You might think that discussion about compulsory front seat belt legislation in the U K (introduced 26 years ago and confirmed 3 years later) is about the last thing that those of us interested in safety on the road should be considering at the moment.

Surely there is no need for detailed statistical discussion about this event, still less questioning what has become a – or the – major triumph for those officially charged with safety on the road?

But no. A recent debate has seen the proponents of compulsory bicycle helmet use drag the issue out again – and this time some revealing facts have been shown up. Some uncomfortable truths about the effects of the seat belt law in the UK  and the  “road safety” establishment  have critical relevance to everything that those of us working for safety of all road users should be aware of.

So, if you’re interested in real road safety, do read on… Read more »

The Department for Transport has produced a crucial document:  “A Safer Way: Making Britain’s Roads the Safest in the World”  which will be the basis of future national “road safety” policy after 2010. Our response to the consultation document is here: the DfT have also kindly allowed us to post the document (with our comments inserted in the text) on our site here.

As this document is of such central importance, it is important to be aware of it. For us, there is one significant move in the right direction (the adoption of the “rate-based” target for cyclists and pedestrians); one or two other minor improvements; a few things we are more or less sympathetic too – and the rest is the same old, er, same old. (Who says we can’t be polite?). We are basically opposed to a fundamentally flawed approach to understanding what danger on the road is – and what to do about it – throughout “A Safer Way”, specifically, the continued:

* Failure to properly define “safe roads” (allowing, for example, more hazardous environments to be defined as “safer”).

* Denial of adaptive behaviour (risk compensation) by road users.

* Inability or refusal to differentiate between endangering or killing/hurting  others on the one hand, and being endangered or killed/hurt on the other.

* Failure to approach the standards of other relevant safety regimes and oppose rule and law breaking driver behaviour.

* Commitment towards unsustainable transport policy and car dependence.

In fact, it shows just how far away government is from grasping what road safety policy should be about, and why the RDRF is needed. So do have a read of it and our response.

Gathering of London RDRF at the signing of the Road Danger Reduction Charter at the House of Lords in March 2009 by London Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. (list of attendees at bottom of article)

I’m pleased to introduce the new RDRF website after a quiet period of activity for us. Read more »