Road Safety GB members keen to develop ‘national’ campaigns

12.00 | 1 January 2013 | | 9 comments

Road Safety GB members are keen on the idea of the organisation producing campaign resources centrally, which can then be used by teams in their local areas.

The idea has been mooted in the light of the reduced amount of national road safety campaign activity under the THINK! banner, as a result of massive budget cuts at the DfT.

A survey of road safety team leaders around the country confirmed there is an appetite for Road Safety GB to develop ‘national’ campaign resources for its members to use. 92% of respondents considered the idea to be either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’.

When asked what themes team leaders would most like to see covered, ‘young driver safety’ came out top with 59%. This was followed by ‘occupational road risk’ (41%), with ‘mobile phone/in-car distractions’, ‘older road users’ and ‘powered two wheelers’ all polling 39%.

The big challenge for Road Safety GB is how to fund developing such campaigns.

While almost 90% of respondents say they would use the campaign if the creative element could be provided free of charge, less than half (40%) said they would be in a position to pay for additional materials, while 50% were unsure (probably because of current budget uncertainties).

James Gibson, Road Safety GB press & PR officer, said: “We are very aware of the current challenges that the THINK! team faces in terms of funding available for national publicity campaigns and resources.

“Because of this, it is certain there will be many road safety user groups and themes that will not be covered at all by the THINK! campaign in 2013/14.

“We are exploring the possibility of Road Safety GB producing campaigns and resources to plug the gaps left by the THINK! campaign.

“Our members support the idea in principle and we certainly have the expertise to develop and manage campaigns – we must now see if we can find a way of funding this idea if we are to take it forward.”


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Your email address will not be published.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

    We’ve done this before as a region and it worked really well. We saved loads of money and got some really good resources out of it. We were able to slightly tailor products to meet local needs/stats. Look forward to doing it again.

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

    One key element of road safety is the effective use of the individual’s safety systems, of which seeing and hearing are integral and generally available to most road users.

    The profile of RSGB or a sponsor might be well presented if a maxim which I’ve kicked around for around 15 years finally makes it to a message that can be placed on rear panels of vehicles, windscreen reminders, and roadside locations, and can apply universally to all road users.

    “Make eye contact the only contact you have with another road user”

    There is an extension to this which again applies to all road users, Eyes only cover 33% of keeping you safe – ears are your 360 degree awareness. Every report of a cyclist fatally hit by a train notes that their ears were probably, or certainly filled with earpieces. Yet the ears are vital for all including those holding a steering wheel.

    Dave Holladay – Glasgow
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    How disappointing that consecutive commentators should first urge us to spend funds wisely then rail at the prospect of national economies of scale. It’s a new year but we can still clearly do no right in their eyes.

    Tim Philpot, Wolverhampton
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    This suggestion is about Road Safety GB providing practical support – the “tools to do the job” if you like – to professional road safety ETP practitioners. This means proven and evaluated education, training and publicity resources that address commonly experienced road safety issues.

    It is not about setting policies nor about making decisions regarding expenditure or priorities – responsibility for these remain with the DfT, nationally, and with every Local Highways Authority, locally.

    Honor Byford, Vice Chair, Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Is it not odd that now that the DfT has hived off so many policies and so much decision-making to local authorities – as we know, Eric Pickles thinks local people know best – we now see this attempt to generate funds for a central organisation.

    As a general principle, I do not agree with Mr. Pickles – so many road safety issues are much same across the country, I cannot see the sense in every local authority making those particular decisions for themselves rather than the DfT doing so.

    Idris Francis Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    It is essential that money is allocated to road safety and spent wisely. Would someone please confirm if RSGB supports 20mph limits in towns – schemes that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and have resulted in increased serious injuries?

    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Pete, great suggestion. Not sure how much we could raise though given the current climate. Neil, again great suggestion and one that we have already been discussing. I will raise this again at P&M. Absolutely essential given the new ‘Academy’ on the horizon.

    Alan Kennedy, Chairman Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Strong campaign ideas are always welcomed.

    But don’t forget that individual areas also have resources that could be up for discussion & wider roll-out.

    For example, our COSTS Business Driver Project is really taking off in Sussex & we’re sending materials throughout the UK as it appears no-one has anything similar. (

    Should there be a register initially for who is running what, and the costs (if any) of licencing it out for wider use?

    Neil Hopkins, Sussex Safer Roads Partnership
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    If every LHA pledged £10k that would give over £1m p.a. Centralised thinking (if well governed) with local application is the way to go.

    Pete, Liverpool
    Agree (0) | Disagree (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.