The leaked measures
These, according to The Times are as follows:
- Reduce the drink-drive limit. This does make sense – but the principal problem with addressing drink driving is the prospect of being caught, which requires adequate levels of law enforcement.
- Punish drivers with penalty points if passengers failed to wear a seatbelt. Not exactly a game changer and not reducing danger at source.
- Tougher penalties for uninsured drivers. Uninsured drivers do seem to be more likely to be involved in road crashes, but – again – this will require adequate levels of roads policing.
- Measures to tackle so-called ghost plates that cannot be read by automatic number-plate recognition cameras. About time too (penalties are far too low), but once more we need enforcement, and it involves only a minority of drivers.
- A new requirement for an eye test for the over-70s every three years when they renew their driving licence, as well as a potential medical test for conditions such as dementia. We would see this as a bare minimum, and it’s sad to see that the AA President regarded 70 as too young an age for such tests. While the vast majority of crashes caused by bad driving involve drivers who can see perfectly well, there are still some 600,000 to 750,000 people driving with defective eyesight who need – again through proper law enforcement – to be penalised, whatever their age.
- Make it easier for police to bring prosecutions for drug-driving by allowing them to rely on roadside saliva tests for evidence rather than blood tests. Obviously yes. And you know what this requires to be effective…
In our view, these measures are very much “tip of the iceberg” items. The most obvious omission is pushing ahead with default 20 mph programmes following the success of 20 mph default limits in Wales. Our friends in “20s Plenty” argue forcefully for this here
Policing, policing, policing…
All of the above measures depend on drivers feeling that there is a realistic prospect of being caught for law breaking, which is simply not the case now. Some of this can be done through speed and other cameras, and by having good quality public reporting schemes (like Operation Snap) well supported with resources and publicity.
We have argued in our Manifesto for a budget of £500 million to be used to reverse the decline in road traffic law enforcement. Unusually (to put it mildly) the AA and RAC seem to agree. The AA president argues for an extra 1,000 officers:
“The stark reality is that, as well as better education and tougher rules, we need more officers to police the streets — at least 1,000 more roads officers, not only to act as a deterrent, but to stop dangerous drivers in the act before a tragedy happens.”
The RAC refer to the loss of 1,000 officers over the past ten years and mention that the drivers they survey want a visible police presence on the roads.
We think this is central to any successful strategy. While the Government is apparently shy of what might seem to be a big spend (unlike its attitude towards road building), there is a way of making this attractive to the great motoring public. The amount likely to achieve a noticeable change (our ballpark figure is £500 million) is equivalent to less than £20 per head for the average driver every year – and we can easily argue that a significant increase in roads policing would result in a drop in insurance premiums of more than that.
For us, proper traffic law enforcement is a necessity for moral reasons. But highlighting the saving of money is a way in which the Government can make such a move attractive to voters.
The bigger picture
It’s sad that our key objective – to concentrate on reducing danger at source, as happens in other Health and Safety regimes – is still not pushed by central Government, although the phrase “road danger reduction” is now more commonplace. The governance of measures to address danger in the road is under a Government Department which is still committed towards accepting an increase in the forms of transport with most danger to other road users (although there are still nominal commitments towards increasing walking and cycling in urban areas).
A key element of any civilised approach to road danger is having enforcement linked to deterrent sentencing – we have argued for a Commission to investigate Road Traffic Law with the objective of deterrence to be set up. We also need those currently engaged in publicity and teaching children to be developing programmes based on highlighting the different levels of danger to other road users of the different forms of transport with a view to challenging “motonormativity”. For example, the principal organisation for Road Safety Officers announces a campaign addressed at the high-risk group of young drivers thus:
“The road safety sector is uniting behind a two-week campaign to highlight the risks faced by young drivers.”
Not, as it should be, about the risks posed by young drivers, especially towards other road users.
Graduated Driver Licensing?
The key aim of the official “road safety” establishment has been to secure “Graduated Driver Licensing” (GDL) to address this particular issue, but it seems to have been rejected by a government seeking the younger person vote.
Conclusion
Our view is that we need a radical change – not least in the way danger is measured and how we can assess success, as discussed here https://rdrf.org.uk/2025/08/18/what-is-dangerous-the-measurement-issue-and-the-case-of-cyclist-deaths-in-the-netherlands-compared-with-the-uk/ – and it doesn’t seem to be on the agenda of the current Government.
We also need to challenge establishment “motonormativity”: the (false) idea that we are all travelling by car which underpins so much “road safety” thinking. Not to mention the fact that there needs to be reductions in car use, especially in urban areas, for (local and global) environmental and public health reasons.
But we wait to see what happens and at least we can hope that the key objective of adequate traffic law enforcement, which is apparently supported by the two main motoring organisations, gets on the political agenda.
Dr Robert Davis 27th September 2025
Road Danger Reduction Forum 
“A new requirement for an eye test for the over-70s every three years when they renew their driving licence, as well as a potential medical test for conditions”
is a self assessment and report responsibility of the licence holder.
Where is the validated data to show that vision drops of a cliff at 70 years of age to justify this point?
Is the can read a number plate roadside test reasonable and supported by the competent medical practitioners?
(it’s very different to the DVSA eye test performed by optometrists)
Eyesight should be good enough at any age.
“All of the above measures depend on drivers feeling that there is a realistic prospect of being caught for law breaking, which is simply not the case now.”
The decision by [Association of] Chief Police Officers to remove the world class Traffic Division was not only a shameful disregard for road traffic safety, but sent the message that it’s not important, a nice to have. The root cause of that political concensus is the incorrect choice of metrics for measuring road safety: killed or seriously injured. A well known management fallacy to only manage what is measured.
This arises from the road traffic policing responsibility to record KSI for road traffic incidents so generating the data. How would the road traffic police be aware without an incident that driving behaviour has fallen short of the minimum standards required to pass the DVSA test?
Is DVSA test pass minimum standard sufficient to address why Active Travel is seen as too risky by many people who would get life benefits by being more active?
Given the police approach to educate, inform, and enforce it’s an improvement that some Services will accept dashcam, ridercam video and evaluate that evidence against the DVSA test standard to inform, educate or enforce. However affordability is a problem with manual evaluation so AI is how to make it scalable to the increasing demand and in so doing avoid having to be everywhere. When AI doesn’t know, the human expert decides, so that’s how AI learns.
Further, as AI gets better at the DVSA test pass standard, it will be possible to go above the minimum to advanced level and to address the Active Travel blockers..
Obviously each Police Service and related Police Commissioner will have their own priorities according to the democratic architecture, however the development of such a reporting and evaluation platform with the ability to train AI to evaluate reports is a National requirement, So it should be developed by collaboration between the government departments responsible for transport, justice and innovation.