The Welsh Government is to consult on its “vision zero” Road Safety Delivery Plan which was launched last week (20 September) and includes ambitious targets to reduce casualties.
The consultation, which sets out the Welsh Government’s approach to road safety until 2020, includes ambitious targets for motorcyclists and young drivers and an aspirational goal of no road fatalities in the future. It also includes a commitment to press the UK Government to reduce the drink drive limit to bring Wales closer in line with the rest of Europe.
In 2011 motorcyclists accounted for 1% of road traffic in Wales but 39% of those killed and seriously injured (KSI), while young people made up 11% of driving licence holders but 23% of casualties.
The Road Safety Delivery Plan includes the following specific targets:
- A 40% reduction in total KSIs on Welsh roads by 2020 (562 fewer KSIs);
- A 25% reduction in motorcyclist KSIs by 2020 (64 fewer KSIs);
- A 40% reduction in young people KSIs (16-24 years) by 2020 (139 fewer KSIs).
Carl Sargeant, the minister with responsibility for transport, said: “This plan is not for the short-term – it sets out our approach until 2020. It may be considered unrealistic to envisage zero fatalities, but it should be a Government aspiration to tackle avoidable deaths such as road traffic collisions and do all that we can to avert them.
“We view this ambitious ‘vision zero’ approach as an acknowledgement of our commitment and want all key partners to share in and work towards making it a reality.”
The consultation will end on 13 December 2012 and the final plan is anticipated to be published in early 2013.
Click here to read the full Government news release; click here to access the full consultation document; or for more information contact James Burgess, Local Government and Communities, on 02920 801064.
Why are horse riders not acknowledged as vulnerable road users? We are not acknowledged as having to use the road. We are being forgotten.
Karen , Carmarthenshire
0
Luck can never be a contributory factor in the cause of an accident as it can only ever act as a saviour after all the other factors have been exhausted. I’m sure that there are not many families of road accident victims that would take comfort in the fact that it was not their loved one’s lucky day.
Proper accident investigations like those carried out by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch never seek to apportion blame but to find out exactly what happened so that a particular accident would never happen again. The fact that most road accidents are repeats of previous ones shows that the blame game has not served us very well and in fact has been very counterproductive indeed.
Duncan MacKillop
0
I feel that in relation to motorcycle accidents, and maybe some others, that not much is made of contributory factors which unfortunately do not or will not exist or be identified at the time of attendance of the emergency services – or could not be ascertained because the death of the rider or trauma which has taken the casualty’s memory of events leading up to the accident, or indeed some circumstances of which they had no knowledge.
Yes their actual or perceived involvement within the framework of the accident/incident may be only one factor among many others.
The recently reported survey in Northern Ireland went someway to a better understanding of causation or contribution but I think that it needs to go further.
bob craven Lancs
0
I don’t “think” it is what happens, I know it is what happens because it is what many police officers in various police forces have told me is how it really happens – out there in the real world. No matter what the instructions may say, this is how it works in practice.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
Why does Honor think that officers ignore clear STATS20 instructions by refusing to tick the “speeding” box unless satisfied to court evidence standard? Very sensibly the authors of Stats20, seeking as much information as possible, clearly did not want reports inhibited by such considerations, stating explicitly that decisions should be based on the best available assessment at the time, even though they might be mistaken.
In any case, when speeding is identified it has to be qualified as either “likely” or “possible” and is therefore useless as evidence in court, serving only as a a marker for more detailed investigation, and of course the causation analysis in question.
Idris Francis Petersfield
0
Isn’t asking “who is to blame?” and asking “what were the root cause of the accident?” the same thing? It’s not rocket science to understand that one or more road users involved in an accident made a mistake! That’s the root cause. In most cases, determining who did what and who was most at fault, if you like, can only be assured when black boxes and in-car cameras become the norm. The hypothetical motorcyclist referred to presumably made a mistake on the last bend which he/she didn’t on the previous hundred bends and/or simply ran out of luck!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Every road accident should be a learning experience, but sadly for us the question often asked after road accidents is “who’s to blame” rather than “what were the root causes of the accident?”
A vision of zero casualties is a wonderful aspiration, but without proper investigation of each and every accident, nothing will ever be learnt. Without knowing the root causes of accidents, it is impossible to prevent them happening over and over again.
Wales is famous for sports bike riders crashing on left hand bends, but rather than finding out why, the usual response is to blame ‘bad attitudes’ or ‘speeding’ or apply some other less than helpful label. The question I would ask of the Welsh Authorities would be “Why did a rider crash on that particular bend if they had already gone safely round a hundred similar bends to get there?”
A similar rigour should be applied to the investigation of road accidents that is common in the investigation of air accidents, but the chances of that happening are very remote as the Authorities might not like the answers.
Duncan MacKillop
0
Idris, I am familiar with the instructions on the Stats 19 forms and you are correct in what you say. But what I referred to is what actually happens in practice – which is that many police officers will not tick the speeding box unless they have court standard evidence that the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit. In fatal collisions physical evidence is collected from the scene – where it exists, but otherwise it generally is not.
The police who deal with most RTCs are neighbourhood officers with some instruction on the basics of dealing with an RTC. More serious collisions are attended by a roads policing officer. Only fatals and potential fatals are attended by specialist collision investigators. Hence the disparity between what the instructions for Stats 19 ask and the way the form is actually completed.
I stand by my warning not to assume that the absence of speeding ticked as a causation can be interpreted to mean that speeding is not a factor in most collisions.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
Sorry that, as I now see, I duplicated Dave Finney’s reply on Stats19 – though I hope I helped confirm what he wrote.
I am puzzled that no one has expressed reservations of “targets” – a Blair era idea that has had untold adverse effects across the country, especially in hospitals.
The basic problem – apart from the time spent collecting data and ticking boxes – is that priorities become skewed to meeting tha targets rather than what might matter more, and complacency can set in if targets are set too low.
One example – in A&E patients running close to the 4 hour waiting time are moved into a ward to get them off A&E’s books.
Also surprised that anyone with an interest in this subject does not realise that some ride motorcyclists to take the risks and enjoy them, just as in mountain climbing, bungee jumping and many other things I would not dream of doing.
Idris Francis Petersfield
0
Honor Byford is mistaken about recording speeding in Stats19 data. The forms and Stats20 instructions (see DfT web site) show:
(a) Only one “speeding” box in the “accident” form, none in the “vehicle” form, no way of indicating which vehicle(s) were speeding, if any were. Hence no use in court.
(b) Both “inappropriate speed” and “above limit” are qualified as being “likely” or “possible”. Hence no use in court.
(c) Boxes to be ticked the basis of best assessment at the time, even though it might turn out to be wrong. Hence no use in court.
Hence speeding not being shown “as a causation factor unless they have court standard evidence to prove it, so it is under-reported is simply wrong, though far too often used to exaggerate the significance of speeding to justify cameras and claims for accident reductions achieved that are far higher than are ever caused by speeding in the first place.
Idris Francis Petersfield
0
A timely reminder from Honor Byford of the limitations of Stats 19 and the over-reliance on the information collated. The system is a good indication of the type of incidents/collisions that happen on the roads, however a lot of the factors which are noted as having contributed are subjective. Unfortunately, once entered into the system and collated and published by the Authorities, these causation factors then seem to become set in stone and are wrongly seen as a reliable indication of how collisions occur.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Police officers do not investigate “causation” factors in stats 19 and are not required to have “proof” in order to assign “exceeding the speed limit” to anyone involved in a collision.
Stats 20 is very clear, the investigating officer only needs to form the “opinion” that it was “possible” that someone “contributed” to a collision by “exceeding the speed limit” in order to assign “exceeding the speed limit”.
Even so, the 2nd motorcycle report is not from stats 19, it is an in-depth study by investigators independent to the Police and I have not found a more detailed study than this.
Official and independent reports have consistently found the same results, the vast majority of even the most serious collisions occur when motorists are not speeding and this is true for motorcyclists also.
I’m not aware of evidence that challenges this.
Dave Finney – Slough
0
It is really interesting to read the comments that our Plan has provoked!
The Welsh Government certainly has no intention of seeking to ban motorcycling. We have included this target because of the high and disproportionate number of motorcyclists being killed and seriously injured on Welsh roads. We believe that there is a duty on ourselves and our partners to try and reduce this.
We have suggested a target of a 25% reduction in KSI because, after working with our statistical team, this was considered to be challenging but achievable compared to existing numbers.
However, I would emphasise that this is a consultation and no decisions have been made. I would welcome positive and negative comments on this and all other aspects of the Plan, so please submit responses if you feel it is not the correct approach. We will of course also note the views expressed here.
James Burgess – Welsh Government
0
References to Stats 19 data for speeding in motorcycle collisions is not a very reliable measure – most police officers will not include “exceeding the speed limit” as a causation factor unless they have court standard evidence to prove it, so it is under-reported. They may include “travelling too fast for the conditions” which is often used where sufficient evidence of exceeding the speed limit is not available but this is also used in its “pure” form to mean going too fast for the road/conditions at the time but within the posted speed limit. So the absence of “exceeding the speed limit” as a causation does not mean the biker was not exceeding the speed limit. Nor does it mean that they inevitable are – just be cautious in pinning any conclusion on this evidence one way or the other.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
We are talking here of a reduction of KSIs in Wales aren’t we? With some of the most beautiful and most dangerous riding roads in the country and subject to a lot of scrutiny by police forces and others within the road safety field.
Yes I appreciate that at peak times in towns and cities all over the country there will be a plethera of bikes and scooters commuting to and from work, college etc. But as you yourself stated many of these are on bikes up to capacity of of 125 cc. Therefore learners or newbies. They havn’t bought bikes for the purpose of the danger that they represent on the road but out of other considerations.
Whilst unfortunately they are subject of numerous accidents and suffer injury they do not in the main become a KSI. It’s out on the country roads where the vast majority of KSIs take place. This is not based on any assumptions it is from factual reporting and statistics.
We have, unfortunately, had one Chief Constable criticised for his attitude to bikers in North Wales. What we need now is a combined approach and not just bikers being stopped and prosecuted for minor offence such as small number plates.
Bob Craven Lancs
0
Bob, I chose my words carefully and I meant what I said. There are riders who ride because of the risks involved – work done by Dr Chris Burgess and others confirms this.
Go to central London, or any large city, at rush hour and tell me motorcycles aren’t a mainstream transport choice.
50% of rider casuatlies are on machines of 125cc or under, the rest are a mix of machines, powers and styles. Suggesting it’s just big sports bikes crashing at weekends is a major over simplification of the issue. We need to base what we do on our data not just make assumptions.
Dave, Leeds
0
As a motorcyclist myself, I must declare an interest. To non-motorcyclists, the statistics may seem surprising because collisions involving motorcyclists rarely seem to involve bikers treating motorcycling as an extreme sport.
I have found an official DfT in-depth study into motorcycle accidents which found all motorcyclists surveyed admitted speeding, yet over 96% of motorcycle accidents occurred when no-one was speeding.
Another study investigates motorcycle fatalities and found “There were four cases (10.3%) of speeding, but in all cases, the actions of the other vehicle driver precipitated the collision.” Therefore, over 89% of motorcyclist fatalities occurred when the motorcyclists were not speeding.
This is the best evidence I have found and the reports really go into some detail:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/01_speeding.htm
I suspect speed adjustment (with occasional speeding) may be how many motorcyclists avoid collisions:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/10_effects_of_cameras.htm
Dave Finney – Slough
0
Dave, whilst I agree with most of what u say I think u got some words wrong. The words should be ‘considering the potential risk’ and not ‘because of the potential risk’.
I do not think that anyone has decided to ride a motorcycle because of the inherant dangers. They buy a motorcycle for a number of reasons such as cost, ease of purchase, efficiency, easy parking etc.
Also when u said that it is a mainstream transport choice, it represents only 1% of total annual vehicular mileage. Hardly mainsteam is it? What I must say though is that it represents a larger proportion of vehicular transport particularly at weekends attending meets etc and on a Sunday on dry days they are out in their droves. On motorcycle routes they maybe represent 5 or 10% of all traffic, if not more.
That’s when most motorcycle accident happen. I hope that they can reduce the KSIs in Wales and that it is followed elsewhere in the country.
PS: it’s only certain sports and power bikes that represent the greatest majority of accidents, they are the ones that can be easily identified and approached.
bob craven Lancs
0
I think 25% is a stretched target. Motorcycles are the only mainstream transport choice that some people make because of the potential risks, overcoming that is a challenge in itself. Until the element within motorcycling that see biking as an extreme sport and not just an efficient and pleasurable way of getting from A to B (possibly via C, D and E…) then reducing casualties and placing bikes within the transport mix as a viable alternative to the car is going to be an uphill struggle.
Dave, Leeds
0
It’s not an offence to be a motorcyclist, so one would imagine a motorcyclist would only be prosecuted if they had actually broken a traffic law.
Slow Down for Safety
0
Firstly I applaud the proposed use of real targets. On the assumption that underpinning value for money aspects are in place, then targets are a good way of driving action and delivery. However, the document does not explain why the numerical quantum is 25% reduction for motorcyclists and 40% for everyone else. At first glance this seems a bit strange – do we value powered two wheel riders casualties less? Is it not better to set a 40% target with an accepted risk of falling short, rather than setting a less ambitious target in the first place? Another alternative is to set a 25% target coupled with a 40% “stretch” target. Unfortunately the document does not give a great amount of detail on the breakdown of motorcyclist casualties in Wales, so it’s hard to say what measures would work best.
pete, liverpool
0
No-one has mentioned trying to ban motorcycles and the proposed strategy does not seek to do so. Let’s not set fictional hares running based on one conversational remark some years ago by someone and thus distract from the full, serious content of this proposal.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
When prospective 2020 targets were discussed a few years ago, the manager of a speed camera partnership said those targets could be met tomorrow just by banning all motorcycles.
I would be very concerned by a government that provides a strong incentive to those who might attempt to prosecute as many motorcyclists as possible, not directly for road safety reasons, but simply aiming to ban or intimidate them so they stop riding and cannot appear on their statistics, no matter whose fault or for what reason.
Far from ending the war on the motorist, this could well trigger the start of a serious escalation.
Dave Finney – Slough
0