I s It Safe? has been produced by the Road Danger Reduction Forum, a grouping of road safety professionals committed to promoting a new agenda for road safety. This is aimed at reducing road danger at source and promoting equity and accessibility for non-motorised road users.
For further information about the Road Danger Reduction Forum contact: Ken Spence, City of York Council, 9 St. leonard's Place, YORK Y01 2ET 01904 551 331
"Is It Safe?" production team:
Author: Dr Robert Davis
Author of "Death on the Streets"
Editing and additional material: Ken Spence
Road Safety Officer, York City Council
Sub-editing: Lynn Sloman
Assistant Director, Transport 2000
Design & Layout: Mike Baugh & Justine Merrall
Special thanks: Don Mathew
Consultant on transport and the environment
Cartoons: Brick
IntroductionDanger refers to the potential of someone or some thing to do damage. The principal source of danger on the road is motor vehicles. Traditionally, road safety professionals have sought to help people cope with this danger. The Road Danger Reduction Forum seeks to reduce it at source.
Transport policies are changing. In the light of reports like that of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution there is a growing understanding that we need to reduce our dependence on car transport. However, within this climate for change there is a shortage of emphasis on issues of real road safety. Unless danger reduction becomes a central part of the debate, effective change will not be possible.
Section
1 - The ProblemIn 1987 the government set a target of reducing total reported road accident casualties to two-thirds their 1981-85 level by the year 2000. The negative side of this target is that it has encouraged many of those working towards it to take a very blinkered approach, where casualty reduction by any means becomes acceptable. When the target was introduced it was acceptable to scare cyclists and pedestrians from the roads by telling them how dangerous it was out there. The fall in cyclist and pedestrian casualties, because there were fewer cyclists and pedestrians, could then be claimed as a road safety success. As funding for road safety work was, and to a large extent still is, dependent on casualty savings, there was little encouragement to view road safety from a wider perspective. If getting everybody into armour plated cars reduced road accident casualties, that would be OK, even if ten times as many died from the pollution these caused. After all those wouldn't be "our" casualties.
U
nfortunately
this seemingly over-simplified description of a crude casualty reduction approach
is basically what has occurred. It is an approach which does nothing to provide
real safety by tackling danger at source.
Transport ministers are always very keen to tell us how well we are doing in road safety terms. They state that the numbers killed and seriously injured on our roads have fallen steadily as has the rate of injuries per mile travelled. Yet pedestrians, cyclists, older people and parents of young children are all likely to perceive that there is more danger on our roads. Surely somebody is wrong?
More car crashes...
80-95% of car crashes are not recorded as "accidents" by the Department of Transport, because they do not result in passengers being reported as injured. Each year millions of vehicles crash into each other or roadside objects. These collisions increased dramatically through most of the 1980's, both overall and per vehicle, as steadily increasing insurance claims indicate. 1
There
are now nearly five million insurance claims for car accident damage per annum.
Even this is an underestimate of the total, as it ignores crashes involving
the million or so uninsured vehicles in the UK and crashes where no claim is
made.
The chances of being killed in a car crash, compared to a similar impact in the 1950's, have declined by a factor of at least 5, thanks to dramatic changes in vehicle engineering. But this dodgem circuit of more crashes with passengers more able to walk away from them does not mean that the roads have become safer - quite the opposite.
Increased chance of being hurt when walking...
Our experience of walking has changed dramatically over the last twenty years. Between 1971 and 1990 the proportion of 7 and 8 year old children allowed to go to school on their own dropped from 80% to 9%.2 Related behaviour allowed by parents - children crossing roads on their own, being allowed to use buses by themselves etc. - has dramatically declined. Photographic evidence and the memories of the over-40's reinforce the impression of a decline in more vulnerable pedestrians (young children, elderly people and those with mobility disabilities) in the road environment.
The decline in pedestrian casualties can be attributed largely to their increasing absence from the road environment. The National Travel Survey 1992/94 reveals that in just the three years 1989 to 1992 there was a 16% reduction in the average annual distance walked per person in Britain. There is, however, one group of pedestrians whose exposure has probably changed little over the last few decades. This is the 10-14 year olds, who do not have the option of driving themselves and are less likely to be escorted by parents than are younger children. Within this age group the chance of being killed (per 100,000 of the age group) nearly doubled between 1955 and 1987.3
Generally,
increased danger has led parents to curtail their children's freedom. The restriction
on children's independent mobility has had serious adverse health effects on
them and posed additional escort and other duties on their parents.
Increased chance of being hurt when cycling...
Cycling in Britain has declined greatly since the 1950's. Overall cyclist fatalities have fallen. This reduction can be explained, yet again, by the smaller number of cyclists in the road environment. This again applies for those most vulnerable in this road user group, namely the elderly and children. Although official monitoring of cycling activity has been and still is notoriously poor, it appears that the chance of being killed or seriously injured, per mile cycled, has roughly doubled since the early 1950's.4
It is common to explain this in terms of cyclist's misbehaviour. However, all the available evidence indicates that adult cyclists are particularly unlikely to be at fault for crashes in which they are killed. Cyclists who have been riding regularly over the last twenty years indicate that they now take additional precautions. Indeed, given the vast increase in motor traffic and associated danger during this time, the fact that death rates for cyclists have worsened relatively slowly is testament to increased care by the average adult cyclist.
Fewer motorcyclists...
Mile for mile, motorcycling is the most hazardous form of transport available. Motorcyclists also appear to be about as likely (per mile travelled) to be in crashes where pedestrians die as motorists are. The amount of motorcycling declined by a half between 1983 and 19935 (with an even greater reduction among the most vulnerable 17-20 year old age range). There are now about one-third of the number of motorcycles registered as in 1963.
Between 1983 and 1993 reported motor cyclist casualties fell by 60%. This represents some 34,000 fewer casualties when in the same period overall casualties were only 2,000 less.6 However, when (mainly) young men move from motor cycling to car use the road environment does not become safer.
A principal reason why the number of road deaths has declined in Britain is not mentioned in official discussion. The most vulnerable road users have either tended to move out of the road environment (often because of increased danger), become more careful in the face of this increased danger, or both.
There are other reasons for the fall in fatalities. Improved medical techniques have greatly reduced the chance of a serious injury resulting in death. In fact, trauma specialists claim that a third of deaths could be prevented by swifter and more efficient treatment. Apart from a temporary fall in the 60's and 70's, the total number of all annual reported casualties (306,000 in 1993), has stayed as high as ever and is now half as high again as the 1950 level (201,000).7
Clearly motorists now pose more, not less, of a threat to others than they used to. In the face of this it is repeatedly claimed that reductions in overall deaths can be attributed to the effects of road safety interventions in car and road engineering and in changes to traffic law. The truth, unfortunately, as we shall see in the next section, is that such interventions have often made things worse.
Section
2 - Danger or Casualties?Road users continually adapt their behaviour in accordance with their perception of risk. Perceiving more or less risk to their own safety, they compensate by taking more or less care. This process, known as "risk compensation", is the main reason why many "road safety" interventions have failed. Here are two examples:
"Safe" cars:
According to one of the best known figures in the road safety establishment, a senior researcher employed by General Motors:
"Consider
two fictional hypothetical vehicles at either extreme of a safety continuum.
At one end ...a hypothetical 'invulnerability vehicle' in which it is almost
impossible for the driver to be hurt no matter how he drives. At the other end
...a 'death trap vehicle' - one with, say, a sharp pointed steel spike positioned
a few centimetres in front of the driver's forehead. This example has generated
lively discussion regarding in which vehicle a driver would in fact be more
likely to be hurt. However, there is essential unanimity on the question of
which car would pose a threat to other road users ... drivers in larger cars,
which are displaced towards the safer (sic) end of this continuum relative to
smaller cars, are involved in more crashes and constitute a greater two-car
crash threat to other cars of all sizes (our emphasis)."8
"Safe" roads for pedestrians:
Most of us will know which roads in our neighbourhood are safer than others, or to be more precise, where there is relatively little danger from motor traffic. These are the roads which we are more likely to allow children to cross unaccompanied, or where we do not feel so compelled to take a high level of care before swiftly crossing ourselves.
On roads with heavy or fast moving traffic our behaviour is different. We will take great care when crossing and may even avoid such roads altogether. Children are less likely to be allowed to cross on their own. Requests for pedestrian crossings have commonly been turned down because there have not been sufficient accidents or pedestrians crossing there to meet established criteria. Yet the reason for the small number of pedestrian accidents is precisely because of the danger, i.e. they are too scared to cross there. Thus pedestrian freedom of movement has been restricted, which is a questionable way of making the roads "safer".
Once the phenomenon of risk compensation is understood, it becomes clear that many road safety interventions may actually increase road danger rather than reduce it. Here are some examples:
Seat belts:
The British experience of compulsory seat belt use is one of persistent failure to achieve predicted reductions in fatalities for wearers. This has happened because of risk compensation by drivers. Feeling more secure because of their seat belt, drivers tend to take less care and consequently become more dangerous to others.
Proof of this compensatory behaviour is the nature of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in the two years following compulsory front seat-belt legislation. These rose significantly for pedestrians and cyclists killed by drivers of vehicles affected by the law, whereas the underlying trend for fatalities caused by other vehicles (lorries, buses, motor cycles etc.) did not. Other effects of the seat-belt law were an increase (against the trend) in rear seat car passenger deaths and a flattening of the decline in motorcycle casualties.9 A Department of Transport study of the effects of seat belt legislation in the countries that had brought it in, carried out before the seat belt law was introduced here, predicted that this was going to happen. The report of the study was suppressed and as yet remains unpublished.10
Vehicle design:
Vehicle manufacturers have introduced a variety of "safety features" to cars in the last decade. These features, such as ABS brakes, airbags, roll-over and side protection bars, are all intended to make car occupants feel safer. Like seat belts, they may have the opposite effect for other road users. They all increase the driver's sense of invulnerability, resulting in less careful driving and a greater risk of accident.
Crash
helmets:
In the year after the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmet law there was a reduction in the number of motorcyclists killed and seriously injured of just under 2%.11 Given predictions of an 8-12% reduction by the road safety lobby, this is a very disappointing figure. The law was introduced in June 1973, during the oil crisis, when car usage fell, speed limits were reduced and drivers were noticeably taking more care to preserve precious fuel. These factors brought about a reduction in fatalities for all road users. Helmet law had little or no positive impact on motorcyclist casualties. At the same time the chances of pedestrians being hurt in collisions with motorcyclists apparently increased.
Similarly, legal compulsion on cyclists to wear helmets in Australia has not achieved the benefits forecast by its advocates. It has instead significantly reduced the amount of cycling, with a consequent loss to public health far greater than any potential gains. Increased helmet usage by the smaller numbers still cycling has not brought any reduction in cyclist casualty rates (the number of injuries per cyclist). Indeed initial studies suggest the opposite.12
Remedial engineering
There have recently been encouraging developments in this field in terms of traffic calming schemes and the treatment of whole areas, routes and corridors. Such work can provide real danger reduction and overcome the negative aspects of engineering treatments of accident black-spots which for years have failed to consider the effect of such treatments on neighbouring "untreated" sites. The benefits gained from treatment at some sites have often been lost through accidents being shifted to other parts of the road system. It has been common practice in the past to smooth out bends or to add skid resistant surfacing. In many cases such measures merely allow drivers to go faster or to brake later. This may mean that they get caught out at the next bend or hazard, where previously no accidents had been recorded.
Road safety interventions have frequently failed due to the process of risk compensation. They have also helped produce a more dangerous environment for non-motorised road users.
The driving test
Recent research indicates that half of those passing a driving test would fail the same test taken two years later.13 The "test" functions as a sort of rite of passage after which motorists feel they are "boss on the road". The test itself relates little to the situations and ways in which most drivers will drive afterwards. It is pitched at a very low level of achievement. Road safety officers have long requested that the test should be more rigorous and include advanced driving techniques. Such requests have been turned down by the Department of Transport on the grounds that a more difficult test would raise the cost of learning to drive and reduce the number of passes.14 The price of safety is somehow forgotten.
Publicity
Advertising campaigns consistently fail to change driver behaviour. Drivers may remember the message but do not think the message applies to them. The only notable exception is the campaign against drinking and driving which has been sustained over many years. However, the success of the campaign was only possible because of massive increases in breath testing and police enforcement. Other campaigns which merely appeal to the good nature of drivers have failed completely to change behaviour.
The current "Kill Your Speed" campaign is unlikely to be successful without a greater will to enforce speed limits effectively. One of the campaign's main slogans, "At 40 miles per hour 85% of pedestrians are killed", is completely undermined by the almost uniform adherence by police forces to the Association of Chief Police Officers guide-lines on speed enforcement. These advise that motorists should not be prosecuted for speeding in a 30mph area unless their speed exceeds 40mph.
Without satisfactory road traffic law, which is effectively enforced to back them up, publicity campaigns are likely to fail. Unfortunately, our record on law enforcement is not great.
Law enforcement
How does the law deal with bad driving? Prison sentences are restricted to a vaguely defined category of "dangerous driving", generally only applied after serious crashes, although in principle it is applicable without crashes occurring. In the vast majority of cases where someone has been hurt or even killed, drivers are charged with the lesser offence of "careless driving". This carries minimal penalties and only a chance of licence loss. Prosecutions do not occur for virtually all occasions when careless or dangerous driving is visible, let alone others (involving fatigue, for example) which are less visible until crashes occur.
The resources available for traffic law enforcement have also been vastly reduced in the last few decades. Police forces give traffic law a very low priority and consequently the number of traffic police have, in the last two decades, dwindled by a factor almost as great as the rise in motor traffic.
What's been happening: a look at car occupants
Much of the above turns received wisdom on its head. But surely at least some road users have profited from "road safety" interventions?
At this point we can draw the strands of the discussion together by looking at the experience of car occupants. Their casualty rate has declined - over the last 40 years by about 2.5 times (per mile travelled) with a six fold increase in motor traffic.15 But why has this happened?
As levels of motor traffic increase, there is not only negative risk compensation, where changes in driver behaviour create more danger - as explained above regarding the introduction of seat belts - but also positive risk compensation. This effect can be seen as motorists enter an area they perceive to be more dangerous. They silence noisy children, turn off the radio or reduce speed.
The official explanation, the claim of improved road safety, misses this out - and in fact most motorists normally think of the pressure of other motorists as a nuisance precisely because they have to concentrate more.
Cars are now built in such a way that their occupants are at least five times less likely to die in a crash that would have killed them forty years ago. Roads too have been engineered to reduce hazards to car occupants. Junctions have been redesigned to reduce potential conflict, sight lines lengthened, cambers levelled, surfaces made skid resistant, barriers and raised kerbing stop cars from crashing into each other when they stray into the wrong part of the carriageway, more effective lighting is installed. Sites with high accident levels have been relentlessly engineered with a battery of these and other techniques.
In view of all these measures carried out for the benefit of motorists it is surprising not that casualty rates for this group have fallen but that they have fallen so little. The use of a casualty rate per mile travelled is also misleading when one realises how much the length of the average car journey has increased since the 1950's. Use of a casualty rate per journey for car occupants would paint a much more negative picture.
There is a dual oppression in the road environment. It is not just that pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable to motor danger, they are also a lot less dangerous to others. If they become less careful they do not significantly increase the threat to others on the road. The opposite is true of motorists. Traditional road safety thinking has defined cycling as dangerous and cars as safe. This is totally contrary to the danger reduction approach which defines the most dangerous as those with the power to do the most damage.
The very advances in engineering which are used to market "safe" cars are those which through driver risk compensation are likely to produce a continuing increase in danger to both non-motorised road users and occupants of other cars. The question we should ask when each new "safety" device is presented on the market is "Whose safety ?"
Unseen casualties from cars
Simply measuring the number of road accident casualties masks the other losses
to society caused by the increasing dominance of motor transport. These are
missed by official road accident casualty figures. 
In
terms of aggregate deaths, casualties and reduced quality of life, any analysis
of the transport system would have to include the following:
Pollution
The latest research indicates that particles known as PM10s (resulting mainly
from diesel emissions) may kill twice as many people as die in road traffic
accidents.16 These particles are only one of a whole cocktail of poisonous elements
churned out from car exhausts. Vehicle emissions are a major source of carbon
dioxide pollution, the best known "greenhouse" gas and one which catalytic
converters do not reduce.
Loss of life years from not walking or cycling
More people die from not cycling than cycling. According to a British Medical
Association report, the health benefits of cycling (greater fitness, reduced
risk of heart and other diseases) outweigh the road accident disbenefits by
a factor of twenty to one.17
Loss of revenue
Money spent on road building and in hidden subsidy to car use could otherwise
be invested in the health system, or more appropriately on developing affordable
and efficient public transport alternatives.
Loss of accessibility
Society's ever increasing car dependence discriminates against those who do
not have cars. Out of town shopping centres designed for car users and poorly
served by public transport have been slowly strangling our inner cities. The
most disadvantaged, who do not have access to these out of town centres, find
their cost of living rising as a result. This is a vicious spiral of alienation
with severe health implications for those in the poverty trap.
Another form of severance derives from the effect of increased car traffic in residential areas. Noise and road danger force people indoors. This destroys communities, resulting in higher crime and related health problems.
Traffic Stress
Driving in heavy traffic is mentally exhausting and is thus often very stressful.
The most blatant expression of what motoring does to the human psyche is "Road
Rage". Who hasn't seen examples of how driving turns rational sensitive
caring human beings into their exact and dreadful opposite?
Inefficient
Transport System
Britain's over reliance on motorised transport for freight and people has led
to the congestion which is endemic on our roads. The delays which this causes
and the pollution make this balance of transport highly inefficient. Simply
building more roads to answer current demand is not economically viable. Nor
would this solve the problem as it is now generally recognised that new roads
generate more traffic, making the situation worse rather than better.18
Reducing the unseen casualties which result from the above by building a more environmentally sustainable transport system would yield far more benefits than even the most optimistic outcome from the old casualty reduction approach.
Our aim is to reduce danger
We also believe that if danger is sufficiently reduced, casualty rates for road users can decline very obviously:-
In Denmark and the Netherlands, where cyclists to British eyes behave in a very "unsafe" manner - carrying passengers, ignoring lights, shunning helmets and wearing normal clothing, casualty rates are far lower than in Britain. Cyclist deaths per mile travelled are five times lower in Holland and twelve times lower in Denmark.19 This is not simply due to the provision of cycle facilities (which may take road space away from motorists, as opposed to putting cyclists "out of the way"), but also because of more considerate and deferential behaviour by motorists.
The sheer mass of cyclists - 57% of journeys in Groningen, 43% in Delft, 30% in Copenhagen - helps to change and enforce drivers' perceptions.20 Improved safety and a better urban environment are achieved together.
In Graz (Austria) cycle use doubled in a decade,21 part of a comprehensive programme of traffic restraint. However, because of complementary measures such as cycle priority, traffic calming and demand management, no increase in the overall number of casualties was recorded. The rate had halved.
In addition to danger reduction and casualty rate reduction, there may even be a reduction in overall casualties. With reductions in casualty rates and fewer car occupant miles travelled, there can be a resultant fall in the aggregate casualty total:-
Since 1989 York has officially followed what can only be described as a danger reduction approach to transport and road safety. With extensive traffic calming, cyclist and pedestrian networks and facilities and many other innovative initiatives, the City has seen car traffic increase at only one quarter the national rate. Pedestrian and cyclist levels have held their own while at the same time reported road accident casualties in the City have fallen dramatically. Compared to the government's 1981-85 base level, overall casualties had fallen 47% by the end of 1994, with the trend still downwards. Pedal cyclist casualties were reduced 30% and pedestrians 40% (at least double any possible reduction in use by these modes), with both on a continued downward trend.22
| Changes in road casualties in York compared with the rest of UK (%change from 1981) | Average 1990-1994 | Single Year 1994 | ||
| York | UK | York | UK | |
| All Casualties | -40% | -1.5% | -46.5% | -2% |
| Pedestrians | -36% | -15% | -42% | -21% |
| Pedal Cyclists | -29.5% | -12% | -32.5% | -12.5% |
| Car Drivers | 2.5% | 41.5% | 4.5% | 50.5% |
| Car Passengers | -16% | 16% | -17.5% | 16.5% |
| Power Two-wheelers | -65% | -54% | -77.5% | -61.5% |
Section
3 - Our CharterTransport policy...
Danger reduction policies must become part and parcel of general transport
policies. National transport policy has either deliberately or by default supported
increased car use. This lies at the heart of the road danger problem.
But times change. Our major cities, despite having significant proportions of households without access to cars, are clogged up. Rural and suburban areas are now facing increased levels of car use incompatible with achieving reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Transport policy is now high up on the political agenda.
...and car culture?
Road danger reduction involves a shift in cultural values. It means making behaviour
which endangers others socially unacceptable. This comes up against what has
been called car culture, car supremacy, car tyranny, mad car disease, carmageddon....
The culture of the car is, after all, based on the assumption that what motorists
do in a public space is really a matter for their own personal choice.
What
this means is that rational argument is confronted by prejudice and downright
bigotry. For example, as motorists we are led to think we have rights based
on "paying a tax". It should be pointed out that we don't pay a special
tax for the road, that the amount paid is trivial compared to other taxation,
that it is trivial considering the damage done to human beings and the environment,
etc. But underneath there is a feeling that we have "paid our dues",
and this feeling is backed up by propaganda from the powerful motoring and roads
lobby.
To combat car culture and to bring about real change on the ground, activists and professional road safety practitioners, not unreasonably, want a set of measures which they can pursue. To build a framework for this our forum has produced a Road Danger Reduction Charter which local authorities have been invited to adopt. Many already have. The Charter is designed as a starting point for action. It contains six statements which form the framework of an overall policy. Signatories pledge to:
Section
Four - The Way ForwardT he real goal of the Charter is an environmentally sustainable transport system which delivers true danger reduction. Progress towards this has already begun. A majority of British people recognise the need for reducing car use. The government has stated the need for sustainable transport. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG13) for transport stresses that local authorities should locate developments so as to reduce the need to travel while encouraging traffic calming, walking, cycling, public transport and parking control. Reports by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment have highlighted the folly of road building as a transport solution and have been officially endorsed.
The climate is certainly changing. However, the rhetoric has thus far been backed
up by little effective action. Witness the fact that the new National Cycle
Network has had to rely on funding from the National Lottery to get under way.
Here we reach the heart of the matter. The majority agree there is a problem,
but usually view it as a problem caused and to be solved by somebody else.
The transport policy which will deliver our goal must be broad based. It must link fully with other related areas, environment, health, education and law enforcement. Co-operation and co-ordination between different interests will be essential as all have as much to gain. The road safety profession can make an important contribution to a safe, sustainable transport system in the following ways:
Education
Education is vital to challenge and change the attitudes which decades of car culture have ingrained.
The main thrust of road safety education has been to warn people how dangerous the roads are and to train them in survival skills to cope. Most of this effort has been targeted at those who are most threatened by road danger, children, the old, pedestrians and cyclists. The reasons for the threat are not challenged. Victims are made to believe that they are the problem. The status-quo of car supremacy is unchallenged and in reality reinforced, after all "that's how it is out there !" But it doesn't have to be...
We advocate "Road Safety Education for Change" which would empower people to become agents of change, who have a right to be the architects of their own safer environment. This message in its broadest sense cuts across the whole of the national curriculum for schools. We believe that it should be the only theme that road safety officers seek to integrate within the curriculum.
Education for change should be delivered, by all means, to all sections of the community and not just confined to schools. It must include examination of how our choices effect the environment and other people. From this point we can build an understanding of the responsibility we as road users have for the safety of others.
New avenues to deliver our message are continually opening up. Health Authorities are taking a greater interest in promoting walking and cycling because of the positive benefits they will have for health. It opens up the possibility of productive partnerships to promote healthy alternatives to car travel to a wider audience.
Training
Training in survival skills has been the staple diet of many road safety officers for the last twenty years. As stated above this has been from a very negative perspective. It need not be. Cyclist training in particular should be viewed as a means to promote cycling. Parents should be encouraged to get involved with their children's training and to cycle as families. Adult cyclist training is a very good way to give drivers the confidence to leave their cars at home. The positive health benefits of cycling should not be under-stressed.
Driver training and the driving test are currently viewed by most drivers as an awkward hurdle to be overcome before realising their inalienable "right" to drive. This attitude is a product of car culture. Given the potential we have as drivers to kill and injure others, we should only be permitted the "privilege" of driving if we can do so in a competent and non threatening manner. Such driving cannot be achieved by means of the current driving test, which is pitched at such a woefully low standard of achievement. The fact that this is the only test which drivers need take in a lifetime of driving is unacceptable.
There is no good reason why the driving test should not be to an advanced standard. This would help overcome, through training, the gap in experience which contributes to the huge over involvement of newly qualified drivers in accidents. Calls for such an advance have been resisted by the Department of Transport on the grounds that it would make learning to drive too expensive and that too many would fail. We do not see this as a problem but as a solution, as it would help drivers realise how serious a matter driving really is, particularly for those they might kill. If Health and Safety at Work standards were applied to driving we would also see the introduction of regular retraining and testing of qualified drivers.
It could be argued that the poor would be most disadvantaged by such change, but as we have argued before, car culture already overwhelming disadvantages them. A much tougher driver training regime should be allied to and boost the popularity of an efficient integrated public transport system. Such an outcome would benefit those who could not afford to run a car and provide a cheaper alternative for those who could.
Highway Engineering
Work in this area is largely carried out by local government and here progress is undoubtedly being made. Local authorities submit an annual Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) in which they bid for funding for their highways work. The Department of Transport is now requesting that they parcel their funding bid in the form of a package bid, within the TPP. Only individual schemes which exceed £100,000 in cost need to be listed specifically within the package bid.23 This framework enables a move away from the old "value for money" casualty reduction approach. However, whilst there is encouragement to bid for money which will promote cycling, walking and public transport, the bulk of submissions are still largely biased in favour of road building and related work.
The package bid system is an important breakthrough, providing a framework within which danger reduction policies can be put forward and potentially receive substantial funding. However, to drive this process forward will require new goals and targets to be set for danger reduction and sustainable transport rather than casualty reduction.
Vehicle Engineering
Technology does not have the answers to the environmental problems posed by car use. Catalytic converters may reduce some vehicle emissions and cars may be becoming more fuel efficient, but most of the gain from this is wiped out by the increasing distances that people travel. The manufacture and disposal of cars and catalytic converters also poses significant environmental problems. Oil reserves are also finite.
No matter how "green" cars can be made, there is no easy solution to the problems of severance, stress, parking, planning, development, alienation, noise etc. which car culture has brought about. Nor are greener cars any less threatening to other road users. But here too progress is on the horizon if we allow it.
On-board speed limiters are currently being tested which can react to roadside transponders automatically preventing the test vehicles from exceeding the speed limit. Further into the future there are smart cars, able to sense the presence of cyclists, pedestrians and other vehicles and automatically avoid them. While these developments are all now within the scope of technology, their implementation will not be possible unless there is general acceptance of the need for comprehensive danger reduction.
Enforcement
The enforcement of road traffic law has always been a very piecemeal affair. The allocation of police resources for its enforcement can vary greatly from region to region. Changes to the law have also tended to occur in small insignificant doses. To achieve real and lasting danger reduction will require traffic and transport law and how it is enforced to be looked at in its entirety. A strategic approach would outline what we wish to achieve in all areas ... adherence to speed limits, drink driving laws, pavement parking and parking in general, vehicle maintenance, tougher sentencing for threatening driving etc. Having set goals in these areas it would then define how these would be achieved.
There are currently two main stumbling blocks which would prevent progress. Firstly the police do not have the resources to enforce traffic law as it currently stands. Secondly the prosecution procedure is so difficult and unwieldy that the increase in prosecutions full enforcement brought about would quickly overload it. With political will and the determination to push them through, solutions to these problem are available.
Technology in terms of speed cameras, smart cards, tachographs and other developments make it possible to significantly reduce the demand on police time to enforce traffic law. Indeed there is good reason for most traffic law enforcement to be removed from the police and passed to local government. This would allow much more co-ordinated enforcement of local strategic goals. It would also release police time.
To make this possible would require a reworking of traffic law and prosecution procedures to speed up and simplify the process. Retention of fines by the enforcement agency would be essential to finance their work. It would also be possible to make crashes where pedestrians and cyclists are injured offences of strict liability, with the onus of proof being on the motorist.
Section
Five - The Way Forward1. Stay Informed
The best way to ensure you know what is going on at the front-line of the transport
debate is by joining one or more of the many campaigning organisations which
are active in the field. Many of these have local branches and produce regular
news-sheets or magazines. (See the guide to campaigning groups, Appendix 1).
2. Keep Pushing Your Local Authority
As an individual or through one of the groups you will now have joined, find
out if your local authority has signed up to the Road Danger Reduction Charter.
Every local authority has been given the opportunity.
If they haven't signed up....
Ask them why not. They may be considering it. In both cases put pressure on
them to sign from as many sources as you can. If they are a highway authority,
get a copy of their TPP submission. (There will probably be a charge, although
this should be reduced for local campaign groups). See what commitment there
is to sustainable transport and danger reduction. Pressure them to make it a
substantial part of the programme. The TPP should also contain a "Road
Safety Plan" setting out the authority's overall road safety policy. This
is likely to be a very illuminating document, possibly for what it does not
say rather than what it does.
If they have signed....
Find out how they are putting it into practice. Again get a copy of the TPP.
Enlightened authorities will supply copies free to local campaign groups as
part of a consultation process. If your local authority does not consult, put
pressure on them to do so in future. Make your contribution and encourage the
full adoption of the Charter in the form of comprehensive work on the ground.
If praise is due, impart it publicly and in full measure. The same applies to
criticism.
Councils are very sensitive to local public opinion. A well organised campaign of letter writing can have a profound effect.
3. Other Local and National Issues
Find out your MP's views on danger reduction. They should have received a copy
of "Is It Safe". As with local authorities, give them praise if they
publicly say and do the right things. If not, fill their mail bag and elicit
their support.
Bring local and national danger reduction issues to the attention of the media. The level of debate on sustainable transport and road safety issues is still at a very basic level. The public are concerned about transport but remain poorly informed about the depth of issues involved. Some of the campaign groups have activist briefing packs which will advise on the best ways to get your message across.
4. Lead by Example
This really goes without saying. If practical walk or travel by bicycle.
Encourage your friends to join you. Use public transport when possible.
If
you travel to work by car, try setting up a car share and encourage others at
work to do the same. A more radical variation of this is car pooling, i.e. shared
ownership. This could be encouraged at a local level, i.e. one street sharing
a car or cars. Some such schemes are already operating in Europe. You can also
become a member of the Environmental Transport Association (ETA) which offers
the same service as the AA and RAC. Unlike them, it does not support road building
and actively campaigns for sustainable transport and real road safety.
1. Make the Charter Work
The message of "Is It Safe?" is that the most effective means of bringing
about casualty reduction is through the danger reduction produced by the implementation
of a sustainable transport policy. This should therefore become the primary
goal of the road safety professional and may well require a total rethinking
of current strategy.
If you work for or represent a local authority, please take note of all the comments in the previous section regarding TPP submissions and the Road Safety Plans contained within. (Appendix 2 contains an example of how danger reduction can be incorporated into a Road Safety Plan). Danger reduction and the promotion of sustainable transport can also be made an integral part of Structure Plans, Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans. Council vehicle fleets can become the target of better driving campaigns. Car perks (parking and mileage subsidy) can be reduced or replaced with substantial pro cycling, walking and public transport alternatives. Some authorities are setting up green transport plans for their employees and other businesses.
Local authorities should also seek to be involved at the centre of the development of national strategies for walking and cycling. Many already play a crucial role in the promotion and subsidy of first class public transport. This can be expanded or made more appealing by measures to actively discourage private motor transport, i.e. the re-distribution of road space, congestion charging, increased car parking charges.
2. Work With Others
Develop alliances with those in health promotion, campaign groups and all those
who could advance the aims of the Charter. Often this may mean some persuasion.
Unfortunately many health promotion units are still stuck in the realm of cycle
helmets and high visibility clothing. "Is It Safe?" is a tool to help
you spread the word.
The future is getting brighter. The debate is slowly but surely moving onto our territory. But we dare not just sit back and wait for it to happen. The responsibility for shaping the environment our children will inherit lies in our hands. They deserve a safer environment NOW.
ALARM UK (0171 582 9279)
An alliance against damaging road schemes which brings together most of the
UK's anti-road groups.
Council for the Protection of Rural England (0171 976 6433)
CPRE works for a beautiful and living countryside. It is active locally, nationally
and internationally; there are local groups across the country. On transport
CPRE specialises in transport related work on countryside, planning, aggregates
and energy.
Cycle Campaign Network, 54-57 Allison Street, Digbeth, Birmingham B5 5TH
Network for British cycle campaign groups. Will have information about your
local group.
Cyclists' Touring Club (01483 417217)
Largest cycling organisation in the country. Promotes travel by bicycle and
defends cyclists' rights.
Environmental Transport Association (01932 828882)
The road rescue organisation which campaigns for greener transport.
Friends of the Earth (0171 490 1555)
Friends of the Earth campaigns on a wide variety of environmental issues and
has local groups across the country.
Greenpeace (0171 354 5100)
Involved in non-violent direct action and hard-hitting campaigns on a variety
of environmental issues.
National Society for Clean Air (01273 326313)
Campaigns on air pollution and noise from road transport, and other environmental
protection issues.
Pedestrians Association (0171 490 0750)
Campaigns for an improved environment for pedestrians.
Road Alert! (01635 521770)
Networks information on campaigns of non-violent direct action against road
schemes.
RoadPeace (0181 964 1021)
National road crash victims charity. Offers victim support and education about
reducing road danger.
Sustrans (0117 926 8893)
Designs and builds traffic free routes for cyclists, walkers and disabled people.
Behind the National Cycle Route Network. Also currently involved in a Safe Routes
to School project with three local authorities to encourage walking and cycling
to school.
Transport 2000 (0171 388 8386)
The national environmental transport campaign working to promote a coherent
and environmentally sensitive transport policy.
Appendix
Two 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The road safety policies for the new Council are based on North Yorkshire's existing Road Safety Plan and York City Council's existing policies regarding road safety and other related issues. The justifications for these policies are summarised under the following section headings: Planning, Engineering, Education, Training and Publicity and Enforcement.
2.0 PLANNING
2.1 POLICY RS1:
THAT AN ANNUAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN BE ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COUNCIL TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE ANNUAL TRANSPORT POLICIES AND PROGRAMME SUBMISSION
2.1 The Road Safety Plan will be formulated by the Development and Environment Directorate who will advise and make recommendations on its implementation.
2.2 POLICY RS2:
THAT THE DISTRICT COUNCIL WILL FORMALLY ADOPT THE ROAD DANGER REDUCTION CHARTER AS THE BASIS FOR DEVELOPING ROAD SAFETY POLICY
2.3 York City Council was the first of, to date, nearly forty local authorities in the United Kingdom to adopt the Road Danger Reduction Charter. The Charter is being promoted by the Road Danger Reduction Forum, a grouping of mainly local authority road safety professionals. The Forum, formed in early 1994, is seeking to develop a new approach to road safety based on reducing danger at source while promoting equity and accessibility for non-motorised road users. The York City Council Road Safety Officer is a member of the Forum steering group. The Road Danger Reduction Charter pledges the Council to:
1. Seek a genuine reduction in danger for all road users by identifying and controlling the principal sources of threat.
2. Find new measures to define the level of danger on our roads. These would more accurately monitor the use of and threat to benign modes.
3. Discourage the unnecessary use of private motor transport where alternative benign modes or public transport are equally or more viable.
4. Pursue a transport strategy for environmentally sustainable travel based on developing efficient, integrated public transport systems. This would recognise that current levels of motor traffic should not be increased.
5. Actively promote cycling and walking, which pose little threat to other road users, by taking positive and co-ordinated action to increase the safety and mobility of these benign modes.
6. Promote the adoption of this charter as the basis of both national and international transport policy.
2.4 This Policy will of course have regard for the special needs of those living in the rural parts of the District.
2.5 POLICY RS3:
WITH DUE REGARD TO THE NATIONAL CASUALTY REDUCTION TARGET THE NEW AUTHORITY WILL SET REALISTIC TARGETS FOR REDUCING ROAD ACCIDENT CASUALTIES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REDUCING ROAD DANGER
2.6 In 1987 the government set a casualty reduction target of reducing all casualties by one third, from the average for 1981-1985, by the year 2000. Whilst data exists detailing the level of casualties in the York City and North Yorkshire County Council areas during 1981-85 this cannot be broken down for the new District Council area. Thus setting a one third reduction target for the new Council would be difficult, however, this should not deter us from setting our own targets.
2.7 A priority for the District Council would be to establish an effective means of monitoring all levels of road user activity, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, throughout the new authority area. This would be invaluable in setting casualty reduction targets for all which would be achieved through a genuine reduction in road danger.
3.0 ENGINEERING
3.1 POLICY RS4:
THAT THE COUNCIL WILL MAINTAIN A DATABASE OF REPORTED ROAD INJURY ACCIDENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT
3.2 Defining what constitutes a poor accident record will be a priority for the authority. Whilst the starting point for this would be a high number of accidents, the prioritisation of work on such sites could also take into account such factors as road type, traffic volume and speed and modal split. This would thus fit in with the objectives of the Road Danger Reduction Charter and the Transportation Strategy.
3.3 Funding for remedial works on sites identified through this process will be requested through the annual package bid.
3.4 POLICY RS5:
THAT AN ACCIDENT REDUCTION STRATEGY BE PRODUCED FOR THE DISTRICT COUNCIL WHICH WILL BE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVIEW
3.5 This will be formulated as part of the Transportation Strategy and will thus act in support of its overall aims. It will include various initiatives such as speed management strategy, cycle safety schemes and pedestrian crossing facilities.
3.6 POLICY RS6:
THAT A COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY AUDIT SYSTEM BE ESTABLISHED FOR ENGINEERING SCHEMES
3.7 The tightening of health and safety legislation is making safety audit a critical part of engineering design. It will be a priority for the District Council to define the scope of the safety audit process.
4.0 EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLICITY
4.1 POLICY RS7:
THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLICITY BE RECOGNISED IN THE ACCIDENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
4.2 Road safety education, training and publicity has an important role to play in the achievement of the aims of the Accident Reduction Strategy. In line with the Road Danger Reduction Charter such work should strive to emphasise that whatever mode of transport we choose we are responsible not only for our own safety but for that of anyone for whom our transport choice should pose a threat.
4.3 POLICY RS8:
THAT ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION POLICY SHOULD BE BROADLY BASED ON THE AIMS OF THE ROAD DANGER REDUCTION CHARTER
4.4 Every school should be encouraged to develop its own road safety policy. This would establish guide-lines for the safe use of all transport modes in and around the school. Skills education would be established as an extracurricular activity with the provision of resources to teach road safety education for change within the curriculum. This would serve more often than not to formalise and place on a more effective level the current practice within most schools.
4.5 To support this programme of education the Council's road safety staff would continue their involvement in the production of new resources for integrating education for change within the curriculum.
4.6 POLICY RS9:
THAT THE DISTRICT COUNCIL MAINTAINS AND DEVELOPS THE PROGRAMMES OF ROAD SAFETY TRAINING CURRENTLY CARRIED OUT BY THE FORMER CITY COUNCIL AND NYCC
4.7 Cyclist training is important not only for the safety skills it teaches but also for the part it plays in maintaining the place of cycling as a transport mode. Thus the provision of training fully supports the aims of the Transportation Strategy. In view of this in 1993 York City Council set up a team of professional cyclist trainers to provide child cyclist training courses in schools. In 1994 the service provided by the team was expanded to include adult training. Financially the children's training scheme was paid for partly through charging roughly £8 per course per pupil but mainly through a subsidy of £2 per instructor per hour received from the County Council. This latter was up to maximum of £3,000 per annum. The adult training was self financing.
4.8 All schools will be encouraged to participate fully in a safer routes to school strategy which will integrate with planning, engineering, publicity and enforcement policies.
4.9 POLICY RS10:
THAT ROAD SAFETY PUBLICITY SHOULD BE PREPARED WHICH COMPLEMENTS OTHER WORK AND INTEGRATES WITH THE COUNCIL'S BROADER ROAD SAFETY AIMS
4.10 Publicity can play an important role in reinforcing Council road safety policy. The main problem with "stand alone" publicity campaigns is that to be successful they need to be either intensive or prolonged. An approach like this can be very expensive. Given limited resources the most effective approach for the Council would be to prepare publicity materials which complement the ongoing road safety work of its officers. This would include work in engineering, education, training and encouragement. Such publicity should be considered at the outset and as part of any such work.
5.0 ENFORCEMENT
5.1 POLICY RS11:
THAT IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE POLICE A CO-ORDINATED PROGRAMME OF ENFORCEMENT BE ESTABLISHED WHICH COMPLEMENTS THE AIMS OF THE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO SPEED REDUCTION
5.2 Regular liaison will target particular problem areas where high speeds warrant enforcement action prior to the design and implementation of engineering measures to reduce speed.