Written evidence submitted by IAM RoadSmart (LRF0022)

IAM RoadSmart (previously IAM – the Institute of Advanced Motorists) is the UK’s largest independent road safety charity, dedicated to improving standards and safety in driving and motorcycling. Best known for the advanced test IAM RoadSmart has more than 92,000 members and is supported by a local volunteer network of 200 groups in the UK and Ireland. We provide driver risk management solutions to businesses and driver retraining through IAM Driver Retraining Academy. IAM RoadSmart’s policy and research division offers advice and expertise on road safety, and publishes original research on road safety issues.  Our response below contains the results of a poll of our members run on the IAM RoadSmart website in July and August of 2018.

IAM RoadSmart welcomes the committee’s inquiry into an issue as we are looking to the authorities to work together to produce a long term and sustainable plan to reduce the backlog of road maintenance before yet another damaging winter sets things back even further. Enough time has now passed for a long-term plan to be in place and for work to have started.

The Committees Key Questions

• The condition of local roads in England and how they have fared over time, particularly compared with other parts of England’s road network; 

Our main evidence of the daily experiences of road users comes from a survey conducted in July and August of this year which found that our members are increasingly disillusioned with the state of the roads in the UK – and feel the Government is not doing nearly enough to tackle the problem.

More than 7,000 IAM RoadSmart members responded on line with a clear majority thinking that our roads have become much worse in recent years, that there are many more potholes than ever before, and that they have to swerve to avoid potholes on every journey.

Some 47% - over 3,400 respondents – say they have experienced damage to their car, commercial vehicle, motorbike or bicycle or personal injury as a result of hitting a pothole.

Around 90% have spotted a deterioration of some level in the roads they use with just over 50% rating the state of their roads as ‘much worse’ in the past three years and 38% rating them ‘worse.’

Some 81% - close to 6,000 people – say they have noticed ‘many more’ potholes in the past three years, adding in the 13% who have seen ‘a few more,’ that gives a total of 94% who report more potholes.

Over 56% say they have to take avoiding action on every journey to dodge potholes, while 27% say they have to steer around a pothole every day.

This latter point is a truly shocking indictment of the state of our nation’s most vital and valuable asset – its roads.

The full survey findings can be viewed here;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hv64csrgms52ji3/finalpotholesurvey.pdf?dl=0

• The direct and wider economic and social costs of not maintaining local roads;

Research on the economic and social costs of poor roads is sadly lacking in the view of IAM RoadSmart.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that areas with worn out roads are less attractive to inward investors or tourists but compelling evidence is often hard to find.  Costs of repair and damage to individual and companies are also difficult to obtain in order to help inform the debate.

This is even more important when investigating the road safety implications of poor road surface condition.  In 2017 six deaths were recoded with a contributory factor of “Poor or defective road surface” (down from 12 in 2016).  This represents only 1% of all deaths on our roads.  However IAM RoadSmart believe this is a very under reported issue.  If the social and personal costs of trips and falls caused by poor roads and pavements are also taken into account we believe a substantial problem is going unnoticed.  The Committee should call for a step change in research into the impact of potholes on individuals, companies and the NHS.

• The quality of monitoring and reporting of local road conditions; 

Information on road condition is collected scientifically by highway authorities but is often poorly presented and out of date when it reaches the public.  Localised consumer satisfaction information is also collated but again often hard to find as it is often only reported in Council minutes and suchlike. 

Organisations seeking information often have to use data from bodies such as the Asphalt Industry Association in order to find data that allows a degree of comparison across authorities.  It is also not easy to find a clear definition of ‘what good looks like’ when it comes to an individual councils preformance.

• Whether the current approach to maintenance of local roads is appropriate and whether it needs to be improved;

IAM RoadSmart hoped that the HMEP (Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme) would deliver a step change on road maintenance performance.  However, it is not clear to us what impact it has had.  If it is working then its core activities of knowledge sharing and sharing of resources should be embedded in any future approach to road maintenance

• The suitability of governance structures for maintaining local roads and whether any changes are required;

The fact that many councils have become too small to sustain a proper roads department is clear evidence that ‘one size fits all’ local government structures are not working to protect our road assets.  Sharing staff, equipment and raw materials across traditional boundaries appear to be delivering economies of scale and enhanced buying power in several areas.   IAM RoadSmart support this approach.

• The funding requirements of local roads and the suitability of current funding streams for the immediate and longer-term future; 

Local roads are often the most valuable asset in any given local authority’s portfolio.  Yet they do not receive the attention or care that they require.  In our view this is due to short term political needs and budget cycles that do not deliver sustainable funding.

Given the long term nature of the problem and the asset it is essential that new ways of funding can be found that exempt roads from traditional budget cycles and guarantee income over a long time period.  Ring fencing of funding should be available at a local and national level in a similar way as has been applied Education and social care.

• Whether there is a role for alternative funding models for local roads maintenance and investment;

IAM RoadSmart believe that road users in the UK are already heavily taxed and charged for their car ownership and use.  The fundamental principle for any new form of charging must be that it does not add to the existing financial burden for drivers and riders.  Having said that we are open to alternative funding mechanisms if charges are fair and transparent and clearly ring fenced for the benefit of those paying them. While a third of IAM RoadSmart members are willing to consider new funding ideas to help improve our roads, half were against a 2p increase in fuel duty and most of those were strongly opposed.

• The regional distribution of local roads funding across England

In our view funding formulas should be related to the state of the roads rather than population or traffic levels.  Those authorities with the longest backlogs and with roads in the poorest condition should be eligible for extra finding assistance.

October 2018