Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned because of his involvement in the phone hacking scandal. Here is another national scandal I believe he was implicated in as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.Just to make it clear, this is not about the failings of one man.

I’m talking about a general lack of enforcement of road traffic law in Britain (probably even worse elsewhere than in London), combined with the lenient sentencing of the courts and  not taking proper attention of law and rule breaking which endangers others on the road. Our friends in RoadPeace regularly come across the inability or refusal of the powers that be to take the endangering, hurting or killing of others seriously. And , of course, this is in turn related to the way in which those who should be addressing the issue of danger on the roads elsewhere – whether it be highway or vehicle engineers, health and “road safety” professionals have been unable or unwilling to do so properly.

Nevertheless, traffic policing is at present a necessary element of any attempt to have a civilised approach to safety on the road. So what was happening up to and including Sir Paul’s watch as Commissioner?

He didn’t come into post with a good record. Indeed, the car fanatic Association of British Drivers had him down as  “one of the good guys”. Both the ABD and the anti-speed camera “Safe Speed” (sic) commended him for being soft on speeding offenders when he was in charge of traffic policing in Lancashire. And while speeding is only one part of danger on the road, the softly-softly policy on speed was not linked with obvious increases in traffic law enforcement elsewhere.

So what was the situation he found himself in when he took over in London? You don’t have to be sceptical about a police culture and practice which has traffic policing as a low priority to be dismayed. In fact an excellent report by Jenny Jones MLA was written while she was Ken Livingstone’s “Road Safety Ambassador”. “London’s Lawless Roads”is worth reading (it’s only four pages long) for the picture of extreme lawlessness it gives. To give a few facts form the report written just before Sir Paul took over:

* Between 1980 and 2001 the number of Traffic Police in London declined from 1063 to 646: As a proportion of all Police their proportion declined from a  measly 4.5% to 2%.

* In 1984  prosecutions for Careless Driving were at 13,829 (can you believe there were only this number of instances of careless driving in a day in London , let alone a year?) In 2004 this had gone down to 4,715.

I haven’t referred to the main forms of law and rule breaking which endanger others – the report refers to “illegal” driving as being the most extreme forms of lawlessness. We could talk about the cuts in the numbers o speed cameras and the general difficulties in getting an adequate level of policing. And it goes on: take this from the last Mayor’s Question Time:

Traffic police cuts
Question No: 2095 / 2011
Jenny Jones
Given the rise in the total number of child pedestrian casualties, will you reverse the cut of thirty police officers and thirteen staff from within the traffic section of the Transport Command Unit since 2009/10?
Written response from the Mayor
Though overall numbers in Traffic Operational Command Unit have reduced since 2008, the number of Police Constables has been increased by 8.5.

 The problems are, it should be said again, not those of one man. But he was in charge during this period, so should have some responsibility for what has been going on.

By a tragic irony, one of the features of an inadequate legal response to road danger is the difficulty in getting adeqaute evidence of law breaking, even after fatalities, is one which has impacted on Sir Paul’s family:

According to the Evening Standard: “Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson is said to be “bitterly disappointed” after the case was dropped against the lorry driver whose vehicle hit and killed her (his daughter’s) cyclist boyfriend. Rebecca Stephenson’s partner, Harry Wilmers, 25, was knocked off his bike in Old Trafford in August 2009. The driver, Wesley Lawrence, 31, was due to face a crown court trial in Manchester today, accused of causing death by careless driving. But the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned proceedings, claiming expert evidence made it impossible to proceed. “

Perhaps when he writes his memoirs Sir Paul could give an account of how soft the law and it’s enforcemnt are towards those who endanger others on the road. And how some of us are right to think that is a national scandal.

I was interviewed by Jack Thurston about Road Danger Reduction and cycling for the entire July 4^th edition of the excellent “The Bike Show”  on Resonance FM. You can hear the interview here.

This book, one of the main sources of evidence for the road danger reduction approach, is now out of print.  A few copies are available from the author. Here are what reviewers have said:

“Another book which is so interesting that it makes my head hurt is by Robert Davis… I’ve been reading it for ages. A couple of pages is enough for me to put it down and reflect. It’s chock full of facts and references, as well as thought-provoking observations about the role of the car in our societies.” Mikael Colville-Andersen, Copenhagenize, 2010

 “This book is a compelling assemblage of the evidence for the danger to civilization posed by the continuing unrestricted use of the private car. Written lucidly ‘from the heart’ the documentation is wide-ranging and meticulous.. A book to be warmly recommended” H.S. Eisner, Safety Science 17 [(1994) 227 - 230]

 “If I had sufficient funds, I would give everyone who reads a copy of Death on the Streets. Please do read it and then take up the cudgels with your MP, your District Councillor and your Chief Constable and do not stop until matters are sufficiently improved to enable us all to share our roads in safety” Peter Cannon, British Horse (British Horse Society), [Autumn 1993]

 “Highly recommend as reading for those associated with roads and road safety”. Karl Briggs, New Civil Engineer [12/19 August 1993]

 “A totally brilliant book, which will go down in history as a classic….fully referenced in one invaluable work…. chockful of useful quotes……The issues it raises should dominate our thoughts”. Don Mathew, London Cyclist [April/May 1993]

 “Personally, I shan’t be reading his book.” David Benson, Motoring Editor, Daily Express (6/11/92) Possibly my favourite review, RD.

 “Even if you regard yourself as environmentally aware and safety conscious this book will raise your consciousness still farther….the statistical information is presented in a lively, readable way….His arguments, backed by statistics are very convincing….an excellent antidote to most of the rubbish written on road safety..” CILT Journal (Centre for Independent Transport Research in London) [1,1, April 1993]

“This is a radical critique of road safety policy and practice written with a strong vein of polemic and bound to irritate many readers. Yet I feel it should be read, not just to become familiar with a position which is critical of our own, and relate work, but because there are some good arguments which should be listened to.” Inroads (Journal of the Institute of Road Safety Officers)[15,1, July 1993]

 “This enlightened and detailed book…spares no-one. This book….should be made compulsory reading before one can join the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the judiciary, become a motoring correspondent or even drive a car. If it fails at all it does so only because it is too comprehensive to be read by sceptical road safety professionals and attitude shapers. Highly recommended.” Colin Graham, Cycletouring and Campaigning, April/May 1993.

 “..as powerful as Mick Hamer’s “Wheels Within Wheels”….the way he presents his argumentation and evidence will make many readers change their minds about many things we take for granted. As such, this book should be essential reading for anyone interested or involved in transport safety and environmental issues. Chris Bowers, Going Green (Environmental Transport Association) [Spring 1993]

 “…makes sobering reading for those seriously concerned about road safety….A challenging read..” ‘The Hawk’, Commercial Motor  6 – 12 May 1993.

 “This is a book which does for road safety what Galileo did for astronomy. For pedestrians concerned about the literally deadly threat they face from motor vehicles, it is no exaggeration to say this is probably the most important book ever published on the subject….a devastating book…. Davis seems to have read every book and paper ever published on transport and road safety.. he writes in a lucid but scholarly manner, with all the facts at his fingertips….Death on the Streets is, quite simply brilliant. it amounts to three-hundred pages of stunning argument and authoritative analysis that takes the road safety industry and our car-dominated transport status quo apart. If readers of WALK only ever buy one book on transport, this should be it. Ronald Binns, WALK (Pedestrians Association), Summer 1993.

 “..I would recommend this book to any road safety practitioner, especially to those who believe in engineering as the great cure-all. It is a book which should also be made available to every teacher who covers road safety in his or her classroom.” Richard Doherty,  Care on the Road (RoSPA) August 1993.

 “This is an important book…..I remain both scientifically impressed by the sheer weight of evidence and emotionally swayed by the contrast between adjacent photographs showing children playing in the streets 30 years ago and the barricaded truck routes of today.” Richard Mayou,  The Lancet  Vol 342, July 24 1993, p.226.

‘Death on the Streets; Cars and the mythology of road safety’, by Robert Davis, was published by Leading Edge Press. ISBN 0-948135-46-8. (1993) at £11.99. As it is now out of print and there are only a few rare copies left, I am charging£25 (inc. p&p in the UK ) for private copies (signed if wished). Send cheque made out to Robert Davis at  P.O. Box 2944, NW10 2AX    

No, I’m not saying Lewis Hamilton is a Nazi. Nor that Mercedes-Benz are (not now anyway). Nor that the “road safety” lobby is Nazi. I’m not, really I am not. I am not falling foul of  Godwin’s Law. I promise.   

There are just some interesting connections between the four of them which I noted after my eye fell on the following Press Release (from 2009) and which I think are revealing: “Lewis Hamilton has launched a new initiative at Mercedes-Benz World to give teenagers a greater understanding of road safety.”    Linked in with the main global initiative for “road safety”, this is another example of the dangerous nonsense which sends out the opposite of the messages we need to present to achieve real road safety. Just in case you think this is a wildly radical sentiment, consider the following from the Chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph:  ”Are these really the chaps to persuade boy racers to slow down? Whatever next? A new crackdown on violent crime, with Peter Sutcliffe and Donald Neilson in attendance?”.   

As David Hughes says:”Just one niggling little problem. I can’t think of worse role models for safe drivers than these two speedsters“.  Hamilton’s record is:   

1. 2007, banned from driving in France after being clocked driving at 123mph (200kmh).   

2.  In June 2009 he appeared to have repented, and in an earlier version of one of these “road safety” stunts said  there was “nothing cool” about speeding.   He said: “Everyone has made mistakes including even myself, but you learn from those. “You could easily make such a mistake and lose your friends or lose your own life.”   

3. Reckless driving in Australia in March 2010 – charged with improper use of a vehicle and he accepted guilt.   

4.  In June 2010 the Swiss foundation for victims of road accidents RoadCross (the Swiss equivalent of RoadPeace) condemned both Hamilton and his singer girlfriend Nicole Scherzinger, who has recorded a song called “Baby can’t drive”, for their unruly driving. According to RoadCross, the Pussycat Dolls singer told British tabloid newspaper the Sun that Swiss authorities would no doubt expel the couple from Switzerland if they knew how fast they had driven in the country. RoadCross said that Lewis Hamilton had already caused an accident in March 2009, because of his “irresponsible way of driving”. The Formula One driver hadn’t respected a stop road sign and had hit the car of a woman and her child; no one was injured.   

5.  About his Formula One racing, former ace Niki Lauda says: “He is completely mad….You cannot drive like this — as it will result in someone getting killed.”   . . What he does off-road should not concern us: the only people like to suffer are – unlike ordinary road users – those who have chosen to put themselves in a hazardous position. And the advanced “safety” engineering on race cars and circuits means that they won’t have to worry too much, unlike in Lauda’s day – which is why Hamilton and others can get away with what they get up to. It does, however, send an interesting message out if he is selected as a role model for “road safety” programmes.   

So, back to the Press Release:   

“The Mercedes-Benz Driving Academy has developed the RoadSense (sic)  scheme, which offers children as young as 14 the chance to enhance their learning of road safety through hands-on driving experience.Wilfried Steffen, President and CEO of Mercedes-Benz UK, said: “RoadSense is a great initiative to teach the basics of road safety to teenagers. It highlights the responsibility that even non-drivers have to make the roads a safer place. (It’s very sweet of him to consider that the vast majority of people on the worlds’ roads have something to say about safety on the roads, isn’t it?)

 “Working with schools to offer this as an add-on to the school curriculum will mean that when pupils start to drive or be driven by their friends they have developed a responsible attitude towards driving.”   

This is interesting because one of the few reliable pieces of evidence most road safety professionals agree on is that what is referred to as “pre-driver training” most emphatically does not result in lower chances of crash involvement for those who have it. This is because  it encourages them to drive earlier, boosts their confidence (one of the most dangerous things you can do with a young driver) and – insofar as any real road safety message is imparted – fails to deliver on this in the way that almost all “road safety education” fails to transform behaviour.

But lets’s continue:   

Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz World also offers young drivers the chance to prepare early for their driving test through the Kids’ Driving Experience. Children of all ages, as long as they can reach the pedals of a Mercedes-Benz A-Class (my emphasis) , can learn everything from simple car controls to skid management.   

Before you think that this is some aberration, remember that the UK Prime Minister welcomed Hamilton (and Jenson Button)  to Downing Street to launch the dreadful UN Decade of Road Safety: this nonsense is part of mainstrean “road safety” ideology. It has been supported by the Surrey Police , who should of course be out enforcing highway law.   

MERCEDES-BENZ  AND HISTORY   

 

 

 

   

 

Mercedes (Daimler-Benz) Pendant in Silver Presented to Women Employees

Everybody has seen pictures of Hitler in Daimler-Benz cars, and obviously the company functioned under the Nazis. However, the company history that was put out in 1986 for the 100th anniversary of the first Daimler and Benz cars gave the official line was that ”Daimler-Benz supported the National Socialist regime only to an unavoidable extent for a company of its importance.” No research was permitted in the company’s archives about the labor force during the Nazi period. And there was a lot more to it than the official line suggested.  

  

“Mercedes in Peace and War: German Automobile Workers, 1903-1945″ by Bernard P. Bellon ( Columbia University Press) gives  ” a chilling account of how the great automobile and arms maker prospered on the backs of its workers, including the use of thousands of concentration camp slave laborers right up to the final days of the Third Reich. After its own official history came out, the company relented and opened its archives. Several German historians interceded on behalf of the author of this book, Bernard P. Bellon, who at the end of 1986 was permitted to examine the company’s closed records. Mr. Bellon is assistant professor of history at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a fellow of the Berlin Program for Advanced German and European Studies at the Free University in Berlin.”

 ”Leading managers of Daimler-Benz lent valuable assistance to the National Socialists before Hitler became Chancellor in 1933,” Mr. Bellon writes. ”The corporation even claimed that it was responsible for ‘helping to motorize the movement.’ ” One way the company aided Hitler’s party was to take out large advertisements as early as 1931 in the Nazi newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, known for its virulent propaganda and anti-Semitic tirades. The author believes that the ads may have been part of a quid pro quo arrangement under which Daimler-Benz cars were given or lent to Hitler and his party’s officials.”

 

Neil Gregor’s “Daimler Benz in the Third Reich” traces the early history of the Daimler-Benz company and examines how opportunities offered by Nazi rearmament in the 1930s led to its rapid expansion and a surge in profits. Focusing mainly on the war years, Gregor demonstrates how the company succeeded in exploiting the demands of the war economy while situating its operations most advantageously for resumption of commercial activity in peacetime. Despite Allied bombing, says Gregor, Daimler-Benz AG emerged from the war in good shape—with a clear operating strategy, a largely intact inventory, and core production lines geared for the peacetime market. With its own interests and preservation as prime motives, the company acquiesced in the exploitation of forced labour, thereby actively intensifying the suffering of civilians, prisoners of war, and Jews and other victims of concentration camps. He concludes that the ability of Daimler-Benz to protect its interests during the war and to manage the transition to peace was predicated upon collusion in the racial barbarism of the Nazi regime.

 

 

THE NAZI MOVEMENT AND MOTORISATION

 

I would argue that there was an intimate relationshiop betweent he Nazi movement and motorisation. It wasn’t just Hitler’s close friendship with Henry Ford, the building of the first motorway network (“autobahnen”), the people’s Car (“Volkswagen”) engineered by Ferdinand Porsche , or the “motorisation of the movement” by the car builders. Outside the USA, the only places where there was a realistic hope of car ownership becoming available to ordinary families by the 1940s were the two fascist countries. The mass motorisation of the western world in the post-war years is prefigured by features of the motorisation in these two countries. There are a number of links betwen car culture and the fascist movements which can be drawn out, but now is not the place to do so. Suffice it to say that the denial of awkward facts needs to be challenged. This applies whether it is Mercedes-Benz opening up its archives, or road safety professionals questioning the past of their movement’s interventions.

 

  

DENIAL AND ROAD SAFETY

  

There is a murky history to “road safety” which needs exposure.  The failure to accept that interventions associated with the idiot-proofing of the car and road environments has impacted on the safety of the more benign modes. Considering the movement of these modes out of the road environment as a “good” because there are fewer more vulnerable human beings around to be hurt or killed. Denying the persistent adaptation of human beings to perceptions of risk. Presenting an integral part of  car-dominated transport policies as natural and inevitable. Etc.,etc.

 

Boy racers fronting ludicrous “road safety” camapigns are part of something which has a murky present as well as a past, and it needs to be revealed.

 

 

 

     

     

 

 

 

Hi-viz to walk to school in Hounslow, West London

ABOVE: West London car retailers cargiant have sponsored children wearing hi-viz to walk to school.   

A couple of bloggers have recently raised the issue of “road safety” professionals pushing hi-viz wear and devices for pedestrians as well as cyclists. The politics of the conspicuity con is dealt with in Chapter 9 of my “Death on the Streets: cars and the mythology of road safety” (1992). Here I discuss how this kind of “road safety” initiative is not just without an evidence base, but actually becomes part of the problem it is supposed to deal with. the reference to “slutwalks” should become clear.Mikael Colville-Andersen gives an interesting account of how  “road safety” personnel push hi-viz in his son’s school. Mikael rightly reports the lack of evidence to show actual beneficial changes in casualty rates as a result of this kind of programme. There is one rather ropey Norwegian study referred to, but even the UK Department of Transport has indicated that there is a lack of evidence to justify hi-viz for cyclists. Mikael states – correctly – that people genuinely concerned with safety on the road should eal with what he calls “the bull in the china shop”, namely danger from motorised traffic, which they don’t.   

But it is worse than that. I would argue that a key reason why motorists feel they can get away with justifying bad driving is the “Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You” (SMIDSY) excuse. (See the CTC’s campaign against SMIDSY).And this excuse is facilitated by precisely the kind of campaigns which put the onus of responsibility to “Be Seen” on the least dangerous to others, rather than requiring those who are dangerous to others to watch out for their potential victims.   

The most basic rule of safe driving, in the Highway Code and elsewhere, is to “Never drive in such a way that you can not stop within visible distance“. But this is eroded, not just by failure to have proper speed limits and their compliance, but by the assumption that if motorists don’t “see” their victims, it is the victim’s fault. Whether by lengthening sight lines or other measures, the underlying belief system thrusts the onus of risk on to motorists actual or potential victims. It is not just a lack of speed control, or the failure to weed out motorists who can’t see where they are going. It is a general culture – promoted by the “road safety” lobby – that you don’t have to fulfil a responsibility to properly watch out for those you may hurt or kill.   

I emphasise “watching out for” because what is required is a thorough process where drivers consider the possible positions of those they may drive into, think about their need to avoid doing so, and drive accordingly. The image of a pedestrian or cyclist on the retina of the driver is just the first part of this process. And the key element is searching – watching out or looking out – for these people in the first place. It is an active process which is far more effective than any amount of hi-viz, which may be irrelevant anyway. I am regularly told by motorists that they see plenty of cyclists without lights at night. Indeed: if they are driving properly (albeit in an urban area with street lighting) they will indeed see unlit cyclists.   

Let me be quite clear about this. My argument is not just that this is rather unsavoury victim-blaming and morally objectionable. It is that it exacerbates the very problem it claims to address. In ten years or so these young people may become drivers with the expectation that others should shoulder the responsibility that they as drivers have. The official “road safety” response to this criticism is – to avoid it. The typical answer is that :”Of course, motorists should watch where they are going, and we may have an advertising campaign to politely ask them to do so, but in the meantime wear hi-viz“.  The problem with this is twofold: firstly, this “in the meantime” has been going on for over a century of motorists endangering, hurting and killing others, and that polite requests aren’t going to do it. But the second point is the more important: the relentless shifting of responsibility away from those endangering others becomes part of the problem.   

“Take it to Make It”   

The second post that sparked a desire to comment on the conspicuity con is here. Do note the slogan: If you don’t take it, you may not make it. And guess whose fault that’s going to be?   

Slutwalks   

This year Guardian readers and others have been debating the Slutwalk phenomenon. I won’t go into these debates here (personally, I don’t quite see how a word like “slut” can be “reclaimed”) except to note two key messages that Slutwalk supporters have been making. These are that:   

1. There is no evidence to link the nature of a woman’s clothes with the chances of being assaulted.   

2. Insofar as there is any connection between women’s clothing and the excuses made by rapists it is just that: excuses. Furthermore, if a belief system contains the idea that womens’ clothing is a key factor in generating rape, then that belief facilitates rape, is dangerous, and suggests that the belief system needs some critical evaluation.   

Is there some conection between ideas around women’s clothing as a factor invovled in sexual assault and those around hi-viz and pedestrians and cyclists being knocked down?   

Now, I’m not suggesting that you should never wear bright clothing when cycling. Nor  - of course – that carelessly knocking a pedestrian down with a car is the same as sexual assuault. An analogy is just that – an analogy, which I hope stimulates productive thought.  

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one disseminated by the Campaign for Global Road Safety (sic) for the UN Decade for Road Safety is a good indicator of what is wrong with it. Children in South-East Asia show how the CGRS and others behind this initiative think of the basic act of crossing the road: heavily supervised by adults; wearing crash helmets; carrying hi-viz signals; and even tied to each other. This is exactly not what real road safety is about. Let’s look at the origins of the “UN Decade for Road Safety” to learn where this nonsense has come from:Of all the organisations controlling the global “road safety” programmes, the key player is  the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, a UK based charity set up with a basic donation of $300 million made by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the federation of motoring organisations and the governing body of world motor sport. This comes from FIA’s sale of  the rights to ‘commercial exploitation’ of Formula One racing to Bernie Ecclestone and his bankers for about $350million plus an undisclosed annual fee. From this fund, itself derived from the advertisers in Formula One, comes the funding for WHO  and World Bank “road safety” initiatives.  Run with some 1.5 million euros a year for administration, the FIA Foundation, as a charity, is a different body from the FIA, although its leading members are often the same people. Trustees include the former FIA President, Max Mosley, the representatives of national motoring organisations, and the Finnish MEP and rally driver Ari Vatanen. 

An interesting description of how Formula One, the international motoring organisations, the motor and associated industries are linked to literally drive (through bodies such  as the Campaign for Global Road Safety, Global Road Safety Initiative, Global Road Safety Partnership, RoadSafe etc.) initiatives such as the UN Decade for Road Safety is by Professor Ian Roberts ( Formula One and global road safety, Ian Roberts, J R Soc Med 2007;100:360–362 – a shortened version is here).

The UN Decade for Road Safety has been signed up to by the “road safety” establishment of bodies like RoSPA, PACTS, BRAKE . We have not. As well as getting the wrong end of the stick on safety, it is part of a programme promoted by powerful bodies committed to increased dominance of road building and motor vehicle use throughout the developing world, with all the health and environmental problems that would bring.

We will be describing this programme – and what’s wrong with it – again.

Above you see the “Decade of Action” being launched by the Prime Minister with Formula One racers Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton. This episode is quite a good indication of at least part of what is wrong with  this initiative. It is dangerous nonsense which sends out the opposite of the messages we need to present to achieve real road safety. Just in case you think this is a wildly radical sentiment, consider the following from the Chief leader writer of the Daily Telegraph: ”Are these really the chaps to persuade boy racers to slow down? Whatever next? A new crackdown on violent crime, with Peter Sutcliffe and Donald Neilson in attendance?”.

As David Hughes says:”Just one niggling little problem. I can’t think of worse role models for safe drivers than these two speedsters“. Their records are:

Jenson Button: 

1.  Fined for speeding May 9^th 2009 for offence 2 weeks before.

2.  Doing more than 50mph in a 30mph zone on the A120 near his fiancee’s home in Standon, Herts (Feb 24^th 2007)

3.  Sunday, 28 May, 2000. Fined £500 for speeding on a French motorway driving his BMW at a speed of 144 mph.

Lewis Hamilton:

1. 2007, banned from driving in France after being clocked driving at 123mph (200kmh).

2.  In June 2009 he appeared to have repented, and in an earlier version of one of these “road safety” stunts said  there was “nothing cool” about speeding. He said: “Everyone has made mistakes including even myself, but you learn from those. “You could easily make such a mistake and lose your friends or lose your own life.”

3. Reckless driving in Australia in March 2010 – charged with improper use of a vehicle and he accepted guilt.

4.  In June 2010 the Swiss foundation for victims of road accidents RoadCross (the Swiss equivalent of RoadPeace)condemned both Hamilton and his singer girlfriend Nicole Scherzinger, who has recorded a song called “Baby can’t drive”, for their unruly driving. According to RoadCross, the Pussycat Dolls singer told British tabloid newspaper the Sun that Swiss authorities would no doubt expel the couple from Switzerland if they knew how fast they had driven in the country. RoadCross said that Lewis Hamilton had already caused an accident in March 2009, because of his “irresponsible way of driving”. The Formula One driver hadn’t respected a stop road sign and had hit the car of a woman and her child; no one was injured.

But this is far from untypical of the upside-down world of “road safety”. It isn’t just these guys. Or another leading light of the “Decade of Action”, Michael Schumacher. Or former Formula One star David Coulthard, who advocates bicycle crash helmet  (and not just his own range of helmets) wearing  – including full face models.

The whole edifice of “road safety” has a tendency to invert what real road safety – road danger reduction, or reducing danger at its source – should be about. the next post will be a major article on the organisations behind the UN “Decade of Action”

For our ever polite colleagues in the CTC, it offers a mixed picture. We might be a little less polite.

1.Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for careless driving: The most talked about element is the ability of the police to address careless driving offences without resort to time consuming courtroom procedures. The optimists might see this as a step forward: it should be easier for police to apprehend people driving in a manner which threatens others. In principle, this looks like a good feature of a civilised society: you have the freedom to endanger others in situations which can’t (or just aren’t) engineered out, but you know that if you are seen doing something wrong the police will do something unpleasant to you. So you get deterred from doing it, we don’t have to fill up courtrooms or prisons, and danger is reduced.

So far, so good.

The problems are:

(a) What  sort of offences are likely to be dealt with? The previous post argues that most of the problems of danger on the road involve a lot more than the extremes  (which anyway need to be categorised under temore severe offences) and can involve numerous forms of inappropriatete driving. To take just one example: Breaking Rule 163, which relates to thedistance motorists are supposed to give when overtaking cyclists. The H9oghway code might give a somewhat idealised view of what drivers are supposed to do, but nevertheless this bit of rule breaking is clearly intimidatory and linked to collisions where cyclists get hit by passing cars or from behind. It could be possible to allocate resources to police forces to caution drivers engaging in this kind of v=behaviour, let alone move up to actually enforcing it with the FPNs for careless driving.

But is it likely to happen? There are two reasons why not. Firstly, there are numerous forms of misbehaviour like this – the scale of the problem is such that very little likelihood of enforcement has been on the cards even before the current political/economic climate (of which more below). Secondly, a lot of the misbehaviours are often difficult to actually observe until it is too late: how do you know whether a driver is unable to see properly, under the influence of drugs, fatigued, unaware of their responsibilities, senile etc.?

(b) Is the “punishment” appropriate?A big question is whether the charge should be one for the more serious offence of dangerous driving, rather than careless driving. plenty of cases where we might think the driving behaviour falls far below what can reasonably be accepted are prosecuted fort he lesser offence, and the CTC are quite right to say:

“ A careless driving fixed penalty notice is welcome, but should only be used where no injury has occurred and the driving is demonstrably careless, not dangerous. We have concerns that too often driving which is objectively dangerous is treated by police and prosecutors as merely ‘careless’.The Government needs to make a full assessment of how the system of road traffic law is operating. ”

The CTC also make an interesting point: “Last year there were over 2,057 fatal crashes but only 504 prosecutions for causing death by careless, dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Only around a third of deaths which involved at least two vehicles or a pedestrian are dealt with by an appropriate charge. This means that around 1,000 drivers who were involved in the death of another road user were either not charged, or were only charged with a lesser offence.” This raises the next point:

(c) After the event. There is an obvious tendency for the police to be called – although they do not have to be called unless an injury is reported – where a collision has already occurred. Yet whenever we are given an explanation for an apparently lenient “punishment” it is because the behaviour, rather than it’s consequences, is what is punished. Yet if this were the case, there would be literally hundreds of times more prosecutions – because most of the time bad behaviour does not actually involve a collision, let alone injury, let alone death or serious injury. The CTC make an interesting comment:  “A careless driving fixed penalty notice is welcome, but should only be used where no injury has occurred and the driving is demonstrably careless, not dangerous.” But that is the point – if the behaviour is what is punished, there is no logical reason why a motorist cannot get an FPN after knocking down a cyclist or pedestrian and just driving away.

(d) Police resources. This isthe big one. The story of minimal police resources being devoted to policing road traffic law is well known. It is likely to get worse because of the general cuts in police resources, combined with central government reducing its responsibilities. On top of this, it has to be mentioned that for many police officers, traffic policing is just not what they joined the police for. Consider the following postfrom an apparently serving police oficer  (“Vlad”) on  a cycling website following the launch of SFRS :

“Dont get your hopes up.
Most forces are deleting their Force Traffic Units – so no tickets there.
They are relying on the response officers (Those in Pandas) to do it – Think again – most of them hate traffic work and wont even give out tickets for the simple things in traffic law – let alone Due Care and Attention.
Those in South Birmingham – Breath a sigh of relief – For the next few years I’m office bound now dealing with sodding prisoners in the cell block.
So no traffic work for me for a while.”

(e) What kind of deterrent effect is likely? Even if a substantial amount of careless driving was correctly identified, even if the police were there in sufficient numbers to issue the FPN’s – what exactly is the deterrent effect? For many motorists £80 – £100 is not much of a penalty. Surely it is time to relate financial penalties to the incomes of motorists, with substantially higher penalties for wealthier motorists than £100. Of course, the possibility of eventual banning can be a deterrent – but for that to happen three or four FPNs would have to be received in a three year period. Even with very high levels of policing, how likely that even a serial offender is likely to be caught that number of times?

2. Rate based indices.

At last! Something we have been arguing for as a minimal approach to proper measures of danger on the road.

Of course, these indices for pedestrians and cyclists (of casualties per journey travelled) are far better indicators of safety for these groups – but they are not to be actual targets. So we aren’t much further forward.

Not that this would neccessarily would make things better – we wouldn’t necessarily get the measures required to support moves towards reductions in the casualty rates in these groups.

So : no, we’re not happy.

This is the central theme of absolving the majority of those drivers responsible for most of the danger on the roads by diverting attention on to the very worst drivers – who won’t be dealt with either.Let’s look at what the Government Minister says in some detail:  “We want to make a clear distinction between those drivers who are a real danger to road safety – reckless, dangerous drivers – and those who are merely occasionally careless or who make an honest mistake,” the transport secretary, Philip Hammond, said in the Daily Mail.

“That means much more emphasis on enforcement against those who represent the biggest risk and a big increase in the use of education for those who make minor transgressions.”

As the Guardian report says: “Ordinary motorists should not fear the tough new penalties…” And this is echoed by the DfT spokesman saying  ”The strategy will focus on cracking down on the really reckless drivers through more efficient enforcement. By giving the police the tools to deal with those who present the greatest danger to others, we can make our roads even safer. While seeking to do everything possible to tackle the most dangerous drivers, the strategy will also help the responsible majority to improve their driving. This is the government’s twin approach to improving road safety.”

This is the classic strategy of posing a responsible, decent majority (that’s people like you and me) as against a minority of bad people (that’s other people, not decent types like us). It’s been dissected by sociologists of “deviant behaviour” for decades: the process underlying such a strategy is one of bolstering the mainstream or dominant ideology by referring to a deviant “out group”. In this case, we have those who “are a real danger to road safety – reckless, dangerous drivers” – note the point that this is the real danger – on the one hand. They “represent the biggest risk“ . On the other hand we have “the responsible majority” who  ”are merely occasionally careless or who make an honest mistake“.

There is another quote referred to by our friends in RoadPeace: “We intend for the action we take to be seen as aceptable and proportionate to the majority of motorists” - which continues this theme. As RoadPeace say: why not all road users?

But let’s take a look at the supposed basis for this dichotomy.

There are obviously particularly bad drivers. Looking at a statistical distribution of driving, we will see at one end those who are most careful at one end, and those who are most dangerous at the other. It is quite probable that the worst 5% are some 3 times more likely to be in collisions than the average driver. (This figure is one I have been using for some years and I believe it still pertains – but the precise size of this factor does not matter for the purpose of this argument).  Concentrating resources on this minority may seem attractive – and this group certainly does need appropriate controls – but it leaves out 85% of the problem. And that of course is even if the methods of control chosen are totally effective. In particular, it also neglects the way in which those responsible for 85% of the problems feel even more justified in their behaviour – because the focus on the worst let’s them think that they are responsible, the decent majority, not the real danger etc.

What does the Government say about it?

“5.1 More than half of road deaths are associated with one or more of drink driving, driving whilst impaired by drugs, speeding, careless driving (includes dangerous driving, driving with a distraction and not wearing seatbelts).”

Let’s examine these main types of behaviour in terms of behaviour endangering others:

1. Drunk, drugged and non-seatbelt wearers may be primarily endangering themselves – but if this is so their danger to others may be of a lower proportion than that aggregated under “road deaths”. So these extreme forms of criminal driving may actually be a small minority of what we can think of as road danger – danger posed to others on the road.

2. “Careless driving”. This is a very interesting term: there is an offence of “careless driving” (which I assume is what is being referred to here) which is alternatively referred to as “driving without due care and attention”. This is an excellent description: it implies a level of care is due – what we otherwise refer to as a duty of care. While the Highway Code recommendations are not the same as the law (unless specified as such), breaking the Highway Code can result in careless driving prosecutions – which generally only occur after a collisionhas occurred. A  read through the Highway code or examination of successful prosecutions for careless driving shows that “careless driving” is not just an extreme form of driver behaviour, but quite commonplace.

3. Speeding. if this is taken as breaking the speed limit, there is plenty of evidence showing that this too, is commonplace, with a large minority breaking speed limits. Obviously this differs over different roads with different speed limits, but the figures on 30 mph limit roads indicate some 40%breaking the limit when possible.

So we can conclude that the first forms of behaviour (drunk and drugged driving) are probably a small minority of the problems for other road users – around the 5% level. The other forms of behaviour may well add up to a much larger proportion of the problem – but are not restricted to a small minority. And then we have the other half of  road deaths – which are presumably related to more normal – and socially acceptable – behaviour.

What this means is that what most local authority professionals (particularly in urban areas) know is correct: most of the danger on the road is due to behaviour which is mainstream driving behaviour.

This does not, of course, mean that the extremes should not be tackled. it means that we should see them as just that – extremes of behaviour , with the vast majority of the problems lie a lot closer to the average driver’s home.

In the next post we will be looking at what at else is wrong with the SFRS.

“Nationally and internationally, this is a bad day for safety on the roads”.

Subject: UN “Decade of Action for Road Safety” and Department for Transport “Strategic Framework for Road Safety”.

This dark day for a civilised approach to danger on the roads will be symbolised by the UK Prime Minister David Cameron welcoming Formula One racing drivers to 10 Downing Street. Both the UN and UK “strategies” are based on misleading measures of safety on the road and conniving with careless and dangerous driving.

Globally, we support our colleagues in RoadPeace saying that: “reducing road danger, through the reduction in speed, volume and dominance of motorised vehicles, is essential not only to reduce road deaths but also to tackle the twin crises of climate change and obesity”.

Nationally, a civilised approach to safety on the road requires reducing danger at source from careless and dangerous driving, with proper accountability from those responsible for it. But this has once again been opposed by the Department for Transport’s downgrading of the importance of careless driving by reducing likely penalties and ineffective “education” for bad drivers.

Note to Editors:

The Road Danger Reduction Forum is a transport professionals-based organisation with support from cycling, pedestrian, road crash victims and sustainable transport organisations in the UK. Go to www.rdrf.org.uk

Above is our Press Release. We will be spending some time saying what is so wrong with these two strategies, meanwhile let’s get one of the perpetrators of the global strategy to show his true colours: 

Lord Robertson – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01114ks/Today_11_05_2011/  Listen at 2:41:50. This excerpt was aired at the RoadPeace conference at London School of Hygiene and Medicine on May11th to gales of laughter.