In this latest opinion piece, Dr Ian Greenwood explains why it is time for licensing changes to reduce road death and serious injury involving young drivers.
We rightly value our freedoms in Britain, but at what point does the freedom for us all to be safe on our roads trump the freedom of motorists to drive?
This debate rightly demands an important space in our political discourse, and in the media. But there does appear to be a clear winner with the Plan for Drivers from the government, and the Labour party has a “laser-like focus” on the cost of driving, rather than improved safety.
These occupy a large part of Westminster’s policy priorities, though not Parliamentary debate. This is clearly not as simple as a one or the other debate. To illustrate, let us consider the well-known area of road crashes involving young drivers and the heightened risk of death or serious injury for young drivers (28%), their passengers (22%) and other road users (50%), and Graduated Driving Licensing which includes proportionate changes to the young driver’s licence to support them through the transition from being a learner, by initially limiting their driving in the riskiest situations.
The Department for Transport told me in a recent letter that the “latest” statistics show the number of fatalities involving 17-24 year olds has dropped, “with a 77% total decrease since 1990.” This is of course, good news. But, starting an argument on road deaths with data from 1990 seemed to me to be a misleading way to assert that the current mix of policies was working.
Even though we have seen a reduction in crash injuries over this period, there were still 4,935 deaths or serious injuries from young driver crashes in 2022. It is also accurate to say that there was a 15% increase in the number of deaths of young drivers between 2019 and 2022. Examples of the three groups of people killed from young driver crashes have attracted more attention from the media recently: first a young driver death – and his passenger – whilst speeding; second the death of pregnant Frankie Jules-Hough whilst simply waiting for vehicle recovery; and the death of passengers – and the young driver – in a crash in north Wales.
Because there is a disproportionate risk to young drivers and the consequences of injury crashes means there is a clear policy problem in need of attention from Parliamentarians, rather than the government’s current argument that the number is falling, and so the current approach is sufficient. Graduated Driver Licensing has been rejected by the Department for Transport even though “every death or serious injury on our roads is a tragedy”.
We have known for decades that young drivers are more likely to crash due to their young age, inexperience, when carrying similar-aged passengers, and are susceptible to peer influence and risk taking: particularly young male drivers. But, politicians across the House of Commons do not seem to want to take policy action where solutions could be seen as restrictive or as “picking on” young or novice drivers, as was said in a Transport Committee inquiry.
So, whilst wondering why government were reluctant to take action, I penned a letter to the Guardian which was signed by 23 leading experts from transport safety, psychology, law, health and public health (not all names were published purely due to space). The main thrust of the letter, after arguing there was a problem in need of fixing, was that there is a clear solution which has reduced death or serious injuries between 20% and 40% in countries, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where it has been introduced. A Graduated Driving Licensing system could require a minimum learning period, and include a night time curfew from carrying peer-aged passengers for young drivers. This would enable them to gain experience and skills, and has shown to have minimal impact on the young drivers’ access to education, employment and social activities.
Whilst this intervention is supported by decades of research and evidence from public health and transport safety, alternatives such as education, testing and campaigns remain the main focus from government. This optimism bias in favour of solutions with limited efficacy to reduce death or serious injury, against a Graduated Driving Licensing, backed up with decades of clear evidence on the reduction of death and serious injury has been a major flaw in British policymaking over decades.
The consequences for families and their communities are devastating. These road crashes cost the economy £132 million each year, add pressure on the NHS and emergency services, and inflate insurance premiums, but there is not the political will to tackle deaths and serious injuries from young driver crashes. I suggest that this depth of research and efficacy would not be dismissed if applied to, for example, teenage cancer treatments, but it is when applied to teenage road deaths.
Despite talking about supporting young drivers for decades, MPs have failed to act on introducing proven evidence-based licensing changes to support young drivers which people in Britain generally support, and do not recognise that GDL would be an important element of reducing the cost of driving for young drivers.
This is even more important in an election year, where there is a need to focus on Graduated Driving Licensing which would not only save the lives of young drivers and their passengers, but also people killed whilst simply travelling on Britain’s roads and impacted by young driver crashes. This effective public health intervention would prioritise safety for all of us travelling on Britain’s roads, and hardly dent the freedom of young drivers.
Thanks for some really interesting comments and I am always happy to debate.
On potential social, economic or educational impacts, I would draw your readers to the RAC Foundation report: “Supporting new drivers in GB.” It concludes: “the concerns raised are not supported by the best evidence currently available” (page 12).
It is a short report which is worth a read whichever side of the argument you fall – it may adapt your thinking.
Ian Greenwood, Halifax
+3
There is much in Dr Greenwood’s piece that is irrefutable but the difficulty arises when one starts to consider the various implications: social,adinistrative, political and enforcement. Talk of the “nanny state” and individual’s rights may be countered by referencing the seat belt legislation. We did not think that it was wrong to stop people impaling themselves on steering columns or their right to be hurled through windscreens. The problem comes when deciding where to draw the line. Researech shows that the last part of the brain to be fully developed is the ability to recognise and determine risk and that this only comes about at the age of 25. Theoretically therefore we should ban anyone below the age of 25 from driving. But this of course would have considerable social, financial and political implications which would seem to make it a non-starter. Incidentally, a few years ago the most successful stock car racing driver in the USA was aged 15, presumable because he had no judgement of risk.
Even if we judge GDL to be in the “seat belt” bracket rather than the “under 25” range of severity, we still have to consider the social implications. The article suggests that, based on experience in other countries, there will be no effect on employment. I would suggewst that what happens in Australia or elsewhere is not a reasonable ground to make the assumption here. Jobs that require a driving licence may well mean that the individual will at some time carry passengers.To prevent the new dricver from doing so might well harm their chances of securing employment. At a time when the Government is pushing ahead with plans to get as many people into employment, this would be a political no-no.
Then, as has been pointed out by others, when does the six months start – from passing the test? Like some of them I did not have my own car until about that time after I passed my test. Well, from driving full time then. But how would you record this, at least without the possibility of falsification.
Finally, and I fear the most fraught, how do you enforce this? The Home Office is particularly sensitive to any proposed legislation that increases the burden on the Police. As I write there are headlines in the newspapers about them not doing the jobs they are already supposed to do. We already know that some young people drive without either licence or insurance. To enforce GDL would appear to require “stop and search” and we know how sensitive that already is. I fear that is another political no-no.
Or, to put it succinctly, nothing is impossible for the man who doesn’t have to carry it out.
Brian Austin
ADI Registrar (retired) 1985-1996
Brian Austin
+6
Totally agree with the article on need for GDL and the implict damnation of parliament over many years to ignore the evidence – both academic and from other countries implementation of it. While vehicle systems and to an extent changes to infrastructure are moderating collision severity the attitude and lack of experience base young/new drivers have means that constraints minimising risky environments is a restriction that on balance is in public interest.
Keith Baldock, Brighton
+3
The Department of Transport’s false argument that, because fatalities amongst 17-24 year old drivers, nothing further needs to be done is surely proof that it is not fit for the purpose of saving lives on the road. In any other business, a failure to implement a proven remedy at the earliest possible opportunity would surely be actionable in the courts. I have some sympathy for those who would consider the fatalities manslaughter. And I’d say much the same about the failure to implement ISA. It’s about time there was a truly effective “Think” campaign – aimed at our MPs. Get writing, dear readers, if you care about our young people and those they affect.
Fraser Andrew, STIRLING
+2
A great statement by Dr Ian Greenwood. I would hope most would see this proposal as embracing freedom, not curtailing it.
I attended a Driving Standards Agency (as they were then called) conference over 20 years ago in Birmingham, where the head of service Rosemary Thew asked: “Young or old, male or female, which group of people are most likely to pass the driving test first time?” After some head scratching, the answer provided was ‘young men’.
The next question was much easier to answer: “Which of these groups are most likely to be involved in a serious collision in their first year of driving?” Young men! This suggests the current test standard is most likely to be met by those at most risk.
Then we appeared to lose the plot as a nation, as the solution presented was for Driver CPC (Continuing Professional Competence) to be introduced for all lorry and bus drivers – and nothing to tackle new drivers!
Since the decade of road safety 2000 to 2010 which led to a reduction in fatalities of 46%, there’s been nothing and reductions have slowed to 6% from 2010 to 2019 (NB, 2020 and 2021 are not representative years due to covid). Arguably the 6% reduction over a decade owes more to vehicle technology, and we saw Road Policing reduced in this period too.
What we desperately need is another decade of road safety, and I feel graduated licensing could be part of that leading up to the test and some touch points afterwards as well.
I feel passing your test in a car or on a motorcycle should give you a licence for no more than six months, which then get extended to two years when you attend a two hour driver training session focused on attitude and behaviour which is a minimum of 45 minutes classroom and 45 minutes practical with a Fleet Driver Trainer or RPMT (Register of Post Test Motorcycle Trainers) registered trainer.
Then you will need to attend a further two hour course between one year and two years after passing your test to gain entitlement ongoing, subject to medical requirements.
Both these registers are DVSA overseen, with the focus on driver’s mindset and risk recognition rather than behaving well for a driving test – let’s be honest, if everyone drove to driving test standards we would cut annual fatalities to a tenth of what they are now, it’s the mindset that needs addressing to help drivers WANT to drive better.
Currently drivers are being quoted thousands for insurance, as insurers know the risks involved. The cost of two lots of two hour training sessions over two years after passing the test with appropriate trainers is miniscule compared to this, and will in the medium and long term lead to reduced insurance premiums as collision rates drop – a win-win. Reduced deaths and casualties, reduced costs to individuals and the economy – what’s not to like?
Ben Graham Dip DI, Transport Manager CPC (Logistics / Commercial Vehicles)
Transport Manager and Fleet Driver Trainer
07798 584742
ben.graham.rg@gmail.com
Mr Ben Graham, Woodley, Reading
+4
I side strongly with the view that the level of ability required to pass the driving test is too low, certainly for some, if not all, young drivers. I think the DVSA should formally review it. As it happens I developed an adjustable motion sensor that warned a driver when vehicle instability was building whilst cornering, a device I expected would be peer reviewed officially following a ghastly accident in which a young girl passenger lost her life through her driver’s error. I actually learned its ‘usefulness’ would only be determined by ‘the market’. It has actually found much favour with a number of motivated instructors but given the principal financial beneficiaries are felt to be ‘society’ and the insurance companies, its use has so far proved quite limited. There is a general lack of curiosity about any initiative aimed at driver improvement by serious players. There are 40,000 instructors out there seeing 800,000 new drivers each year. The scope for doing something that could actually ‘make a difference’ I believe exists. Our initiative might even be a natural part of GDL
Mike Knight, Ascot
+1
“…the syllabus doesn’t prepare you for actually driving a car in a spirited fashion,.”
‘Spirited’ fashion ? Isn’t that attitude what’s causing the problem in the first place? ‘Spirited’ driving is not for the highway thank you – that’s what banger racing and go- karting circuits are for – or even video games!
I’ve seen mature adults driving in a ‘spirited’ fashion and yes things did go wrong.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
--4
Whilst I empathise with the opinion expressed, I feel it would be remiss of me to not point out that GDL as a concept is rather flawed.
One common proposed GDL scheme is to restrict drivers from certain actions until 6 months after passing their test. Who nowadays can actively afford to drive immediately after passing their test? I didn’t “start” driving until 5 months after gaining my licence, and it took me approximately 6 months after that point for me to have discovered my disapproval (shall we say) of current road safety practices. GDL as a concept wouldn’t have “solved” any problems.
I genuinely believe the issue is in the steps prior to taking the driving exam, the syllabus doesn’t prepare you for actually driving a car in a spirited fashion, or rather, prepare you for what happens when things go wrong.
Of course, I’m rather bitter about GDL because as someone who up until recently could be described as a “young driver”, GDL could have negatively affected my ability to drive. Have proponents of GDL considered the same restrictions for older drivers, as drivers of an increasing age also carry much higher risks?
> so why not make it outright illegal for drivers up to a certain age to be insurable at all on those cars deemed inappropriate because of the vehicles’ image and performance capabilties
Has the author of this comment recently been a young driver, attempting to lawfully insure a powerful vehicle? Insurance premiums already act in such a manner.
David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
--1
Young males (and, it has to be said, some not so young males) in particular, seem attracted to speed, acceleration and the so-called ‘high performance cars’ culture with which to show off their (lack of ) driving skills. Although, motor insurance is expensive for people driving such cars, it doesn’t seem to deter them, so why not make it outright illegal for drivers up to a certain age to be insurable at all on those cars deemed inappropriate because of the vehicles’ image and performance capabilties. By the time these people are old enough to qualify, perhaps they will have matured enough for the appeal to have worn off!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
+7