Introduction: the Road Danger Reduction Forum
The RDRF is a network of road safety professionals (road safety officers, traffic engineers, transport planners, public health doctors and others) who wish to develop a new approach to road safety, based on danger reduction at source. Since its inception in November 1993 some 40 local authorities have signed the RDRF's Road Danger Reduction Charter. In 1996 the House of Commons Transport Committee published a report on 'Risk Reduction for Vulnerable Road Users' where the organisation whose submission obtained the largest number of favourable comments was the RDRF .
The approach of the RDRF, often referred to as the 'New Agenda', the "road danger reduction approach", or the "movement for real road safety", are now expressed by other organisations such as Transport 2000, RoadPeace, the Environmental Transport Association, and those bodies concerned with the rights and well being of people travelling outside cars, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. In October 1996 the Chairman of Edinburgh City Council's Transport Committee stated that the RDRF's 'Is It Safe: A guide to road danger reduction' "should be compulsory reading for everybody concerned with road transport" .
Response to 'Developing an Integrated Transport Policy'
The members of the RDRF have a variety of different responsibilities and have developed different strategies to fulfil them. It is not possible to give a response to the document (henceforth referred to as DITP) which accurately reflects the views of our members on all aspects of the issues raised. Nevertheless we can strongly welcome the following extracts in particular from the document:
"We …need to ensure that where road transport is used it is used safely and
responsibly, with proper regard to the consequences for others and for the wider environment and economy. We want to see….improvements in road safety" (7.)
"There are … some issues which we can and need to address immediately, such as securing safer routes to school; increasing the amount of cycling and walking….."(8.)
"We need to encourage major developments to take place in locations and ways which facilitate and encourage the use of public transport rather than the car." (9.)
"ensuring a high standard of safety across all modes…"(10.)
And finally:
"Reducing our dependence on the car and lorry through providing genuine alternatives, and promoting greater use of more attractive public transport, and safer walking and cycling, is central to achieving a more sustainable transport system". (7.)
Elsewhere in the document the links between transport and environmental policy are made clear, with reference to both local and global problems. However, we would voice reservations as follows:
Cycling and walking: These modes of transport are a vital part of the solution of today's transport problems, yet appear to be underestimated in DITP. For example, in (6.) it states that "We need to …. make sure that public transport offers a genuine alternative to the door-to-door flexibility of the car". This, however, may be made more suitably by cycling or walking. Similarly, in (7.) the term "road transport" is apparently used to refer only to cars and lorries. Also, consideration of major developments in (9.) should refer to the ways in which - as with car-free estates - that the alternative to the car may be foot or bicycle. We note with regret that there are no specific sections on cycling or walking as there are for 'Public Transport', 'Buses, trams and Taxis' etc.
"Safety": A central concern of the RDRF has been to differentiate between the two meanings of safety: we have constantly pointed out that endangering others has been confused with being endangered. In the former sense cycling and walking are very safe and do not need to be made "safer". There are references throughout the text to "road safety". This phrase is not as unambiguous as might be made out. Real road safety means reducing danger at source to create safety for all without discriminating against the more benign (and more vulnerable) modes.
The consultation exercise: The Labour Party has already reviewed the options for transport policy in 'Consensus for Change'. We do not understand why there is a need for yet another consultation process. In general, we feel that inadequate emphasis is made on reducing dependence on the car, and particularly on the sustainable alternatives of cycling and walking.
Recommendations of Road Danger Reduction Forum
At the heart of the transport debate lies the belief - often unstated - that the ordinary motorist should be able to attempt to fulfil the promise of freedom suggested to many by ownership of a car: that they should be able to use their car in the manner which they happen to feel appropriate. Much of this use may indeed be adequately safe and environmentally acceptable. Nevertheless, we see it as essential that debate should proceed on the basis that many assumptions about the "rights" of motorists should be challenged. Indeed, we believe that otherwise meaningful debate will not be able to proceed, let alone the development of appropriate policies.
We believe that underlying any future policies there must be a change in the cultural and social acceptance of the potential for endangering others which exists at present. Once this is understood we believe that appropriate policies can succeed reasonably easily, but that without this step progress will be constantly hampered.
Specific Measures
Government should:-
1. Take necessary measures to ensure that there is no further increase in levels of motor traffic. Targets must be set by Government to assist in achieving this objective. Any further increase will worsen attempts to reduce danger and the environmental disadvantages of motor traffic. This is the key element of any package of policies.
2. Convene a Review of Road Traffic Law by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Despite a recent Review (the Road Traffic Law Review, known as the 'North Report'), the current state of road traffic law does not properly reflect a concern with actual or potential danger. The law should have easily understood principles which can both act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise drive more dangerously or carelessly, and reflect a concern for the severity of the effects of criminally negligent driving. This is not the case at present.
3. Increase allocation of resources to policing and enforcement of road traffic law.
4. Actively promote cycling and walking, emphasising the health, environmental and danger reduction benefits of shifting to these modes. The targets for increases in modal share by cycling set by the National Cycling Strategy should be more explicitly endorsed. Targets should be set to ensure an increase in walking along similar lines.
5. Change the definition of success in achievement of objectives for road safety professionals from one which is based on an aggregate of all Road Traffic Accident casualties or fatalities, to one which more accurately reflects the experience of road users. More concern should be given to measuring danger directly, or at least casualty rates (casualties per journey or distance travelled). We believe the traditional method of judging our "road safety record" can engender an unwarranted pride and failure to accept responsibility on the part of motorists, as well as reducing human tragedy to abstract statistics.
6. Review speed limits and their enforcement. This should involve consideration of alternative methods of controlling speed.
7. Investigate and promote "smart" technologies and information systems (telematics) designed to reduce danger on the road at source. At present the vast majority of work in this area concentrates on accommodating more motor traffic into the transport system. Investigation should proceed on the feasibility of installation of devices such as: automatic on-board speed governors, automatic collision avoidance systems, "black-box" type crash recorders, use of GPS (geographical positioning systems) etc.
8. Publicise and explain the costs of motor transport to the general public. At present there is a belief, actively promoted by the main motoring organisations, hat motorists have in some way paid for their right to be driving. This belief impedes any transport policy which includes increasing taxation or payment by motorists, and generates prejudice against other road users. It is important to make clear that motorists pay a small amount of taxation and/or a low rate of tax compared to other taxes, and this does not cover the costs incurred by motoring, let alone more than cover these costs or entitle motorists to "get this money back".
9. Adopt the Road Danger Reduction Charter.
10. Review DETR Design standards to discourage excessive speed -LEICESTER
11. facilitate alternatives to car commuting for new development.-LEICESTER