Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RSS0056)

About RoSPA

At the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), we are dedicated to saving lives and preventing serious injuries. For over a century, we have been the driving force behind safety, from pioneering seatbelt laws to founding initiatives like The Tufty Club, Cycling Proficiency, and IOSH. Our vision is clear: an Accident-Free World. We’re a charity that leads the safety agenda, shapes government policy, raises industry standards, and drives behavioural change across all areas of life -work, road, home, and leisure. Working alongside our members, we are determined to make accidents preventable, creating a safer society for everyone.

Introduction

This is the response of The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) to the Transport Select Committee’s call for evidence on the Road Safety Strategy. It has been produced following consultation with RoSPA’s National Road Safety Committee. We have no objection to our response being reproduced or attributed.

The Transport Committee has launched an inquiry to examine the ambitions and potential effectiveness of the strategy. The Committee is examining the government’s proposals and consultations, and evidence on wider issues raised by the strategy.

RoSPA welcomes this opportunity to provide evidence. The publication of the government’s Road Safety Strategy, the first in more than a decade, represents an important step in addressing the unacceptable number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. The strategy sets ambitious targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads by 65 per cent by 2035, with a 70 per cent reduction in children killed and seriously injured over the same period. While these targets reflect a commendable level of ambition, delivering them will require effective implementation, sustained focus, investment, and coordination across government and partners to achieve measurable reductions in deaths and serious injuries.

Ambitions and evidence

RoSPA considers the level of ambition set out in the strategy to be appropriate in light of the scale of the challenge of achieving Vision Zero. Progress in reducing road deaths and serious injuries has largely plateaued over the past decade, and the establishment of clear, measurable national targets with safety performance indicators provides a framework for accountability. The success of these targets, however, will depend on whether they are supported by clear delivery plans, coordinated interventions, and sustained investment.

The strategy’s alignment with the Safe System approach is welcome and reflects established international best practice. The Safe System recognises that humans will make mistakes, meaning that roads, vehicles, and speeds must be designed in a way that mistakes do not result in serious injury. This approach provides a structured framework for reducing deaths and serious injuries by addressing risk across all elements of the road system.

While the strategy aligns with the Safe System approach, understanding of its principles is not always consistent across authorities or the public. Early training, awareness-raising, and engagement will help ensure interventions are applied effectively.

Population-wide measures, such as lower urban and village speed limits, can support other interventions and provide a foundation for protecting vulnerable road users. Scotland and Wales already use 20mph limits in these areas, and consideration could be given to wider adoption in England. Early assessment of each intervention’s expected contribution to casualty reduction would help prioritise measures with the strongest evidence, while maintaining a balanced focus across the Safe System.

Many of the measures set out in the strategy are supported by a body of evidence. Interventions focused on training, testing, licensing reforms, vehicle safety technologies, and the protection of vulnerable road users are grounded in research. Many of these proposed measures are currently under consultation, and their contribution to casualty reduction will depend on whether they are implemented. To maximise impact, interventions such as licensing reforms, vehicle safety improvements, and measures to protect vulnerable road users should be part of a coherent delivery plan.

Greater transparency around interim milestones and performance monitoring would also further strengthen the strategy’s credibility. While safety performance indicators are included, reporting and monitoring arrangements are not fully defined. Evidence  indicates that clearly defined short- and medium-term indicators are important for tracking whether interventions are having the intended effect and for enabling timely action if they do not perform as expected.

There are also important lessons from within the United Kingdom. Scotland’s 2030 Road Safety Framework illustrates the value of pairing ambitious long-term targets with clear delivery arrangements, regular public reporting, and defined delivery partnerships. The Scottish approach demonstrates that ambition must be accompanied by effective governance and coordinated delivery if it is to generate measurable reductions in casualties.

In summary, RoSPA considers the strategy’s targets to be appropriately ambitious and broadly supported by evidence. The alignment with the Safe System approach is welcome, and the proposed measures address key areas such as training, licensing reforms, vehicle safety, and protection of vulnerable road users. Successful delivery of consultation-based measures will require effective coordination and monitoring. Greater clarity on interim milestones, performance monitoring, and integration of interventions would strengthen confidence in achieving the 2035 targets.

Governance, delivery and resourcing arrangements

The strategy sets out governance arrangements designed to support delivery, including the establishment of a Road Safety Board chaired by the Minister for Local Transport and an Expert Advisory Panel. The Board is responsible for strategic oversight and monitoring of national targets and safety performance indicators, while the Expert Advisory Panel provides insight from across the sector, including local authorities, road safety organisations, active travel groups, and professional driver and rider associations. The inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders reflects the importance of partnership working in road safety.

While these arrangements provide a framework for oversight, operational responsibility for delivering interventions rests with the Department for Transport and its partner organisations. The strategy could more clearly articulate how day-to-day delivery responsibilities will be coordinated, how progress will be monitored between annual Board meetings, and how implementation challenges will be addressed. Without clear operational arrangements, strategic oversight may not result in effective delivery across departments, local authorities, and partners.

The strategy does not specify funding to support the implementation of its measures once confirmed. While many proposals are currently under consultation, interventions will require sustained investment. This is particularly important for third sector organisations, which play a vital role in road safety education and community engagement. Without identified resourcing, these organisations’ ability to support delivery may be limited.

In addition to resourcing for education and behavioural interventions, effective delivery of the strategy will also depend on maintaining the mechanical roadworthiness of the vehicle fleet. Evidence suggests that vehicle defects, particularly tyre condition, continue to contribute to collisions but are often underreported. Ensuring that enforcement activity includes attention to mechanical defects, and that data on these defects is systematically collected and analysed, would strengthen understanding of their contribution to collision risk.

Consideration could also be given to incorporating indicators relating to vehicle roadworthiness within the strategy’s performance monitoring framework. Monitoring measures such as vehicle defect enforcement activity and compliance with roadworthiness requirements could provide useful insights into the effectiveness of interventions aimed at maintaining safe vehicles throughout their operational life.

RoSPA considers that strong governance, clear operational arrangements, and adequate resourcing are essential for translating the strategy’s ambitions into measurable reductions in deaths and serious injuries. The inclusion of a broad stakeholder base through the Board and Expert Advisory Panel provides a solid framework, but effective delivery will require clarity on responsibilities, monitoring, and support for all organisations involved. Given the level of behaviour change required, both for road users and those responsible for policy and delivery at the local authority level, government engagement to explain the rationale, expected outcomes and benefits of interventions will be crucial to support effective implementation.

Supporting road users

RoSPA supports the strategy’s focus on groups at higher risk, including young and novice drivers, older drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Targeted interventions for these groups are essential if the 2035 casualty reduction targets are to be achieved.

While these groups are at higher risk, it is important that they are not seen as the “problem.” Casualty reduction will require addressing wider system factors that influence all road users, including vehicle dominance and road design. Population-wide interventions, such as adopting 20mph limits on urban and village roads, provide a foundation for other targeted measures and improve cost-effectiveness. Evidence from Scotland and Wales shows that applying 20mph as the default urban limit reduces overall casualties and serious injuries, particularly for children, and can contribute meaningfully to national casualty reduction targets. These measures should be considered alongside infrastructure improvements, vehicle safety, and targeted interventions for vulnerable groups to maintain a balanced Safe System approach.

Young and novice drivers remain overrepresented in serious collisions, particularly in the first months after passing their test. Although the strategy includes consultations on pre-test learning reforms, RoSPA is concerned that measures being consulted on do not yet extend to the post-test period, when risk remains highest.

International examples provide useful models for improving post-test safety. For instance, Lithuania operates a staged licensing system, with structured phases for novice drivers and progressively increasing independence. Such approaches demonstrate how structured, incremental learning and assessment can reduce risk in the period immediately after passing a test and provide a practical model for consideration in the UK.

The strategy’s proposal for mandatory eyesight testing for drivers aged 70 and over is a positive step. However, RoSPA believes that extending mandatory eyesight testing to all drivers could further improve road safety.

A significant proportion of collisions involve people driving as part of their work. The proposed road safety charter for employers sets out expectations for employer-led road safety measures; effective engagement, monitoring and evaluation will determine its impact.

Pedestrians and cyclists face disproportionately high risk per mile travelled, and fear of traffic remains a barrier to active travel, particularly for children and older people. Lowering vehicle speeds, improving junctions, and increasing visibility and separation reduce collision risk and injury severity, particularly in areas with high pedestrian and cyclist activity. Coordinating these interventions across high-risk locations will maximise their effectiveness.

Motorcyclists remain a disproportionately vulnerable group, accounting for a high share of road deaths. While the strategy includes a consultation on training, testing, and licensing reforms, it does not set out measures to address risk beyond the licensing system, including infrastructure, speed management, or behavioural interventions. This may limit the overall impact of the strategy on reducing motorcyclist casualties.

Beyond licensing reform, additional interventions could improve rider safety by increasing awareness among other road users of motorcyclist behaviour, including filtering and variable lane positioning. These measures support a Safe System approach by addressing the interaction between riders and other vehicles, rather than relying solely on rider skill.

In summary, RoSPA considers that the strategy identifies the right high-risk user groups and some promising potential interventions. Successful delivery of consultation-based measures will require careful design, integration, and monitoring to achieve measurable casualty reductions.

Taking advantage of technology, data and innovation for safer vehicles and post-collision care

RoSPA welcomes the strategy’s recognition of the role that vehicle safety technologies, data and post-collision care can play in reducing deaths and serious injuries. Evidence shows that advanced safety systems, when widely fitted and properly used, can prevent collisions and mitigate their severity.

The strategy includes a consultation on mandating a suite of vehicle safety technologies through changes to the Great Britain type approval regime. This proposal would require manufacturers to fit up to 18 vehicle safety technologies on mass-produced vehicles, aligning safety standards more closely with international best practice. These technologies include primary and active safety systems such as autonomous emergency braking, intelligent speed assistance, lane keeping systems, blind spot information systems and driver distraction and attention warnings, as well as passive safety enhancements to provide additional protection in the event of a collision.

While these proposals reflect well-established evidence on the effectiveness of vehicle technologies, they remain at the consultation stage. It is not yet clear which technologies will be mandated, when any mandate would take effect, or how effectiveness will be evaluated once introduced.

While RoSPA strongly supports the mandating of proven vehicle safety technologies, their effectiveness is dependent on the mechanical condition of the vehicle. Systems such as autonomous emergency braking, intelligent speed assistance, and electronic stability control rely on predictable vehicle dynamics to function effectively. Vehicles that are poorly maintained or fitted with worn or under-inflated tyres, or otherwise unroadworthy, may experience compromised system performance. For this reason, the benefits of new technologies should be considered alongside measures to maintain vehicle roadworthiness, including enhanced life-cycle maintenance, roadside enforcement of mechanical defects and public awareness campaigns.

Post-collision care remains vital to reducing fatalities and serious injuries. Rapid emergency response and advances in trauma care have improved survival for seriously injured road users. Integrating post-collision outcome data with vehicle and infrastructure information can support more targeted interventions and improve understanding of what works to reduce serious injury.

In summary, RoSPA considers that the strategy appropriately recognises the potential of vehicle safety technologies, data, and post-collision care to reduce casualties. Effective monitoring of technology uptake, integration of data sources, evaluation of post-collision outcomes, and consideration of the mechanical roadworthiness of the vehicle fleet will be essential to assess the impact of these measures on road safety.

Ensuring infrastructure is safe

RoSPA welcomes the strategy’s recognition that road infrastructure plays a key role in preventing collisions and reducing injury severity. Lowering vehicle speeds, improving junctions, and enhancing visibility and separation can reduce collision risk and severity.

The strategy includes several practical commitments: publishing a new edition of the Setting Local Speed Limits guidance, updating guidance on speed and red-light cameras, reviewing rural road categories, supporting PRIME pilot trials in new regions, and publishing an updated Manual for Streets embedded in planning policy. These measures address key areas of risk, such as speed-related collisions and hazards on rural roads. Implementing these measures early in the timeline of the strategy would provide the best chance of meeting the targets and saving lives.

The effectiveness of safe road infrastructure also assumes a predictable level of vehicle performance. Road design guidance, including assumptions about stopping distances and vehicle handling, is based on vehicles operating within legal roadworthiness standards. Where vehicles are unroadworthy, particularly with illegal or worn tyres, these assumptions may no longer hold. Infrastructure improvements should therefore be complemented by robust enforcement and monitoring of mechanical defects to ensure the safety benefits are fully realised.

Implementation will need to focus on locations with the highest risk of collisions and serious injuries. Coordinating these interventions across high-risk locations can increase their effectiveness.

In summary, RoSPA believes that the strategy appropriately emphasises the importance of safe infrastructure. The commitments on speed management, rural roads, and planning guidance align with best practice and have strong potential to reduce casualties if implemented effectively.

Robust enforcement to protect all road users

RoSPA welcomes the strategy’s recognition that enforcement is a key element of road safety. The strategy sets out a consultation on reforms to the motoring offences framework, tougher sanctions for drink and drug driving, additional penalty points for seatbelt non-compliance, and strengthened action against unlicensed or uninsured drivers. These proposed measures reflect established approaches to improving compliance and reducing risk.

The strategy provides limited detail on how enforcement will be coordinated across national and local agencies or how its effectiveness will be monitored. The impact of measures such as roads policing innovation, new powers under the motoring offences review, will depend on clear operational responsibilities, adequate resourcing, and evaluation to ensure that measures translate into reductions in deaths and serious injuries.

These measures will be undermined if not implemented consistently across police forces. Consistent application is particularly important for interventions such as speed management to ensure effectiveness across the road network.

Enforcement is most effective when integrated with other road safety measures and informed by robust data on high-risk behaviours and locations. Proportionate sanctions, technological innovation, and coordinated delivery across agencies are essential to improving compliance and reducing serious collisions across all road user groups.

Summary

In conclusion, RoSPA welcomes the publication of the Road Safety Strategy and the opportunity to provide evidence to the Transport Select Committee. The strategy sets ambitious targets for reducing deaths and serious injuries and aligns with the Safe System Approach, reflecting international best practice. Its focus on vulnerable road users, vehicle safety technologies, post-collision care, safer infrastructure and robust enforcement addresses key factors in casualty reduction.

Successful delivery will require coordinating implementation, clear operational responsibility, adequate resourcing, and ongoing monitoring to lead to measurable improvements in road safety.

International examples of staged learning and licensing, as implemented in countries such as Lithuania, illustrate practical approaches to reducing risk for young and novice drivers. These examples reinforce the importance of structured, evidence-based interventions that could be adapted to complement the Strategy’s targets.

RoSPA has no further comments to make on the call for evidence process, other than to thank the Transport Select Committee for the opportunity to comment. We have no objection to our response being reproduced or attributed.

March 2026