Written evidence submitted by Brake (RSS0092)
Brake is a national road safety charity, and since 1995, we have been working to stop the tragedy of road deaths and serious injuries in road crashes, make streets safe and healthy places for all, and support road crash victims.
Our vision is a world with zero road death and injury, where we can all move in a safe and healthy way, whoever we are and however we travel.
The new Road Safety Strategy to tackle the unacceptable level of road death and injury on our roads marks a turning point. For the first time in 10 years, road safety is back on the national agenda. We welcome a new framework and commitment to the Safe System and action to prevent crashes and injuries, and save lives, but we urge the Government to be brave and bold when it comes to the next steps. We submit our written evidence recognising the devastating impact road crashes have on families and communities.
We urge the Government to view this strategy through the eyes of those families: through the eyes of every parent, grandparent, child, brother, sister or friend whose life has been torn apart in the aftermath of a road crash. A new Road Safety Strategy is an important first step, but its success depends on what happens next. Consultation must lead to evidence-based action to ensure the Government’s bold ambition is realised, with tangible outcomes that save lives and prevent more families from experiencing devastating loss.
Every year, more than 1,600 people die on roads in Britain and a further 28,000 suffer serious, life-changing injuries.[1] The numbers are shocking, but road casualties are not just statistics. Behind every number is a family in turmoil, a grief-stricken family trying to navigate its way through the complex procedures that often follow a road crash. Behind every number is a family whose lives have been changed forever in an instant. Every year at Brake, we support more than 2,000 families who have been bereaved or injured in a road crash through our National Road Victim Service, so we see first-hand the trauma and devastation that follows a road death or injury for everyone involved.
The UK has made no significant progress towards reducing road casualties over the last decade, and we applaud the Government for setting ambitious targets to address this.
Road deaths and injuries are not inevitable, they are preventable tragedies. For too long, road death and injury has been normalised by society, rather than being viewed as the shocking, unacceptable catastrophe it really is. We fervently believe that the only acceptable number of deaths and serious injuries is zero, and we believe this is achievable. We support the Government’s long-term vision of eradicating road deaths and serious injuries, and urge them to frame this as an urgent public health measure. We believe the targets set will be valuable in galvanising decision-makers into action, helping to drive progress towards implementing the solutions we know will help achieve that vision.
Brake believes it is essential that central government provides clear leadership for road safety policy and delivery, with ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of the road network. Progress in reducing deaths and serious injuries has stagnated over the past decade, demonstrating that current approaches are not delivering the reductions required and that strengthened governance is urgently needed.
We welcome the governance structures outlined within the new Road Safety Strategy. They are a positive step forward. However, without additional detail to fully understand the arrangements, it’s difficult to judge whether they are robust enough to achieve the strategy’s targets. Key elements, including clear role definitions, accountability mechanisms, reporting structures and a timeframe for implementation, have yet to be published. We believe involving and engaging with the wider road safety sector at this stage of development would be beneficial.
How the Road Safety Board and Expert Advisory Panel interact will be critical to the success of the strategy. The Road Safety Investigation Branch and access to timely, high-quality data represent important and necessary advances. To be effective, these bodies must be closely connected to regional and local practice so that national decision-making is informed by real-world risks and practice.
Brake supports a degree of flexibility at local level, enabling practitioners to respond to location‑specific risks. However, we believe that control over core aspects of road safety policy, for example, speed management, should be held nationally to ensure consistent, evidence‑led decision-making and to avoid a postcode lottery in road risk. The introduction of 20mph speed limits in Wales is a good example of national policy and investment, where there have been 1,270 fewer road casualties in the two years since the default 20mph speed limit came into force.[2]
Finally, the Strategy provides limited information on how the necessary investment will be delivered. Clear commitments to long‑term, ring‑fenced funding and specialist capacity-building will be essential if the targets are to be achieved.
To meet the targets set out in the Strategy, we would need to achieve sustained, year‑on‑year reductions in deaths and serious injuries of a scale only seen following major systemic interventions, such as the introduction of mandatory seat‑belt use in 1983 or the unique circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic. This level of change will not be delivered through consultation and discussion alone – it requires a shift to decisive action, accelerated implementation, and meaningful system‑wide measures.
We welcome the Government considering important measures to address the risks associated with young drivers, including a minimum learning period before taking a driving test. We agree this is an important first step towards strengthening our current licensing system. We are also delighted to see the Government commit to life-saving vehicle safety technology, such as intelligent speed assistance and automated emergency braking, being fitted as standard on all new cars. Brake has long campaigned for action on these two important areas.[3]
We also welcome proposals for tougher penalties for driving offences, including drink-driving, and a reduction in the legal drink-drive limit to align England and Wales with Scotland and the rest of Europe. We are pleased to see that the Government is considering mandatory sight tests for drivers aged over 70, and reforms to motorcycle training and testing.
We applaud the launch of a national pilot to address work-related road risk, and recognition that around a third of road deaths involve someone driving or riding for work. Alongside others, we will continue to raise awareness of the risks associated with driving for work, and through our annual awards programme we will celebrate the hard work and dedication of fleet organisations that are striving to prevent road deaths and injuries and reduce pollution caused by their vehicles.
While this strategy signifies a major step forward, there are areas where we believe greater impact could be achieved.
First, the inclusion of a Road Safety Investigation Branch in the strategy is a very welcome addition. Drawing on linked police and healthcare data to identify the root causes of road crashes, and target interventions more effectively, is exactly the kind of systemic learning we need. This sits firmly within the post-crash component of the Safe System approach to road safety and will undoubtedly help prevent future tragedies.
However, post-crash care is about more than investigation. It’s also about supporting the families whose lives are devastated by road crashes. That commitment is missing from the strategy, and addressing it is vital. For too long, road victims have lacked parity with other victim groups.
Excellent services exist, like Brake’s National Road Victim Service, which provides specialist, trauma-informed care to more than 2,000 families every year, but services like ours operate without central government support, relying on fragmented and insecure funding.
A truly comprehensive strategy would close this gap by committing to sustainable, nationwide provision for road victims. Scotland has shown leadership with dedicated investment in road victim support, and this is an approach that should now be matched nationally. We welcome the announcement that the Ministry of Justice will consult on a new Victims’ Code in due course. Our Road Victims’ Charter demands essential actions to ensure that everyone affected by road crashes receives the respect, support and justice they deserve, and we look forward to having the opportunity to engage with this consultation.
Secondly, while we are pleased to see the Government opening consultations about a minimum learning period for learner drivers, we are particularly concerned that they have not made a firm commitment to additional measures to address young driver risk. Every year in the UK, nearly 5,000 people are killed or seriously injured from a crash involving a young driver, with young, newly qualified drivers at particular risk when carrying peer-age passengers and driving at night.[4] We implore the Government to go further, and provide clarification about what more they can do to strengthen the licensing system, as there is clear and undeniable evidence from other countries that this would be effective.
Last, but by no means least, we consider the apparent absence of national speed management measures to be an oversight. We know from the latest Department for Transport casualty statistics that speed is a factor in almost three-fifths of road deaths, whether that’s drivers breaking speed limits or driving too fast for the road conditions.[5] Mandating vehicle safety technology such as intelligent speed assistance and automated emergency braking will go some way to mitigating the risks associated with driver speed, but further national measures will be absolutely essential to meeting the Government’s targets to reduce road death and injury.
In conclusion, we welcome the announcement of this Road Safety Strategy, its bold ambition, national targets and a clear desire to ‘do the right thing’ to address the unacceptable levels of death and injury on our roads. This is an important step forward for road safety in Britain. However, the overall success of the strategy will depend on effective delivery and continued dialogue to refine areas that remain underdeveloped, such as post-crash support, young driver risk and speed management.
Brake believes that many of the measures set out in the Strategy are grounded in established research, including international best practice and long‑standing evidence on effective approaches to road safety. However, there are areas where the evidence base is stronger than the measures proposed.
In particular, the evidence around young and novice drivers strongly supports more comprehensive interventions, such as a wider-reaching progressive licensing system, than those currently included in the Strategy. Similarly, speed management is an area that appears to have been underplayed in the Strategy, with extensive, consistent evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of lower speeds in reducing casualties. The Strategy does not yet reflect the full weight of this evidence.
While the Government’s proposals are generally well-aligned with research, Brake believes there is opportunity to make greater use of the strongest available evidence to achieve larger reductions in deaths and serious injuries.
f. What measures would be most effective in reducing deaths and serious injuries involving new and novice drivers? What are the likely impacts of introducing a minimum learning period for learner drivers?
Every year in Britain, around 5,000 people are killed or seriously injured from a crash involving a young driver.
It’s not just young drivers themselves who become road victims. Half of those killed or seriously injured in crashes involving a young driver are other road users, including pedestrians, and drivers and passengers in other vehicles.
Young male drivers are at greatest risk. Two-thirds (65%) of those killed or seriously injured from a collision involving at least one younger car driver are male. One-third (33%) of those casualties were male and aged 17–24.
Evidence from other countries supports a stronger, progressive licensing system to safeguard young novice drivers, helping them gain skills and experience gradually, while protecting against some of the biggest risks like driving at night or with same-age passengers.[6],[7]
A number of countries and regions across the world have implemented progressive licensing in various forms. In all cases, it has successfully reduced the numbers of people killed or injured in road crashes involving young drivers.[8] We implore the British Government to follow the lead of countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.
It has been estimated that a stronger licensing system could prevent 4,471 road casualties and save £224 million each year if introduced in Britain.[9] There is also good evidence that additional hazard perception training is another effective way to improve driver safety.[10],[11]
We often hear that road death and injury is ‘inevitable’, and that a stronger licensing system would restrict young people’s freedom to travel or access to work or education.
It’s crucial that we reframe this narrative, helping people understand that changes to licensing are vital to enable young drivers and everyone they share the road with to be safe. Stopping crashes involving young drivers not only prevents death and catastrophic injuries and the trauma they cause, but it also prolongs lives, reduces the burden on our public health system, and has many other societal and economic benefits.
It’s clear that young people also need to be able to access safe, reliable, affordable public transport, wherever they live, so they can travel independently. This is especially true in rural areas where public transport is less available.
New research by Brake reveals strong public support for change. In a nationally representative public opinion survey involving 3000 people, 72% of respondents told us they think changing the licensing system is essential to prevent deaths and injuries from collisions involving young drivers, and 77% support a stronger licensing system in Britain.
We also found:
- 54% of 18–24-year-olds know someone who has been in a crash involving a young driver
- 78% agree young drivers need greater protection when they first get their driving licence
- 83% agree learner drivers should have a minimum number of hours of driving practice before taking their test.
- 70% think learner drivers should have a minimum learning period before taking their driving test.
- 74% agree that it’s OK for newly qualified young drivers to wait a few months before driving by themselves at night
- 73% agree that it’s OK for newly qualified young drivers to wait a few months before carrying peer-age passengers
- 71% believe government should prioritise the safety of all road users over young people's freedom to travel.
- 79% said they think the Government has a responsibility to take action to save lives and 68% would like their MP to do more.
We urge the Government to listen to this compelling evidence, which supports the implementation of safeguards for young drivers for an agreed period, with a firm pledge to:
- Implement a minimum learning period of at least six months, giving novice drivers experience of a range of driving conditions.
- Implement a minimum number of hours of learning practice before being eligible to sit a practical driving test.
- Prohibit young drivers from carrying peer-aged passengers for at least six months after passing their practical driving test, unless an older adult is also in the vehicle.
- Prohibit young drivers from driving at night for at least six months after passing their practical test.
- Mandate enhanced driver education, including additional hazard perception training, before taking a practical driving test.
One in 5 drivers crash within a year of passing their test due to a combination of age and inexperience. Typical brain development means young drivers are often more likely to take risks – like speeding or dangerous overtaking – and less able to regulate their impulses or understand the consequences of their decisions. Lack of experience limits a driver’s ability to spot hazards and control their vehicle when unexpected situations arise.
Evidence from other countries supports a minimum learning period for young drivers to gain skills and experience over a longer period of time, with proven results as detailed below.
- Australia – 55% fewer fatal crashes among probationary drivers (New South Wales) and 31% fewer crashes involving drivers aged 18-20 (Victoria) since graduated driver licensing (GDL) was introduced.
- Canada – 83% fewer deaths among drivers aged 16 to 19 since GDL was introduced in the 1990s.
- New Zealand – 23% fewer collisions resulting in injuries to 15 to 19-year-olds and 12% fewer collisions resulting in injuries to 20–24-year-olds since GDL was introduced in 1987.
- United States – GDL has been in place in all states and in the District of Columbia since 1996. New Jersey has seen 14% fewer collisions and 25% fewer fatal collisions involving 17-year-old drivers.
h. What should the proposed work-related road safety charter require of organisations that employ people to drive or ride for work?
We applaud the proposed work-related road safety charter to address work-related road risk, and the recognition that around a third of road deaths involve someone driving or riding for work.
Responsible organisations have robust policies and procedures to manage road risk. This includes buying or leasing the safest vehicles possible and carrying out regular risk assessments to identify and address risky driving behaviour.
The proposed work-related road safety charter should require every organisation that employs people who drive or ride for work to have good policies and procedures to manage road risk associated with:
Driver behaviour contributes to many crashes and is often one of the main contributory factors. Speeding and driving while tired, distracted or under the influence of drugs or alcohol cause many serious crashes. The work-related road safety charter should require organisations to introduce a road safety culture backed up by effective driver training and education, to keep drivers and the public as safe as possible on roads. This includes robust policies and procedures to address the risks associated with speeding, driver distraction, drink- and drug-driving.
Safe vehicles are vital for safe and healthy mobility. New vehicle technology can help prevent crashes and prevent death or serious injury if a crash occurs. The work-related road safety charter should require organisations to put safety first and always buy, hire or lease the safest, most environmentally friendly vehicles available; it should also require them to carry out regular inspection and maintenance, to help keep their drivers and other road users as safe as possible on the roads. All vehicles driven by their employees, including employees’ own vehicles, should conform to the same high standards for safety. Policies should clearly state when vehicles will end their life of service.
Many of the people killed on roads are vulnerable road users – including children, old people and people who walk or cycle. Fatal and serious injury crashes are more common on urban and rural roads than major roads like motorways or dual carriageways. Demanding work targets encourage drivers to take unnecessary risks, such as speeding, while tired drivers are at greater risk of being involved in a crash.
The work-related road safety charter should require organisations to reduce risk by enabling active travel and shared journeys, reducing the distance their drivers have to travel, and avoiding routes that are used by people who walk or cycle. They should set realistic schedules that put safety before performance targets, raise awareness of the risks of speeding and driving while tired, and make sure drivers have time for rest breaks.
Reporting, recording and analysing crash data can help to identify risks before a serious crash occurs. By understanding the causes of crashes, we can help prevent future crashes from occurring. If an employee is involved in a crash, it’s important to put their safety and welfare first.
The work-related road safety charter should require organisations to have policies supporting drivers to report all crashes they are involved in; fit telematics systems to vehicles to identify and address risky driving behaviour; and record as much data as possible from crashes involving their vehicles. They should also offer specialist support to employees, their families or other people affected by crashes involving their vehicles.
k. How can Government maximise the safety benefits of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and ensure they are used safely and appropriately?
We are delighted to see that the government has committed to making life-saving vehicle safety technology mandatory for all new vehicles, by adopting the latest vehicle General Safety Regulation updates to the existing GB Type Approval Scheme.
We know this is a straightforward, effective way to save hundreds of lives and many thousands of serious injuries from road crashes. As well as mandating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) with features such as intelligent speed assistance, advanced emergency braking and driver-drowsiness-detection systems, the regulations also cover key measures that improve vehicle crash performance and will significantly improve the protection of women and the elderly in the event of a collision.
However, we know that we need to go further. Although we welcome this latest commitment to make life-saving features mandatory, we know that there is a widespread lack of understanding about the technology, which is already available on many vehicles on our roads. Recent research by Brake revealed that new safety systems are not well understood or appreciated by drivers. Different manufacturers use many different names for safety features, making it difficult for consumers to understand what features are in their car, and compare the safety benefits. There is limited training and support offered to those working in car showrooms, and no official advice from government, manufacturers or insurers either.
It's imperative that government doesn’t introduce these regulations and consider its work done. We need to go further to increase awareness, adoption and acceptance of these new technologies. We therefore make the following additional recommendations:
- A call for regulation to standardise the terminology used to describe vehicle safety features, to prevent confusion and enable consumers to understand and compare safety benefits.
- We call on those with the power to influence others, including driving instructors, employers, insurers, vehicle manufacturers and sellers, to do all they can to educate drivers (including learner drivers and anyone who drives for work) about the safety benefits of vehicle safety technology, to promote acceptance and use.
- We recommend that information about whether vehicle safety technology has been enabled or deactivated should be gathered as part of the forensic collision investigation following any fatal or serious injury crash, and this evidence should be submitted as part of the police report.
- We also call on insurers to increase uptake of features such as intelligent speed assistance through insurance policies that stipulate that these safety features should not be switched off.
- We call on organisations that collect data from connected vehicles and infrastructure to work together to better understand this data, and how it can be used to improve road safety.
- We also believe there should be tougher sentences for any driver who causes a death or serious injury in a crash that could have been prevented if they hadn’t chosen to switch off vehicle safety features.
m. How should evidence on the relationship between speed limits and safety influence new guidance? Does the Strategy strike the correct balance between a nationally-set direction and local decision-making regarding speed?
We consider the apparent absence of national speed management measures to be an oversight. We know from the latest Department for Transport casualty statistics that speed is a factor in almost three-fifths of road deaths, whether that’s drivers breaking speed limits or driving too fast for the road conditions.[12] Mandating vehicle safety technology such as intelligent speed assistance and automated emergency braking will go some way to mitigating the risks associated with driver speed, but further national measures will be absolutely essential to meeting the Government’s targets to reduce road death and injury.
The risk of crashes involving speed is a simple matter of physics: the faster we drive, the greater our risk of crashing, the harder we hit if we crash, and the greater the risk of death and serious, life-changing injury. At lower speeds, stopping distances are reduced: when driving at 30mph, your stopping distance is 23m; at 20mph, your stopping distance is 12m. Risk of injury increases exponentially with higher speeds: a crash at 30mph is twice as likely to cause severe injury than a crash at 20mph.
A robust effective approach to speed management is essential to reduce the risk of road death and injury and is central to the safe system approach to road safety.
While this submission focuses on default 20mph speed limits on urban roads as a proven measure to reduce death and injury – as this is a core campaign priority for Brake – we also urge the Government to give serious attention to reviewing the default national speed limit for rural roads, where the majority of fatal crashes occur.[13]
People who walk and cycle are vulnerable on roads. In 2024, 564 people died on urban roads in Britain, including 281 pedestrians and 40 cyclists. Thousands more were seriously injured.[14]
There is good evidence to show that reducing default speed limits to 20mph on roads in built-up areas is an effective measure to save lives, reduce severe injuries and help more people walk and wheel in safety.
In September 2023, the Welsh Government took a bold step in reducing the default speed limit on roads in built-up and residential areas to 20mph. Within the first year, collisions on these roads had reduced by 26%. In the two years since the default 20mph speed limit came into force, there have been 1,270 fewer road casualties.[15]
Transport for London reported that traffic collisions resulting in death or serious injury decreased by 25% when 30mph roads were changed to 20mph.[16]
Brake supports a degree of flexibility at local level, enabling practitioners to respond to location‑specific risks. However, we believe that control over core aspects of road safety policy, for example, speed management, should be held nationally to ensure consistent, evidence‑led decision-making and to avoid a postcode lottery in road risk. The introduction of 20mph speed limits in Wales is a particularly good example of how national led policy and investment can come together to save lives.
Brake advocates for a Safe System approach, recognising that improving compliance and deterrence requires effective enforcement and penalties, education, safer vehicles and speeds, and road environments designed to minimise harm.
We know from the latest Department for Transport casualty statistics that speed is a factor in almost three-fifths of road deaths, whether that’s drivers breaking speed limits or driving too fast for the road conditions.[17] Mandating vehicle safety technology such as intelligent speed assistance and automated emergency braking will go some way to mitigating the risks associated with driver speed, but further national measures will be absolutely essential to meeting the Government’s targets to reduce road death and injury.
Strengthening deterrence requires increasing the likelihood of detection through prioritised roads policing and wider deployment of proven automated enforcement technologies. Further measures that we advocate for to improve compliance include tougher penalties for high‑risk behaviours, including non-seat belt compliance; closing the ‘exceptional hardship’ loophole; a zero tolerance on drink-driving and the introduction of alcohol interlock technology to reduce drink-drive reoffending; and progressive licensing to reduce risk among young and novice drivers.
In line with Brake’s Road Victims’ Charter,[18] those who cause death or serious injury must face fair and robust justice. Individuals charged with these offences should not be permitted to drive while on bail, and lifetime disqualification should be available for the most serious dangerous‑driving cases. We believe strengthening enforcement and justice in this way both improves deterrence and ensures victims and bereaved families receive the respect, support and accountability they deserve.
March 2026
Endnotes
[1] Department for Transport (2025) Reported road casualties Great Britain, annual report: 2024 and supporting data sets.
[2] BBC News (10 March 2026, 13:40), 20mph speed limit, available at: First Minister's Questions from the Senedd: 10 March 2026 - BBC News
[3] https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/campaigning-for-change
[4] Department for Transport (2025) Reported road casualties in Great Britain: younger driver factsheet, 2024
[5] Department for Transport (2025) RAS0701: Reported road collisions and casualties by severity, road safety factors and road user type, Great Britain, 10 years up to 2024
[6] AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2012) Young drivers at higher risk of crashing when carrying young passengers
[7] Foss, R.D. and Goodwin, A.H. (2014) Distracted Driver Behaviours and Distracting Conditions Among Adolescent Drivers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), S50-S60
[8] Worldwide Response to Young Driver Safety | Protect Young Drivers
[9] Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Helman, S., (2013) Novice drivers: Evidence review and evaluation. www.trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/PPR673.pdf
[10] Roberts et al. (2021) The effect of hazard awareness training on teen drivers of varying socioeconomic status.www.tandfonline.com
[11] McKenna and Crick (1997), TRL Report 297 – Developments in hazard perception.
[12] Department for Transport (2025) RAS0701: Reported road collisions and casualties by severity, road safety factors and road user type, Great Britain, 10 years up to 2024
[13] Department for Transport (2025) Reported road casualties Great Britain, annual report: 2024 and supporting data sets.
[14] Department for Transport (2025) Reported road casualties Great Britain, annual report: 2024 and supporting data sets.
[15] BBC News (10 March 2026, 13:40), 20mph speed limit, available at: First Minister's Questions from the Senedd: 10 March 2026 - BBC News
[16] https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/february/new-data-shows-significant-improvements-in-road-safety-in-london-since-introduction-of-20mph-speed-limits
[17] Department for Transport (2025) RAS0701: Reported road collisions and casualties by severity, road safety factors and road user type, Great Britain, 10 years up to 2024
[18] https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/get-help-if-a-crash-victim/information-and-advice-after-road-death-or-serious-injury/victim-support-standards/the-road-victims-charter