Transport Crucible

Emotions swamp objectivity again over the intensely contentious issue-mix of speed limits, money-making cameras and ‘improving road safety’. The latest blasts of emotively charged claims, reactions and ‘news’ are sparked by the government’s plan to lower the national speed limit from 60 to 50 mph. Roads safety Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick is “sure that the vast majority of motorists would support the proposals”, according to The Times. But, as the plan also involves a nationwide spread of average speed cameras – with automated fine issuing facilities to ‘monitor’ driver’s speed over “distances of up to six miles”, TC is not so sure of such widespread support – or that it is necessarily deserved – especially when the evidence of speed as a contributory factor to fatal or serious incidents is viewed with more objectivity than emotion or commercial interest. Mainstream ‘news’ on whether a blanket of new lower 50 mph limits will be the blow for road safety it’s protagonist claim, and thereby a “sign of civilisation” or a “fascist proposal”, or even a “Greens’ Plot” can be found here and here . Key facts from the latest DfT Annual Report on Road Casualties are these.
“Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6%. For fatal accidents these figures are 7% and 10% respectively.” Whereas, “Driver/rider error or reaction” was attributed as a contributory factor in 66% of all fatalities. Other views of this issue mix are currently flying around the British blogosphere and many are in stark con contrast to the Minister’s assessment of public opinion. So, albeit for adults only, a taste of these can be seen here. Reference to hard evidence on the causes of traffic casualties is essential for all who are serious about improving road safety. The collection and publication of such data is however a very recent development – which only started after the UK began loosing its former lead in casualty reduction in contrast neighbouring nations. A more extensive analysis of this issue mix can be found in two previous articles by Leon Mannings. The first was written for the leading journal for UK Transport Professionals LTT, and the second was one of an ongoing series of columns for the motorcyclists’ magazine, Motorcycle Sport and Leisure aka MSL.

Education may improve road safety more than focus on speed (LM/LTT 09.10.07)

The DfT revealed fresh evidence on road casualties this week raising tough new challenges for proponents of speed reduction and better enforcement of limits as the best way to cut UK road deaths and injuries.

New data on ‘contributory factors’ for road casualties includes nine categories, but overall it showed that several other elements in the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of UK road accidents are significantly more frequently reported than either of the two involving reference to speed.

The ‘driver/rider error’ category of contributory factors was reported to effect 67% of casualty incidents of all severities. In contrast, the ‘travelling too fast for conditions’, and ‘exceeding the speed limit’ elements of the ‘Injudicious action’ category were reported in 11%, and five percent of incidents respectively. ‘Failing to look properly’ was one of the factors in the ‘driver/rider error’ category, and was the most reported single factor being attributed in 35% of all casualty incidents where police attended.

For only the second year running, the DfT included new ‘why’ and ‘how’ type contributory factors data in its latest road casualties report (2006). The DfT explained that ‘a new question on factors which contributed to injury accidents’ would improve understanding of what causes road casualties – because up until 2005, when it was first introduced, road accident data “primarily answered questions about the ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ of an accident”.

However, the broader ranging evidence on contributory factors is seen by a diverse range of road user and safety groups to indicate that better education and training, at various levels, may be more effective and vital to casualty reduction than emphasis on other approaches, including those focused on reducing speed.

The DfT’s summary of findings from the latest new data on why and how injuries occur on UK roads began by stating that “Failed to look properly” was the most frequently reported contributory factor, and was linked to 35% of all casualty incidents. The next findings highlighted revealed that “Pedal cyclists, followed by LGV drivers are the most likely to be in an accident in which they failed to look properly”, (25 per cent and 23 per cent respectively), and then said that “Motorcycles are most likely to be in an accident with another vehicle that failed to look properly”.

The report also stated that ‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to “3 per cent of cars involved in accidents” and five percent of all severities of accidents were a police officer attended. ‘Travelling too fast for conditions’ was attributed to 18% of the 493 fatal accidents where such contributory factors were reported and in 11% of all severities of accidents. Exceeding the speed limit by motorcyclists was attributed to four percent of accidents, and ‘travelling too fast for conditions’ was eight percent

In all, there are now 77 contributory factors included in the report data and these fit into 9 categories, (chart 4a). But of them all, four of the six most common contributory factors fit into the ‘driver/rider error or reaction and category’. A senior DfT spokeswoman confirmed that these factors in order of frequency are; ‘Failed to look properly’, ‘Failed to judge other person’s path or speed’, ‘Loss of control’ and ‘Poor turn or manoeuvre’,” she said.

Ardent critic of recent trends in road safety policy, Paul Smith of Safe Speed said: “Just like last year, 95% of all crashes do not involve any vehicle exceeding a speed limit, confirming once more that speed cameras are chasing a small target”. Smith suggests that improving road safety is more likely from developing better “skills and attitudes” than increasing compliance to regulations – and advocates education. “We should teach road safety in schools and fully explain the attitudes and sense of responsibility required for safe use of the roads”.

The RAC foundation voiced similar concerns and suggestions for delivering progress. The UK is rightly proud of a strong road safety record says Sheila Rainger but warned that “a fall of just one per cent in KSI numbers shows that there is no room for complacency. “We must look to more innovative educational solutions, a return to on-road enforcement by traffic police, and a sustained attempt to build positive driver attitudes, as the means to cut casualties” she said, and added: “It is not acceptable that over one-third of accidents are caused by the basic error of ‘failing to look properly’,
a return to enforcement by expert traffic police, not cameras and CCTV, would also bring safety benefits. “While a camera can clock someone a few miles over the limit, it cannot deter drink, drugged or dangerous driving, or give words of advice to those whose driving, while not criminal, is not up to scratch. ??”Education and road safety training must start while children are still young. We need creative education which helps children take road safety messages to heart, and become more responsible drivers themselves when they reach driving age.”

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) echoed the education theme in responding to the DfT report. Robert Gifford, executive director, said: “further fall in deaths and injuries is clearly continuing along the right lines” but warned that the reduction in KSI was “only a small one of 1%” adding that in contrast to countries in Europe with the safest roads, Sweden and the Netherlands, progress in Britain “seems painfully slow and lacking in vision” he said. Gifford identified specific PACTS concerns including; a 20% rise in child deaths, with pedestrian fatalities in the 5-11 age range rising between 2005 and 2006, from 17 to 31, and cyclist deaths in the age range 12-15 up from 11 to 18 and car passenger deaths from 20 to 30. “Statistically, the 12-15 age range is the most dangerous age group for Killed and Serious Injuries” said Gifford, adding; “Just as the Prime Minister called for a focus on the teenage years in education, we need a similar focus to reduce the risk of death and injury in this age group on our roads”.

Speed-Demon (LM/MSL 08.10.07)

They used to say ‘Speed Kills’ on road safety posters that were sincerely expected to reduce casualties. Campaigners said that collision speed decided whether people lived or died; sometimes it did. But a new type of evidence on ‘contributory factors’ has been included in the latest DfT casualty reports. This shows that speed is far from being the most frequent contributory factor in the number or severity of casualties on UK roads.

In simple terms, the new data can be used to show that lowering speed limits and increasing the spread of speed cameras may not be the most effective way to reduce casualties. This was put rather bluntly to me this month by an avid government critic Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign group. “Just like last year, 95% of all crashes do not involve any vehicle exceeding a speed limit” and Paul says this confirms that “speed cameras are chasing a small target” instead of tackling driver behaviour that causes most injuries.

In essence the new information describes the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of accidents, whereas up until 2005, the statistics focused on the ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ of an accident. What I can say for sure is that the DfT summarise their findings by saying that “Failed to look properly” was the top factor, contributing to 35% of all accidents.

Next, the DfT said that “pedal cyclists, then LGV drivers are most likely to be in an accident in which they failed to look properly”, and that: “Motorcycles are most likely to be in an accident with another vehicle that failed to look properly”. ‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to five percent of all severities of accidents and ‘Travelling too fast for conditions’ was attributed to 18% of fatal accidents. Finally we are told that ‘exceeding the speed limit’ by motorcyclists was attributed to four percent of accidents, and ‘travelling too fast for conditions’ was eight percent.

Essentially the change in approach by the DfT was prompted by a worrying trend in UK road safety. Up to the end of the 1990s our record on road casualties and reducing them placed Britain top in comparison with European nations, and indeed throughout the developed world – but we lost that crown. Countries like Holland and even France eclipsed the progress we were making. So government told its transport department to find out more about how and why accidents occur in order to devise more effective policies to reduce them. Now, with a second year of data on how and why most injuries occur we have a growing pile of evidence to suggest that speed has far less impact than various other factors. Four of the top six contributory factors fit into the driver/rider error category, but don’t involve speed.

The RAC Campaign manager and keen motorcyclist, Sheila Rainger, says it how it is. “It is not acceptable that over one-third of accidents are caused by ‘failing to look properly’, we need expert traffic police, not cameras and CCTV”.

There is nevertheless a bottom line for motorcyclists that threatens our prospects for riding safer. Key people who shape road safety policy, still firmly believe that speed kills, and that reducing speed will improve road safety best. They say speed is a demon, and people who don’t go slow are speed-demons. And, government is powerfully driven to heed the speed demonisers – despite new evidence to challenge the their beliefs.

When the ‘speed kills’ campaign began, enforcing speed limits was a doubly costly matter for government. Traffic officers had to be paid for from limited public funds, and tough decisions had to be justified about how much time police spent catching robbers and murderers or dangerous drivers. But two things changed all that. Speed cameras arrived, and enforcement of parking violations was ‘decriminalised’ i.e. privatised. This turned the ‘policing’ of speed limits and some traffic offences that were not primarily about safety into highly profitable government business.

We do have speed demons in Britain, and some ride motorcycles in ways that put lives at unnecessary risk, and trash our image as legitimate road users. But the speed demons who worry me most are the ones who keep telling government to focus on speed reduction and enforcement, even though this will never tackle the main causes of our casualties.

But we live in a land where no one wants to pay more tax. It is hard for politicians to admit that trebling the numbers of traffic cops, at new cost, is far more likely to improve road safety than spreading speed cameras that bring them loads of cash. The only thing we can do to change current emphasis is start making louder calls for it than the speed demonisers. For the sake of all our safety I hope we do.