ROAD DANGER REDUCTION FORUM
P. O. Box 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX
Tel/Fax: 0181 451 1309
Shona McGlashan
Assistant Committee Clerk
Transport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A 0AA
(0171 219 6755) 28th January 1997
Dear Ms. McGlashan,
Transport Committee - Transport Casualty Reduction
Following our conversation yesterday I enclose the following statement which I hope you can convey to the Transport Committee for the Road Danger Reduction Forum.
Thanking you for your assistance,
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Robert Davis Chairman, Road Danger Reduction Forum.
Enc.
ROAD DANGER REDUCTION FORUM
Transport Committee - Transport Casualty Reduction
In 1996 the Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF), a body with support from over 30 Local Authority signatories to the Road Danger Reduction Charter, gave substantial evidence to your Committee on 'Risk Reduction for Vulnerable Road Users'. In the Report of this session, published as House of Commons Paper 373, we were gratified to note that a significant number of the recommendations made by the RDRF were supported by your Committee. We were pleased to note this support for the danger reduction perspective by endorsement of our recommendations, along with those from others sharing this approach (such as the member organisations of the Pedestrians Policy Group). We were also concerned by the somewhat negative response by the Department of Transport to your Report published as 'The Government's Response to the Transport Select Committee's Report "Risk Reduction for Vulnerable Road Users".
A central concern for the RDRF, and other organisations sharing a similar perspective, is the targets for casualty reduction set by the Department of Transport. (Our views on this matter have been conveyed to the DoT as part of the consultation process, and have been enclosed for your information).
In particular, we must repeat our concerns as expressed to you last year, that it is possible for there to be aggregate casualty reduction with increased danger, and also a lack of decrease of casualty rates, for vulnerable road users. Despite repeated statement of this point to the DoT, and your recommendations in paper 373, particularly as in 79 (d) and 79 (e), we do not believe this point has been accepted or properly considered by the DoT.
Furthermore, we note that the witnesses for the session on 5th February have - either as individuals or representatives of organisations - previously supported the outmoded and inadequate 'total aggregated casualty' approach to targets. While we are pleased that at least two of them have more recently taken a more progressive view, we note the absence of a witness associated with the danger reduction approach. We have at least one expert witness available for the session, and hope that you may consider inviting one.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Robert Davis Chairman, Road Danger Reduction Forum.