The Government must “put safety on roads on the same footing as safety in the air, sea or on rail”, according to the chairman of the Road Safety Foundation.
Lord Whitty made his comments earlier this week while launching a new report, Making Road Safety Pay, which makes seven key recommendations to “change the national focus on road safety over the next decade”.
The report is intended to “act as a platform for all road safety stakeholders to discuss and develop new practical measures that will set the UK on a track to achieving zero road deaths within the next decade”.
The report says the DfT should develop a 10-year ‘towards zero’ strategy for road deaths, and that the Government should pilot ‘Social Impact Bonds’ to finance new safety programmes.
Other proposals include: a zero rate Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) for drivers under the age of 25 years whose vehicles are fitted with a telematics unit; development of a National Older Driver Strategy; autonomous emergency braking (AEB) as standard on all new cars; minimum safety levels of 4-stars for the busiest national roads and minimum 3-stars for all other national roads by 2025; establishing an independent Road Safety Inspectorate; and raising the safety of local authority ‘A’ roads to a 3-star minimum level by 2030.
Lord Whitty said: “We can no longer accept sudden, violent road death as such a significant cause of premature loss of life.
“Advancing technology means safety on the roads can be designed as a single system. Modern car and road design properly implemented and working together is capable of protecting us at a level which was unimaginable just two decades ago.
“Designing and implementing this ‘safe road transport system’ means a new approach to sharing and accepting responsibility: drivers for driving safely; vehicle manufacturers for providing safe vehicles; and road authorities for providing safe road infrastructure.”
Exactly Idris, that’s the point certain people are trying to put across. There needs to be a balanced way of spending. Problem is, single issue groups for whatever reason simply want the whole lot of the share for themselves.
Pablo
0
In cost effectiveness terms the spending involved in eliminating the 1,700 deaths per annum that occur on the road out of the 600,000 or so total, when 60,000+ die accidental deaths in hospitals due to lack of resources and care, and when 3 times as many commit suicide, and die in accidents at home. makes no sense at all. Public money should be spent in the most cost effective ways available.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
I’m afraid Lord Whitty that this is going to be very difficult considering the sheer numbers involved compared with the others. It is like comparing apples to oranges, they are just not the same. I am sorry for those affected and that includes many families but sometimes we simply just need to accept the facts.
Pablo
0
A note on the previous page also says “In Norway for example, every road death requires a public inquiry to establish, as in air and rail safety, what steps should be taken to prevent such a death from happening again.” Sounds wonderful to me.
Duncan MacKillop. Startford on Avon
0
I note that on page 24 on the Safe System approach the call for “Speed limit reform based on the measured standards of protection that a road provides its users rather than the speed most drivers choose to drive.”
Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us
0