Written evidence from Brake (RTL0011)

About Brake

Brake is a UK-wide road safety charity that exists to stop the needless deaths and serious injuries that happen on roads every day, make streets and communities safer for everyone, and care for families bereaved and injured in road crashes. Brake’s vision is a world where there are zero road deaths and injuries and where everyone can get around via safe, sustainable and healthy means.

Brake promotes road safety awareness, safe and sustainable road use, and effective road safety policies. We do this through national media and policy campaigns, community education, services for road safety professionals and employers, and by coordinating the UK's flagship road safety event, Road Safety Week.

Brake is a national, government-funded provider of support to families and individuals devastated by road death and serious injury, including through a helpline and support packs.

Brake was founded in the UK in 1995, and now has domestic operations in the UK and New Zealand, and works globally to promote action on road safety.

Brake’s response

Brake has commented below on a number of the key topics identified by the Committee, where Brake has particular expertise and experience, and informed views to offer to the inquiry.

The Government's priorities and leadership role in improving road safety through traffic law enforcement

Brake believes the government must show stronger leadership in improving road safety (though enforcement and other means). The coalition’s track record in this respect was inadequate and arguably damaging to the field of road safety, and so far Brake has seen little sign of a change of tack from the present administration. Brake is deeply concerned to see serious road casualties plateauing and then rising by 4% recently[1] – meaning more families suffering the horrendous emotional and practical fall-out, and increasing demand on Brake’s services[2] – and believes leadership is key to ensuring a downward trend.

The coalition government’s Strategic Framework for Road Safety was weak and unambitious, in terms of its lack of a strong vision, its removal of important casualty reduction targets, and its failure to set out decisive and evidenced actions and policies that could have significant impact on road safety. For more detailed comments, see Brake’s briefing to the Department for Transport (DfT) at the time.

Brake is not alone in criticising government for weak road safety leadership in recent years. A PACTS and RAC Foundation report examining road safety 2010-2015 highlights that, against a backdrop of stagnating casualty figures, significant regional variations in progress, and reduced spending in road safety, most local authorities surveyed reported a detrimental impact of changes, including in leadership and strategy[3].

Brake believes that stronger leadership from government would have a significant impact in improving road safety, including through traffic law enforcement, by helping local agencies work together towards common goals, reinforcing the importance of road safety (to local agencies, decision makers at local/regional/ national level and the public) and strengthening the role of enforcement officers. Brake argues this is especially important with spending cuts taking effect and a drive towards localism.

Specifically, Brake recommends the government show stronger leadership through taking the following steps in developing its forthcoming strategic framework and in its delivery of road safety work:

• Introduce a ‘vision zero’ making clear that any number of road deaths and serious injuries is unacceptable and therefore ultimately in the long-term we want to reduce them to zero. Various other governments have introduced a vision zero (Sweden being the first in 1994) to help focus attention on the preventability of road casualties, and in the UK the safe systems approach has been started to be adopted by different agencies and devolved and local governments (Scottish Government, Transport for London, Highways England, Britsol Council). Brake argues that Westminster is falling out of step by not adopting this progressive and forward-looking approach.
• Reintroduce challenging casualty reduction targets to make clear to all agencies, practitioners and policy makers involved in road safety that we are all pursuing common and crucial goals. This also makes possible effective performance review and transparency: without targets, it becomes difficult to assess and be clear about progress. Anecdotally, Brake’s regular contact with practitioners in the road safety enforcement, education and engineering fields indicates widespread support for a target-led approach. International evidence points to the efficacy of using casualty reduction targets[4]. Yet the Conservative government already has indicated an aversion to this.
• Cease using the term ‘accidents’ to refer to road crashes, in line with the principle that these are devastating and preventable events, not chance mishaps that are an inevitable by-product of moving around, and show leadership on this point. The term accidents is often offensive to road crash victims, as well as undermining efforts to emphasise the role road users can play in their prevention. Hence it is not used by Brake, and to our knowledge most road safety practitioners.
• Make clear the importance of road safety to health, wellbeing, communities and the environment to position road safety within these wider agendas and underline its importance, including through working cross-department and communications activity. This aim was mentioned in the coalition’s Strategic Framework but in our view has not been realised. It presents, we believe, a tremendous opportunity to move the road safety debate forward, strengthen the role of all those working in road safety (including enforcement officers) and help the public understand the wider impact of both risky behaviours on roads and work to improve road safety. In other words, it can help with buy-in at all levels into road safety enforcement, engineering and educational work.
• Prioritise the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and advocate modal shift. As above, road safety is an issue that impacts on various other matters of great social importance. This is particularly the case in regards to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists; by making roads safer and more pleasant to walk and cycle, we can encourage more people to adopt healthy and sustainable ways to get around and deliver a wide range of social benefits. This also engenders a positive feedback loop: if fewer people drive, it in turn makes our roads safer and more pleasant for people to get around. For this reason, and simply because pedestrians and cyclists make up such a large proportion of road casualties, and because the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is such an important issue to people and communities, Brake believes their safety – and the aim of helping more people shift from driving to walking and cycling – should be a top priority for government, and is an area far stronger leadership is needed.
• Make roads policing a national policing priority, ensure traffic policing is adequately resourced and evidenced enforcement technology is taken full advantage of. As set out in more detail below, Brake is seriously concerned by cuts to traffic policing and the lack of roll-out of evidenced enforcement technology. To help address this, the government should make traffic policing a first tier policing priority, and make clear in its Strategic Framework how enforcement will be developed. At present, with ministers referring to a preference for a ‘carrot not stick approach’, Brake is concerned about an over-reliance by government on educational interventions (despite in some cases a lack of evidence on their effectiveness and their delivery also being affected by cuts): Brake recommends the government acknowledge in its forthcoming Framework the vital importance of enforcement combined with educational and engineering interventions, which are arguably best used in support of one another.
• Clearly set out a move towards tougher traffic penalties, to make clear the gravitas of these offences, and pose a stronger deterrent. As further set out below in relation to careless driving offences, Brake believes the fines in place for risky driving offences are seriously inadequate, and may be viewed by many drivers as little more than a slap on the wrist (especially in comparison to fines for other offences, and the wider cost of running a vehicle and being insured). This undermines efforts to enforce road traffic laws, educate on the importance of road safety, and achieve buy in to efforts to engineer safer roads.

Enforcement agencies' capacity to enforce DfT policy on dangerous and careless driving

Brake is extremely concerned by figures indicating a dramatic decline in numbers of dedicated traffic police. In 2013 Brake published results from Freedom of Information requests to UK police forces finding a 12% drop in dedicated traffic police 2008-2012, with some forces experiencing cuts of 30-40%[5]. Earlier this year, the Police Federation highlighted ‘unprecedented cuts’ in policing, saying roads policing units had been ‘hit disproportionately’[6], and called for roads policing to be given greater priority[7]. Brake has been anonymously contacted by numerous police officers expressing worries over the impact of cuts.

International evidence clearly points to the importance of traffic enforcement in keeping our roads safe[8]. Many who work in the sector are suggesting there may be a link between reductions in traffic policing (and other cut-backs in road safety) and stagnating and rising casualty figures.

Brake is especially concerned about the impact of reductions in traffic police to drink and drug driving enforcement, due to the need for officers to carry out roadside testing and provide a deterrent effect, which research indicates is important[9]. While the NPCC highlights a move to more intelligence-led enforcement, which Brake welcomes, there has been an decline in breath-testing numbers (annual and during Christmas campaigns), with more than 130,000 fewer tests in 2012 compared to 2009[10]. Brake welcomes moves to reduce the bureaucratic burden on police and speed up drink driving testing, but would question whether this can compensate for the dramatic cuts seen in recent years. Brake is also worried about the possibility of cuts undermining the newly-introduced drug driving offence, which Brake and bereaved families campaigned for, and which the DfT invested considerable resource into designing and implementing.

The introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving: how these powers are being used, and whether alternatives to penalties should be considered

Brake broadly supported the introduction of fixed penalty notices for careless driving, and helped to publicise it, as we understood from colleagues in the police that it was likely this should aid effective enforcement. However we expressed a view, which we continue to hold, that the fixed penalty should carry a much higher fine, and that more serious careless driving offences should continue to be dealt with by the courts, with offenders facing far tougher penalties.

In Road Safety Week 2014 Brake revealed figures obtained from the DVLA showing the number of careless driving fixed penalties being handed out (as part of a campaign calling on road users to ‘look out for each other’ and for drivers particularly to protect the vulnerable): 17,483 were handed out nationally in 2013 (see breakdown)[11]. Although there is no past comparison to be drawn, the figures showed the new fixed penalty power was being used by all forces, albeit with variations. The figures are dwarfed by speeding offences for the same period, but this is to be expected given the different nature of speeding enforcement being partially carried out using speed cameras.

Brake continues to believe that a £100 fine is wholly inadequate as a fixed penalty fine for careless driving, speeding, mobile phone use, and other driving offences, given the potential of these offences to cause death and injury. Higher fines would pose a greater deterrent and create a sense of these offences as being ‘real crimes’, not minor infringements: Brake believes this attitude continues to pose a major barrier in work to improve road safety. At present, the fine is far lower than what you might face for dropping litter or failing to pay your TV licence: offences that pose no direct threat to human life. This is undermining of efforts to enforce these laws and educate on their importance.

Introducing a higher fine might also enable a change in the current system of inviting (some) offenders to attend an awareness course in lieu of receiving penalty points. Brake argues it would be preferable for these offenders to be offered a place on a course in return for a reduction in their fine rather than a waiving of their points, so the penalty points system is not undermined through attendance on courses. 

Finally, Brake takes issue with the term ‘careless driving’, which we believe adds to the perception that these offences are minor transgressions: slip-ups rather than risky behaviours resulting from deliberate choices. This is unhelpful to efforts to emphasise the responsibilities of drivers to stay within the law and follow the Highway Code. As we have highlighted to the Ministry of Justice, we particularly believe the term ‘careless’ to be inappropriate when harm has been caused, and know from our work supporting road crash victims that it is often deemed insulting to bereaved and injured families.

The impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians

As stated above, Brake believes that protecting the safety of cyclists and pedestrians should be made a priority by the Department for Transport in its forthcoming Strategic Framework for Road Safety, and other agencies involved in road safety. This is because these road users: continue to make up a high proportion of UK road casualties despite comparatively low rates of walking and cycling in the UK; are (generally) not posing a threat or problem to others in their mode of transport or creating pollution; are travelling via the healthiest, cheapest most sustainable means; and have a basic right to be able to move around freely in this way without being threatened by motor vehicle traffic.

Brake was shocked and saddened by the recent increase in serious road casualties among pedestrians and cyclists[12], who we believe need to be protected. We are conscious that per mile travelled on foot and bike in the UK, you are more at risk than in many other European countries[13], and that if the UK had similar rates of walking and cycling as many of our European neighbours (desirable for many reasons including improving public health and protecting the environment), it would fall down the global road safety rankings.

Brake is clear that effective traffic law enforcement is vital to protecting pedestrians and cyclists, notably in relation to:

• Speeding – reducing traffic speeds is critical to protecting vulnerable road users, who do not have the protection of a vehicle around them, since slower speeds improve drivers’ chances of avoiding a collision, and lessen the impact if one does occur. A raft of evidence is available on the relationship between speed and casualty frequency and severity[14], and specifically the value of speed reduction and enforcement measures in improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. For evidence on the effectiveness of speed enforcement, including speed cameras, see Brake’s fact page. For evidence on the effectiveness of 20mph limits, see Brake’s recent GO 20 report including literature review. It is worth noting also in this report that the position of police in terms of enforcement of 20mph limits has been seen as a barrier by some local authorities in implementing 20mph limits, an evidenced measure in improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists; so this is a key enforcement-related issue that could be addressed to benefit pedestrian and cyclist safety.
• Distractions – deterring and catching distracted drivers is key to making our roads safer for all road users, not least vulnerable road users who face significant threat if drivers fail to spot them. Research suggests increased prevalence of mobile technology may be posing a growing threat on our roads, and one that is difficult to address through education alone given the way this technology has become so ingrained in our lives: people are admitting being addicted to their phones[15], and advising people of the risks is not sufficient in persuading some people to avoid temptation[16]. Therefore a strong enforcement presence, and tougher penalties than at present, is key.
• ‘Careless driving’ – similarly, drivers who are driving erratically, inconsiderately, or leaving too little space for those around them, may well pose a threat to vulnerable road users. Again this type of behaviour is arguably harder to address through education, engineering and technology, so relies upon the presence of enforcement officers.

Brake is also conscious of the importance of traffic enforcement to members of the public, especially in regards to speed enforcement, in terms of community safety and wellbeing as well as casualty prevention. As well as British Crime Surveys showing that speeding is the main concern people have around anti-social behaviour in their area[17], Brake is regularly contacted by communities and groups concerned about the safety of people on foot and bike in their area, invariably linked to traffic speed, and often wanting advice on how they can campaign for better speed enforcement.

The deployment of people and technology in enforcing road traffic policy

As above, Brake is greatly concerned by the decline in dedicated traffic police, which is likely to pose a particular threat in regards to deterring and catching drink and drug driving, distracted driving and ‘careless driving’. We believe – and evidence shows (as referenced above) – that a strong enforcement presence, combining traffic police and enforcement technology, is crucial in maintaining and improving road safety, including protecting pedestrians and cyclists and working towards the wider goals that can be achieved through increased walking and cycling.

We are concerned that traffic policing remains a second tier policing priority, and have long advocated for it to be promoted by government to a first tier priority, to underline its importance in road safety and road casualty prevention, and in crime prevention more generally. As well as showing this leadership, we also believe the government must work with police forces and PCCs to ensure the savage cuts to traffic policing are halted: these cuts are a false economy (and highly inhumane) if they contribute to increasing road casualties. 

Alongside this, we believe work is needed to fully realise opportunities offered by enforcement technology. Cuts to road safety funding made by the coalition government in 2010 had a major impact on work to maintain and develop the UK’s speed camera network, despite all the evidence showing the effectiveness of this technology[18]. In particular, Brake advocates wider use of average speed cameras, including those developed for use in urban areas (which use ANPR to track vehicles moving through a zone) which to our knowledge have had limited deployment despite successful trials[19], following funding cuts.

Intelligent speed adaption (ISA) is an in-vehicle technology that offers tremendous potential in enforcing speed limits automatically, which if universally adopted would make all other speed management and enforcement measures obsolete. Controlled trials predict that mandatory ISA, which automatically prevents a driver from exceeding the speed limit, could reduce road deaths by 46%[20]. Before ISA can be adopted (for example by fleet operators in the first instance), it requires a comprehensive map of speed limits to be created for the whole of the UK: at present only limited maps are available. Brake therefore recommends the DfT creates such a map, the costs for which would be returned many times over by realising the casualty prevention benefits of such technology.

October 2015