged; and
- to consider the factors that are most influential in getting people to change their behaviour.
The Group's report concluded that if we could find ways of persuading drivers to drive with more consideration for the safety of themselves and others, there would be far fewer casualties; and driving would be a less stressful and more pleasant experience than it sometimes is now. The report therefore suggested a number of ways in which driver behaviour could be influenced.
The suggestions included:
- Encouraging and recognising good driving. Incentives can be just as effective as punishments and persuasion in helping to influence behaviour. We recommended that Government should explore the incentives it can offer to safe and responsible drivers and that the insurance industry should continue to develop new insurance products that encourage, and reward, careful and continual improvement in driving skills.
- Getting messages over in new, up to date ways if they are to reach target groups such as young men and women. These ways include a continuous series of campaigns focusing on different messages for different groups at different times; finding role models to bring their influence to bear; involving professional sportsmen and women; trying to get messages into "Soaps"; and community involvement at local level.
- Reviewing the driving test to see if it best meets current needs; giving more attention to testing the attitudes and behaviour of candidates; considering whether a more structured programme of learning should be introduced for young drivers; and continuing training for drivers should be available and publicised.
- Discouraging bad driver behaviour by an active and visible enforcement effort by police presence, as well as by automatic devices. We recommended that DfT and the Home Office should carry out a study of the cost-effectiveness of increasing the resources devoted to road policing by, say 20%, both in relation to its effectiveness in reducing casualty rates and wider criminal behaviour and its effectiveness as opposed to education and other road safety matters.
The Forum's full report can be viewed at www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/reports/respect/index.htm.
Road Pricing
The Forum is concerned that without firm action, traffic on many of the country's main arteries and urban centres may grind to a halt during the next two decades with a devastating impact on the efficiency and viability of business, the opportunities for tourism and regional development and the competitiveness of the nation.
The Government, accordingly, asked the Forum to set up a working group to answer four questions on the efficient and effective introduction of road pricing using existing technologies and business systems and the opportunities (and disadvantages) that could arise for companies who align their technology to incorporate the calculation and collection of road charges.
On the first question - how existing services already offered on the market can be used to calculate and collect road charges - we were clear that industry has the technology that is capable of providing the solutions that could combine to meet the road pricing needs of tomorrow. The key question, to our mind, is what is required, both in terms of accuracy and cost, as well as the time period for development and deployment. With a clear set of requirements, we are confident road pricing could be competitively delivered within a reasonable time period.
The second question we were asked was what are the opportunities for companies who align their services to calculate and collect the road charges. Again, we were positive in our findings believing that the introduction of road pricing will bring clear opportunities for a range of industry sectors. Equally, we believe that there is a clear appetite amongst firms to exploit the opportunities for product innovation.
With a series of positive opportunities identified, we turned to answer the third question put to us - what are the disadvantages and reasons why businesses might not wish to align to road charging. We identified a number of significant risks, which together combine to severely inhibit any decision to develop a business case for investment in road pricing except on a project by project basis. We consider it imperative that Government should provide leadership in addressing these concerns and clarify the responsibilities of the parties involved in road pricing.
On the fourth question - what are the organisations that the Department should be engaging with and how can their members be engaged with - we have recommended that the Government and industry should work together to clarify what is needed and how it should be delivered. In particular, we have suggested that three forms of engagement should be established to address the needs of different stakeholders.
Although our work was specifically addressed at answering the questions posed to us, it was clear to us that there is a need for a clear Government commitment to the concept of road pricing and greater clarity about the impact on motoring costs. Until there is a clear commitment from Government to the principle of road pricing, and greater clarity surrounding the nature of services needed, timescales and legal responsibilities etc, the business risks of engaging in the process will deter companies from investing their shareholders' money in the research and development needed for the appropriate systems and services. Indeed, with the current uncertainties surrounding the issue there is little clear business justification to warrant investment.
In addition, until the public have a better understanding of road pricing, and there is greater public acceptance of the concept, industry will be reluctant to take decisions to engage in the process. Government must be bolder in providing the leadership necessary to address the concerns of the public and to spell out what will be the new financial regime in which road pricing will operate. In particular, it is important to be clear about the relationship between a new road user charge and existing motoring taxation in principle, although clearly it will not be possible to specify this in detail for many years.
The Forum's full report can be viewed at www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/reports/roadpricing/index.htm.
Road Safety
The Forum continues to be concerned about the number of deaths and injuries incurred on the UK's roads. Casualty numbers remain unacceptably high and reducing these numbers is an issue that we view as of paramount importance.
Our "Respect" report showed clearly the dangers of drivers not being properly in control of their vehicle (e.g. through drink, excessive speed for the circumstances, persistent use of hand-held mobile phones etc) and drivers and other road users being careless about their own safety (e.g. non-wearing of seat belts, especially in rear seats). The report also highlighted that if we could find ways of persuading drivers to drive with more consideration for the safety of themselves and others, there would be far fewer casualties.
Whilst some of the answers may be down to continued improvement in vehicle and road engineering, there is a clear role for the motoring community to play in working with DfT to augment its THINK! campaign. Our view is that whilst general messages might appear worthwhile (the "Drive safely" equivalent of "Drink responsibly" messages on certain alcohol advertisements), they run the risk of being at best bland and at worst nannying. So targeted messages, making commonsense points borne out by evidence, are more likely to hit home with those we wish to influence.
All Forum members have been asked to work with the DfT to draw up, and take forward, these targeted messages with their constituent membership. Work on this matter is progressing and we are confident that this will lead to a number of worthwhile initiatives.
As well as this initiative, the Forum has also continued to work with Government and others to reduce the high accident rates prevailing amongst young drivers and to help older drivers reduce their risks and find insurance cover.
Among car drivers, fatalities occur predominantly among the young, with 41% of all fatally-injured drivers being in the 16 - 29 age group. Compared with older drivers (30 and over), research has shown that young drivers drive at higher speeds, deliberately drive more recklessly, are involved in more loss of control accidents and are more likely to consume alcohol and drugs and then drive. We are keen that both central and local Government, and the police, should take urgent action to reduce the rising trend in deaths among this age group and have stressed the importance of educating young people on safe driving in schools and recommended that other youth organisations should also be approached to play their part in this process.
Older people make up a large part of the UK population - and also a significant part of our driving population. Figures from 2001 showed that more than two million people in the UK aged 70+ had a current driving licence. This number was expected to more than double to four and a half million by 2015.
Research does not indicate that there is an age at which all drivers become unable to drive safely. People age differently and someone at 70 years of age may be fitter, more alert and active then someone aged 60 years or younger. However, as people get older it is only natural that their general health will begin to deteriorate. This may be a gradual process and any deterioration may not be apparent to the individual concerned.
Older drivers are perhaps most likely to be influenced by their relatives or doctors - the latter especially as older people are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a crash as their bones are more brittle and their physique is generally weaker than when they were young. We have proposed that older drivers should be able to take an advisory test of competence which would enable them to make up their own minds when they should take the step of giving up driving - which can mark a significant loss of independence. This is a subject of growing importance as the number of older drivers is expected to increase.
Work-Related Road Safety
In May 2005, the Forum published a report setting out its advice on how employers could be encouraged to give a higher priority to road safety for those who drive cars or vans as part of their work.
There were two key findings emanating from our work - namely that effective management of work-related road safety can lead to companies making substantial cost savings and that there is already a plethora of sources of good advice on how to improve safety. The main focus of our report was, therefore, in suggesting measures which would raise awareness and management focus of good work-related road safety practice.
The Forum continues to take a close interest in developments in tackling this issue. We are very pleased both that DfT has taken up our suggestion of introducing a systematic programme of outreach directed at employers with the aim of raising awareness and spreading good practice and that representatives from the Forum are playing an important role in taking this work forward.
We remain disappointed that Government has still not seen fit to introduce a requirement for employers to report serious work-related road traffic incidents under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). We believe making this change would send a powerful signal in tune with the Government's wider road safety strategy and would positively affirm that Government sees work-related driving as a key aspect of workplace health and safety. The scale of work-related driving incidents in the road casualty statistics provides a strong argument for change.
Driver Training and Testing
Our "Respect" report highlighted concerns about whether the current driving test meets current needs as well as it should. We therefore recommended that the test should be reviewed to see if it is the best that can be devised to ensure that people who pass are capable of driving in current conditions, and are likely to remain so. We also called specifically for the content of the theory test to be looked at to see whether more questions could be asked that relate to the attitudes and behaviour of candidates and that consideration should be given to a more structured programme of learning by young drivers underpinned by the completion of mandatory logbooks.
We are very pleased to have been able to discuss our proposals with senior officials from DfT's Driving Standards Agency. We welcome the systematic reform that Government is undertaking of the way people learn to drive and maintain safe driving skills through life and the higher standards that are being sought through improved driver education and assessment. We are encouraged with the direction Government proposals are moving in and Forum members will offer support in taking those proposals forward at the appropriate time.
MoT Testing
There has been a regular MoT test in GB for 46 years, with a first test at year 3 and annual tests following that (3,1,1) introduced in 1968. European legislation, introduced in 1991, set a minimum testing frequency of first test at year 4 and then every other year after that (4,2,2), content and some testing procedures.
There have been a number of changes in the test since then, for example the introduction of emissions testing. But the most significant change has been the computerisation of the test - essentially each of the 19,000 testing stations now records the test electronically. This provides data on all aspects of the 24 million tests tests conducted annually, such as the length of time it takes, the failure rate of vehicles and the reasons for failure.
In its report published at the end of 2006, the Davidson review, related to the Government's Better Regulation agenda and looking at over-implementation of European Directives, recommended that DfT consult on a move to the European minimum of testing frequency i.e. a testing frequency of 4,2,2. DfT accepted this recommendation and sought a view from the Forum on the issue ahead of the formal consultation process it will undertake on the frequency of MoT testing and how it is funded.
The Forum advised that without any statistics relating to the defects found in three-year-old vehicles, it was difficult to offer a considered opinion. Such statistics should be included in DfT's forthcoming consultation paper. Concern was, however, expressed about extending the period between mandatory tests. The UK had a good safety record in part because of the culture of the MoT scheme. There should be no change in the system unless it was certain that any such change would not lead to deterioration in the condition of the vehicle parc. The need for proper consumer protection was also stressed. If testing stations reduced fees to attract custom, safeguards should be in place to ensure that motorists were not subsequently charged for unnecessary work.
Summing up on the basis of the evidence produced so far, the Forum does not favour extending the time of the first test from 3 to 4 years. We also do not support extending the time of the second test from one to two years after the first test.
This is an issue we shall watch very carefully, both during the formal consultation and beyond. Whilst the Forum is obviously keen that unnecessary burdens should not be placed on either drivers or the motoring industry, we do not support the removal of any measures that will compromise safety.
Transport Taxation
We were very pleased to once again be able to discuss with officials from HM Treasury the issues surrounding transport taxation.
Transport is the second largest source of emissions in the UK. We recognise that action to tackle this should be taken through improved fuel efficiency, the growth of alternative fuels and economic incentives to individuals to drive cleaner cars. Changes to the vehicle tax and company car tax regimes to reflect carbon emissions have already proved effective. However, our view is that action to reduce car emissions should be based directly on tailpipe emissions and not a proxy such as the size of the vehicle or any specific technology.
Act on CO2 Campaign
In June 2006, the DfT announced the development of a climate change communications campaign. The campaign was designed to persuade car drivers to adopt smarter driving techniques and to persuade new car buyers to consider a car's fuel efficiency and the impact that has on CO2 emissions when purchasing a new car. The view of the Forum was sought on the communications plan for taking the campaign forward.
The intent of the plan was welcomed by the Forum. However, we also stressed that it would be important to ensure the motoring strand of the campaign was set in appropriate context amongst wider measures to tackle climate change eg on domestic heating. In addition, we also warned that the purchase of a car purely on CO
2 emissions could be misleading if other factors such as safety and overall cost of ownership were not considered. We were pleased to learn that the CO
2 new car ranking tables -
www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/ - are designed to encourage drivers to make better choices in their driving styles and choice of cars and are not designed to cover all factors that need to be taken into consideration in the purchase of a new car.
"Eco-driving"
In September 2007, CfIT issued a major report on Transport and Climate Change. On driving, the report recommended, inter alia, promoting "eco-driving" techniques.
"Eco-driving" is driving a vehicle in such a way that it has as little impact on the environment as possible. This can include, for example:
- adhering to speed limits;
- accelerating gently, keeping speed constant and changing gear at the optimal time;
- limiting air conditioning (estimated to add 10-14% to fuel consumption);
- driving with windows closed and roof racks removed to reduce drag;
- avoiding idling the engine;
- not warming the engine up before starting off;
- filling tyres to the optimum pressure; and
- keeping a safe distance from the car in front as sharp braking wastes fuel.
This is an issue we shall be exploring in the Forum over the coming months as we are keen to help sell the message of the merits of "eco-driving".
Wheelclamping on Private Land
Whilst pursuing the issue of traffic policing with the Home Office, we were asked specifically for our view on whether the new regime under which wheelclamping on private land was controlled was working properly.
The Forum's response was that the system is still not fit for purpose. Motoring organisations still continue to receive complaints about inadequate or misleading signs, excessive charges and bullying or threatening behaviour. There are no proper appeals or adjudication systems in place.
This is an issue we have drawn to Government attention since the Forum's inception in 2000. We are in no doubt that the system needs urgent reform and should be regulated.
Motorway Service Areas
The Forum has continued to input into the Highways Agency's review of Motorway Service Areas (MSAs). We specifically support the introduction of Park and Ride facilities at MSAs.
Chapter 3: Raising Issues of Concern to Motorists
Traffic Policing
Since the Forum's inception, we have emphasised consistently that active, consistent and visible enforcement effort is essential for improving driver behaviour. Much more use is now made of automatic methods such as safety cameras and cameras to catch motorists contravening red traffic signals. These cameras cannot however have any influence on other forms of bad and dangerous behaviour such as tail-gating and swerving between lanes. A road police presence is necessary to discourage such behaviours, and the evidence is that when a police car is visible, drivers in general behave better. (TRL research has also demonstrated that the number of motoring offences committed by a driver is linked to the number of non-motoring offences that he or she commits).
We acknowledge that police forces have many priority tasks, and we are not suggesting that police effort should be diverted to road policing from activities such as counter-terrorism, tackling violent crime or neighbourhood policing. On the other hand, the fact that none of the targets set for police forces relates to road policing (except a singular 10 year performance indicator to reduce the number of those killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions) suggests that it has a low priority. We have therefore suggested that the Home Office should set for police forces Performance Indicators in relation to road policing with an emphasis on targeting serious and serial offending to improve public safety and deny criminals the use of our roads.
Additionally, the total resources available for policing are determined by Ministers in their periodic decisions on public expenditure. They could no doubt be increased if a strong case were made. We have therefore also suggested that it would be useful to carry out a study of the cost-effectiveness of increasing the resources devoted to road policing by, say, 20%, both in relation to its effectiveness in reducing casualty rates and wider criminal behaviour and its effectiveness as opposed to education and other road safety matters.
We will continue to raise this matter with Government. We believe that the special role of roads police officers must be recognised and protected, and the high standards of roads policing - which have helped the UK's roads to be among the safest in the world - must be maintained.
Finally, it is clear to us that there is a motoring underclass who are not prepared to obey road traffic law and who wilfully flout the law as regards registering, taxing and insuring their car and driving whilst properly licensed. New enforcement measures, such as extending the powers to seize vehicles, should be introduced. Government should not shy away from taking such action as a means of imposing quicker and more appropriate justice for those who deliberately drive outside the law.
Active Traffic Management
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 when the Active Traffic Management (ATM) Pilot Project was announced for the M42. We were keen to ensure that hard shoulder running was not simply trading safety for capacity.
We have continued in discussion with Government over this matter and have been kept in close touch with the pilot project on the M42. (The project involved a wide range of traffic management measures, including variable message signs, variable speed limits, increased monitoring and real-time control and use of the hard shoulder as a running lane under controlled conditions).
The use of Active ATM techniques began on the M42 in Spring 2005 and full use of the system, including hard shoulder running, began in September 2006. The early results from the first six months of the full trial are impressive and we congratulate the Highways Agency on the results.
Key findings are:
- Drivers are now able to better predict their journey time as variability of journey time reduced significantly, by an average of 27% on weekdays;
- ATM improved the distribution of traffic between lanes, indicating a better use of road space;
- Use of the hard shoulder during weekday (Tuesday - Friday) afternoon peak periods saw average journey times reduced by 26% northbound and 9% southbound when compared to using variable speed limits on three lanes;
- Of drivers surveyed, 93% of those who used the hard shoulder felt that the instructions for using it were clear and 84% felt confident about using it as a running lane;
- 68% of respondents felt more informed about traffic conditions;
- 60% would like to see ATM used elsewhere on the motorway network;
- Since the introduction of ATM, the personal injury accident rate has fallen from 5.2 per month to 1.5 per month;
- Overall fuel consumption reduced by 4% and vehicle emissions fell by between 4% and 10%.
In the light of Government proposals to extend these new ways of managing motorway traffic - including hard shoulder running - and a feasibility study to consider if similar schemes could help to beat congestion on other parts of the motorway network, the Forum will continue to monitor developments in this area carefully. It is an issue we shall return to in 2008 as we wish to ensure that the safety of all road users remains paramount.
Transport Energy Grants
Road transport, although much cleaner than even a few years ago, still emits a significant proportion of UK carbon emissions and air pollutants. It is essential, therefore, that we continue to work to drive down emissions from this source. We therefore raised with DfT our concern about the curtailment of certain of the Transport Energy Grant programmes, particularly as we consider it important that clear signals are sent to vehicle end users and the fuel industry that offer them confidence to invest in vehicles, technology and refuelling infrastructure.
DfT advised on the rationale for the decision. Key factors had included: the constraints of operating within the EU State Aid limitations; the comparative cost of the carbon savings achievable compared with other measures; the recognition that greater savings could be achievable by promoting the purchase of the most fuel efficient option in each class, rather than focusing on the very cleanest vehicles; sales of cleaner vehicles had held up despite the absence of grants; and the fact that the value of the grant in influencing the purchase decision could be masked by other factors - discounts, special promotions etc - which determine the actual sale price of individual new vehicles.
In the light of this advice, we commended the Department in the way that evidence had been weighed to inform a difficult decision and agreed that support for encouraging the uptake of the cleanest, lowest carbon vehicles should be channelled into other areas.
Chapter 4: Work in Progress
Speed Limit Adherence and its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change
CfIT and the Forum are jointly considering the effects that the introduction of a voluntary Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) system across the entire road network would have in reducing deaths and injuries on the UK roads and in reducing carbon emissions, other pollutants and fuel consumption.
The study is intended:
- To estimate the impact on the number of people killed or injured (both seriously and slightly) in road accidents that would arise through raising the levels of adherence to speed limits through the introduction of a voluntary ISA system;
- To estimate the impact on carbon emissions, other pollutants (including noise) and fuel consumption that would also arise through the introduction of a voluntary ISA system;
- To identify and estimate other benefits eg journey time reliability and disbenefits that would also arise through the introduction of a voluntary ISA system;
- To perform cost-benefit analyses comparing the cost of introducing and operating an ISA system with the value of accident savings and the value of reductions in carbon emissions, other pollutants and fuel consumption;
- To estimate the critical mass at which benefits increase rapidly as compared to the numbers of vehicles fitted with a system that is in use;
- To advise how a greater take-up and usage of ISA on a voluntary basis can be encouraged; and
- To identify any disbenefits of ISA and to advise how these can be overcome.
The work is due to be completed in summer 2008.
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: ITIS Holdings plc;
Governor: Motability.
Douglas Campbell OBE
Director: Douglas Campbell Consulting Ltd;
Trustee: Mobility Choice.
Chief Constable Stephen Green QPM
Chair: Nottinghamshire Criminal Justice Board;
Member: Association of Chief Police Officers/Highways Agency Partnership Board.
Debbie Hewitt
Directorships: RAC plc;
Non-Executive Directorships: The Office of Government Commerce; Mouchel Parkman plc
Trustee: Recovery Industry Support Charity.
David Holmes CB
Trustee: Motorway Archive Trust.
Chris Hunt
Directorships: Cogent Sector Skills Council;
Member: Energy Institute; BERR Business Energy Forum; BERR Business/Whitehall Climate Change Forum; BERR Downstream Oil Industry Forum; DfT/BERR Aviation Task Group.
John Lewis
Chair: Driving for Better Business Steering Group;
Member: Cars QA Governing Board; Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation Group (VIPER); Retail Motor Strategy Group; Automotive Skills Ltd.
Christopher Macgowan
Directorships: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Ltd; Odette International Ltd;
Member: Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT); Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation Group (VIPER); Retail Motor Strategy Group; SMMT Industry Forum.
Archie Robertson OBE
Chair: National Road Users Committee; National Environment Committee;
Member: Commission for Integrated Transport; Department for Transport Board; Confederation of European Directors of Roads; Public Sector Construction Clients Forum;
Trustee: Institute of Business Ethics;
Fellow: Institution of Highways & Transportation.
Andrew Strong
Member: ARC Transistance Board.
Roelant de Waard
Directorships: Ford Motor Company Ltd;
Member: CBI Presidents Committee; Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Ltd.
Paul Watters
Chartered Member: Institute of Logistics and Transport;
Member: National Road Users Committee; National Parking Adjudication Service Advisory Board; DfT Compliance Working Group; Institution of Highways & Transportation.
