A Review of the Delivery of the Road Safety Strategy - Advisory Panel Report
Foreword by Sir Trevor Chinn, Chairman, Motorists' Forum
Britain has had a remarkable success in reducing road casualties in recent years despite the vast growth in road traffic that has occurred over this period and Government should be credited for what has been achieved. However, despite this success there is no reason for complacency and accordingly the Commission for Integrated Transport asked the Motorists' Forum to advise the Commission on how delivery of the Government's Road Safety Strategy (RSS) by the target-date might be more effectively achieved.
In order for us to provide the Commission with the robust advice on this matter that it sought, we commissioned the University College London (Centre for Transport Studies), assisted by Babtie Group Ltd, to report on this matter. An Advisory Panel, under the Chairmanship of Sir Christopher Foster, was appointed to work with the consultants and to help shape the consultants' report. The Advisory Panel's report draws out the main messages and recommendations arising from the consultants' report.
There is one other issue that is not touched on in the consultants' report - not because it lacked importance but that unlike the other measures the consultants proposed, there seemed no immediate feasible remedies - which some members of the Forum consider worthy of mention. This concerns drug-driving.
Recent research has shown that drug driving appears to be on the increase and it has been suggested that the Government should accelerate the development of testing devices and support recent calls to the medical industry to improve the labelling on prescription drugs to highlight the dangers they may pose when driving. I believe both matters are worthy of further consideration.
Finally, although we recognise that there are already many Government initiatives underway designed to improve road safety, our view is that the measures the consultants have identified offer additional opportunities to Government to reach or better its casualty reduction targets. Accordingly, I commend this report to the Commission. In doing so, I hope that the Commission will bring it to Government attention and add its support for the appropriate measures recommended in the report to be implemented as soon as possible.
Introduction
1. The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) asked the Motorists' Forum in 2002 to advise it on how delivery of the Government's Road Safety Strategy (RSS) by the target-date might be more effectively achieved. The Forum commissioned the University College London (Centre for Transport Studies), assisted by Babtie Group Ltd, to report on this matter.
2. We were appointed by the Forum as an Advisory Panel to work with the consultants. Panel members, the consultancy team, observers from the Department for Transport (DfT) and our secretariat are listed at Annex A. The Panel discussed draft reports with the observers and the consultants and are happy to endorse the report's findings.
3. Road safety is of paramount importance to road users. We believe this report is an important one deserving serious consideration if the objectives of the Government's RSS are to be realised. It is also timely as DfT is now carrying out the first three year review of the RSS and progress towards the 2010 target. We have summarised some of the report's main recommendations, making our own observations on some of them.
Objectives
4. The objectives the Motorists' Forum gave the consultants were to assess:
- what factors, if any, may be preventing the Government's RSS being delivered as planned;
- what further measures might assist delivery of the RSS 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.
Background to road safety in the UK
5. Over the years UK road safety policy has been successful in reducing the numbers of people killed or injured on the roads. People are less likely to die on the roads than are citizens of any other EU country except Sweden. The UK was one of the first in Europe to employ casualty reduction targets which has helped to focus action and so lower casualty figures. Figures for casualties in 2002 indicate the number of people killed or seriously injured was 17% below the 1994 - 1998 baseline average, the number of children killed or seriously injured was 33% below the baseline and the slight casualty rate was 12% below the baseline. However, there is further to go to achieve the target set by Government of a 40% reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties by 2010.
6. Progress has been made through legislation and its enforcement, a range of policy initiatives, road safety engineering, education and training, and awareness campaigns aimed at changing attitudes. These measures have helped reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads in recent years but the latest figures suggest that the fall in deaths may have reached a plateau. It may be difficult to make further progress on deaths in particular without additional measures or acceleration and intensification of measures already proposed.
7. In considering proposals for further measures, it is necessary to show that their costs - not only to the public purse but also to drivers, riders and pedestrians, as well as others affected - are not disproportionate to the benefits secured. In this spirit, the policies and measures contained within the RSS and identified by the consultants for acceleration of delivery in order to meet the target are believed by them in most circumstances to show substantially positive returns in terms of accident savings for the costs incurred. They also believe them to be capable of practical achievement.
The consultants' report
8. In our judgement the consultants' report reaches interesting and important conclusions on four matters:
- the measures where the consultants consider step-changes are necessary to deliver potential casualty savings;
- the need for more consistent prioritisation of schemes to ensure the 2010 targets are met;
- better consideration at local level of targets that are both appropriate and consistent with national targets; and
- the need to prepare now for more demanding targets after 2010.
We consider each in turn.
Recommendations on measures where step-changes are necessary to deliver potential casualty savings
9. The consultants' recommendations on the step changes necessary to help deliver the Government's RSS are detailed in their report. These are ranked by what the consultants believe to be their practical feasibility. The Panel's observations on each recommendation are given below.
(1) Road Safety Engineering
The consultants show that in most local authorities there is a multitude of schemes of a road engineering nature which could reduce the risk of death or injury for all those who use the roads. Irrespective of the type of scheme introduced, the returns in terms of casualty reduction relative to the cost are high. What stops more lives being saved varies locally: from a shortage of trained staff to design and implement them, to over-tight budgets and sometimes to political difficulty in persuading local people that the benefits will outweigh the costs and other disbenefits. We recommend that the implementation of road safety engineering schemes giving at least a benefit-cost ceiling ratio of 2:1 over the whole life of the project should be encouraged. Reducing the ceiling in this way would substantially increase the projects available for implementation in most local authorities.
As the consultants have identified a lack of capability at a local level within the road safety profession as a barrier to undertaking the implementation of road safety engineering schemes, we recommend that both local and central government should commit to increase the workforce in this area by allocating funds to recruiting and training and to the development of an identifiable and motivating career structure.
For the successful implementation of any scheme, public support is needed. Local authorities should consult widely with communities and should persuade the population of the merits of such schemes, particularly emphasising the safety benefits that will accrue from their introduction and publicising the deaths and injuries estimated to have been saved through similar schemes.
(2) Crash Protection in Cars and Car-based Light Goods Vehicles
The report confirms there has been a general improvement in crash protection for vehicle occupants in recent years. Estimates are that such measures have reduced the numbers of drivers killed or seriously injured in 1998 by about 20% in comparison with what might have occurred if all cars had a 1980 level of crash protection.
But progress has been slower in improving protection for struck pedestrians and cyclists. We understand the appropriate European Directive requiring such protection will come into force for new vehicle types by 2005. Nevertheless, we recommend that vehicle manufacturers should be encouraged forthwith to make the modifications necessary to improve safety for these groups.
Euro NCAP gives motoring consumers a realistic and independent assessment of the safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Europe. Vehicles are currently tested on their front and side impact ratings and separately on their pedestrian impact ratings. They are given separate ratings for each test. We recommend consideration should be given to combining the two current ratings into a single rating. We hope that this proposal would further encourage manufacturers' to enhance the pedestrian safety design of their vehicles.
(3) Evidential Roadside Breath Testing
It is more than 5 years since the question of implementing evidential roadside breath testing was first raised. We understand that the technology to administer evidential breath testing at the roadside is available, but that parliamentary time is needed to legislate for its use. Assuming that would substantially save police time and cost as well as help maintain a traffic police presence on the road, we recommend that a suitable legislative slot be found soon enabling evidential breath testing to be administered at the roadside.
(4) Penalties Specific to Traffic Offences
We are persuaded it would aid road safety if those who exceed the speed limit by a wide margin were punished more severely. We therefore support the proposal that a higher level of penalty points should be awarded to those exceeding the speed limit by such a margin. We recommend that a suitable legislative slot enabling this change in the law to be implemented should be found.
We are more cautious, however, on the recommended use of rehabilitation courses for persistent driving offenders. We understand that at present, with the exception of rehabilitation courses for drink drivers (where evidence does point to fewer drivers re-offending), the effectiveness of such courses has yet to be proved. We believe that more research is needed to show if retraining of offenders does lead to lower rates of re-offending before this recommendation should be supported.
(5) Speed Management on Rural Roads
We agree that there is an urgent need to find appropriate measures to manage speed better on single carriageway rural roads where there are currently unacceptably high casualty rates. We therefore recommend the early implementation of new speed management strategies for rural roads not least to help prevent motorists on rural roads from killing themselves and other road users.
In discussion the point was made that as well as managing speed better, it is often sensible at the same time for road authorities to make their roads fit for purpose with detailed layouts and crash protection appropriate to their use in order to make more effective use of speed limit changes.
(6) Deployment of Safety Cameras
Speed is a major contributory factor in road crashes. It also directly affects the severity of casualties. We agree that it is important both to adhere to the speed limit and to drive at an appropriate speed within the limit.
We believe that road users will be more likely to accept a speed limit, and any changes to a limit, when the reasons for the limit are clear. For example, a change should be more acceptable where there is evidence that casualties have been reduced by such a limit in similar circumstances. We therefore recommend that the Government should work towards introducing a programme of such speed management strategies based on sound evidential proposals.
There is some difference of opinion among Panel members over the role that safety cameras should play in enforcing limits. Those from a motoring background stress that over-concentrating safety arguments on speed reduction means that other dangerous practices tend to be overlooked. Too much reliance on "policing by camera" means that other forms of dangerous driving are not sufficiently targeted as their importance merits, particularly since the police have largely withdrawn from enforcing traffic offences. They also claim that safety cameras achieve the optimum casualty reduction effect if signed and visible to motorists.
On the other hand, those from a road safety background point out that the full potential of cameras is realised through a combined use of conspicuous cameras at concentrated "crash spots" located along a short stretch of road and of inconspicuous cameras where the problem of excess speed and associated injury accidents are spread over a long stretch of road or around a local area.
We therefore recommend that the Government continues to emphasise the casualty reduction potential arising from the use of safety cameras to ensure continuing public support for their usage.
(7) Real Time Safety Advice
We agree that the provision of real time safety advice - such as in-vehicle information systems that provide accurate and reliable traffic data to the car-user - has considerable potential for improving driver behaviour. We recommend that steps should be taken to see how such systems can help make travel safer. We also recommend that providers should look to ensure that the most up to date traffic information is provided by such systems.
(8) Intelligent Speed Adaptation
Any safety benefits from ISA can only be long term, particularly since the Government has yet to commit itself to its introduction. However, its potential for reducing road casualties is marked. The Forum has been advised that a mandatory ISA scheme could reduce road traffic (injury) accidents by 36% and fatal accidents by 59%. There may therefore be merit in manufacturers implementing ISA in selected vehicles on an advisory basis as the technology develops. We recommend that Government should continue to develop its research programme in this area. In addition it should also commit itself to a date for the availability of digital road maps showing speed limits, beginning with the most densely populated regions of Great Britain.
(9) Enforcement of Traffic Law
As already indicated in our discussion of safety cameras, the Panel strongly believes in the desirability of a return to an increased traffic policing presence as a check on bad and dangerous driving.
We know there are many competing demands on police time. But we do not believe it is always self-evident that police resources should be targeted at dealing with crimes like burglary and street robberies at the expense of tackling dangerous driving. Indeed, we believe that the distress caused to a family who loses a loved-one in a road accident can far outweigh the distress caused to a family who is burgled.
Moreover, recent research (TRL: Number of Motoring and Non-Motoring Offences 2003) has also shown that drivers, who commit offences such as drink driving or dangerous driving, are far more likely to have committed several non-motoring offences than are non-offenders. Therefore the targeting of those who drive dangerously should lead to detection of other criminal activity.
We recommend that a review of road traffic policing within the National Policing Plan should re-consider what are appropriate criteria to help decide what proportion of police time should be devoted to traffic offences.
(10) Reducing At-Work Road Casualties
We place great importance on work-related road safety being tackled effectively and on employers acting responsibly in managing that risk. We recommend that the momentum of work by the Health and Safety Executive and the Occupational Road Safety Alliance to engage employers in the reduction of at-work road casualties should not just be maintained but increased.
(11) Single/Double Summertime
It is reported that the adoption of single/double summertime could save 80 lives a year. We do not know what the costs would be or if there are other benefits, but, while recognising that this is a contentious matter and broader than our remit, we suggest that the Government should consider holding a new trial to address the question once and for all.
(12) Reduction of the Blood Alcohol Limit to 50mg/100ml
There are differences of opinion on the Panel over the benefits of reducing the blood alcohol limit from 80 to 50mg per 100ml. Those from a road safety background believe that this is a change that should be implemented (as it is estimated that 50 lives each year would be saved through this measure). Those from a motoring background, whilst not opposing a reduction in the permitted BAC, claim that a lower BAC would meet opposition from the public and favour more consistent targeted enforcement campaigns. Both groups agree that better targeting of offenders and greater enforcement of the current limit would prevent a number of the current drink drive casualties. We therefore recommend that the current focus on a combination of rigorous enforcement and strong public advertising be maintained, but that, in the light of continuing analysis of drink-drive related accidents, other measures of reducing drink drive fatalities be kept under review.
(13) Encouragement of Wearing of Cycle Helmets
We recognise that this too is a contentious issue. However, given the reduction in injuries which would result, we see good reasons for encouraging the wearing of cycle helmets. Recognising the current entrenched attitudes over this issue, we suggest that ways should be sought to engage those groups opposed to cycle helmets. These discussions should take place in the context of other measures designed to improve the safety of cyclists.
(14) Extension of Community Sentences to Non-Imprisonable Traffic Offences
This proposal is a substantial departure from past practice. We feel that further work should be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of community sentences in other areas of the law before deciding whether community sentences are suitable for those who commit non-imprisonable traffic offences.
Conclusion on these recommendations
10. The consultants have produced and prioritised measures that will reduce accidents, which they believe are practical, show positive cost benefit returns and which in many cases would be best adopted if local groups have the opportunity to participate in the process and voice objections where necessary. We recommend CfIT should consider the arguments which have persuaded us to endorse the consultants' report in reaching its own conclusions on the support that should be given for the introduction of such measures.
11. We recognise that there are already many Government initiatives underway designed to improve road safety. Nevertheless, we believe the measures the consultants have prioritised offer additional opportunities to Government to reach or better its casualty reduction targets. We remain in no doubt that the issue of road safety needs to be raised up the political agenda and we hope that CfIT will be prepared to take steps to do so accordingly.
Target setting
12. The consultants have reviewed the targets set by other Government Department's that are synergistic with those of DfT. We believe that targets are necessary both to focus attention on the action that needs to be taken to get to the end result and to give a means by which local authorities and others performance can be assessed. However, we believe greater guidance is needed to enable the setting of consistent local targets as we do not believe current guidance in either the RSS or the Good Practice Guide for the Development of LTPs covers this matter in sufficient detail.
13. The Panel also welcomes the recognition within the report that Great Britain needs to consider what further targets for reducing casualties and improving road safety should be set beyond 2010. The Panel agrees with the consultants' suggestion that the Government should work towards reducing the risk of death per hour spent using the roads to the average risk of death while engaging in other everyday activities.
Better prioritisation
14. Cost benefit returns are worked out for most improvements. It is clear that many more measures are worth adopting, even taking into account the costs to the public purse and other disbenefits which always should be taken into account. The Panel agrees that a more systematic and comprehensive appraisal of road safety measures should be adopted. A model could be the cost-benefit techniques for road investment. It believes that local authorities should be encouraged to use techniques to demonstrate better the merits of proposed schemes.
Key factors influencing the scope for casualty reduction
15. We draw attention to Appendix 5 of the report in which the consultants assess possible limits to casualty reduction. They note the drawbacks to Vision Zero, to requiring roads to be as safe as rail and to establishing goals like Sustainable Safety. They advocate improvements in the application of cost-benefit analysis and believe it is likely to be a long time before schemes which may be justified on this basis are exhausted. They believe, however, that the improved use of cost benefit analysis is necessary to reach the goal of reducing accidents to levels similar to other personal accidents.
Next steps
16. The consultants have suggested several areas where further research could be useful to the development and assessment of current and future policies in road safety. These all have merit and we hope that DfT will consider taking these matters forward.
17. There is however one proposal that requires cooperation across Whitehall, namely the need for increased traffic policing. The Panel specifically recommends that in view of the need for joined up Government action in this area, work should be taken forward on the consultants' proposals to:
- develop specific agreed performance indicators that relate directly to ways in which police can influence road safety. These should be developed and monitored by the Home Office in association with other stakeholder Departments;
- evaluate the effectiveness of current enforcement strategies; and
- undertake a cost benefit analysis comparing traffic policing with action against other types of crime.
Code of Practice for Scientific Committees
18. The Advisory Panel was selected to reflect opinion across the road safety field as widely as possible. However, no guarantee can be made that all instances or opinions have been taken into account in the Panel's work, nor that conclusions reached and published are incontrovertible.
Motorists' Forum Road Safety Advisory Panel, August 2003
Annex A: Motorists' Forum Road Safety Advisory Panel
Sir Christopher Foster - Chair
Kevin Delaney / Jonathon Simpson - RAC Foundation
Andrew Howard - Automobile Association
Robert Gifford - Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
Kevin Clinton - Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
Brian Goodwin - County Surveyors Society
Jeremy Moore - Association of Chief Police Officers
Grant Allan - Commission for Integrated Transport
while Sandy Bishop and Kate McMahon from the Department for Transport's Road Safety Division advised the Panel.
The report was by:
Heather Ward - University College London
Prof Richard Allsop - University College London
Prof Andrew Evans - University College London
Blair Turner - Babtie Ross Silcock
The secretariat was:
David Prescott - Motorists' Forum Secretariat
Neil Williams - Motorists' Forum Secretariat
