Road Safety Bill could cost more lives than it saves warns Safer Streets Coalition.

Groups concerned with road safety have united to oppose proposals to weaken speeding penalties.

The Safer Streets Coalition, whose 29 member organisations represent community, road safety and environmental interests and a wide cross-section of social groups (1) is warning that the first Road Safety Bill in 40 years, if unchanged, could end up costing more lives than it saves.

The Bill, which has its second reading on Tuesday, includes a proposal to lower the penalty for 'marginally' exceeding the speed limit from 3 points to 2 points - even though 'marginal' could mean driving at 39mph in a 30mph area (2).

The Safer Streets Coalition has said 'under no circumstances should penalty points be reduced' (3).

The chances of killing a pedestrian in a collision at 30 mph are about 50%. They increase to nearly 85% at 39mph (4). Yet given the chance, 58% of car drivers speed in 30mph limits (5). 19,000 people were killed or seriously injured on roads with 30mph limits in 2003, just over half of the total deaths and serious injuries on all roads (6).

The message the Government is giving to drivers is that most speeding offences have become less dangerous. Dropping the penalty points will give drivers more opportunities to speed before they are disqualified. That will make our roads more dangerous for everyone.

Adrian Voce, Director of the Children's Play Council, said:

'For a very large number of children, their street is the only accessible outdoor place to play with their friends - and the UK has among the highest figures for child road fatalities in the EU. The penalty proposal would effectively send out the message that it's less serious to speed down a street where children are playing than it is to drive at 60mph down an urban dual carriageway".

Nicholas Russell, RNIB Campaigns Officer, said:

'Speeding vehicles can be dangerous for everyone. But if you can't see a speeding car, it is absolutely terrifying. The penalty proposal would give drivers the message that it is less serious to go 39 miles an hour in a built up area were a visually impaired person was trying to cross the road than 80 miles an hour down a motorway.'

The fine for people who speed up to an average of 10 miles above the limit is going to be dropped from £60 to £40. Slower Speeds Initiative spokesperson, Paige Mitchell, said:

'Cracking down on anti-social behaviour is a Government priority. They want a £75 fine for littering but would reduce penalties for speeding in those same streets. Speeding kills and maims thousands of people each year, intimidates millions and causes noise and pollution. It's about as anti-social as you can get and Home Office research shows that the public recognises this (7). The Government is well out of touch on this one.'

Hester Brown, Press and Parliamentary Officer at Living Streets, said:

'Speeding traffic stops people enjoying the great outdoors. As humans we need some gentle physical activity and fresh air. As communities we need to meet in socially inclusive space. Speeding traffic has been one of the main causes for the decline in community life in the 20th century. MPs must take this opportunity to make the 21st century one of community renaissance.'

Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Manager at CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, said:

'Many people say they would love to cycle, recognising its health, cost, time-saving and environmental advantages. What holds them back is the fear of road danger. There is so much more this Bill could do to tackle speeding and other forms of dangerous driving, to support the Government's own efforts to tackle congestion, pollution and obesity.'

David Coulthread, Transport 2000's Assistant Director, said:

'The Government has a duty to get this Bill right. As it stands, it sends out the wrong messages about the dangers of speeding in built up areas. Penalties may be reduced but the danger to children and other people will remain the same. We all have a responsibility to ensure our streets are safe for everyone.'

There are already signs that prominent backbenchers are unhappy with the Government's proposals. Gwyneth Dunwoody MP, chairman of the influential Commons Transport Select Committee said when launching their report on Road Traffic Law and Enforcement:

'These proposals send completely the wrong message to those who drive a few miles an hour over the speed limit in built-up areas ... Breaking the speed limit at lower speeds makes the most lethal difference... I hope the Government will re-think its plans for variable penalties when Parliament discusses the Road Safety Bill.'(8)

A revolt against the measures in the Lords is also possible.

The Safer Streets Coalition welcomes some of the measures in the Bill but calls on MPs to bring a new vision to road safety.

The Coalition is calling for:

• A 20mph default speed limit for most urban and residential roads.
• Changes to the rules on drivers' insurance schemes to make it easier for non-motorised road users to claim injury damages from drivers who hit them.
• Lowering the drink-drive limit, from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood.
• Extending the proposed fines for driving whilst using a mobile phone to cover hands-free (as well as hand-held) kit.
• Extending the proposed ban on speed camera detector devices to cover GPS-based (as well as radar-based) equipment.
• 'Black-boxes' speed recorders to be fitted in lorries, buses and other defined vehicle types (e.g. fleet vehicles). These are already used in police vehicles and under some insurance schemes. Normally the data is only stored briefly before being deleted (so this proposal has no civil liberties implications), but it would leave no doubt about whether a driver was speeding if a crash occurred.
• New definitions of bad driving offences. At present, drivers can kill or maim but still be charged only with 'driving without due care and attention' - the resulting injury or fatality is often not even mentioned in court.
• A statutory duty for local authorities to reduce danger on the roads they manage.

Quotes from other Safer Streets Coalition members:

Paul Hamblin, Head of Transport Policy at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:

'Across the countryside, villages are being plagued by speeding traffic. If the Prime Minister's commitment almost five years ago that 30mph speed limits should be the norm for villages is to be delivered, the Road Safety Bill should introduce this as a national maximum limit. All villages should be safe villages. Road Safety Bills come around less frequently than some rural buses - it is an opportunity which must be grasped.'

Andrew Davis, Director of the Environmental Transport Association said:

'From the age of two until we are in our mid-forties being killed on our roads is the most likely form of death. For most of our lives, reducing road danger has, therefore, a greater impact on our safety than any other single policy initiative. The most effective way of reducing road danger is to lower speeds on our streets. As motorists, we want government to ensure that all drivers act in a way to maximise safety.'

Tom Bogdanowicz of the London Cycling Campaign said:

'Excessive vehicle speeds put people off cycling and walking and only

lead to more congestion and pollution - we should be using modern technology like black box recorders in lorries and buses so that these vehicles stick to speed limits and set an example for others.'

Professor Ian Roberts, Community Paediatrician and Professor of Public Health at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:

'Pedestrian injuries are the leading cause of death and acquired disability for school children in Britain. There are steep social class gradients in death rates with the poorest children at much greater risk. It is the welfare of these children and not speeding motorists that should be a government priority. For a Labour government to put the interests of the road lobby before that of our children is a scandal.'

Brigitte Chaudhry of RoadPeace, UK's charity for road crash victims:

"The failure to introduce a long-overdue law change for serious motoring offences involving death and injury is a fundamental omission affecting human rights. It will mean continuing injustice for the bereaved and injured, lack of deterrence for law-breakers and everyday danger for all road users. A reduction of penalties for speeding would increase that danger."

Don Mathew of Sustrans:

"We know that young people, if asked, would choose to walk or cycle to and from school. They realise the benefits it brings to them and to the environment. But parents are worried about safety. That's why Sustrans is building over 230 cycling and walking routes linking schools to the National Cycle Network between now and March. And properly enforced speed limits further help to create a safe environment - reducing casualties by 70% amongst children. Sustrans' work on promoting walking and cycling - notably through Safe Routes to School and our creation of the National Cycle Network - is made difficult, if not impossible, by unsafe streets and speeding traffic".

Erika Severini of Cycle Training UK:

"Last month's Health White Paper cries out for tackling obesity in children and we are urged to give up our sedentary lifestyle. However, measures like this Bill, rather than reducing speed limits across the board, will actually prevent parents from simply letting their children walk or cycle to school. Anyone who would like to cycle is, yet again, discouraged by the number one fear-factor: speeding traffic."

Dr Alison Giles, Associate Director of the National Heart Forum, warned that the proposal could be a home goal for the government:

'If the government is serious about tackling the epidemic of obesity and obesity-related ill health, it will need to make every effort to encourage more people to be more active in their daily lives. This proposal to reduce the penalty for speeding car drivers could increase traffic speeds and discourage children and adults from walking and cycling - often the most accessible forms of healthy physical activity.'

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Hester Brown, Living Streets - 020 7820 1010 or 07791 460552

Yannick Read, media officer at CTC, the national cyclists' organisation

0870 873 0063

Paige Mitchell, The Slower Speeds Initiative - 0845 345 8459, mob 078331 08900

David Coulthread, Transport 2000 - 0207 613 0743 ext 107

CPC (Children's Play Council), Adrian Voce, Director - 020 7843 6094

CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) Paul Hamblin, Head of Transport Policy - 020 7981 2833 (Also ISDN)

ETA (Environmental Transport Association) Andrew Davis, Director - 01932 835 078 or 07958 714 148

National Heart Forum, Dr Alison Giles, Associate Director - 07968 741257

RNIB Nicholas Russell, Campaigns Officer - 020 7391 2136, mob 07958 971442.

Sustrans, Gill Harrison, Senior Press Officer - 0117 915 0108, mob: 07802 986728

NOTES TO EDITORS

(1) The SAFER STREETS COALITION are Age Concern, Children's Play Council, Civic Trust, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Child Accident Prevention Trust, CTC (the national cyclists' organisation), Cycle Training UK, Environmental Transport Association, Friends of the Earth, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Help the Aged, Institution of Civil Engineers, JMU Access Partnership and the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, Living Streets, London Cycling Campaign, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, National Federation of Women's Institutes, National Heart Forum, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, Ramblers' Association, RoadPeace, RNIB, RNID, ROSPA, The Slower Speeds Initiative, Sustrans, Transport 2000, Whitby Bird & Partners Engineers

(2) Road Safety Bill, Clause 16

(3) ROAD SAFETY NEEDS A NEW VISION: A briefing on the Road Safety Bill 2004 from the Safer Streets Coalition December 2004. The briefing can be accessed at http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/download/181-Safer-Streets-Coalition-briefing-on-Road-Safety-Bill.pdf

(4) Department for Transport (2004) Managing Speed on Our Roads

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_029005.hcsp

Department for Transport (2004) Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain 2003 Statistics Bulletin SB(04)29, Table 5: Vehicle speeds on built-up roads by speed limit and vehicle type: 2003

Department for Transport (2004) Road Casualties Great Britain 2003, Table 13: Accidents and casualties: by severity, major and minor roads and speed limit

(7) See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/antisocial1.html

Wood, M (2004) Perceptions and experiences of antisocial behaviour, Findings

252 London: Home Office:

'Extent of perceived antisocial behaviour problems in the local area:

There were widespread perceptions of problems with anti-social behaviour (ASB) in residents' local areas... The most commonly mentioned problem was speeding traffic (43% of the population)'.

(8) Transport Select Committee (2004) Press Release: Government Plans for Lower Speed Penalties 'send the wrong message' - Dunwoody, 23 November 2004. Her comments reflect the findings of the Transport Committee's Report Traffic Law and its Enforcement (HC 105-I). It can be accessed at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtran.htm