Road casualty projections should act as “wake up call”

12.00 | 28 April 2014 | | 7 comments

A new report which projects road casualties until 2030 should act as a “wake up call for the Government on road safety”, according to the shadow transport minister.

The report, Projections of road casualties in Great Britain to 2030, is authored by Kit Mitchell and Richard Allsop and published by PACTS.

The report concludes that for all groups for which “reliable projections are possible”, the number of casualties is projected to fall by 2030. Road deaths are projected to fall from 1,754 in 2012 to about 1,000 in 2030, and serious casualties to fall from 23,039 to about 11,000. The report suggests that by 2030 there are likely to be about 150,000 slight casualties and around 162,000 casualties of all severities.

The report suggests that at 2012 prices, “prevention of these projected numbers of casualties in 2030 would be valued at about £6bn”. It also puts the value of preventing all road casualties (about 3.5m) in the two decades ending 2030 at about £160bn.

Richard Burden, shadow road safety minister, said: “This report should be a wake up call for the Government on road safety.

“Ministers axed Labour’s ambitious targets to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Now we know that a third of a million people will be killed or seriously injured between now and 2030 if the Government continues on their current course. It’s unacceptable.

“We need a new vision for road safety which will build on international best practice and ensure our streets are safe, healthy and sustainable places to be.”




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Your email address will not be published.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

    But Malcolm, such an accident might not even be road related and the effect would be the same.

    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    The report does not refer to the “cost of fatal accidents” (as Idris Francis implies) but to the “value of preventing” fatal and serious casualties. It uses the DfT’s values which are based on social cost benefit analysis. These are intended to quantify the value placed by society on casualty prevention, to allow evaluation of investment in casualty prevention measures and comparison with other potential investments, including other transport or public health schemes.

    David Davies, London
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Sorry Idris, but your facts are wrong. The £20,000 cash cost you suggest is a red herring. If my son was killed driving home tonight his wife would need to find the lost income to support the mortgage and to replace his income.

    Malcolm Whitmore
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    Eric is right of course – more than 50% of the supposed cost of fatal accidents is not cash at all but “value” of pain and suffering. Most of the rest is based on the assumption that casualties “output” end when they can no longer work – in the real world others take over the ensure that demand contues to be met, just as they do when workers retire or change jobs or people. The real cash cost to the State of a fatal accident is about £20,000 not £1.9, further reduced further by the jobs, VAT income tax and NSI involved. see

    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    I cannot see how predictions that KSI will continue to fall year on year for 15 years can be considered a “wake up call”.

    The alarm is created by suggesting that some or all of £160bn could be saved by more/new investment in road safety. Savings are reductions in expected expenditure and practically none of the c£1.6m value attached to a life equates to actual expected expenditure in the event of loss of life. I have extensive correspondence with the NAO confirming this view.

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

    I sometimes wonder if the authorities can do any more. If it’s a ‘wake-up call’ for anyone, it should be for the complacent road users who dont take enough responsibilty for their own actions on the highway.

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

    Yup, we certainly do need a new vision for road safety, but not sure whether international best practice is the way to achieve it.

    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    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.