Government

5.5 Only the Government has the authority and resources to drive forward major new initiatives in road safety; so it is a key player in any Road Safety Deal and must provide the leadership to drive the Deal forward.

5.6 Government should further develop research and data collection to improve knowledge of accident causation, which must underpin road safety measures. In particular, it should look at the arrangements for the reporting of accidents (especially Stats 19) in order to ensure that the information collected is as complete and accurate as possible in order to provide a sound basis for research on the causes and consequences of accidents.

5.7 New technology can help here. For example, providing police officers with hand held computer equipment which would enable information to be inputted quicker and more accurately would improve the quality of data as well as saving police time. If equipment were provided to record accurately and comprehensively the relevant features of the scene of collisions, that would not only improve the quality and quantity of the data; it would also enable the wreckage to be cleared away more quickly, thus reducing delays to traffic. We understand that such equipment exists and that DfT is funding a project to develop software for use on these devices. We urge Government to work with the police to ensure that better recording methodologies are available to the police as soon as possible.

5.8 We also recommend a more systematic sharing of data between the police, the insurance industry and local authorities covering individuals' behaviour and accident causation. At present, there appears to be some inhibition on the exchange of information between the relevant parties. This is unhelpful for progressing research and investigations into particular accidents and hinders action being taken to rectify the causes of such accidents. Government should investigate what information is held by the relevant parties and examine the possible inhibitions on the exchange of data between the parties. Government should also consider whether a system of routine exchange of data could be introduced.

5.9 Government should continue to use this research, data collection and other information to raise awareness and understanding of the consequences of speed and reason for speed limits. It should try to ensure that systems are set up that will enable such information from accidents to be passed to the appropriate bodies or manufacturers who are in a position to act on it.

5.10 Government (together with local authorities, safety organisations and motoring organisations) should provide drivers with a clear, consistent and up-to-date account of 'Why speed matters' - including latest information from the 'On The Spot' study of collisions and their causes. It should also maintain and refresh Think information and publicity programmes, continuously monitoring the effectiveness of the campaigns.

5.11 Speed limits must be realistic and clearly signed: otherwise there is no chance that they will be observed. DfT has been working on new guidance for local authorities on setting speed limits for their roads. We urge the Department to finalise this guidance by the end of 2005 at the latest. It should then monitor and review its implementation.

5.12 We comment on the signing of speed limits later in this report. But one issue which requires attention by central government is the national speed limit sign - the white disk with a diagonal black bar through it. This sign is meant to indicate a 70mph limit on a dual carriageway road and 60mph on a single carriageway, because these are the national limits applicable to these roads. This ambiguity is unhelpful, particularly as many drivers do not know that the limit for single carriageways is 60mph. We recommend that the Department should review this sign, and phase it out. It should be replaced with signs indicating the actual speed limit for the road.

5.13 Government should encourage best practice in road safety measures, whether engineering, enforcement or communication. The Government, in the form of the DfT, should devise and implement experiments and demonstrations of new ideas for tackling safety problems, including those being looked at abroad. DfT should also try out and demonstrate the variety of physical ways of slowing down traffic in streets which are primarily residential, or near schools, to evaluate their effects.

5.14 Demonstration projects have a proven, valuable role to play in developing different approaches to reducing casualties. The Gloucester 'Safer City' initiative has, for example, shown that an innovative approach - in this case, tackling safety problems on all roads within the city boundary by integrating safety into wider work rather than using a piecemeal response to particular accidents or individual locations - can lead to substantially reduced casualties. We recommend that Government should continue to run such projects and promote best practice arising from these projects.

5.15 A good way of disseminating best practice already exists in the form of the Molasses database (Monitoring Of Local Authority Safety SchemES). This contains information about local road safety schemes implemented by local authorities in the UK. Set up as a tool for monitoring and promulgating the effectiveness of schemes, the reporting of schemes has been sporadic to date and so its usefulness is limited. We recommend Government should develop Molasses further as a tool for local authority monitoring purposes, identifying both measures which have worked and those which have not.

5.16 Government should ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to step up their spending on safety road engineering schemes and regular maintenance. It should also consider whether present systems for central support to local authority expenditure are adequate for the requisite priority to be given to safety road engineering schemes, bearing in mind the high ratio of benefits to costs.

5.17 Government should set a right and consistent regulatory framework and penalties structure. It must, in particular, continue to take strong measures against those who drive uninsured, untaxed and/or unlicensed. By being outside the systems for the control and regulation of vehicles and drivers, such people undermine the effectiveness of these systems, as well as increasing costs and risks for those who abide by the rules.

5.18 Government should support the earliest possible availability of technology to communicate information about speed to drivers in their vehicles (see the section on the manufacturing industry) and in particular should work to facilitate a national e-database of speed limits. Work by Ordnance Survey is well advanced. Government should commit itself to a target date for the introduction of such maps showing speed limits in Great Britain.

5.19 Government should also ensure that its own car fleet, including those operated by its Agencies, is equipped with the ISA technology for providing information on speed limits and prospectively regulating speed. This would send a powerful signal to the outside world that Government supported the use of the new systems.

5.20 The technology to use the On-Board Diagnostics to record data about what was happening to a vehicle involved in an accident is already available: indeed information can already be obtained from some vehicles in the event of an accident, though there are currently issues about the release of such information. Government should facilitate the development of specifications for such "Black boxes" and implement regulations to require the fitting of such equipment in new vehicles.

5.21 We appreciate there will be concerns about this proposal but we believe there is a justification for it in the public interest, and that it offers advantages to the law-abiding motorist. Our view is that drivers may be encouraged to drive safely and well where they know that their good driving is being recorded and can be demonstrated in the event of an accident, including proving innocence (as the current tachograph equipment used in lorries has done). The information recorded on the "Black boxes" should also provide valuable information on accident causation and give a better understanding of why accidents happen.

5.22 The privacy concerns regarding this proposal are appreciated. To overcome these, we recommend that information should only be made available to the police and enforcement authorities after an accident and that no real time monitoring of the data should be allowed.

5.23 Government itself has responsibilities in its role as Highway Authority for the nation's Trunk Roads. We welcome the progress that the Highways Agency is making in reaching its casualty reduction targets.

5.24 Many road safety reports over the past few years have commented on the lack of capability at a local level within the road safety profession as a barrier to undertaking the implementation of road safety engineering schemes. Government should ensure that steps are taken to tackle the skills shortages in road safety. Government, through the Highways Agency, could itself demonstrate a commitment in this area by recruiting and training people as road safety engineers as a means of increasing the workforce in this area.

5.25 Government should ensure that the training and testing regime for learner drivers remains relevant to today's driving conditions. Young drivers continue to be involved in a disproportionately high number of accidents and the time may be right to take stock of the level of driver training and testing, including whether this should be extended to behaviour and attitude as well as basic driving skills. The review should also take stock of the standards and requirements for driver instructors.

5.26 This review should also look at the post-training of novice drivers, while they are still early in the process of forming their approach to driving and attitudes to other road users.

5.27 Government should consider including training in road safety and considerate behaviour on the roads in the education curriculum. This is part of learning to live in a civilised society. The earlier that young people are taught to use the roads safely, the more likely they are to acquire the right attitudes and habits. There is an important role for local authority road safety officers here. We should like to see local authorities employing more of them, and the officers having the access to schools that they need.

5.28 Government should continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to improve car design to provide increased protection for pedestrians and cyclists, and play a full part in international negotiations on the appropriate standards.

Drivers

5.29 Drivers have a responsibility to ensure that they are properly trained to drive safely in the conditions of the 21st century. Typically, having passed their driving test, they continue to drive for over 50 years without ever getting any further training. And the existing driving test does not cover tasks such as motorway and night driving.

5.30 Road traffic is forecast to continue to increase for very many years ahead: cars have increasingly sophisticated equipment on board, and navigating the roads will become more demanding as the Government and other highway authorities make more use of traffic management techniques to squeeze more capacity out of the road network.

5.31 So we consider that continuing training for drivers should be available and should be publicised. We are not recommending that such re-training should be compulsory but we would hope that responsible drivers would recognise the value of updating and refreshing their skills generally or perhaps at important points in their lives which change the amount or kind of driving they do - for example when they change jobs, have children, retire and so on.

5.32 We also recommend that young or novice drivers should be encouraged to undertake further training. The "Pass Plus" scheme offers instruction on those skills not tested in the current driving examination and we think that the take-up of this scheme should be encouraged. We are impressed also by a trial scheme - the Kirklees experiment - that teaches not only driving skills but also attempts to instill responsible attitudes in young drivers. If this succeeds, it seems well worth incorporating education in responsible behaviour into training courses. It would be helpful if the insurance industry were prepared to offer incentives to those who undertake soundly based training programmes.

5.33 Drivers should take a pride in their driving, in the same way as they would undertake any other skilled function. Drivers should also have a responsibility to ensure that they give undivided attention to their driving. If they want to make mobile phone calls or change CDs etc, they should pull off the road to somewhere safe.

5.34 Drivers should think about other people with whom they share the road, and should be considerate. So called road-rage is as unacceptable as starting a fight in a factory or an office. Research has shown that bad behaviour on the road is often associated with bad behaviour generally: the same people do it. We welcome the commitment given in the recently announced Roads Policing Strategy issued by DfT, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which the Government and the police committed themselves, that the police will challenge unlawful and unruly behaviour. It is essential that the commitments in the strategy are fully implemented.

5.35 This report does not deal with motorcyclists specifically. But we must comment on our concern that motorcyclists continue to be disproportionately represented in casualty numbers. (Although motorcycles only account for 1% of road mileage, riders accounted for 20% of fatalities in 2003 and statistics show that motorcyclists are 40 times more likely to be killed than car drivers and 5 times more likely to be killed than cyclists). We believe that additional training for motorcyclists should be considered and support moves to develop effective training arrangements to enable riders to improve their standards. The BikeSafe initiative is a good example of what can be done and we are aware of the work being undertaken by the Institute of Highway Engineers in this area.

Local highway authorities

5.36 There is a clear need for Highway Authorities to make our roads safe, intelligible and predictable. In addition, authorities need to ensure that the rules on their roads make sense and that a balance is struck between the needs of residents and road users. Some local authorities are already developing a functional hierarchy of roads within their areas, which distinguishes between roads for through traffic, those for local access and streets serving housing developments. The objective should be to ensure that traffic uses the roads which are suitable for its purpose, and is travelling at the appropriate speed. Where necessary this should involve the adoption of engineering measures to reduce traffic speeds. Signs are important: if through traffic is not expected to use particular roads, the alternative routes should be clearly signed.

5.37 Many local authority roads are still not engineered or maintained to a high standard of safety. So continued improvement of road condition is needed. Relatively easy and inexpensive measures such as junction improvements, continued maintenance of signs and road markings and skid resistant surfaces can all have large benefits in relation to costs compared with other areas of expenditure. Studies on road safety over the last 30 years have demonstrated this. Local authorities, of course, already invest in measures designed to improve road safety and all authorities should give a much higher priority to safety engineering. The Government should commit to provide resources for these improvements having regard to their cost-effectiveness and the opportunities they bring for early benefits and improvements; and should monitor performance and give technical help on the identification and design of remedies.

5.38 An early task is to estimate the extent and cost of the work involved. We have not ourselves had the resources or time to do this; it is, in any case, a job for DfT with the local authorities. As an example, it is estimated that the cost of bringing the strategic traffic routes in Essex (708km consisting of most A roads and some B roads) up to a realistic high safety standard is in the order of £252m. This equates to roughly £350,000 per km. This includes any resurfacing, minor realignment, signs, road markings, crossings and passive safety measures but not major realignment or new road construction. Grossed up for the whole of England, the cost would be substantial. But the benefit in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided, would be even more substantial; and the return higher than almost any other transport investment.

5.39 It is often unclear what the speed limit is on quite long stretches of road, including those roads with a 30mph speed limit indicated by the presence of a system of streetlights. It is futile to expect drivers to observe them in these circumstances. Speed limits must be clearly signed with repeater signs where necessary so that drivers are in no doubt as to what the limit is for a stretch of road. Drivers' attention should be specifically drawn to areas where the speed limit drops by more than 20mph. To avoid excessive clutter from street furniture, consideration should be given to painting the speed limit on the road, which some local authorities already do. Authorities should also ensure that their traffic regulation orders which impose speed limits are correct.

5.40 Most importantly, it is essential that highway authorities should review the speed limits on all roads in the light of guidance in the new DfT Circular on the setting of local speed limits, which is currently being prepared. Authorities' reviews must be evidenced based and should ensure that the reasons for speed limits are intelligible to responsible drivers. Currently there are roads where different speed limits apply on different sections of the roads for no obvious reason and other roads where speed limits appear to be too low. Speed limits set purely for community re-assurance may not command respect.

5.41 Such reviews - if they reflect the new DfT Circular - should ensure greater clarity and consistency in the setting of speed limits both locally and nationally. Authorities should also undertake this review as part of the speed management strategy that they are required to produce as part of their Local Transport Plan.

5.42 We believe that such a review will be fundamental to ensuring drivers "buy-in" to the need to conform to speed limits. Indeed, such is the importance we place on this matter that we would like to set a timescale by which authorities need to have reviewed the speed limits on each of their roads. We recommend that within 12 months of DfT's new Circular having been issued, local authorities should identify their plans to review speed limits. The review of A and B class roads should be completed by 2011 at the latest.

5.43 Once authorities have decided on an appropriate speed limit for a road, they should be prepared to account publicly for why that limit has been selected.

5.44 We recommend that local authorities should consider establishing local Road Safety Forums, bringing together both the relevant authorities with statutory responsibilities, including highway authorities, the police and health authorities but also the other groups with an interest or influence, including road user groups and major employers. Such Forums would go wider than the present Safety Camera Partnerships, which though made up of elected highway authorities and the police are criticised by some as not sufficiently accountable.

5.45 The objective of these Forums - which need not take exactly the same shape everywhere but can reflect local circumstances - will be to provide a means for the statutory highway, police and other authorities to integrate their highway, enforcement and road safety work, involving other local stakeholders.

5.46 Road humps are an important element of an authority's toolkit to control inappropriate and excessive speeding in streets that are predominantly for people on foot. But they are not an unmixed blessing because of the noise and pollution they cause. We believe that there can be a tendency for authorities to put in humps before alternatives have been considered. We support the use of humps in residential areas or Home Zones but we have concerns about the installation of humps on main roads which are primarily used by through traffic. Where speed limits are not effective on main urban roads, we recommend that local authorities should look to install other traffic calming measure instead of road humps.

Enforcement authorities

5.47 Part of the deal is that drivers should drive at an appropriate speed within the speed limit and respect one another. We believe most drivers are law abiding and will behave in this way. But a minority of drivers will not, for various reasons, comply with the law even at risk to their own lives and those of other people. In such circumstances there is a need for an appropriate level of enforcement.

5.48 The proportion of resources put into traffic policing by police authorities has fallen substantially in recent years - down from about 15% in 1981 to about 5% in 2003 - and this is at a time of significant increases in traffic levels. 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, we are concerned about this reduction in traffic police. The physical presence of police on the roads encourages responsible driving, and it is necessary to deal with the many offences which cannot be enforced by automatic devices.

5.49 We therefore welcome the Roads Policing Strategy which identifies speed as one of the police priorities. It is essential that the police should press forward quickly on their commitment to develop local bottom line indicators of success in dealing with road safety.

5.50 But the police role in enforcement should not be restricted to just dealing with speed related matters. Indeed, we believe that the amount of resources devoted by the respective enforcement authorities to controlling speeding and parking contraventions is out of balance to the enforcement applied to other equally important issues. For example, the number of breath tests administered in recent years has fallen; there is too little enforcement activity applied to behavioural offences. We believe strongly that the police must widen and strengthen their overall enforcement activities if our roads are to be policed effectively, and therefore welcome the commitment in the Roads Policing Strategy to the tackling of a full range of issues, including drink driving, careless and threatening driving and seat belt wearing, as well as speeding.

5.51 With the reduction in police resources dedicated to traffic policing has come an increased reliance on technology, in particular safety cameras. The independent report prepared for DfT on the first three years of the safety camera programme's operation (2000-01 to 2002-03) found that:

• there was a 32% reduction in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit, and a higher 42% reduction in the vehicles significantly exceeding the limit (15 mph above the limit or more).
• there was a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites (including mobile camera sites where camera equipment was deployed only from time to time) above and beyond the general downward trend in UK road casualties.
• there was a strong correlation between the reduction in speed seen at a site, and the level of casualty reduction at that site.

5.52 In the light of this, we recommend that the Government should maintain its current Safety Camera Programme but that the Programme should be kept under review as part of the Government's total speed policy package.

5.53 We do, however, caution against a continuing extension in the number of cameras deployed - the answer to the speeding debate cannot be an ever increasing number of cameras. This would not be a balanced response to the problem.

5.54 Instead, we consider that any future camera strategy should look carefully at police proposals for a "hazard route" approach. (This approach is designed to deal with roads which have serious levels of casualties which occur over longer stretches and are not concentrated at particular points). Here - as in all cases - cameras must not be an automatic first step. The use of cameras must be part of a comprehensive traffic management approach to the stretch of road, including: a review of speed limits in line with the planned new DfT Circular on setting local speed limits; use of signing and driver information; the full range of effective and relevant highway design measures; and publicity measures. Cameras should only be deployed after the local highway authority has confirmed that no other cost effective engineering solution can be implemented to improve road safety.

5.55 We also recommend that the speed limit be signed both on the safety camera itself and also on all warning signs right up to the camera. This simple move would raise drivers' awareness of the maximum speed they should be driving at.

5.56 The role that the Safety Camera Partnerships play should be reviewed, with two changes in particular in mind. First, although Safety Camera Partnerships are made up of elected highway authorities and the police, critics argue that the partnerships are not seen as sufficiently accountable to local people. To respond to this criticism, the highway and police authorities for each partnership should address the issue, and ensure that their work is fully open to the local communities they serve and that this is publicised and clear to all.

5.57 Our second proposal should help improve accountability. It is that the Local Road Safety Forums we have recommended above should include the work of Safety Camera Partnerships.

5.58 Along with these changes, we believe that partnerships should be free to spend their surpluses on a much wider range of safety measures than currently permitted in the DfT Rules and Guidance for the safety camera programme, including engineering measures. If this proposal is agreed, it will be necessary to ensure that this use of fine revenues is additional to the funding local authorities were going to spend on safety related matters and does not lead to authorities diverting their existing road safety spending to other budgets. But we stress that the fundamental reason for deploying cameras must be to improve safety, not raise revenue.

5.59 We understand that in a number of partnerships, it is expected that the surpluses will shortly disappear. Government will therefore need to revisit the financial basis of the partnerships that they should be self-funding.

5.60 Whilst safety cameras are an integral part of the Government's road safety strategy, public perception of the camera programme may threaten support for it. The present system, where those caught speeding by a safety camera are automatically subject to a £60 fine and 3 penalty points (or have the option of going to court) can harden, rather than change, the recipient's attitude.

5.61 We therefore welcome recent initiatives by a number of police forces in offering those caught driving a little over the speed limit the chance to attend a speed awareness course. We understand that attendance on such courses can have a positive effect on offenders, who respond to the emphasis on being given the opportunity and help to drive better, rather than punishment as the automatic resort. We welcome the plans by ACPO to put in place a national programme, with consistent rules of eligibility and course content. We urge all Police Forces to introduce such courses at the earliest opportunity.

5.62 However, we believe that the option of attending a speed awareness course, operated to national guidelines, should be offered to all first time offenders, as an alternative to an automatic penalty. We believe this will encourage those taking part to think about their behaviour and change it.

5.63 We also welcome the Government's proposals in the Road Safety Bill to give the courts powers to offer offenders retraining as part of the penalties for a range of offences, including speeding cases which come to court. This should build on the positive experience of drink drive awareness courses in helping change behaviour.

Motor industry

5.64 The motor industry has a big part to play in ensuring that our roads remain safe and is already developing a whole range of new vehicle technology systems. These include a variety of in-car communications, Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), intelligent air bags and collision avoidance/lane guidance systems.

5.65 Technological devices to tell drivers what the speed limit is on a particular road are well within the technical ability of the industry to produce. The sooner these are fitted to all new vehicles, the better. Once a national e-database of speed limits is in place (see above), drivers will be able to know the speed limit at all times, without having to look for road signs.

5.66 The facilities to advise drivers of the speed they are driving at can operate at a range of levels, ranging through:

• dashboard information to the driver on the speed limit being driven through;
• audible or visual indication to the driver that the vehicle is exceeding the speed limit;
• linkage into the vehicle, slowing it down to the speed limit, with driver over-ride option; and
• full vehicle control.

5.67 One piece of equipment in this area which DfT is currently trialling is the ISA system which slows the vehicle down if it is travelling above the speed limit. The system can either be in operation permanently or can be selected by the driver if he or she wants it operated. A field trial using the ISA technology has been undertaken in Leeds by the Institute for Transport Studies. We welcome the evidence emerging from these trials and believe that a voluntary, driver selected system would be welcomed by many drivers (although we also recognise it will not be welcomed by every driver).

5.68 We recognise that there are costs attached to the fitting of the equipment on the vehicle but we believe this facility is one which some drivers will value and be prepared to pay for - as already evident from camera information devices and other existing products. The price per unit should fall significantly as the equipment penetrates the market, as has happened with the ABS braking system. We do not recommend that the cost of the supporting infrastructure, including the database and the transmission equipment, should fall on the motorist, as we believe that the public interest will be best served the faster this facility is in general use.

5.69 More generally, we also recommend that the motor industry should continue to support the development and of new in-car information technology systems and the development of devices for collision avoidance and damage minimisation. Again the costs to industry must be recognised but as with the ISA technology, we believe that these new facilities will be ones which some drivers will value and be prepared to pay for.

5.70 The question of On-Board Diagnostics ("Black boxes") has been discussed in the Government section. We merely record here that we hope the industry will work with Government as it moves to agree specifications for such "Black boxes" and the fitting of such equipment in new vehicles.

5.71 Market penetration into the vehicle parc of in-car information systems will be key to this technology becoming mainstream. In order to gain such market penetration, we recommend fleet operators and company fleets should take up new technology opportunities. The Forum's recent report on work-related road safety highlighted both why organisations should do more to improve the safety performance of people driving as part of their work and the strong business case there is for improving safety in this area.

5.72 We also recommend that vehicle rental operators should consider equipping their vehicles with such technology. (Rental vehicles would be a powerful way of demonstrating new things to multiple users). Doing so could act as a powerful incentive for people to use the services of those companies who fit this technology into their rental vehicles.

5.73 We hope that the motor industry will maintain the letter and spirit of its voluntary restraints on speed in its advertising (including images on internet and other new advertisement media). Whilst the industry does much good work in this area, it should consider how it might more actively engage in or support national and local Think campaigns.

Insurance industry

5.74 The insurance industry also has a key role to play as its everyday business involves assessing risks associated with particular individuals.

5.75 We hope that the industry will continue to be proactive in evaluating technological developments and their collision risk benefits and develop appropriate new insurance products which reward those who adopt the new technology.

5.76 We hope also that the industry will continue to encourage retraining for drivers at mid-career points. We hope that it will develop new insurance products that encourage, and reward, careful driving and continual improvement in driving skills.

5.77 We welcome the recent interim report and consultation paper issued by the Association of British Insurers "Young Drivers: Road Safety and the Cost of Motoring" that identifies the causes of motor accidents among the young and proposes 10 basic steps that drivers could follow to improve their safety and reduce their motoring costs. The insurance industry should also carry forward the initiatives it has already begun on making insurance more affordable for young drivers, in order to help combat uninsured driving (bearing in mind that non-insurance can become a habit, and uninsured drivers will be untouched by the insurance-linked incentives referred to above). We hope that the industry will ensure that young drivers who undertake soundly based training and testing schemes find this additional training reflected in cheaper insurance.

5.78 As discussed in paragraph 5.8, we have recommended that a more systematic sharing of data between the police, the insurance industry and local authorities on individuals' behaviour and accident causation should be considered. We hope that the insurance industry will play its part in any such review.

Motoring organisations

5.79 Motoring organisations can contribute by mounting their own campaigns on safer driving and maintaining standards of competence and consideration. They are well placed to keep in touch with the opinions and concerns of motorists and therefore to construct campaigns which respond to these. They should undertake regular polling to ascertain motorists' concerns.

5.80 Organisations should also continue their support for the European Road Assessment Programme. This programme offers a real opportunity to drive up the safety standards of our roads.

5.81 Motoring organisations include those offering breakdown assistance and other services to members, organisations concerned with public policy issues and those representing particular groups such as motorcyclists. All have a part to play.

Employers