Below is the RDRF Press Release responding to the RSS and associated consultations. A future post will have a more detailed examination of these documents, but here is a PR explaining why we find it “very weak and disappointing”.

“Government’s Road Safety Strategy is very weak and disappointing” say Road Danger Reduction Forum.

The Government has now published its long-awaited Road Safety Strategy (RSS)    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/695e2cff8832ab3a48513809/road-safety-strategy.pdf  with associated consultations. It is headlined by apparently ambitious targets: however, we think that the measures due to be implemented are very limited and unlikely to achieve the reductions in road danger that are both possible and necessary for travel in a modern civilised society. The consultations simultaneously published are limited in the questions asked (for example, the headline offences consulted on do not include penalties for careless driving). In addition, much of the document is preparatory in nature, stating that it will “consider”, “review” or “consult” rather than pressing ahead.

Both the central document and consultations deserve detailed examination, which we will provide shortly on our web site and to the Department for Transport. Here we briefly note some key issues:

TARGETS: The RSS is headed by two dramatic targets: cutting reported Killed and Seriously Injured (KSIs) casualties by 65% and child KSIs by 70% by 2035. There are two key problems with these targets.

• . As RDRF has pointed out for 30 years, casualties amongst those walking and cycling may decline in a more dangerous environment due to resultant declines in these two modes which Government has declared it wants to see increase. At the least, appropriate metrics would be for casualties per journey or distance walked/cycled. A casualty rate for Active Travel is referred to as one of the 17 SPIs in an Appendix but needs to be headlined.
• Even without this point, we doubt that the targets specified can be met by what amounts to preparatory and limited measures, especially without a significant increase in law enforcement.

ENFORCEMENT: The introduction to the consultations states: “We will ensure that the motoring offences framework is clear and where motorists endanger others, their behaviour has consequences.” There is a noticeable lack of visible road traffic law enforcement, with bodies like the Automobile Association calling for more policing. In our view, unless there is a clear and unambiguous commitment towards appropriate levels of policing, much of the RSS – notably the recommended cut in drink-drive limits – is likely to fail. The simple fact is that whatever the indicators of law breaking are, there has to be a significant chance of being caught, which does not exist at present.

Public reporting, as started with schemes like Operation Snap in South Wales, has been a key development in recent years. It should be highlighted and rolled out with commitment from DfT and other Government Departments.

SENTENCING: Associated with this is the appropriate type of punishment, primarily with a greater likelihood of receiving points and driving bans. The consultations do not address penalties for the most important offence affecting people outside motor vehicles (people walking and cycling), namely careless driving.

SPEED: The RSS and associated consultations are conspicuous in their lack of emphasis on speed. Despite the success of the Welsh introduction of default 20 mph limits, with reductions in both casualties and driver insurance premiums, the 20 mph limit is not advocated for the rest of the UK. There is mention of the “Safe Systems” approach – which it could be argued requires 20 mph for urban areas and villages – but not a clear advocacy of 20 mph. There is reference to updating “Setting Local Speed Limits” but this is surely inadequate.

HIGHWAY CODE AND HIERARCHY OF USERS: A notable advance in recent years has been a clear statement of the obligations of motorists towards other road users. The RSS (p.16) mentions this, along with: “This aligns with the user design hierarchy in the Manual for Streets. Street design should reflect these hierarchies to better protect vulnerable road users”. However, it is known that a substantial section of the driving population is unaware of their obligations under the hierarchy of users – but no mention of the publicity campaigns required to remedy this. Nor can we be assured that guidelines in Manual for Streets will be ensured.

THE NEED FOR A ROAD DANGER REDUCTION APPROACH: The Government could have learned from international experience of the need (at least in urban areas) for reducing motor traffic as well as speed. Instead, we see little connection with Government targets for Active Travel or transport decarbonisation. The harm reduction approach – of reducing danger at source by addressing the inappropriate use of vehicles – is the type used in other forms of safety and should be used here. Above all, reducing danger is a moral issue, where the potential to endanger, hurt or kill others is seen as an affront to civilised values.

We do not have that here, and we should. The Government’s Road Safety Strategy and associated Consultations are very weak and disappointing.

Dr Robert Davis, Chair Road Danger Reduction Forum January 9^th 2026