FIVE REFORMS FOR SAFER ROADS THROUGH BETTER DRIVING

1. Government To Endorse The Report of the Road Safety Commission 1947

This report set the tone that enabled Britain to have the safest roads in the world before technocracy took hold, making drivers scapegoats for a failing system. It said:

“Any system under which fear becomes the controlling factor in obtaining the required reaction among so large a section of the public who, as individuals, are generally law abiding, is not, we think, likely to produce the most effective results. The British public co-operates with the police because the relationship between them is generally one of friendly understanding rather than submission to obtrusive authority, and the more it is realised that the policeman is the friend of the motorist and cyclist who wishes to be a thoroughly safe driver or rider, though the deadly enemy of the deliberate offender, the greater will be the co-operation between the police and road users and the sooner will the standard of road behaviour be improved” = Replace ‘Policing by Coercion’ with Robert Peel’s ‘Policing By Consent’

• This policy from 1947 was our default position for many years and embodies wisdom that resonates with drivers and road traffic officers to this day; people who see it as nothing more than a return to reasonableness and common sense.
   
• It is a doctrine of discretion consistent with the cherished principle of ‘Policing by Consent’ which served Britain so well for many years but which we have allowed  to be trashed by ‘over-the-top’ intrusive enforcement practices as policing has become more impersonal and technocratic. We urgently need a restoration.

• Drivers today are subjected to a comprehensive ‘war of attrition’ which this reform will rectify so far as the speed enforcement aspect is concerned. It advocates discernment between those drivers who warrant police attention whilst getting off the backs of those who don’t. This is what adopting the reform would achieve

• It is not as if the harsh, impersonal enforcement practices have had any tangible road safety benefit because they haven’t. They have only succeeded in breeding resentment amongst the very people we need on our side; decent safe drivers who would not otherwise come into contact with the police or fall foul of the law.  

• Government has a mandate to govern and if Secretaries of State for Transport believe this reform makes sense then, as our elected representative they should feel able to direct civil servants to see to it that this reform is implemented.
  
• 
  If resistance is encountered by quangos or unelected road safety establishment, people, the onus should be on dissenters to convince the electorate of the merit of their system, and that trashing ‘Policing by Consent’ is a price worth paying!

2. DVSA To Rethink Driver Training and Licensing

A common language and understanding of how to minimise crash risk should be part of a lifelong-learning approach which drivers refresh throughout their driving careers. The profoundly important book ‘Mind Driving – New Skills for Staying Alive on the Road’ satisfies this need through its ‘Speed-Surprise-Space’ Risk Model. Unlike ‘speed kills’, this actually defines safety but has so far been ignored by the DVSA. A form of Progressive Licensing Scheme, (e.g. Preliminary, Provisional and Full licences), should be considered in which every driver must be able to explain the Risk Model and demonstrate applying it in practice before they can progress to the next level of competence. Retaining that level can then become a badge of honour.

• To become a safe, fully competent driver requires specific training to keep speed, surprise and space in balance at all times whatever the road situation that unfolds. Then, and only then, will the risk of crashes be minimised.

• Appallingly, few drivers if asked could articulate this fundamental Risk Model. Achieving balance necessitates drivers to be trained to THINK in accordance with the model whereas current driver training still emphases “hands and feet” skills.

• Merely exceeding the speed limit is not in itself dangerous. The powerful Risk Model proves conclusively that emphasis on speed alone is reckless and misleading since speed cannot be viewed in isolation from the two other factors.

• Despite being published to great acclaim, the Risk Model was but not adopted by the establishment. Today it would make the single biggest contribution to road safety by finally making driver training relevant and effective. Again the Transport Secretary must override any lingering resistance from DVSA officials. The maxim “You never get a second chance to make a first impression” applies here. New drivers should first be taught the Risk Model in the classroom before going out behind the wheel. Then alongside mastering the car controls the thinking skills  can be DRILLED into them by instructors in each driving situation they encounter
   
• So far as licensing is concerned, the maxim “You only really learn to drive after you have passed your test” is also relevant here. Only as drivers acquire sufficient experience over time can they reach proficiency in applying the Risk Model as it finally becomes second nature. Our proposed Progressive Licensing Scheme therefore envisages a Preliminary Phase where the learner drives under instruction, a Provisional Phase where new drivers gain sufficient experience of independent driving without an instructor and before they can achieve a Full Licence when a final test demonstrates that they are fully proficient drivers

3. Police Forces To Reinstate Locally-Based Road Traffic Patrols

There is no substitute for police traffic officers with local knowledge patrolling every community, known and trusted because they work in accordance with the 1947 Road Safety Commission philosophy. This will facilitate intelligence-led traffic policing with officers using professional discretion as to how best to deal with errant drivers, so as to replace the technocratic, impersonal, Orwellian methods currently normalised.

• We all see drivers every day who would benefit from friendly advice from a road traffic officer because their driving falls short of the Risk Model requirements. Traffic policing has been pared to the bone however, meaning that these, and other more egregious drivers who need much firmer action escape attention.

• The State has a duty to protect citizens from the very worst drivers by keeping them off the road. These include disqualified drivers and criminals driving stolen cars on false plates, under the influence of drink or drugs or on crime sprees. It is an outrage that only 5% of car thefts are detected for example, yet stolen cars and cars used in crime are disproportionally involved in serious and fatal crashes.

• Unfortunately the advent of camera technology coupled with the ‘Vision Zero’ mentality has allowed Transport Ministers to distance themselves from their road safety responsibilities. Where lives are at risk we deserve better, especially as governments have squandered billions of pounds of taxpayer money on luxury projects before first securing fundamental services such as roads policing.
  
  
• We are the sixth wealthiest country in the world and it used to be possible to fund roads policing in the past before the advent of speed cameras. It can be funded again with political will. Speed cameras are policing on the cheap and have led to an egregious deception being visited on the public, especially some fatal accident victims who might still be alive today had police patrols not been removed.
  
  
• Adopting this reform then would have multiple collateral benefits for both accident and indeed crime prevention, especially if professional road traffic officers were to be community based as Reform 5 envisages. That will enable them to regain the trust and respect of local people in the community who would then come forwards and tell them things that they can act upon to nip problems in the bud.

• None of this is rocket science but successive governments have chosen not to do it, preferring instead to be seduced by technology in the vain hope of doing effective policing on the cheap. A return to tried-and-tested in-person policing would start to rebuild trust between the police and communities; something which it is impossible to put a price on.

4. Restore Sensible Speed Limit Setting Using The 85^th Percentile Rule

This rational approach to speed limit setting optimises safe traffic flow and allows meaningful  thresholds to be set for advice, enforcement and prosecution to facilitate mainly voluntary lifelong learning and re-training in the spirit of ‘Policing by Consent’

• Roads are at their safest when TRAFFIC FLOW is optimised and dangerous when it is not. The mandating of rigid speed limits present a risk to safety when they disrupt the natural flow of traffic. This leads to drivers becoming impatient, tailgating and doing other bad things up to and including road rage.

• The majority of drivers can be relied upon to recognise for themselves when their speed is either too fast or too slow for the unique set of road conditions they continuously face. Only the driver can make this ‘on the spot’ assessment of what a safe speed actually is and only when they can demonstrate this skill should they be awarded a full licence. No driver should have to become unduly fixated on their speedometer for fear of being caught exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.

• Safety must therefore be primarily a matter of personal responsibility and it cannot be delegated to a speed limit. Attempting to micro-manage a driver’s choice of speed infantilises them and works against their taking responsibility for choosing the right speed for the conditions through application of the Risk Model. Even when not explicitly trained in applying the Risk Model, an experienced driver’s intuitive judgement will keep people safe most of the time. Most do not need a working speedometer to tell them that they are going too fast or too slow.
  
  
• In recognition of the above, speed limits used to be set rationally using something called the 85^th Percentile Rule or Principle. This acknowledged what the majority of drivers on an unrestricted stretch of road considered to be a safe speed. Coupled with discretion in enforcement (Reform 1) safer roads were achieved by this sensible approach to speed limit setting and enforcement. Regrettably, authorities now seek to micro-manage and rigidly control peoples’ driving, placing ideological considerations above safety to justify a flawed quest so far as safety is concerned to continuously lower speed limits across the board.
  
  
•  In summary, a driver fully trained in the Risk Model will understand that they are expected to take personal responsibility for choosing a safe speed at all times by balancing speed with surprise and space. Outsourcing safety to a speed limit is simply wrong. Traffic flow is dangerously compromised when an interfering nanny State sets speed limits unreasonably low as, for example, with the blanket 20mph limits in Wales. This has led to drivers becoming fixated on their speedometers at the expense of properly observing the road ahead and then planning their driving for possible surprises. This reform is intended to rectify these issues.

5. Involve Local Communities In This Enlightened Approach To Road Safety

By supporting ‘Mind Driving’ courses within local community education provision and acquainting people with crash maps and causation data, healthy local interest can be generated, leading to a national culture of safer driving in partnership with the police.

• The purpose of this reform is to encourage and empower local people to take an active interest in making the roads safer in their area through a variety of initiatives led by roads safety champions who emerge from within the community. These initiatives are to be supported by the community road traffic officer(s) drawing upon information and resources available through the local authority.

• Once it is understood that all accidents occur as a result of drivers getting speed, surprise and space out of balance, local people and groups should be given access to crash analyses at every location where they have occurred so that  learning can be shared in order to prevent future crashes. It is astounding that such information is not routinely available to people and communities at present.

• Most communities are likely to have a number of locations at higher risk of crashes as well as a number of drivers who are at higher risk of causing them. . Working with hard information, the standard protocol for addressing these issues is known as the ‘Three E’s of Road Safety’ namely: Engineering, Education and Enforcement. It was always intended that enforcement was to be use as a last resort but unfortunately with the growing reliance on technology, enforcement now seems to be used as the first and often only resort, with engineering and education being largely neglected. Reform 5 seeks to address this.

• It would be wrong to specify the initiatives that communities could initiate; better that communities come up with their own. The foundation however is that the  community road traffic officer should have a good working knowledge of every driver in the area who might pose a risk on the roads because of, for example,  they drive whilst disqualified or under the influence of drink or drugs etc. All drivers including young and novice drivers should be dealt with within the framework provided by the 1947 Road Safety Commission set out in Reform 1

• Beyond this communities might come up with initiatives that might include, for example, teaching the Risk Model in 6^th forms, night school classes and summer schools running throughout the year, engaging local driving instructors and advanced driving organisations to offer driving assessments and new driver mentoring, and negotiating community discounts with insurers to recognise and reinforce continued for good driving per the Risk Model.

The ultimate aspiration of this reform would be to create a national culture of safe drivers community by community in which peer example rather than law enforcement encourages people to drive safely and not let their community down