Chris Grayling appointed transport secretary

12.00 | 14 July 2016 | | 26 comments

Chris Grayling has today (14 July) been appointed transport secretary by the new prime minister, Theresa May – despite earlier reports suggesting that the Department for Transport may be shut down.

Mr Grayling, who held the role of shadow transport minister from 2005-07, replaces Patrick McLoughlin after he was named the new Conservative Party chairman in the cabinet reshuffle. Mr McLoughlin had served as transport secretary since September 2012.

As yet, there is no news as to whether the current roads and road safety minister, Andrew Jones, will remain in post.

Earlier in the day, The Telegraph had reported that the DfT, along with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Energy and Climate Change, were to be closed and replaced by two new departments – one for infrastructure and one for industry.

Chris Grayling moves to the DfT from his role as justice secretary, a position he had also held since September 2012.

Mr Grayling was first elected as a MP in 2001 and has since then represented the constituency of Epsom and Ewell.

After the Conservatives’ success at the 2010 election, he was appointed minister of state for employment, a position he held until his move to justice secretary in 2012.

In May 2015, he was also appointed leader of the House of Commons, a position he will now vacate.

As part of the shadow cabinet, Mr Grayling also held the position of shadow leader of the House of Commons (2005), shadow secretary of state for work and pensions (2007-09) and shadow home secretary (2009-10).

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) has welcomed Mt Grayling’s appointment.

David Davies, executive director of PACTS, said: “We welcome Chris Grayling to the post of secretary of state for transport and wish him success.

"While transport may not be top of the Whitehall pecking order, it is hugely important to the economy, the environment and to our quality of life. It is a very capable and professional department with considerable technical expertise and knowledge.

“The UK has a good record on transport safety – for air, rail and road. But whereas deaths from air and rail accidents have been reduced to very small numbers, road traffic remains the UK’s biggest single killer of young people and the biggest risk most of us face in our daily lives.

“We urge the new secretary of state to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to reducing the number of road users killed and seriously injured every year. We also urge him to ensure adequate resources to deliver the valuable actions in the British Road Safety Statement (December 2015). These actions are not radical or controversial but require strong leadership to work across government departments and with multiple organisations and disciplines. PACTS will do all it can to assist.”


 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Steve (Armstrong)
    Tried to contact you using the email address you submitted with your recent post but it bounced back – can you contact me pls on: nrawlings@stennik.com


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Steve
    The speed management session is just one of a number of themed sessions at the 2016 National Road Safety Conference. Other sessions include road user psychology, public health and road safety and social marketing. I wouldn’t want readers to think from your comment that the conference is all about speed management.


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Rod,
    “No-one says that the speed limit is the “be all and end all” of road safety” and yet I see your name as a speaker at an event solely dedicated to speed and its enforcement at the National Road Safety Conference. I think actions speak louder than words. http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/5200.html


    Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Rod, the “vision” is to replace our current road use model with a fit-for-purpose model.

    Our current model, based on giving different traffic streams different priorities, was introduced on a whim back in the 1930s. This untried and untested system created numerous problems. It prevented pedestrians from getting from one side of the road to the other, it caused congestion at junctions where non-priority traffic had to wait for gaps in three or more other traffic streams simultaneously, it induced drivers of the priority traffic to travel too fast because everyone else had to give way to them and it increased fear of road use for vulnerable road users. The result was increased congestion, increased road carnage and the destruction of amenity in towns and villages.

    However, the attempted solutions to the problems caused by the flawed system did not include scrapping the system and starting again. What they did include were traffic lights at junctions, zebra crossings, speed limits, belisha beacons, pedestrian barriers, pedestrian islands, etc. But as we know, they didn’t work either, and still don’t work (the evidence you ask for is in RRCGB) – despite 80, or more, years of evolution.

    So clearly, the answer isn’t likely to be more of the same failed ideas. And indeed we have seen some of the more enlightened authorities introducing some significantly more successful “back to first principle” priority abolishment ideas that have delivered safer, less congested and more sociable roads. These are the ideas that I think we should be exploring, evaluating and evolving.

    And no Rod, I’m not proposing applying “strict liability” as yet another sticking-plaster on the grievously ill old system.


    Charles, England
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Steve

    No-one says that the speed limit is the “be all and end all” of road safety, except perhaps for those who disagree with speed limits.

    Those claiming that they are arbitrary ignore the fact that when drivers decide to not conform to the speed limit set by the community in a democratic and considered manner, they they themselves are making an arbitrary decision regarding what speed they will drive at. Often it is without consideration to noise, emissions, other road users (who may or may not be on the road), unseen dangers and hazards.

    The speed limit is just like other arbitrary constraints on the use of vehicles, I mean, what makes a red light so special, why drive on the left, do you really need to halt at a halt sign?

    Unfortunately many who speed rationalise their decision solely around whether they have or have not been in a collision. “No collision” does not equate to safe and it certainly does not equate to legal driving or socially acceptable driving.

    The actual resources going into speed management are minimal, and automation can make it even more cost effective in ensuring that people comply with the conditions which society sets for using the roads.


    Rod King
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    If you meant me Hugh then I also would refute your assertion. Let’s not let the facts (provided by Government not just “the internet” get in the way of good old fashioned “get tough on crime” message which has been proven counterproductive time and time again. If you are stopping people, I assume you are/were a police officer. If this is the case then to be honest when faced with an officer accusing you of anything most people will not argue with the officer as the likely outcome is going to be worse for the individual accused. The mumbling could be a demonstration of a reluctance to agree with your point of view but in the knowledge that arguing is not the sensible course of action at that time.

    I respect the police and had family that were in the service, but also think that their views are definitely skewed by constantly dealing with people and situations at their very worst and therefore their views are often very negative and biased. Experience can give useful insight but equally it can blind you to things right under your nose.

    I would also go on to say that everyone wants safe roads and everyone uses them, so even a person without a driving licence still uses the streets and so their opinion is as valid as your own. I personally am worried about the constant concentration on an arbitrary figure being the be all and end all of road safety when I actually know it plays only a small part; being on a handheld phone, in a defective car, not observing or judging risks correctly, anti social driving are just some of the things that are by an order of magnitude more dangerous than doing 80 or even 90mph on a clear motorway in good conditions.

    My point is huge resources are put into speed but hardly any into the more pertinent and important areas as they cannot be measured by a machine at the side of the road.


    Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    One last comment I hope – my gripe is that even when one makes a comment based on knowledge and experience, it can get disputed and ridiculed by those who don’t have the same knowledge and experience and who seem to be entrenched in their view only based on hereasay and articles on the internet. In answer to those who may doubt the usefulness of targeting speeding drivers, I’ve spoken to hundreds and when asked “could you have stopped in time if such and such happens ahead of you?” Answers? never ‘yes’ and usually a mumbled ‘probably not’ ‘possibly’ ‘I don’t know’ and some definite ‘no’s! That’s the justification – it’s not imagined, it’s real speeders talking and they’re not ‘perfectly safe drivers’ by the way as is often claimed.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Charles

    I can understand why you wish to maintain your anonymity. I detect a certain similarity to those advocating Brexit. A very clear opinion of what they don’t want, but no vision of what to replace it with.

    The phraseology is similar as well such as “no matter how well these measures are enforced they cannot work” – no justification or evidence just opinion.

    So come on. What are you proposing? Is it strict liability? What model are you thinking of? What would replace these laws or conventions? Would we still drive on the left or be free to take the shortest way round a roundabout if “its safe”.

    If you want to be taken seriously then give yourself an identity and set up a campaign with evidence.


    Rod King
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh, I guess you don’t mean me either then, because although I do not believe that speed limits make a positive contribution to road safety (quite the contrary in fact), I am arguing (and certainly not ranting) for speed limits to be replaced by something that actually makes roads safer and more sociable as a disgruntled pedestrian and not as a disgruntled motorist.

    The evidence as I see it Hugh, shows that, no matter how much you try to regulate the flawed system, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. And that evidence isn’t just staring us in the face every time we wait to cross the road whilst cars that have arrived after us whizz past, it is also there in the RRCGB reports.

    The underlying model of giving de-facto priority to certain streams of traffic over others at junctions and interfaces, regardless of who got there first, needs revisiting. Adding the inefficient sticking-plaster-regulations and measures such as pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, traffic islands, pedestrian barriers, 20mph limits, 20mph zones and even pedestrian-only streets has not worked. And no matter how well these measures are enforced they cannot work – because the underlying model assumes the suspension of the laws of human nature.

    Giving vehicles de-facto priority, whether because they are on the “major” road or because they have a green light, leads drivers to drive too fast (even if within the limit) because the false sense of superiority that the regulations give them. And it also means they do not give due attention to each and every other “inferior” road user who is expected to give way to them.

    My advice is to first remove the underlying priority system (and all the current add-ons (as mentioned above) that it requires to ameliorate the problems it has created), then see what, if any, laws and regulations are required to guard against serious and deliberate abuse by the wanton criminal element.


    Charles, England
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Ah Hugh – sorry, I hope you accept my apologies for misunderstanding your post then.


    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I suggest that those people who are at present happy to justify their exceeding of speed limits in some circumstances make the most of the situation while it lasts.

    Our Government is very eager to take us down the route of autonomous vehicles and I cannot for one minute foresee circumstances in which one will be able to get them to exceed the posted speed limit. The Govt. seems set on making the manufacturer take responsibility for any problems, so the makers are hardly going to allow anyone to turn up the wick, despite the driver considering it safe to do so.

    It will probably be some while before someone develops an autonomous motorcycle, so perhaps they can turn to two wheels if they wish to go faster than the law permits?


    David, Suffolk
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    No, I wasn’t referring to you actually David, but one or two others and some in the past who used the RSGB forum as a platform for their anti-speed enforcement rants under the guise of being concerned about road safety, but were really just disgruntled motorists. I don’t recall any of them, ever coming up with an alternative or any ideas to combat the problem of bad behaviour on the roads. I’m still waiting, following my shout out earlier for ideas.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I can only presume that’s in reference to my post(s), Hugh.

    To cut a rather long story brief, yes, I do have an issue with some areas of speed enforcement – especially when arbitrary. Despite my reservations, am I fundamentally against it? No.

    I will not go into detail justifying the opinions I hold in this post – despite how “interesting” my opinions may be, they’re my honest opinions, gained from on-road experience and I hope that some of these opinions can help spur discussions.

    All I will say to finish is that I don’t have a “tenuous interest” in road safety, I’d say it’s rather passionate – and covering the whole spectrum.


    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Could those whose seemingly only tenuous interest in road safety and accident prevention, is really just by virtue of their dislike of speed cameras and speed limits and enforcement, please declare so at the outset.

    I believe there may be other forums out there which might be more suitable and who knows, some old friends of this forum might have also found their new home there. If I’m wrong or have misjudged anyone’s motivations, please feel free to come up with some new ideas as mentioned earlier – that’s for those who are actually concerned obviously.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    For a moment I will wear my shiny aluminium dunce cap of cynicism.

    Could you folks envisage there being a reduction in enforcement where it’s not necessarily an issue to exceed speed limits, if an ideal plan for road safety is devised and acted upon? High quality rural roads and the like.

    The reason why I’m wearing my dunce cap of cynicism is because I recently stumbled across a business case for a police force looking to upgrade their fixed cameras from analogue to digital, and uh, hidden within the document was a plan for the SP to become 90% to 100% self sufficient by 2015* – that is, become almost wholly reliant on NDORS courses to fund its day to day activities – that’s not just funding enforcement, but meetings, talking to school kids and the like.

    With the funding from both Local and Central Government funding decimated – and with equipment, training, staffing, maintenance, evangelising not really being cheap items on the end of year invoice, is there any impetus to change things without extra funding if required being made available somehow?

    I now take off my cap, and raise my shield to await the “disagrees”.

    * The document was created sometime in 2013, but, I doubt anything has really changed. More than likely not met that goal.


    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Personally I would recommend a balanced programme of interventions aimed at creating safer drivers (in fact all road users), safer infrastructure, safer vehicles. This would include enforcement. The elements of the safe systems approach need to be considered with respect to each other and not produced in isolation. As is pointed out elsewhere on this site surely it is the interaction between road users, the infrastructure and the vehicles which matters.

    At the risk of repeating myself nothing usually works in isolation and progress towards reduced – preferably zero – casualties will come about by acceptance that no “expert” has the single answer. Collaboration not confrontation is my favoured way forward.


    Nick, Lancashire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    My point would be proportionality, and not using what sound like big numbers in a disingenuous way, simple as that.

    10,000 collisions per day sounds a lot but let’s put that up against the real numbers from the government published figures. The number of registered vehicles on the road 35,000,000. So as a percentage of 0.029% per day involved in an incident; be that a full RTA with injuries or a small fender bender, hitting a bollard, or cracking a windscreen etc.

    From those collisions let’s take total road deaths of last year of 1713, so 4.69 per day.
    So the vast majority of the 10,000 are more minor it seems. As I used total road deaths it includes cyclists pedestrians etc so out of a total population of 64,523,579 and rising; that again gives a even more vanishingly small percentage.

    All that said it is no less devastating to the people involved and anything, within reason, should be done to reduce this. But, there is always a but, the reliance on cameras and automation victimizes the vast majority and completely fails to catch the statistical outliers like the 40mph everywhere person or the 120mph on suburban street boy/girl racer.


    Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Approx 10,000 collisions a day in the UK Steve – what would your remedy be if you were Mr Grayling or one of his advisers? Same question goes out to other contributors.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Unfortunately “Wrong uns” will and do continue to drive unlicensed, uninsured, untaxed etc. The problem with increasing the penalties and having a zero tolerance is you disproportionately affect the law abiding who actually do listen and try to stay within the rules and create bad will to the authorities, the very same good will which they rely on to do the job effectively. 100% of people have broken a traffic law, be that intentionally or not. A zero tolerance approach would remove perfectly safe drivers from the road and severely affect their employability / ability to function in the modern world, increasing the temptation to break more laws just to get by. Repeat offenders records will speak for themselves and so the “wrong uns” can be dealt with probably for much worse offences for society as a whole than going untaxed or a few miles an hour too fast.


    Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Re-the last para of the news story, I’ve since read the British Road Safety Statement referred to and it does mention a proposed increase in penalty points (from 3 to 4) for certain offences, so theoretically anyway, fewer offences may need to be committed by a an individual to lead to a ban (unless one is a celebrity of course, who does a lot of charity work). Reducing the number of wrong ‘uns on the road has to be the long term answer.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hi Jonathan, yes RCT is “Randomized Control Trial”. RCT scientific trials should be standard practice when any road safety intervention is deployed (or removed) but we have to start somewhere therefore the road safety intervention I have in mind is whatever the next intervention is!

    RCTs are so cheap and easy that they should be used for the smaller interventions, such as switching off street-lights, high-grip surfaces, visibility barriers at roundabouts, allowing road-side advertising etc.

    RCTs are the only truly accurate method so they must be used for the really expensive interventions, such as 20mph limits, all-lane running motorways, 80mph motorway limits, traffic calming, speed cameras etc.

    Scientific trials would test road safety theories against practice, the results will lead to improvements in the theories and new ideas will emerge. In short, scientific trials will revolutionize road safety.


    Dave Finney, Slough
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh, there is necessarily nothing wrong with the first part of that idea. A cost neutral (to the driver, we’re not cash machines) “refresh” every ten years isn’t going to cause harm to anyone. Given the people out there, this could only be a good thing. There could even be harmony with the photo-card driving licence period of validity, etc.

    However, your idea of reducing penalty points on a licence, is this a good idea? The current speed enforcement methodology to a certain degree emphasises sticking to a potentially arbitrary speed limit as one of the main “tenets” of road safety. Is it your intention to use a greater level of fear to enforce limits, as opposed to education?


    David Weston, Corby
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Of course, as has been shown from history with things like prohibition in the US, the surefire way of creating more criminals is to “get tough on crime” in areas which don’t actually affect the outcome that much. For example the Speed Kills and cameras everywhere approach and no change in casualty figures. Can we have less tolerance for large big brother projects and look at letting traffic flow freely with good design of roads with less need and usage of pointless distracting signage and less messing with the hierarchy of roads to the point where it is very hard to predict the “correct” speed limit for a road without a sign every 20 yards?


    Steve Armstrong, Halifax UK.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I thought scientific trials were only necessary when one didn’t know, or couldn’t, reasonably predict the outcome of something. Whilst such trials have been deployed in areas of automotive development and highway design and construction over the years, the area which seems not to have been subject of any vigorous ‘trialling’ is subsequent behaviour of those who have passed their driving test and obtained a license, (unless one calls the driving test a scientific trial).

    I would therefore suggest any new road safety policies concentrate on a more vigorous vetting procedure of those who wish to be licensed to drive and for those who have already slipped through the net, a quicker way to a ban than the current twelve points we have now i.e. less tolerance of misbehaviour and less tolerance of excuses.


    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Dave. Have you got a Road Safety intervention in mind that could benefit from the use of an RCT Trial. I assume you mean Randomized Control Trial?


    Jonathan in Bristol
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    There is a great opportunity in road safety to be radical and really raise the effectiveness of government action. A policy exists that would raise the standard of evidence to the best achievable and could dramatically accelerate our understanding of road safety. The policy would start to restore faith in the competency and honesty of government and it would be straightforward to implement. It could actually save money compared to current practice and the first country to implement this policy would lead the world. The policy is simple: start using RCT scientific trials. I would like to wish Chris Grayling all the best in his new role as transport secretary.


    Dave Finney, Slough
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close