Written evidence submitted by Cycling UK (RSY0059)

Introduction

1. Cycling UK was founded in 1878 and has 68,000 members. Cycling UK’s central mission is to make cycling a safe, accessible, enjoyable and ‘normal’ activity for people of all ages and abilities.  It was previously known as the Cyclists’ Touring Club, or CTC, the national cycling charity. Our interests cover cycling both as a form of day-to-day transport and as a leisure activity, which can deliver health, economic, environmental, safety and quality of life benefits both for individuals and society. We represent the interests of current and would-be cyclists on public policy matters.  We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Transport Committee’s inquiry.
2. Cycling UK, and our allies in the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA, namely British Cycling, the Bicycle Association, Living Streets, the Ramblers and Sustrans), have previously responded to the Committee’s recent inquiry on Active Travel and its initial call for wide-ranging road safety evidence at the outset of the current inquiry.  Those submissions outlined the economic, environmental, health and societal benefits of substantially increasing cycling and walking, together with the need to focus road safety policies and measures on reducing the sources of danger faced by these benign but disproportionately vulnerable types of road user.  This submission does not repeat those arguments.
3. Instead, it outlines our understanding of the reasons why young and novice drivers are disproportionately at risk of involvement in road collisions.  It then considers the role of cycling experience in influencing driver attitudes and safety (particularly towards cyclists) and the role that cycle training could play in strengthening these benefits.  It then assesses the potential role of cycle training in the training and testing young and novice drivers, before setting out Cycling UK’s position on Graduated Driver Licencing (GDL) and other solutions for improving the safety of young and novice drivers.

Key recommendations

• The Department for Transport (DfT) should commission a formal study of the long-term effect that cycle training in school/college has on road safety, learning to drive and driving standards.
• Driver training and testing processes should give greater weight to cycle safety awareness, hazard perception, and to understanding why traffic rules matter.
• The Government introduce a form of Graduated Driver Licensing.  We recommend that this should include the following elements:
• Requirements for drivers to reach the age of 18, and to have been learning to drive for 12 months, including 100 hours of supervised learning in daytime and 20 hours in night-time.
• The introduction of a probationary licence period, with novice drivers continuing to face restrictions on driving at night (e.g. between 10pm and 5am, perhaps with exemptions for driving for work or education), and with passengers aged under 30 (unless a passenger aged over 30 is also on board), for their first year of driving after gaining their probationary licence.
• They would also face a lower drink drive limit (0.2g/l) and a lower threshold of penalty points they can accumulate before losing their licence (we recommend reducing this from 12 to 6 points), throughout their probationary period and for a year after gaining their full licence.
• Trainee drivers should be incentivised to complete ‘Bikeability training to Level 3, through discounts on insurance and through relaxations in some of the conditions imposed under any future Graduated Driver Licensing system (e.g. the minimum period of learning or the hours of experience they are required to gain). Bikeability Level 3 training should be mandatory for the drivers of large vehicles, and for driving instructors.
• The Government should develop a pathway towards a general requirement for event data recorders (EDRs) to be fitted in all new motor vehicles.  Early steps could include incentives and, in due course, a legal requirement, for young and/or novice drivers to have EDRs fitted in any vehicle they drive.

The comparative risks of young drivers

4. Cars are large, heavy, complex and potentially very fast machines, yet the current training and testing system allows people as young as 17, who are biologically more likely to take risks, to operate them with no minimum period of training. The licensing requirements for anyone wanting to take charge of any other comparably lethal machine are far more stringent. The proportion of 17-20 year-olds with full licences in England has been dropping over the last decade: from 38% in 2007 to 30% in 2017, possibly due to the economic situation or other social trends.[1] Nevertheless, Britain is still heavily car-dependent, and the pressure to learn to drive is still strong. From April 2016 to March 2017, around 71% of newly qualified drivers were 17-25 year olds.[2]
5. Young drivers are over-represented in reported collision and casualty statistics, and pose a risk both to other road users (especially vulnerable road users) and themselves:

• On average, 17-20 year-olds drive only about one mile for every three to four driven by older age groups (see graph below);[3] and 17-24 year-olds hold around 10% of all provisional or full licences.[4] Yet 17-24 year-olds accounted for 19% of the drivers injured in road collisions in 2017.[5]

• The first year after passing their test is particularly risky for new drivers. One study found that 18% of newly qualified drivers were involved in at least one collision within a year of passing (13% in the second year, 10% in the third).[6]
• Road deaths account for 14% of all accidental deaths, however this proportion rises to 49% among 15-24 year-olds are road deaths, a far higher proportion than for any other age group.[7]

6. According to a report on collision types, young drivers are much quicker to learn how to avoid ‘single vehicle loss of control collisions’ than how to deal with cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The authors suggest that this could reflect known shortfalls in hazard perception skills.[8]
7. A DfT evidence review in 2008 found that newly-qualified drivers admitted to significant and persistent gaps in their knowledge and skills (e.g. “judging what other drivers are going to do”), exhibited a range of unsafe driving attitudes and behaviour, and were not aware of what is expected of a safe and competent driver.[9]

Young drivers’ attitudes

8. Despite the unflattering picture that the above paragraphs give of young drivers, attitudinal surveys reveal that young drivers are very aware of their own fallibility, and are uneasy about the high levels of crash involvement among other drivers in their age group – even though they also resent the negative stereotypes they face.

• Focus group research amongst young people and parents published in 2012 found that young people they asked did understand what makes a good driver, i.e. consideration, calmness, control and awareness. They recognised bad driving, but accepted that young drivers are more risky (whilst resenting the fact that ‘boy racers’ taint young drivers generally). They also felt that a driver’s attitude is as important as their technical ability.[10]
• An RAC survey of their own attitudes to driver testing and training revealed that “Over a third (35%) of young drivers believe that the standard driving test does not test all of the skills required to cope with the demands of driving today and three in 10 (30%) did not feel confident after they passed.” [11]

9. To some extent, this apparent discrepancy between this age-group’s above-average propensity for risk-taking, and its awareness of its collective fallibility, may be explained at least in part by the fact that drivers (of all ages) are typically better able to recognise other drivers’ short-comings than their own – a phenomenon known as “illusory superiority”.

• A 2008 Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) study[12] found that: “Many drivers appeared to see the average driver as more maverick and less law-abiding than himself or herself”. This impression, the authors suggest, is probably false and its purpose is simply to boost self-esteem.
• A 2015 Brake survey suggests that over two thirds think they are safer drivers than most, although very nearly half admit to breaking traffic laws. Of these law-breakers, around half offend whilst not paying attention and the other half do so consciously.[13] This replicates the finding of an earlier survey (1986), which reported that 80% of respondents thought they were above average drivers.[14]

10. The above evidence suggests reasons why GDL may be more acceptable to young drivers than one might initially suppose.  Although individual young drivers may understandably resent the stereotyping that they face, they also recognise that some members of their age group are indeed particularly risky drivers, and that they, like everyone else, needs protecting from these excessive risk-takers.
11. There is indeed evidence that GDL may be more acceptable even among young people than one might expect.  A Direct Line / Brake survey found that 69% supported a minimum learning period before drivers can take their test (compared with 84% for people of all ages), while 63% of young drivers supported a ‘zero tolerance’ lower blood-alcohol limit (compared with 70% for people of all ages).  Whilst only a minority of young drivers supported other restrictions (e.g. on carrying young passengers other than family members or dependents), here too the gap between younger people’s views and those of the wider population was not vast.[15]

The effect of cycling experience on driver safety

12. Research shows that ‘cyclist-motorists’ are likely to have fewer collisions with cyclists, and detect them at greater distance in all situations, irrespective of cyclist visibility.[16] It also suggests that cycling experience is associated with ‘more efficient attentional processing for road scenes.’[17] The more drivers there are with cycling experience, therefore, the safer road conditions are likely to become for cyclists and other road users. Also, cyclists’ behaviour will be less of a mystery, and drivers in a better position to understand how to protect them from intimidation, risk and danger. Also, cyclists should no longer be so readily viewed as an ‘out group’.
13. Widespread, high quality ‘National Standard’ practical cycle training, often branded as ‘Bikeability’, is one of the most effective and insightful introductions to cycling available to both children and adults. It is effective both at improving the safety of trainees and the amount of cycling they do afterwards (though the latter finding is stronger for adult participants than for children, whose future cycling is more influenced by parental decision-making).  For more information, see Cycling UK’s briefing on cycle training.[18]
14. For young people, cycle training is doubtless also a good way of helping them appreciate vulnerability and the consequences of their actions, and encouraging responsible rather than reckless driving and sensation-seeking as a ‘social norm’. This could help transform peer-pressure into a beneficial influence. Practical training for teenagers could also help them discover cycling as a useful form of transport especially for short trips, and see it as an option for life rather than something to neglect once (and if) they learn to drive.
15. Yet despite the evidence that experience of cycling is beneficial to drivers’ safety, and that people who have undertaken cycle training are more likely to cycle and to cycle safety, we know only know of one study that has investigated the impact of undertaking cycle training on participants’ safety as drivers.  This looked specifically at the provision of cycle training for lorry drivers, and was qualitative only, being based on interviews with a trainer and a small number of trainees, none of whom were previously cycling regularly (with several saying they never cycled).  The study records that several participants had strongly resented being told to take part in the course beforehand, or knew colleagues who had voiced similar resentment.  Yet it also indicates that participants’ awareness of and attitudes towards cycling and cycle safety changed markedly during the course of the training.  The practical cycle training session making a particularly strong impact.  The majority of participants strongly agreed that the course had given them a better understanding of the challenges that people face when cycling, and why people make certain manoeuvres when cycling in traffic.  It also improved their understanding of why people cycle, why people sometimes do not use cycling facilities.[19]
16. Cycling UK therefore recommends that the Government should commission fuller research of the impact of cycle training on trainees’ attitudes and awareness towards road safety, and cycle safety specifically, and also their safety as drivers (again both in general and specifically in avoiding collisions with cyclists and other vulnerable road users).  We strongly expect that such research would strengthen the already-compelling case for investing in cycle training, not just for children but also for teenagers (as they approach driving age), for adults, and specifically for professional drivers (e.g. lorry and bus drivers) and for driving instructors.

Integrating cycle awareness training, and actual cycle training into driver testing and training

17. Cycling UK believes that cycle awareness modules should be developed for all trainee drivers, with a set amount of time devoted to them. They should be based on the list of key messages for drivers set out in the Appendix.
18. We further urge the Government to incentivise trainee drivers to undertake cycle training to Level 3 of the National Standard, if they have not already done so.  This could be incentivised:

• Through insurance discounts (n.b. DfT already intends to explore this option as one of the 50 actions it undertook to carry out in response to its Cycling and Walking Safety Review[20]); and
• By reducing some of the requirements of any future Graduated Driver Licencing (GDL) framework (e.g. lowering the minimum learning period, or the number of hours of driving instruction, that trainee drivers must undergo before taking their test) – see paragraph 31.

19. We would go further in urging that actual cycle training should be a compulsory component of both the initial qualifying process for the drivers of large goods vehicles, and the maintenance of their licence thereafter. Cycle training for lorry drivers is now widely available and is already integrated into the driver Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) scheme for lorry, coach and bus drivers.[21]  However drivers are free to choose which modules they undertake, and can repeat modules they have taken in the past.  Hence there is no requirement to undertake even cycle awareness training, let alone actual cycle training.  We have little doubt that this would result the benefits documented in paragraph 15 being realised on a much wider scale, potentially with very significant road safety benefits.
20. Clearly, the above would result in many more teenagers and adults requiring cycle training, which would in turn create an increased demand for the provision of such training.  We have long called on DfT to strengthen the funding for delivering National Standards cycle training, for people of all ages, in the wider interests of road safety.  For more, see Cycling UK’s briefing on cycle training.[22]

Graduated driver licencing (GDL)

21. Cycling UK strongly supports the principle of introducing GDL.  We are therefore pleased that the Government has re-opened consideration of the idea, having previously rejected it in 2015.
22. GCL schemes in other countries have achieved reductions in fatal collisions for 17-24 year olds of between 9%-60%, with overall casualties falling by 5%-32%, depending on the kind of measures introduced.[23] TRL’s 2013 report on GDL for DfT found that even a relatively modest form of GDL for 17-19 year old drivers could safe 4,471 casualties annually, yielding an annual economic benefit of £224m. The strictest form of GDL considered could achieve double these benefits.
23. GDL schemes in other countries typically adopt a three-phased approach: (i) requirements for becoming a learner drivers; (ii) requirements for drivers who have passed a provisional driving test; and (iii) continued requirements for a period of time after drivers have passed their full test.
24. We identify the potential elements of a GDL scheme as follows.  We have divided them into ‘gateway’ requirements (namely those which set a requirement before a driver can move onto the next phase, e.g. a minimum age, or a minimum learner period) and “additional restrictions”, where novice drivers face tighter restrictions on what they may do than older / more experienced drivers:

“Gateway” requirements

• A minimum age (e.g. for becoming a learner driver, and/or for being able to take a driving test;
• A minimum period of learning (n.b. this rule would typically apply in phase 1, but a minimum period could also apply in phase 2) – Cycling UK echoes TRL’s recommendation for a minimum learning period of 12 months before applying for a provisional licence;
• A minimum amount of required practice (ditto) – Cycling UK again echoes TRL’s call for a minimum of 100 hours of supervised practice in daytime and 20 hours in night-time.

Additional restrictions

• Night time restrictions, e.g. restricting driving between 10pm and 5am for the first 12 months of a driver’s probationary period;
• Restrictions on the number and/or age of the passengers who may be carried – e.g. prohibiting the carrying of passengers aged under 30, unless an older passenger is also on board (TRL presents evidence that the carrying of passengers aged under 30 increases a driver’s risk of being in a collision, whereas carrying older passengers had a beneficial effect on safety).  We recommend that a restriction on carrying young passengers should continue for a period into the final post-qualification phase of any GDL scheme;
• Lower drink-drive limit, e.g. reducing the blood alcohol limit from 0.8g/l to 0.2g/l (most other European countries already have a lower limit of 0.5g/l for drivers of all ages);
• Lower penalty-points threshold for the imposition of driving bans (n.b. this last element has already been implemented – under the New Drivers Act novice drivers face forfeiting their licence if they accumulate 6 penalty points, rather than the usual 12.  TRL recommends that this be extended to 3 years).

25. TRL found that the more of the above elements that were included in a GDL scheme, the greater its safety benefits.  It also provides compelling evidence of the safety benefits of each of these elements.  We therefore recommend that any scheme adopted in the UK should include all of the proposals outlined above.
26. We strongly advocate increasing the minimum age and (even more importantly) the amount of experience that drivers must acquire before taking their test.  Given that teenagers’ brains are still developing, raising the age at which they can sit their test from 17 to 18 would give them more opportunity to mature as non-driving road users, and encourage them to look on driving as an activity that involves a responsible ‘adult’ attitude. The minimum driving age for much of the EU is already 18.[24]  Yet, although being male and young are associated with a higher crash risk, evidence suggests that inexperience makes even more difference than being young. One researcher, for example, concluded that “the effect of driving experience on accident liability is considerably larger than that of age, and is particularly significant in the early years of driving”. [25]
27. Other research has found that it takes around 1,000 miles of post-licence experience for novice drivers to show similar physiological responses to developing road hazards in video-clips to those shown by experienced drivers who have three or more years of post-licence driving.[26]
28. There is no set minimum for the number of lessons or hours of practice.  On average, novice drivers currently take their car driving test after an average of 52 hours of professional training,[27]
29. Night-time restrictions and restrictions on carrying younger passengers are obviously more controversial.  However TRL found that these are the most effective elements of any GDL scheme.  TRL also found that the number of young drivers who need to drive at night for work or for education is relatively small.  Some GDL schemes exempt these journey purposes.  This is an option that could be considered, though TRL found that this also weakens a GDL scheme’s safety benefits.
30. In any case, the best way to mitigate the adverse effects of restrictions is to improve provision for walking, cycling and travel by public transport.  This would of course have benefits not just for young and novice drivers, but also for other groups who cannot drive for whatever reason (e.g. many older people, people with various disabilities and lower income groups), and indeed for our health, our economy and our environment.
31. We further urge the Government to consider reductions in whatever ‘gateway’ requirements are introduced as part of a GDL framework, for those who have completed a course of cycle training (e.g. ‘Bikeability’) to level 3 of the National Standard – e.g. to reduce the minimum learning period or number of hours of driving instruction.  This would complement the Government’s proposals (set out in its Cycling and Walking Safety Review[28]) to incentive participation in National Standard cycle training, in conjunction with the insurance industry, by providing insurance discounts for those who have completed level 3 cycle training.

Other proposals to strengthen driver testing and training

The driving test: theory and hazard perception

32. At present, the driving test focusses largely on vehicle handling, something that many young people do not find much of a challenge. What it lacks is enough emphasis on social responsibility and emotional control.
33. We have argued above (see paragraph 17) that cycle awareness should be integrated into the driver training curriculum for drivers of all kinds.  This awareness should be tested in the theory test.  This already poses some questions on what to do when encountering a cyclist or pedestrian in a particular situation, or the rules of a cycling facility etc.  However Cycling UK believes it should include more questions about driving around cyclists, based on the key messages for drivers highlighted in the Appendix.
34. The theory test should examine candidates not simply on their awareness of what the rules of the road are, but also their understanding of the reasons behind these rules, especially on mobile phone use and speeding. After all, passing a multiple-choice test is no real guarantee that a candidate is a considerate driver – it may merely mean that they have learnt the correct answers in advance, but still have no genuine understanding.
35. It is to all road users’ advantage that everyone is thoroughly examined on the theory behind the rules: it makes them easier to remember and follow, not just for the immediate purposes of the test, but whilst driving afterwards.
36. Cycling UK believes that far more weight should be given to hazard perception. This is because it demonstrates that a candidate actively thinks about and appreciates the likely impact of their driving manoeuvres and the safest way of carrying them out.
37. Moreover, it may be especially valuable for young drivers. After all, they tend to exhibit good vehicle control skills and fast reaction times, but are not so proficient at spotting and assessing potential risks, something that makes a material difference to their interaction with vulnerable road users. They are also more susceptible to sensation-seeking and peer-pressure, while over-confidence can make them think that they are better able to avoid hazards than they actually are.
38. According to an IAM report on collision types, for example, young drivers are much quicker to learn how to avoid ‘single vehicle loss of control collisions’ than how to deal with vulnerable road users. The authors found that: “Collisions with vulnerable road users (e.g. pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists) decline less quickly than the trend for all collisions, suggesting that more could be done to improve novice drivers’ skills for identifying vulnerable road users.” One of the report’s conclusions was that this could reflect known shortfalls in their hazard perception skills. [29]

Driving test: Practical

39. Driving at lower speeds: now that 20 mph limits are proliferating in the UK, often for the benefit of cyclists and pedestrians in urban areas . Cycling UK believes that candidates should be tested not only on their ability to interact with cyclists safely, but on driving at lower speeds.
40. Opening car doors:  Between 2011 and 2015, there were 3,108 injuries in which “vehicle door opened  or closed negligently” was recorded as a ‘contributory factor, with 8 of these being fatal – including 5 cyclists.  Given the risks that ‘car-dooring’ poses, the driving test should require candidates to demonstrate the safest way of opening a car door, i.e. the ‘Dutch Reach’, which involves opening vehicle doors using the hand on one’s opposite side to the door itself (e.g. using one’s left hand to open a car door on one’s right).  This makes it more likely that drivers and passengers look over their shoulder first.  DfT is already committed to consider integrating the ‘Dutch Reach’ into a forthcoming revision of the Highway Code.[30]  It should be integrated into driver training as well.

Cycle training for professional drivers and driving instructors

41. Bikeability Level 3 training is, we think, essential for instructors and all other professional drivers, particularly of lorries and other large vehicles because of the disproportionate threat they pose to cyclists. This should be a compulsory part of the qualifying process, although suitable alternatives should be offered to people with disabilities that prevent them from cycling.

Transport telematics or ‘black boxes’

42. Cycling UK also advocates ‘telematics’, i.e. installing ‘black boxes’ in cars to monitor the behaviour of young drivers, rewarding those who drive well with discounts. The European Commission has published a summary of the safety benefits of these systems.[31]

Further information

43. Further information on the topics covered in this submission is provided in Cycling UK’s library of campaigns briefings (accessible from www.cyclinguk.org/briefings) and in our summary and full responses to the Government’s recent Cycling and Walking Safety Review.[32]

Roger Geffen, Policy Director

Cycling UK, August 2019

September 2019

7