Uncorrected Evidence 460

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Transport Committee

on Wednesday 21 May 2008

Members present

Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair

Clive Efford

Mr David Clelland

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mr John Leech

Mr Eric Martlew

David Simpson

________________

Witnesses: Mr Adrian Voce, Director, Play England, Mr David Sinclair, Head of Policy, Help the Aged, Mr Tony Armstrong, Chief Executive, Living Streets, and Mr Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Manager, CTC, the national cyclists' organization, gave evidence.

Chairman: Before we proceed to questioning, I should like to ask Members whether they have any relevant interests to declare.

Mr Clelland: I am a member of Unite.

Clive Efford: I am a member of Unite.

Q309 Chairman: I am a member of Unite. I welcome the witnesses and ask them to identify themselves for the record.

Mr Geffen: I am Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Manager at CTC, the national cyclists' organization.

Mr Armstrong: I am Tony Armstrong, Chief Executive of the charity Living Streets.

Mr Voce: I am Adrian Voce, Director of Play England, part of the National Children's Bureau.

Mr Sinclair: I am David Sinclair, Head of Policy at Help the Aged.

Q310 Chairman: Can you indicate what you think is the main role of government in relation to road safety?

Mr Geffen: I have seen the answers to this question given by other witnesses. I would suggest that a really important role is the integration of road safety into wider policy areas to make sure that road safety contributes to wider quality of life and environmental health objectives and that education and planning are contributing to road safety. Therefore, it is a two-way relationship. That integration is the most important thing I would stress in addition to the points other witnesses have made about resources, leadership and target-setting.

Q311 Chairman: Would anybody else like to add to or disagree with that?

Mr Armstrong: I would share those comments. Road safety should not be seen in isolation but as part of a wider neighbourhoods approach and public realm approach because the two are inseparable. I also believe that the key role of government is the setting of the framework for road safety - the setting of national targets and national regulatory schemes - allowing local authorities to prioritise the correct things that will have an impact on road safety.

Q312 Chairman: How do you see road safety in relation to environmental, social or other objectives?

Mr Geffen: I believe it is absolutely fundamental. If we want people to feel that the quality of life in their neighbourhoods is good and feel confident and safe in travelling by healthy and sustainable modes they need to believe that the streets outside their front doors are safe, particularly if they are to allow their children to travel by healthy and sustainable modes. That is fundamental to tackling the crises of obesity, climate change and the quality of life agenda. I was amazed that when the government produced its Towards a Sustainable Transport Strategy late last year the section on road safety did not mention walking and cycling when they are so fundamental to the climate change agenda which is part of that strategy document. I think that reveals a real gap in thinking that needs to be addressed.

Q313 Chairman: If you look particularly at the different groups that all of you represent, what progress do you say has been made since, say, 2000 in relation to road safety?

Mr Voce: In relation to child policy we have given a warm welcome to the proposal to introduce a statutory duty by way of guidance to local authorities and children's trusts in particular to take a lead in the impact of the environment on children's wellbeing including their safety. We think this would introduce an explicit duty on local authorities rather than just the children's service departments essentially to child-proof all of their plans. A very significant part of that would be traffic management and street design. We welcome the recent policy by government to recognise that part of safeguarding children and young people is to allow them to encounter the outdoor world at an appropriate age. That becomes incrementally greater as they get older but, as the evidence shows, it has decreased the age at which children are allowed independent access to the outdoor world. An important part of safeguarding children is to allow them to have a certain degree of independent mobility. Children and young people tell us - their parents concur - that the biggest obstacle for them is their safety in terms of road traffic.

Q314 Clive Efford: All the debates around healthy lifestyles for young people suggest that children are not out and about in their communities as much as they used to be; they are deposited in front of Playstations and other things and because of the risk of injury from traffic, assaults and all the rest of it parents mollycoddle their children more than in the past. You appear to suggest that that is not true and children are out and about more.

Mr Voce: Our evidence suggests that the substance of what you say is true. I challenge the use of the term "mollycoddle" because it suggests over-protection against dangers that are not so real. The danger to children from road traffic is all too real and it is hard to argue with parents who suggest that fatalities and serious injury rates on some of our busiest streets are acceptable. There is an onus on those responsible for managing traffic to make the streets safer for children in order that parents can be assured that in reality the streets are safer. There is an argument that road safety statistics relating to children are much better than 10 or 15 years ago, but by the same token there is also evidence that, as you say, children are not out and about as much. Therefore, are the streets actually safer or are children just being protected from them by not being given any freedom to explore the outdoor world on their own?

Q315 Chairman: What about older people?

Mr Sinclair: It is very clear that well designed communities which work for both older and younger people are those which will encourage both groups to use those facilities. Recently I met someone on an estate in south London. He told me that he would love to go out and play football with the kids on the road but there were just too many cars now. He was a man in his 80s. Linking that to a previous question, one of the great things to happen over the past few months is that we now have the older persons' housing strategy Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods. It is clear to me that if we can create neighbourhoods which are appropriate for all ages, including ones that are safe, then they are neighbourhoods which both older and younger people will use to a greater extent.

Mr Armstrong: This week is Walk to School Week which we run as a charity. On Monday we produced a report called Backseat Children which highlights differences in the incidence of serious accidents suffered by children between the ages of 10 and 11. There is a doubling of accidents of a severe nature, including death, between the ages of 10 and 11. We believe one of the main reasons for that is that primary school children are increasingly being driven to school for obvious and very real parental concerns about safety, but by being driven children are not getting the real life experience they need on our roads now. That increase peaks at about 12 and suggests that once children are in the second or third year of secondary school they have begun to develop road safety skills, but by depriving them of that real life experience we are making it unsafe for children.

Mr Geffen: Cycling England backed that up in a recent report. It showed a very similar picture. Children want to cycle to school but their parents will not let them for reasons of safety. Earlier you asked about progress. We have made good progress on road safety overall in Britain, but the three areas in which we seem to be lagging further behind are children's, pedestrians' and cyclists' safety where we are at the lower end of the road table. We are particularly poor on pedestrian safety.

Q316 Clive Efford: Can you tell us what measures have been most effective in reducing casualties since 2000 in regard to the groups you represent?

Mr Geffen: Probably the most effective thing when it comes to fruition is the emphasis that the government has begun to place on cycle training. I have to say that the safety benefits of cycling training have not been well documented and we would like to encourage the government to look at them both in terms of whether it improves the safety of the trainee cyclist but also in terms of the live issue of the training of novice drivers. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that cycle training makes people better drivers. They learn more quickly and have a more sensible attitude to driving if they have done some cycle training first. This is unproven but given there is good evidence that cycle training encourages people to cycle more that must be a good thing for other reasons. If it also helps people to drive more responsibly we should be doing it too and using that to gather up evidence as to its wider safety benefits both to cyclists and drivers.

Mr Voce: Research by the Economic and Social Research Council published in 2000 drew a direct correlation between slower and traffic-calmed vehicles and the numbers of children playing out. There is triangulated evidence about safety given that all of the research on the barriers to children playing out, both with parents and children themselves, tells us that it is traffic and not stranger danger, although that also features quite highly. Fear of traffic accidents is the number one barrier. Some of the most successful schemes in this country have been home zones where streets are redesigned and re-prioritised to give greater right of way to pedestrians and to delineate clearly the area as shared space. Sadly, at the last count we had only about 100 home zones in the UK since the introduction of that legislation in 1999. That is only a drop in the ocean in terms of impact on overall safety of pedestrians.

Mr Armstrong: Home zones are a good thing, but the principles underlying them are the important factors. Our concern about progress from a pedestrian's point of view is that because of the absolute targets that have been set to reduce casualties and death, quite rightly, often on the ground it has meant a risk-averse approach to mixing pedestrians with traffic. Therefore, pedestrians have been segregated from the roads through long guardrails and very complicated crossings. We know that pedestrians tend not to like to use these things; they go for the shortest route and often put themselves in more danger, creating an environment less conducive to safety on the roads. We think that the key thing is not to segregate pedestrians from the traffic but to have a shared space principle in our streets and to focus more, as the DfT's Manual for Streets suggested, on pedestrians who are first in a hierarchy of road users. You think about our streets and roads from a place perspective rather than a travel from A to B perspective. We believe that that is an extremely good principle which we welcome. Unfortunately, the Manual for Streets applies only to new developments.

Q317 Chairman: Do you think that to have home zones right across the country is affordable?

Mr Armstrong: My personal view is that home zones are very good. You can implement the kind of outcomes you want by not doing the full home zone treatment. For example, we work with communities in different local authorities and audit their neighbourhoods and streets. We make very cost-effective, cheap recommendations that have approximately the same outcomes as home zones but at a fraction of the cost. Therefore, it can be done much more cheaply.

Mr Voce: If I may add to my colleague's comment about affordability, South Strands[?], an organisation with which we work quite closely, has piloted a scheme called Do It Yourself Streets which takes the home zones concept and tries to do it much more affordably. Some of its schemes have been very successful and have cost less than �10,000 for the overall project. I think the lessons are not just that some of the measures are cheap and do not need the full retrofit and resurfacing of the whole area but the principles of community engagement; it is about consent and permission and designation of use. Once there is a consensus among the regulatory authority, the community and the road users about what the space is for then you achieve the changes. It is just a matter of giving an indication; it may be something as simple as having a planted area in the middle of the street and changing some of the layout in small ways, but it gives the very clear message that this is not primarily a road any more but a street where people live, walk and play and vehicles have access to it but not right of way. That is the message which the project gives to motor vehicles without great expense.

Q318 Mr Leech: I totally agree with this concept, but do you not think it needs a complete change of attitude among drivers to get to the stage where we can prioritise pedestrians without having quite drastic changes to the road? With a home zone it is very clear what it is and that cars do not have priority, but when you start to spend a small amount of money to try to slow down cars and give pedestrians priority I am not sure that motorists take the attitude that pedestrians have priority.

Mr Armstrong: That is certainly true. Some of the success of home zones arises because they are very clearly residential areas and it is easy to implement some of those behaviour change lessons. The key is to have a package of different measures to change behaviours. We see driver behaviour as more important than setting absolute figures and targets around injuries and deaths. A key part of that is a 20 mph default limit in urban and suburban areas which is not restricted to the school gate and the immediate vicinity because everyone is very much aware that they are driving near a school and there are many children and vehicles around. You could argue that it is safer around a school gate because people are very much aware of the risks. If one had a broader area subject to 20 mph that would slow down the traffic. We know from the evidence that people tend to have much greater eye contact at 20 mph rather than 30 mph and are aware of each other's behaviour rather than placing an onus on a particular user.

Q319 Mr Leech: You will not have any argument from me on that because I introduced a Bill on the very same point. But the argument against having 20 mph zones is always that you cannot force traffic to slow down. Do you say you do not need the physical measures to get people to slow down to 20 mph?

Mr Armstrong: I think you need a package of different measures. It will depend on the local area and whether it is residential or a mixed use area. The Department for Transport at the moment has a policy not to implement 20 mph without physical changes. What we suggest is that you change a number of other things such as the physical environment of the road and make pedestrians more important, for example by having a shared space scheme and more permeability in terms of pedestrians being able to cross. For example, in Kensington High Street the authority has uncluttered all of the road which is now a shared space scheme. We have seen accidents there fall by almost half over two comparable periods and that is because the road signs have been taken down and the whole area has been uncluttered. Everybody has greater lines of sight to each other and are much more aware of each other's presence on the road and so the behaviour of all the users changes at once.

Q320 David Simpson: Do you believe there has been a reduction in roads policing? If the answer is yes what impact do you think it has had?

Mr Geffen: The figures suggest that there has been a reduction in roads policing. I want to make some wider points about roads policing, but perhaps I may relate policing to the previous question before I move on to that. There are two important elements to making 20 mph work. One is the process by which you take the community to design it, which is where the DIY Streets process can be very effective. If you have a community which says it wants to pull together and the majority want safer streets and slower driving then you can design the street very differently and it becomes much easier to legitimise police action to clamp down on the minority who are still fouling the nest for everybody else, if you like. Therefore, the combination of community process is backed up by policing once you have created consent for a lower speed limit because there is majority will to make it happen. On policing more generally, I was very interested to note the evidence that the Committee received the other day from Jan Berry of the Police Federation and the representative of ACPO who said that there might well be a real problem in that the change in reporting levels had also been affected by declines in road traffic policing and the police were less willing to take reports. That certainly tallies with our own perception of what is going on. Cyclists tell us that they are more likely to be told by the police that they do not want to take reports from them and they could go to the police station. The cyclist may be 10 miles from the police station. That may be one of the factors that affects reporting rates, but it certainly also affects compliance rates. This Committee's previous inquiry into traffic law enforcement contained a lot of very strong evidence that what made the biggest difference was the fear of being caught rather than the severity of the penalty. People do not like being found guilty and having to acknowledge that to their boss, family or whatever else. Enforcement and the fear of detection are a major influence on people's behaviour.

Q321 Clive Efford: I think Mr Sinclair wants to answer the previous question. I do not know whether he remembers it.

Mr Sinclair: In terms of older people, I do not believe there have been very many initiatives focused specifically on that group in terms of road safety. I believe that is a missed opportunity bearing in mind that an older person is two to four times more likely to be severely injured or die in an accident than a younger adult. People aged 80 or over are six times more likely to be injured in a given accident than someone aged 20 to 50, so I believe there is a missed opportunity there. Clearly, there have been some very positive policy moves. For example, the introduction of concessionary fares is very positive. Help the Aged has for a long time campaigned on the issue of safe, accessible, reliable and affordable public transport and across all of those areas we have seen some progress. On the other side there are areas such as pedestrian accidents where each year we have a Falls Awareness Day. The work we did last year highlighted that 2.5 million people aged over 65 had fallen on damaged or uneven pavements. Of those, a third of those who had fallen had had to visit the hospital as a result. We know that falls cost the NHS about �1 billion a year, so there are issues around the pedestrian environment in terms of road safety which are also extremely important from our perspective.

Q322 Clive Efford: What about the emphasis we have placed on speed? Is it speed with which we should be dealing or is it more to do with the environment in which people walk and drive?

Mr Sinclair: From my perspective I think it is a combination of speed, the environment and enforcement of existing speed regulations and design of the environment is also extremely important. I think there is a mix of all three which is important.

Mr Geffen: Speed is important. All the data says that speed is a factor and in about one third of casualties that makes a huge difference both to the likelihood of being able to avoid a collision and the severity of it. The role of the environment and enforcement is to help us achieve lower speeds. That is how they synergise. If one designs the street so it feels that it is the sort of place where you will drive slower then that will slow down the majority of drivers and it makes it much easier to come down on that minority who are still fouling things up and ignoring the signals being given both by the rules and the design of the street.

Mr Voce: I think that question is related to an earlier one about the extent to which road safety policy affects and ought to integrate with other policies for the community. If the policy is simply to make the streets safer in absolute terms on the basis of casualty statistics then speed is the major issue, perhaps the single issue, but if the policy is one that is seen in the context of a wider policy for a people-friendly environment then speed is, if you like, just the bare minimum factor that needs to be addressed. It cannot really be addressed in isolation from the wider issues of access to space. From the point of view of my own organisation taking the child's perspective, children do not want to be hit at 20 mph either even though they may end up better off than if they are hit at 30 mph; it does not make the street any less of a nicer place in which to play. It may in time lead to their parents allowing them out more, but we need to do something about parked cars and the space that currently is completely dominated to the exclusion of all else by through traffic. How can we share that space with the people who live there including older and younger people together and also allow vehicle access? I reiterate and underline my earlier point that the key message is about right of way. Motorists given the right of way tend to drive as fast as they can get away with; if they are not given right of way their greatest fear is that they will be involved in an accident and their behaviour changes radically. If they are not given the right of way they manage their own speed regardless of the enforcement measures because they do not want to hit a pedestrian.

Q323 Clive Efford: When you design a road with road safety barriers and things like that you do not design it for the 99% of drivers but the 1% reckless driver who comes through? Is that the wrong approach?

Mr Armstrong: Our view is that by segregating pedestrians in such a stark way you are removing the risk, but you can take that to its natural conclusion and say that the safest road is one where there are no people on it; in other words, it is completely dedicated to traffic and then there will be no pedestrian accidents ever. By doing that one is creating higher risks for pedestrians in many ways because we know that pedestrians tend to take the most direct route from A to B rather than go by long-winded railed crossings. I am sure that in towns and cities we have all seen people clambering over railings and running across five-lane motorways. That is less safe because drivers are not conditioned on those roads to watch out for pedestrians; they think they have 100% unlimited right of way and so anything that gets in their way is the other user's fault. If you have a situation in which all the road users have to look at each other and move along much more slowly - as if cars are really guests on the road rather than having a right to drive as fast as they can along it - research in Europe and our own schemes, for example the one in Kensington High Street, show that all users tend to watch what others are doing much more carefully. There are examples in the Netherlands where traffic lights at major junctions have been removed. They have shown that it is a much safer environment because everybody is watching very carefully what everyone else is doing rather than going into a mind-neutral zone and proceeding as soon as they have a green light without watching what is happening around them.

Q324 Clive Efford: What should be the priorities for road safety for the next 10 to 20 years? Should there be more speed cameras, or what other measures should we be taking?

Mr Geffen: I suggest that the most useful thing that can be done to improve cycle as well as pedestrian safety, as my colleague Mr Armstrong would say, is to encourage more people to cycle and walk. That is related in part to a previous question. There is very good evidence that both walking and cycling get safer the more people do it. In answer to your earlier question about what is the most effective thing that has happened I could point to the congestion charge which has driven up cycle use and driven down cycle casualties. It is a very good demonstration of the theory of safety in numbers. One of the most useful indicators of whether or not we are getting road safety right and what we can perhaps adopt in road safety strategy is whether people feel it is safe to walk and cycle. That will translate into whether they actually walk and cycle and in turn it will feed back into safety through the safety in numbers effect. Therefore, the focus must be on improving cycle and pedestrian safety in ways that encourage more cycling and walking because the two completely synergise.

Mr Voce: The 20 mph default must be the minimum in residential areas with incremental investment rolling across years and decades to transform residential areas so they adopt the home zones concept and greater investment in cycling and walking schemes as my colleague suggests.

Q325 Clive Efford: Are there particular groups that warrant special attention in road safety?

Mr Voce: Clearly, children.

Mr Geffen: I would go back to my earlier point that pedestrians, cyclists and children are the areas of road safety where we are doing least well. They are also the areas where by focusing attention on road safety for those groups one can have the biggest gains in terms of the wider impact of road safety policy to improve quality of life, climate change and tackle obesity. The wider benefits of road safety come from getting road safety right for the most vulnerable groups and they are also the most sustainable and healthy ones.

Q326 Clive Efford: What do we do about the poor behaviour of some cyclists who mount pavements and do not stop at red lights?

Mr Geffen: I am not here in any way to defend bad cycling any more than you would expect the AA to defend bad behaviour by drivers. That is not a facetious point. I am in the same position here. Bad cycling undermines my role because I have to listen to decision-makers who keep saying that cyclists are undeserving because they misbehave. There is bad behaviour by people in all groups of society. How does one deal with it? First, we want to see more road traffic policing. Cyclists are far more likely to be the victims than perpetrators of irresponsible behaviour on the roads, so if more traffic policing comes down on errant cyclists that is fair game, but we want to see more road traffic policing. Second, there is a useful role for cycle training here, not just learning how to avoid falling off a bicycle when riding round bollards in a playground but giving people as they move into their teens the confidence and skills to ride sensibly, responsibly and confidently on the roads in accordance with road traffic law because you can then explain why the rules of the road are what they are. You could even apply some of the lessons from speed awareness and driver training courses where retraining drivers has been used effectively as a sanction. If you see a cyclist riding on the pavement it may be because he or she has never been given the confidence and skills to ride on the road. Send that cyclist on a cycle training course and that may be a punishment that not only fits the crime but fixes it as well.

Q327 Clive Efford: Has road and pavement maintenance improved or is it still a concern to pedestrians and cyclists?

Mr Sinclair: Help the Aged will launch a piece of work in a couple of weeks. We will happily send that to the Committee. We have not seen the final version yet, but it looks at how much local authorities put aside per year for street maintenance and, at the same time, for litigation. That report may well be helpful on some of these issues and we are happy to share it with the Committee. If I may deal briefly with priority groups, in terms of government's own interest in social policy Help the Aged's annual spotlight report which it launched just today highlights that one in 10 of the older population describe themselves as often or always lonely. It strikes me that one of the big issues is fear of leaving home and road safety and safety of the immediate environment are extremely important matters. To reinforce the importance of encouraging walking and cycling, I talked to a group of older people on an estate in London. One of the matters they raised with me, quite rightly, was fear of crime and particularly in the winter from three or four o'clock in the afternoon they were afraid to go out in the local area because of that. They said that if there were more people walking around at that time of the evening they would feel a lot more comfortable in that environment. They recognised the fact that because they did not go out they were contributing to the problem for others. If we created environments on those estates in such a way that encouraged walking potentially it would have a knock-on effect in tackling isolation and loneliness.

Q328 Clive Efford: How do we get more 20 mph zones?

Mr Geffen: Our aim, which I believe is shared by all four organisations, is to move to a situation where 20 mph is the default for 65% to 85% of streets in urban areas with local authorities having the freedom to identify the minority of the busier and wider streets where a higher limit would apply. How do we start the process rolling? Given there is about 75% support for 20 mph but there will be a minority who will object very strongly, one thing we can do is pilot the idea of 20 mph particularly in cycle demonstration towns. That would be a very good pilot test bed. The government is due to announce the new tranche of cycle demonstration towns later this year. We could give those local authorities the power to introduce 20 mph zones rather than limits so they do not have to put in humps where they are not needed and do not need lots of signing. They could do this by allowing the local authorities the freedom to use 20 mph zone signing in a non-prescribed manner. One could then experiment how far one could go with 20 mph zones without having to have physical enforcement measures all over the place.

Q329 Mr Clelland: What needs to be done to reduce the level of casualties involving older drivers?

Mr Sinclair: Clearly, road safety is extremely important for all age groups. There is no evidence that older drivers are any more dangerous than any other age groups.

Q330 Mr Clelland: I did not say that. I said that the level of casualties was higher than for most other drivers?

Mr Sinclair: That comes down mainly to the issue of frailty. In many ways the solutions will be no different from what we are talking about for other age groups, that is, slower and safer roads and environments which facilitate slower and better driving and enforcement of existing regulations.

Q331 Mr Clelland: Are you aware of any schemes that provide older people with alternatives to using the car?

Mr Sinclair: There are not very many around. A couple of pilot schemes offer refresher driving courses but they tend to be very small in scale.

Q332 Mr Clelland: For example, there is free travel.

Mr Sinclair: Of course. Clearly, the opportunities for an individual to move to public transport are made a lot easier by concessionary fares and free public transport. We would argue that concessionary fares or free local transport are of little use if there is no local bus or someone has a disability and cannot get onto the local bus. Therefore, there is a need for flexible alternatives. We argue there is a strong case for local authorities to offer an alternative to the bus pass such as value against taxis or other forms of transport which will potentially help people make that move. Clearly, older people like any other age group have every right to drive as long as they are safe to do so.

Q333 Mr Clelland: You say "as long as they are safe to do so". All of us have an interest in this; old age will come to all of us. Does the current system rely too heavily on the honesty of the driver to notify the DVLA that he or she is unfit to drive?

Mr Sinclair: The research shows that the current system seems to work very well and when individuals recognise they are becoming more vulnerable they tend to make strategic decisions about how they drive, or they stop driving at night, or they drive on routes they know. At the first stage people start to do that. I am sorry but I have forgotten the last part of the question.

Q334 Mr Clelland: At the moment the DVLA relies on drivers themselves to decide whether or not they are fit to drive. Should there not be some other way to measure it?

Mr Sinclair: We would not object to the increased use of healthcare professionals if appropriate, but we would ask why one should target older drivers as opposed to every age group. Why not do it in 10-year bands? Is it right for me as someone in my mid-thirties who has not driven for 10 years to get on the road in a new car without having a retest? One comes to the issue of age-related disabilities. Clearly, there are certain conditions associated with increasing age. If one looks at the DfT evidence on the causes of accidents, dementia or other conditions feature in only in a small number of cases; they are not the main factors.

Q335 Mr Clelland: Another matter which is related mainly to elderly people is the increasing use of mobility scooters. Obviously, there is an issue with these machines. They give mobility and freedom to a lot of people and no one wants to restrict that, but there is an issue about their interaction with pedestrians, other road users and access or otherwise to public transport. Do you have any evidence on that?

Mr Sinclair: It is a very interesting matter and it will certainly grow as we have an aging population. We already have 11,000 people over 100 and the aging population is set to grow significantly. This issue almost never comes up through our networks. Interestingly, the only time it is ever really raised is through the media. I was interested to see the DfT's supplementary evidence which highlights research in 2004 showing that there is one reported incident involving a wheelchair or scooter owner in a major shopping centre for every 15 million visitors. What we know is that with an aging population more and more people will be using these. I agree with the DfT's line that it is absolutely worth monitoring this issue as we go forward to see whether or not the increasing numbers have an effect. It is difficult to find the evidence. I know that some Parliamentary Questions on statistics have been tabled. The statistics available on this issue are fairly poor. We would welcome recommendations to encourage the gathering of better statistics. In the European context it is interesting that very few countries have any regulation of these products. My main point is that we should not regulate or jump in until we know there is a problem. We welcome that debate when we have evidence that it is a significant problem.

Q336 Chairman: Where do you say the key problems are on the reliability of statistics on casualties?

Mr Sinclair: On the issue of mobility scooters, the Parliamentary Answer that I saw in April said the department did not collect any statistics in this area, but independent research has attempted to make an estimate which the DfT quotes in its evidence. There are also lots of unreported incidents, but I think it is an area where more and more individuals will use these devices and it is important to ensure that in future we have a sensible policy to support the most vulnerable.

Q337 Chairman: I am looking more broadly at the whole issue of road casualty statistics. What are the key problems?

Mr Voce: In general, our observation is that the road traffic casualty statistics are presented and analysed in a composite way which does not always allow for differentiation between casualties sustained by passengers compared with pedestrians. If we are talking about road safety in general, fine, but if we are talking about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists that differentiation needs to be made. We have increasingly safer vehicles for passengers but they are also driving at the same speeds and the risks and hazards to pedestrians and other road users are just as great. Therefore, a composite figure which implies that the roads are safer may not be telling the whole story.

Mr Geffen: There are huge and, it seems, growing problems particularly on cycle safety. We have known for a long while that of all road user groups cyclist casualties are perhaps the most under-reported. We have looked at various studies conducted a couple of years ago and it is unclear whether the problem is that the cyclist simply does not report the casualty, whether the police are unwilling to accept the report, though we receive increasing anecdotal evidence of that - as an organisation we shall be doing some work on that later this year - or whether there is a growing under-classification of casualties involving cyclists in particular whereby what would previously have been classed as serious are now classed as slight casualties. One of the problems with the studies was that researchers tried to compare information with hospital data. When we looked at this we realised there were huge problems with the hospital data too because hospitals did not differentiate between road cycle casualties, if you like, and recreational off-road or play cycle casualties. It is very hard to use the hospital data to try to measure whether there are changes going on in the under-reporting of road casualties by the police. We have two unreliable data sources and it is very difficult to tell what is going on. Certainly, our anecdotal evidence is that the police are increasingly unwilling to take reports of cycle casualties and we want to try to document that later this year.

Mr Voce: I should like to add a recommendation that some analysis be made of the national travel survey statistics in relation to children playing in the streets. There is a certain amount of evidence but it is not analysed. For example, the 2005 survey reported that about 15% of children between the ages of five and 15 were observed playing in the streets. That is to be compared with a study by the Department of the Environment in 1973 which reported 75% of children playing in the street in any given area. We would like to see some analysis of the correlation between children playing in the streets and the overall road casualty figures for children.

Q338 David Simpson: Do you have any idea what percentage of children receive cycle training?

Mr Geffen: If I remember rightly, it was about 27% a few years ago. Cycling England has set a target to get that up to 50% and it is well on the way to achieving it. It is estimated that to get that up to 100% for nine and 10 year-olds would cost something like an additional �15 million. That could make a huge difference both to people's willingness to cycle and to their safety, but we do not have good documentation on the safety benefits. We also need to give people not only initial cycle training so they do not fall off when riding round bollards in playgrounds but the confidence and skills to carry on cycling in their mid-teens as they start to travel a bit further and show more independence so that they start to see the bicycle not just as a toy but as a means of getting around at the time they are progressing into mid-teens and early adulthood. In relation to some of the points that have emerged about older people and safety, the Dutch have started to do cycle training for people in their sixties and seventies as a way to encourage them to remain healthy and not lose their confidence in old age. We know that the decline of cycle use with age is far less marked in countries like Holland than in Britain. We have a very serious tail-off particularly among women. In the UK teenage girls give up cycling very quickly; in Holland it is much more equal between the genders and much more even across ages.

Q339 Mr Clelland: How big a problem is drink driving now, and what should be done about it?

Mr Armstrong: From our point of view progress has been made and that is extremely welcome. Drink driving still accounts for a large proportion of deaths and serious accidents involving pedestrians. I think we need to look again at the limits and a zero tolerance approach would be welcome. We may not get it down to zero, but I think the limits should be reviewed. We also need to look again at enforcement and education. In many ways the drink driving awareness campaigns have been very successful and are a model for some of the speed-type campaigns. Perhaps we need to look at some of the modern social marketing techniques to see whether we can have an impact. Although generally it is socially unacceptable to drink and drive there are some key demographic groups who still regard it as okay, but because it is such a large proportion of avoidable accidents and deaths there must be increased focus on it.

Q340 Mr Clelland: Do you think there should be a zero limit?

Mr Armstrong: I am not a scientist and I do not know whether we can achieve that in any practical sense, but it should be as close to zero as possible and perhaps give some leeway for the previous night's drinking.

Q341 Mr Clelland: Does anyone else agree that there should be a zero limit or as near zero as possible?

Mr Geffen: We have supported other organisations in calling for a limit of 50 mg to bring us into line with continental Europe. We think there is a good case which should be looked at for a lower limit for younger or novice drivers.

Q342 Mr Clelland: You believe there should be an age differential?

Mr Geffen: It could be an experience differential; it could be novice drivers rather than young drivers.

Q343 Mr Clelland: What about the policing of it? If we are to have limits of any sort they are not much good if they are not policed. Should we have random breath tests? Is that something you advocate?

Mr Armstrong: Certainly, yes. We can probably make enforcement more targeted and look at what kinds of drivers are more likely to drink above the limit and at the areas where perhaps there are higher concentrations. Like one of the earlier answers, there is the deterrent effect of the fear of being caught rather than fear of the general consequences of it. If you know there will be spot checks in your area - for example, we see it at Christmas when there is greater advertising and enforcement - levels tend to decrease because you have a greater chance of being caught. If we can keep up that pressure the year round it will have an impact.

Q344 Mr Clelland: What about the related issue of drugs and driving? What can be done about that?

Mr Armstrong: As far as I can tell that is a growing issue. There is difficulty in measuring that. Certainly, a recommendation by this Committee about greater knowledge and evidence about that issue is important. Whether you can test for certain drugs in the same way you can test for alcohol I do not know, but it appears to be a growing issue and one that is not getting sufficient prominence.

Q345 Mr Clelland: We tend to concentrate our efforts on people who abuse either alcohol or drugs behind the wheel, but quite often people who wander the streets when drunk or high on drugs can also be a danger to traffic and themselves. Should that also be a matter where some kind of regulation, monitoring or policing should be brought in?

Mr Armstrong: This goes back to some of the earlier questions about road safety being very clearly in the centre of a number of different linked issues. The quality and sense of community in local neighbourhoods and town and city centres are very important matters. If there is effective policing and people feel that they are safe in their local neighbourhoods then everyone tends to behave in a slightly different way. It is not just about traffic-calming; it is also about making sure that people have vibrant areas that have mixed use. We need to look at our planning policies where we have 10 or 20 different bars, clubs and fast food joints all in one place. It attracts only a certain proportion of users of the city or town centre. You will hear particularly from middle-aged people that they feel they cannot go into town centres any more because, like the wild west, people will just be carousing around. That is the key issue that needs to be addressed as part of the overall problem.

Mr Sinclair: A linked issue in regard to drugs is the use of medication when driving. Very recently we conducted a survey of 1,000 older people about 80% of whom made the point that issuing a directive that GPs and pharmacists should be required to advise patients when giving a prescription that can affect ability to drive would be extremely important. On the other hand, there was also very much awareness in the survey by older people that if they were taking medication they had to inform the DVLA. There is very much awareness of that but clearly there could be additional support from the GP in informing someone that a drug may have an effect.

Q346 Mr Clelland: Who would that "someone" be?

Mr Sinclair: When the GP prescribed a drug to, say, an older person he would say that this might impact on his or her ability to drive.

Q347 Mr Clelland: But you do not necessarily suggest that the GP should inform DVLA?

Mr Sinclair: No. Our survey showed high awareness that individuals themselves were obliged to inform the DVLA if they began to take drugs which might affect their ability to drive, but better information and advice could be very useful to older people.

Q348 Mr Leech: I may have misheard Mr Armstrong. Were you suggesting there was an actual reduction in drink driving around Christmas time because people were more aware of it and worried about being caught?

Mr Armstrong: The figures show that there is probably an increase.

Q349 Mr Leech: In that case do you suggest there is more drink driving outside the Christmas period that goes undetected because of a lack of enforcement? If so, do you think we ought to introduce more enforcement and random breath-testing?

Mr Armstrong: The point I was trying to make was that more people were being caught proportionally because of the greater focus in terms of television campaigns, stop and search, random patrols and so on. I was suggesting that rather than just focus on peak periods when we know that people are more likely to drink and drive why not have sustained efforts throughout the year? As you said, there is a level of drink driving at the moment that perhaps is not being picked up outside those peak times and it could be.

Mr Voce: I want to respond to Mr Clelland's earlier question which I think was about the relative fault/responsibility in regard to drivers and pedestrians in the context of alcohol. The question of the responsible use of drugs and alcohol in public or elsewhere is a slightly different issue, but surely the relative responsibility in terms of safety on our roads must be weighted with the driver who by virtue of starting up the engine is in charge of a piece of machinery that can do serious harm and should be handled responsibly. We would always argue in favour of the onus of proof of innocence to be with the driver. Most European countries have in place legislation that regards the driver as the default offender in any collision with a pedestrian.

Q350 Chairman: Have targets helped in safety of the groups you represent? Would you want to change targets in relation to road safety in future?

Mr Geffen: From the point of view of cycling targets have been a double-edged sword, if you like. There has been a focus on overall casualties, which is helpful, but the rate of pedestrian/cyclist casualties has not fallen to the same extent. At a local level often road safety officers say that the best way to meet targets is to get rid of pedestrians and cyclists. Ideally, we would like a much more rate-based target so you can see whether cycling is getting safer per trip or mile. The trouble is that data on cycle use is also unreliable. Perhaps the most useful model is a more perception-based indicator, a bit like the bus passenger satisfaction indicator which we already have. Do you feel it is safe to walk? Do you feel it is safe to cycle? If people believe it is safe they are more likely to do so and that translates into the safety in numbers benefits to which I referred.

Q351 Chairman: Would any other witness like to say how it might be changed?

Mr Voce: We have welcomed the proposal in the new consultation document for a national indicator of children's play that measures children and young people's satisfaction with play opportunities in their area. There is to be a one-year technical consultation period which is a great opportunity to consider in detail how that might work and what tools might be put into the hands of local authorities to achieve good performance against that. With regard to the safety of children and young people on the roads, a study of the statistics available from the national travel survey about the use of the roads and the relative safety might be a way to introduce a composite indicator that does not simply measure the bald statistics of road traffic casualties but the wider use and enjoyment by children and young people of public space and their safety and derive opportunities to manage risk, develop social responsibility and achieve the other outcomes that we want for them.

Q352 Chairman: Does anybody differ from that or have any other suggestions?

Mr Armstrong: I agree with what has been said, but perhaps the target should be greater focus on some driver behaviour. The absolute target in terms of accidents has a perverse incentive at local level. We have heard anecdotally in some areas that if they get rid of the pedestrians it will be safer. If you target behaviour and reduce some of the more dangerous aspects of it, for example speeding and drink driving, that will have the same effect that the government is trying to achieve in terms of outcome and perhaps get rid of some of the perverse incentives.

Q353 Chairman: Do you say that the steep reduction in deaths of pedestrians and cyclists is to do with reduced use of the road rather than improved safety?

Mr Armstrong: To measure that on the basis of the overall statistics is very difficult. We get feedback by talking to local areas about how they have done it. Because there are no pedestrians anywhere near the road no one is being killed or injured, which is brilliant, but if we took that approach no one would be on our streets.

Q354 Chairman: Do you have any views on the Learning to Drive consultation?

Mr Geffen: To reiterate an earlier point, first, the potential role of cycle training is a way to educate and prepare people to learn to drive; it could be extremely valuable. We want better evidence on this. Second, in the consultation the government has talked about wanting to improve people's understanding, not just their ability to learn by rote. That is all very worthy. It proposes to enhance the hazard protection test. We also need to improve people's understanding of why the rules of the road are what they are. If people understand that the risk of a pedestrian fatality reduces by 5% for each 1 mph they have a much better understanding of why a 30 mph or 20 mph speed limit matters. If they understand that mobile phone use impairs you as much as being at the drink drive limit they are much more likely to understand the rule that you should not use a mobile phone. Therefore, understanding the reasons for the rules is really important.

Chairman: Thank you for your very helpful evidence.

Witnesses: Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Mr Mike Fawcett, Head of Road User Safety Division, Department for Transport, gave evidence.

Q355 Chairman: I welcome our witnesses and ask them to identify themselves for the record.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am Jim Fitzpatrick, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport. On my left is Mike Fawcett, head of the Road User Safety Division.

Q356 Chairman: The UK is 11^th in the league for child, pedestrian and cyclist deaths. Do you think that is good enough?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Perhaps I may make a brief opening statement. Mrs Ellman, first I offer our congratulations on your unopposed election as the new chairman of the Select Committee. We had a very good relationship with Gwyneth and I am sure we will have the same with you. She is a difficult act to follow, but on behalf of my colleagues you have our sincere congratulations. In general terms, casualty reduction since 2000 has been good but not good enough, particularly in deaths. Our target was set in terms of the combined figure for deaths and serious injuries. The trend in these has diverged unexpectedly with deaths dropping only 11% by 2006 compared with a 35% reduction in serious injuries. Of those deaths, a disproportionate number of young drivers dying on our roads is a great concern and is part of the motivation for our new proposals to improve driver training and testing. In the short term aside from this our focus is on improving performance in the period to 2010 when the 10-year strategy is due to conclude. In our Road Safety Delivery Board we have brought together the key players: the police, local traffic authorities, fire and ambulance service and national government. They are tackling the most pressing road safety issues: drink driving, excessive speed and failure to wear seat belts. They will also consider the disproportionate number of casualties among young drivers and motorcyclists. In the longer term we have begun work on a new road safety strategy for the period from 2010. This will need to have road deaths as one key focus and there is a case for deaths being the currency of the new target. These targets would need to cover a short enough term to inspire action, but there is some appeal in a strategy covering a period beyond 10 years which would enable it to consider the potential for new technology to reduce casualties. Part of the brief for the new strategy is that it should take account of successful international approaches, but we need to pursue measures that will be successful in a British context taking account of British roads and road users. This is a blank canvas for the new road safety strategy. Obviously, we are interested in the views of the Select Committee, road safety interest groups and the public on these important issues.

Q357 Chairman: Do you think we do well enough in relation to child casualties on the road?

Mr Fitzpatrick: To amplify what I said a moment ago, we have made reasonable progress. The targets are to reduce adult KSIs - killed and serious injuries - by 40% by 2010 and 50% for children. We met the 50% target for children; it is 52%. As to adults, we are up to 33% or 34% and still have 18 months to go. We would hope to get to that level. That still means, however, over 3,000 people being killed on our roads and nearly 30,000 seriously injured. As to children, I believe there are 170 deaths and 3,000 serious injuries. The dilemma is that if one were to express any satisfaction in the reductions with the fallback figures as they were it would tend to suggest one is happy or satisfied with the figures. We certainly are not; we know that there is a lot more to do, which is why we are floating the idea for the 2010 onward strategy in informal discussions at the moment as stakeholders before we proceed to the formal consultation later this year as to whether we adopt the Swedish strategy of having zero tolerance and saying that we do not want a single death. We recognise that we will not reach that point, but is it something to which we should aspire or is it so ridiculous that it will undermine the credibility of a reduction strategy? We are not satisfied with the progress that has been made, but lots of people have worked very hard to make that progress. I do not want that dissatisfaction to reflect critically on them in any way because it is quite an accomplishment, but obviously we can do more.

Q358 Chairman: Do you think government departments are sufficiently joined up in relation to road safety?

Mr Fitzpatrick: There is always a prospect of being able to do more. We liaise with other government departments in a whole manner of different ways. I attended a conference yesterday with Kevin Brennan from DIUS about play spaces and children's ability to be natural and enjoy their childhood and how road safety impacts on that. They have the PSA target in terms of child safety. We are engaged with the Home Office naturally because of the policing issues, the MoJ because of sentencing issues and the Health and Safety Executive because now companies have corporate responsibility for employees who drive for work. We are also engaging with the health service because clearly it wants to assist us in getting down casualty numbers; and we also engage with the devolved administrations because they too have responsibilities. I believe we are engaging relatively effectively, but equally I am sure that more can always be done.

Q359 Mr Hollobone: On that theme, between the ages of five and 35 motor vehicle accidents are the major cause of death in this country, and above 35 the major causes are heart attack and chronic heart disease for every group. Is there a justification for making road safety a matter of health policy?

Mr Fitzpatrick: To a certain extent we are trying to do that by making motorcyclists wear helmets and drivers and passengers to wear seat belts and beefing up the offence of speaking on mobile phones when driving and the rules about drink driving and so on. To a certain extent we are looking at it in a similar fashion like the smoking ban and the advice that goes out about drinking and health. We are trying to protect people from themselves. People put themselves and others in danger as a result of those actions. We do not have a narrow focus and in that instance it is more widely cast.

Q360 Mr Hollobone: The health departments of other countries have adopted road safety as a health policy. Obviously, the Department for Transport is concerned about road safety but presumably the Department of Health does not have road safety as one of its major objectives and yet that is the major killer for every group between five and 35. Above 35 the Department of Health does have a policy on heart attacks and chronic heart disease but not road safety. Since you are talking about cross-department liaison do you think this is a matter you might take up with the Department of Health?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I will ask my colleague to speak in a moment because he will be more familiar with contact between officials in the various departments and I am sure can speak to that. I certainly understand the point you make. I believe that we need to take a wider look at what we can do additionally. I have just come from a meeting with one of your colleagues, Mr Brokenshire. He brought in the senior officer of Cheshire Fire Brigade who is responsible for its anti-collision policy and two road campaigners, one of whom lost her son to a drink driver. The fire service works across the country with different fire and rescue services, sometimes independently, sometimes with the police and sometimes with the Ambulance Service. Clearly, the Ambulance Service has a frontline role to play in a whole number of places across the country. I went to see a similar demonstration in Fife last year. There is a joint emergency service and educational approach to this for school children, particularly secondary school kids, to alert them to the dangers of the road and try to create an attitude within them that the road is a dangerous place whether you are a passenger in a car, a driver, pedestrian or cyclist and to bring home to them what those dangers are and how they impact on individuals and their families.

Mr Fawcett: We are working with the Department of Health among others on the new strategy beyond 2010. They are members of the steering group on that strategy. We also see an increased interest, for the reasons you set out, at all levels of the health service. A number of the regional public health observers have taken quite a strong interest in road accidents as a source of death and injury. We have also talked to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) because they are not just interested in what sort of drugs the NHS can prescribe but also in preventative measures that can improve the health of the population. There is an increasing amount of collaboration with different parts of the health service. As the Minister said, that is not to say it cannot be improved further, but it is increasing.

Q361 Mr Hollobone: In terms of international comparisons of road safety records, Mr Wegman, the MD of the Dutch road safety institute (SWOV), said last week that in the nineties the Netherlands used to look to the UK for the lead on road safety issues but since 2000 that is no longer the case. Why is this? Can you make any suggestions as to why our performance has fallen behind that of other countries?

Mr Fitzpatrick: No, but what we are trying to do in our contact with the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden is to look at how they have been as successful as they have in surpassing us and, as my colleague says, try to ensure that we incorporate their best practice into our 2010/20 strategy. The Swedes have zero tolerance for road deaths. The question is whether we make that a headline figure and then build it into the 20 mph zones which the Swedes have used. I was at a road safety conference last week where the Swedish representative responded to a question from the floor about whether or not we ought to introduce centralised diktats to local authorities in respect of the introduction of 20 mph zones. That was not what they did; they did what we did which was to delegate responsibility to local authorities and communities so they could best work out themselves where these zones were appropriate and not micro-manage it from the capital any more than we would micro-manage it from London. We are in contact with other countries, particularly those where there is improved performance, to see what we can learn from them and whether or not it will be applicable here in respect of our 2010 forward-looking strategy.

Q362 Mr Leech: I am interested to hear about the 20 mph measure being devolved down to local authorities. Do you have any information on how they funded the change in speed limit? One of the problems that local authorities face is that they do not have the resources to prioritise all the roads on which they would like to reduce the speed limit. Were additional resources put in by the Government of the Netherlands to local authorities so they could fund these schemes?

Mr Fitzpatrick: That certainly did not come across in the meeting I attended. My colleague may have more information about the resourcing implications. What we are doing is to recognise that for the 20 mph zones to be effective it is no use just putting up signs because they will not he adhered to; there will have to be physical restraints, whether it is bollards, obstructions in the road, cameras or repeater signs. There must be something to reinforce the fact that the speed in that area, whatever it is, has been reduced and there is a cost. We are exploring with local authorities how best that can be done and in the least expensive way, particularly in relation to signage.

Mr Fawcett: I am afraid that I do not know how the Dutch funded the schemes.

Q363 Clive Efford: Are you prepared to consider pilot schemes where you do not have to invest so much money in infrastructure like bollards and physical barriers? There is an argument that because the cost of implementing 20 mph zones is so high we have too few of them in residential areas.

Mr Fitzpatrick: We have clear evidence that where 20 mph zones are introduced without any additional reinforcement speed reduction is minimal. It may go down by one mile and hour. Where speed humps, bollards or cameras are introduced there is better observation of the 20 mph zone and traffic speeds are reduced. We have evidence to show that just changing the speed limit in itself is not necessarily an adequate response in order to reduce speeds.

Q364 Clive Efford: From where does that evidence come? What evidence do you have?

Mr Fitzpatrick: That evidence results from the introduction of 20 mph zones so far. What we have initiated over the past few months is a more in-depth study to ask local authorities where they have introduced 20 mph zones to supply us with the information and data so we can roll out best practice. The initial evidence we received suggested there was a 59% reduction in crashes and a 69% reduction in child casualties where 20 mph zones have been introduced. That was very powerful evidence to show that we ought to be introducing more of these schemes, which is why we recommend it.

Q365 Clive Efford: How do those figures compare with the zones that have been introduced where there have not been put in place physical barriers such as speed humps?

Mr Fitzpatrick: If I remember, every mile per hour added increases the chances of a collision by 5%, so the reduction from 30 mph to 20 mph clearly demonstrates that people who drive at lower speeds are more likely to be able to react to kids running into the road or anything that happens.

Q366 Clive Efford: The question is: what evidence do you have to suggest that just implementing a 20 mph zone will not be effective?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am reading briefings that have come across my desk saying that surveys conducted when 20 mph zones were introduced with no additional physical restriction showed that the reduction in speed was minimal; it was maybe 1 mph. Where there were physical restrictions the reduction in speed was much more marked.

Q367 Clive Efford: We are talking about physical restrictions, not marking the boundaries of a residential zone as a 20 mph zone?

Mr Fitzpatrick: We are talking about physical things - road humps, bollards, cameras and repeater sign - which are in the driver's face, as it were.

Q368 Clive Efford: With road safety issues in mind, what do you think the future of the road and vehicle environment will be?

Mr Fitzpatrick: We published a document last March and disseminated it as best practice. We tried to suggest that in the design of future community environments perhaps the car might not necessarily be the priority and we should be designing environments which had people more in mind. We are looking at what has come back in response to Manual for Streets and we intend to publish a leaflet later this year which will send out best practice. That is about the design of environments. We should be designing streets where the car is not necessarily a priority and thinking about crossings, how pedestrians get from A to B, cycle zones and all manner of things and changing our attitude towards the design of future communities.

Q369 Clive Efford: What about the vehicle? How much will vehicles change in terms of automation and the extent to which drivers make decisions on roads in future?

Mr Fitzpatrick: All manner of tests are being conducted by manufacturers and we are involved in some of them in respect of speed limiters. These days braking systems fitted as standard in some upmarket vehicles assist. A variety of technological advances is being examined. Some of these - certainly the automatic limiting of speeds beyond a certain point - are some way off. I do not think that the driving public are ready for that yet.

Q370 Clive Efford: Do you think the government is doing enough to encourage manufacturers to develop technology that would advance road safety?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I think we are. I defer to my colleague who has been director for longer than I have been Minister for road safety. Certainly, in terms of our engagement with vehicle manufacturers, TRL Ltd and in other aspects such as the development of safer helmets for motorcyclists with the new star-rating system that we hope to publish by the end of this month, we are examining all manner of different ways to try to make roads safer for users as well as those who perhaps are more vulnerable, be they cyclists or pedestrians.

Q371 Clive Efford: What about research into the effectiveness of intelligent speed adaptation? Are there any conclusions from that?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Not as I understand it. Those trials are still going on.

Mr Fawcett: I think the trials have been completed but the researchers are still completing their report. It has been through a process of peer review and, as I understand it, they are completing the writing of their report. We hope to receive that report fairly shortly.

Q372 Clive Efford: So, you cannot tell us what lessons we can learn from adaptation in other European countries or whether it would lead to fewer casualties if they were adopted?

Mr Fawcett: I think we will have to await the report and look at it carefully.

Q373 Clive Efford: When will that be?

Mr Fawcett: I understand that the researchers are completing the report at the moment. We should receive it within the next few weeks or thereabouts.

Q374 Mr Clelland: Is there a particular problem with older drivers?

Mr Fitzpatrick: It is not apparent to us that there is a particular problem with older drivers. We have said that we shall be consulting on health issues later this year which has led to some stories that we would introduce a compulsory retest for 70 year-olds. That is certainly not the case, and the statistics do not suggest that there is a particular risk element involved with older drivers. We are much more concerned with young and novice drivers and a variety of elements, whether it is drink driving, no seat belts, driving for work and so on, features disproportionately in the road safety casualty statistics.

Q375 Mr Clelland: As to those people who may feel that they are unfit to drive, is it adequate to rely on the honesty of drivers themselves to notify DVLA, or should there be some other way to measure whether or not people are fit to drive?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I do not think it is adequate to rely solely on self-reporting. We spend quite a bit of time reminding the medical profession about this and sending out guidance notes to GPs to say that if they are aware patients whom they believe not to be in a fit state to drive and they advise should not be driving and they realise in the course of conversation or personal observation that those individuals are driving we expect those GPs to report it to DVLA which in turn will take that on board and call in those individuals for medical assessment, or make the appropriate assessment based on the evidence that has been submitted. We do not rely totally on the individual. There is a lot of engagement with the medical profession and, I suspect, the Department of Health but certainly with the BMA and information from GPs' practices to alert them to the responsibility that we feel they have.

Q376 Mr Clelland: You say "responsibility". There is no duty on GPs to report in this way.

Mr Fawcett: I believe it is just a responsibility.

Mr Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that it is a responsibility.

Q377 Mr Clelland: There is growing use of mobility scooters which give a great deal of freedom to a lot of elderly and disabled people, but there is a problem with their interaction with pedestrians and other road users and access to public transport. Do you see any need perhaps for more regulation of the use of mobility scooters?

Mr Fitzpatrick: It is certainly not on our radar that the number of complaints, issues or concerns is such that it is a matter on which we need to look for regulation. I have read stories in the papers of people using them on motorways; and sometimes people run into difficulties on pavements. It certainly does not come across my desk as a matter that we should address at this point.

Q378 Mr Clelland: To what extent is there a shortage of road safety professionals?

Mr Fitzpatrick: In terms of engineering skills?

Q379 Mr Clelland: In terms of skills generally in the field of road safety. What kind of skill shortages do we have?

Mr Fitzpatrick: There is more anecdotal evidence than firm evidence about shortages of skills in terms of road safety and engineering from local authorities. The educational ministries and Learning and Skills Council are examining this and funding where they believe a shortage exists. We understand that it is becoming an issue, but it has not been in the forefront of our concerns so far.

Q380 Mr Clelland: Do you think there are sufficient road safety professionals who understand the particular needs of vulnerable road users?

Mr Fitzpatrick: What do you mean by "vulnerable road users"?

Q381 Mr Clelland: I am talking about elderly and disabled people who are more vulnerable than others on the road.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I would have hoped and expected that where accident statistics that demonstrate particular issues in terms of elderly people feature either on a particular road or area local authority road safety officers will spot this and deal with ourselves, the Highways Agency and the police however the matter has arisen. It is not something that has been brought to my attention ministerially as a matter that forms a pattern across the country that we ought to address.

Q382 Mr Clelland: I return briefly to the 20 mph zones. Would it not be an idea to have a national standard of 20 mph in residential areas except where it is indicated otherwise? Everyone then knows that whenever they go to a residential area there will be a 20 mph limit unless there is a sign in the road saying the speed is 30 mph?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I receive letters from parliamentary colleagues occasionally on behalf of constituents who complain that they have not seen a sign and have been reported for speeding. The standard answer we send back is that if it is a lit street it is a 30 mph zone. That is why we do not put 30 mph signs up everywhere. The cluttering of signage and so on is becoming a bit of a problem. In that case 20 mph zones have to be mapped out because they are different. As to whether we micro-manage that from Westminster, it has been the view of the department, to which I adhere, that local authorities know best where their vulnerable areas are, whether it is a shopping precinct, a school or park that kids use a lot and the nature of the rest of the local area. I have schools in my constituency that back onto four-carriageway roads. That side of the school has been shut off; kids are not allowed out that side. Because it is next to a school you would not want to have a 20 mph limit; it is appropriate to make it 30 mph. The local authority knows better than the Department for Transport what should be a 20 mph zone and what should be a 30 mph zone. That is why we have delegated it rather than seek to do it from the centre which we believe would be impossible.

Q383 Mr Martlew: Obviously, the government have an impressive record in bringing down the number of deaths particularly over the past 10 years, but when one looks at road user groups there is one area where it has failed abysmally. In the case of motorcyclists the numbers have gone up by 28%. Because of outside pressures like congestion charges and the price of fuel we appear to be forcing more and more people to use motorcycles. How will you reverse that trend? It seems to me somehow that people who are killed when riding motorcycles are not as important as other groups and the statistics indicate that the government think that as well.

Mr Fitzpatrick: It is certainly a key area of concern. I shall ask my colleague to speak in greater depth about the motorcycle strategy set up in 2005 by one of my predecessors. The statistics are worrying. They are less worrying - I heavily qualify this - in that although the numbers have gone up the number of people engaged in motorcycling have increased by a greater number. Therefore, if that is taken into account the increase is not as disproportionate as it looks.

Q384 Mr Martlew: It is probable that the present price of fuel is driving more and more people to motorcycling. That means that more and more people will be killed and the trend will continue. You will not meet your targets and there will be a lot of sadness in the country. What is to be done to stop this carnage?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I mentioned earlier in passing that at the end of this month we shall introduce a star-rating system for motorcycle helmets. It became apparent to us from evidence that not all motorcycle helmets available for sale did an adequate job in protecting motorcyclists and that it was not necessarily the case that the most expensive helmets were the best for safety. Our estimate is that if people wear better helmets we can save up to 50 lives a year from this year, and we hope that that will make a big contribution. The motorcycle strategy that we worked out was to address that particular issue. Out of 3,000-plus dead 599 were motorcyclists according to the last available figures. I have met the board which has a number of work streams but this is a particular area of intensive work we are undertaking. We think there is a lot we can do to assist motorcyclists to operate in a safer environment.

Mr Fawcett: In addition to what the Minister has mentioned, there is a wide-ranging programme of actions to further the strategy: publicity aimed at both motorcyclists themselves and car drivers - many of the accidents are caused by car drivers who fail to notice motorcyclists when they pull out at junctions and there is a "think" campaign on that - and measures to improve highway engineering so there are not dangerous bits of ironwork or just things like diesel spills which can make the road surface very dangerous for motorcyclists. We have issued new guidance to local authorities about allowing motorcycles into bus lanes and introduced a new register of post-test motorcycle trainers. Changes have been made to the motorcycle riding test. We have been doing some research into rider training and rider fatigue. The Minister alluded to our new road safety delivery board which brings together people from our delivery partners: the police, local authorities and others. Only on Monday it had a discussion about motorcycling and identified examples of good practice that local police forces and local authorities had identified and sought to spread. The delivery board is to come back to that issue at its next meeting. It was very encouraging that a lot of initiatives seemed to be working well, but there were also other areas where there was less happening and we hope to improve on them.

Mr Fitzpatrick: We are engaging with the motorcycling community itself. There are representatives from motorcycling groups and manufacturers on the strategy board set up in 2005.

Q385 Mr Martlew: I turn to road user training and novice drivers and the consultation document Learning to Drive published by the department. I find it a disappointment and a missed opportunity. A previous witness on another today told us that the department was no longer brave enough and I think that gives a good indication of the document. When do you think we shall see the results of the new initiative? When will we see the number of young drivers killed or seriously injured, or killing others, going down?

Mr Fitzpatrick: That is crystal ball gazing and I am not sure I can offer you any kind of authoritative answer.

Q386 Mr Martlew: Perhaps an easier question is: when will the information come in?

Mr Fitzpatrick: The first thing is the piloting of the pre-drive educational qualification in Scotland this autumn. This is about preparing youngsters who are not of driving age in secondary school with the opportunity to get a qualification that will stand them in good stead because it will demonstrate that they take an interest in road safety in due course when they enter employment. That will teach them some basic things such as how to behave as a passenger in a car - for example, the wearing of seat belts - and also general road safety matters. That will prepare them for driving. That is the first thing to be piloted this year. The timetable for the rest of the programme is that we expect to roll it out in the years ahead, so there will be no immediate change. We want to pilot elements of the new training and testing to make sure we get it absolutely right. In that instance it will perhaps take longer than we would have wanted it to take.

Q387 Mr Martlew: A key part of your proposals is that people will pass the initial test and then there will be an incentive for them to go on to take further driver training. My understanding is that there are difficulties with the ABI in that respect. You do not have an agreement with the insurance companies. The logic is that people will take this advanced course and pay a lower premium. Is there not an agreement at this time with the insurance companies?

Mr Fitzpatrick: As to the ABI, it arrived at a commercial decision that for young and novice drivers who passed their test and then went onto a course called pass plus they would offer a reduction in premiums because they expected that having passed that test and done additional training they ought to be safer. There is a suggestion - it is no more than that at the moment - that the pass plus qualification is not as good as was hoped and some youngsters were signing up for it because they knew they would get a reduction in their insurance premiums rather than wanting to secure better training. The insurance companies have said to us, however, that if we can demonstrate that the new driver training and testing regime produces better and safer drivers - the only way we can demonstrate that is by a reduction in the number of collisions, crashes, serious injuries and deaths with drivers coming through the new regime - obviously they will be interested in reducing premiums, because the only reason the premiums are high is because of the number of crashes that young drivers experience in the first six months. On that basis all of them are regarded as a risk and have to pay the premium. If we can demonstrate that they are being trained more effectively, that they are safer and likely to have fewer collisions insurance companies will cut the premiums.

Q388 Mr Martlew: The plan is that everyone will pass the basic test and then go on, but what you are saying is that until it is proved that there is a reduction in crashes there will be no subsidy - I use that word advisedly - from the insurance companies. Therefore, how will these young drivers pay for that extra training?

Mr Fitzpatrick: What we are trying to achieve is a sea change in driving. One lady I saw at a meeting before coming here said that she went on an advanced course having sat through the initiative based in Cheshire that she is now championing across the country. It demonstrated to her that she thought she was a safe driver but when she looked at herself she found she was not. We are saying that to pass a test at one point in your life and not revisit your own driving skills for the rest of your life is not necessarily the best way to ensure you are a safe driver. When people pass the test they have difficulty in identifying how to get a refresher course and an advanced driver's certificate and can improve their skills or make sure their skills are up to scratch. There is the Institute of Advanced Motoring. By virtue of changing the regime for ADIs we hope that ADIs will offer advanced courses and you will not have to go to the IAM; you will be able to go to your local ADI because it will have qualifications to train you to a higher level. If you are trained to a higher level that ought to make you a better and safer driver; it ought to make you more employable and attractive to companies who look for drivers, but it will also make you more attractive to insurance companies because you will be able to demonstrate that you have trained yourself and have a greater degree of competence and are likely to be a better risk than somebody who has not. We are trying to change the culture of driver training and learning into lifelong learning, much as we are doing for people in different occupations.

Q389 Mr Martlew: What percentage of children receive formal cycle training at the moment?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I do not know the answer to that off the top of my head, but my understanding is that when the �120 million that Ruth Kelly announced in January for Cycle England spreads out to local authorities, the demonstration towns and directly into schools and cycle clubs half a million more children will be trained to Bikeability standard and an extra 100,000 will receive other aspects of training. I am not sure how many are trained to that level of proficiency at the moment, but the numbers trained by 2012 will be at least half a million more.

Q390 Mr Martlew: When we talk about categories of children, there is an argument - it was one I put to Parliament unsuccessfully - about the compulsory use of cycle helmets. We know that they save lives. The BMA is totally supportive. Why is the government so reluctant to take this up?

Mr Fitzpatrick: We have initiated additional research into cycle helmets and interim findings will emerge next year. The Westminster Bike Ride will take place in two weeks' time and I shall certainly be wearing my helmet on that occasion.

Q391 Mr Martlew: I am talking about the wearing of helmets by children being made compulsory. That is where the government seems to have a blind eye.

Mr Fitzpatrick: The government is not convinced that it should be made compulsory for children in different environments, for example cycling around in front of their own homes as opposed to cycling on a road. There are different categories of cycling. Enforcement in respect of helmets is a matter about which the government has not yet been persuaded.

Q392 Mr Leech: Perhaps I may take you back to motorcycle helmets. Is there any evidence to suggest a difference in the standard of safety as between full face and open face helmets?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I do not know. I know that on my desk in the department there is a submission in respect of the publicity surrounding the launch of the star-rating system. I do not want to mislead you. The impression I got was that there was not a difference; there were good and bad points about both types of helmet.

Q393 Mr Leech: I think it would be worth making some comparisons because a lot of motorcyclists who now drive scooters rather than traditional motorbikes tend to use open rather than close faced helmets.

Mr Fitzpatrick: We would have tested both types of helmet.

Q394 Mr Leech: I should like to move on to drink and drug driving. Your predecessor was opposed to the idea of reducing the drink drive limit. What is your view on that?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am listening to arguments based on European comparators. There is a strong body of opinion that if one looks at the statistics for those killed in accidents that have been caused by people who have been drinking the levels of drink consumed are greater than 100 mg - in many cases greater than 150 mg - per litre. Therefore, the argument for going from 80 mg to 50 mg has not necessarily been made out as far as concerns the department. However, when we open the door to consultation obviously there will be a strong body of opinion to say that it ought to be reduced and we would have to consider that.

Q395 Mr Leech: Without wanting to put words into the mouth of your predecessor, he argued that we needed to get it right with 80 mg before we reduced it to 50 mg. Given that we have not got it right yet, is the government prepared to put in the additional resources necessary to police the streets better to be able to catch more people?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Certainly, the thrust of the preparation for the consultation at the moment is to look at better enforcement of the present regulations rather than a reduction in the limit. That is a discussion which is going on. If one looks at the drink drive campaign at Christmas, there was a 6% increase in breathalysers and a 20% reduction in those which gave a positive reading. The way that some constabularies operate within the framework of the regulations as they stand at the moment is far more aggressive than others. It is almost random testing.

Q396 Mr Leech: Should we have random testing?

Mr Fitzpatrick: That is one of the issues that we shall be looking at. When we launched the drink driving campaign at Christmas last year - forgive me, but I can never remember whether it was East or West Sussex that I visited, which is embarrassing for me since the officers were great and worked very hard - a road with a high accident rate was chosen. At one point they pulled in virtually every car. They said they were alerting drivers to the fact that this was a dangerous road and then asked, "Have you been drinking, sir?" On that basis they were able to breathalyse people they thought might be over the limit. They did not pull over every car but had a random sample which was enough for people to know that it was a random testing station and nobody knew where it would go. They are operating within the existing regulations and in that instance if they can do it my query is: why cannot other forces operate within the present regulations and beef up the enforcement regime using that which exists at the moment? But the question of formal random testing with the introduction of a statutory instrument which says that police officers can pull over anybody at any time and breathalyse that individual is something that is being considered.

Q397 Mr Leech: There is some evidence to suggest that drug driving is as much or more of a problem now than drink driving. What is the government doing to try to deal with that particular problem?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Equipment is being examined by the Home Office with a view to it being approved and used to detect drugs in the same way the breathalyser detects drink. The analysis that has gone on of accidents, particularly fatalities, where there has been evidence of drugs in the system of the individual who causes the accident is that usually it is a combination of drink and drugs and usually there is more drink than drugs in the system. I do not say for a second that it is not a problem; we know that it is and it is increasing. Therefore, the new equipment that we ought to receive very soon should be able to help us to start addressing that issue, but the bigger problem is still alcohol, and will be.

Q398 Mr Leech: There is in existence already roadside drug-testing equipment that has not yet been approved.

Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes, for evidential purposes.

Q399 Mr Leech: Forgive me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the government's reluctance to use it stems from the fact that it cannot be used at temperatures below 25�C and above 40�C. It is used in other countries. Given we do not have those extremes of temperature in this country, why can we not use it here now?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am not aware that that is the reason for the delay. My understanding is that approval arrangements are taking place. There may be validity in what you say but I have not seen it. My expectation is that the type approval notices are not too far away.

Q400 Chairman: We have received a lot of evidence that casts doubt on the reliability of the statistics for deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Do you have any plans to change the way those statistics are collected?

Mr Fitzpatrick: We are looking at the statistics produced by the health service as against the STATS19 produced by the police. We seek to identify the anomaly. We do not see it as a major problem, but there is a discrepancy. We are looking at that to ensure that our statistics are as accurate as they ought to be. The one statistic which is almost guaranteed to be accurate is that which involves deaths. Obviously, that is the key driver of road safety policy. The matter is being examined by us, the health service and the police to see if we can get a more accurate readout, but we do not believe the figures are that far wrong. We are very happy with the STATS19 figures that we get from the police and have no reason to doubt that they are not in about the right place, but to make absolutely sure we are making a study with the Office for National Statistics.

Q401 Chairman: Are they also looking at definitions of serious and minor injuries?

Mr Fawcett: Not in that study, but clearly when thinking of targets for the strategy beyond 2010 one of the matters we are thinking about is what should be the definitions used for those targets.

Q402 Mr Hollobone: Minister, earlier you mentioned the connection between speed and road safety. To what extent does the department measure the link between congestion and road safety?

Mr Fitzpatrick: In the sense of the impact of congestion on road safety?

Q403 Mr Hollobone: If vehicles are closer together presumably there is a correlation between the number of times they bump into each other. I just wondered how that might be measured by the department, if at all.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am not aware that it is a feature of the statistics we produce. I anticipate that although there may be bumps because of impatience on the part of drivers or whatever if they are in congestion they are not likely to be moving very fast. Are you talking about vehicles travelling in density at great speeds?

Q404 Mr Hollobone: I am quite surprised by your answer. If a vehicle travels at high speed on an empty road there must be a chance that it will crash, but that chance must be far less than if it is travelling at high speed in a crowded road. I expected you to say that the department does measure congestion in that way and it is taken into account in assessing road safety policy.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am not aware that we measure road safety in the terms you describe.

Q405 Mr Hollobone: Perhaps I may give you a local example of why it is of concern. The A14, a Highways Agency road, goes through my constituency.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I am very familiar with it; I use it quite a lot.

Q406 Mr Hollobone: On that road 70,000 vehicles a day go round Kettering and it is at capacity. The present proposal of the Highways Agency is to divide up the road from its present two lanes in each carriageway into three lanes on each which is causing a lot of local alarm because residents are fearful of vehicles packed together in that way driving on a road at capacity. That road already has a very bad accident record. My follow-up question is: to what extent does the Highways Agency or the department compromise on road safety when taking into account the policies of other government departments. In the case of my constituency the policy is to increase the number of houses by a third by 2021 which is why this proposal has been brought forward.

Mr Fitzpatrick: I would be very surprised if we compromised on road safety at the expense of other departments' policies or perhaps even our own. The most damning statistic of 3,000‑plus people being killed on our roads is just unacceptable. I cannot imagine that any decisions would be taken by the department on the basis of evidence that there would be a few more collisions, crashes and deaths but that would be acceptable because we would get an extra 2,000, 4,000 or 10,000 homes out of it. I cannot say that that would the case, but I can say that where there is a planning application for new housing there will be discussion with the local planning authority about whether there is sufficient road capacity to deal with this. I am sure the Highways Agency would be called in to give evidence to determine whether or not it could or could not make the adjustments, or what it would cost to deliver better roads. I cannot imagine that we would countenance a trade-off between increased road deaths and other policies coming forward.

Q407 Mr Hollobone: To what extent do foreign drivers pose a risk to road safety both in the driving of vehicles and also monitoring the roadworthiness of those vehicles that come into the country? We heard evidence in previous sessions on other issues that effectively the department did not have a mechanism to ensure that when foreign vehicles entered the country they were MoT'd within a certain period because no data was kept as to their date of entry. My question is: to what extent do foreign drivers and vehicles pose a risk to road safety?

Mr Fitzpatrick: It is certainly a matter of concern. We undertook some studies as a result of a request from the Road Haulage Association and others to introduce a vignette scheme within the UK for hauliers on international journeys from other EU countries. The conclusion was that a vignette scheme would not deliver that which the sponsors thought it might. However, there was an issue in respect of observation of regulations and road safety. Initially, we improved the resourcing of VOSA, the enforcement organisation for highways, to make sure it was better equipped to deal with these. We gave it a further �28 million earlier this year. That will increase the number of staff by nearly 100. It will provide a 24-hour seven days a week opportunity to monitor what is happening on our roads. We shall have two new stop and search stations and more weigh-in motion sensors and another 15,000 vehicles will be stopped to ensure we clamp down on those who think they can drive on our roads without taking the appropriate breaks or drive vehicles that are not up to scratch in terms of construction and use or the weight they carry. The automatic number plate recognition systems that we now use at VOSA stations are very effective. We are building up a profile of companies with a track record of non-compliance. We are engaging with our European partners because we want to ensure that we can exchange information more readily. We are directly involved with the Republic of Ireland where we have a particular concern about vehicles coming from the republic in order to be able to pioneer the exchange of road traffic offences, penalties and things which would be a first in Europe. Therefore, in terms of HGVs we are providing additional resources and staff and we will have more effective enforcement on the ground. As a precautionary measure we are also trialing Fresnel lenses for left-hand drive vehicles. We initially trialed the distribution of 40,000 last year. That showed a significant reduction in sideswipe collisions between left-hand drive HGVs. We have issued another 90,000. We are sharing that information with our European colleagues because not only is it good for left-hand vehicles that come here; it is also good for our vehicles that go to the continent. In an HGV there is a blind spot regardless of where it is. If one is driving on opposite carriageways it is even more difficult to conduct manoeuvres in the safest possible way. On all these issuers we are concerned about hauliers on international journeys who commit a disproportionate number of offences which is why we are focusing on them.

Q408 Chairman: How many lives are saved every year by speed cameras?

Mr Fawcett: It is estimated that about 100 lives a year are saved because of the speed camera programme according to the most recent research we have done.

Q409 Chairman: Do you agree that we should have more roads policing?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Yes.

Q410 Chairman: In addition to speed cameras, for instance?

Mr Fitzpatrick: Absolutely. The Home Office is at an advanced stage of type-approving average speed cameras. From a personal point of view I think that average speed cameras are even more effective than speed cameras which themselves are effective. In that instance they are not a substitute for officers but supplement and complement them. We engage with the Home Office to do all we can to make sure that roads policing is as effective as it can be.

Q411 Chairman: Should we have a whole system approach to road safety as we do in aviation and rail where everything including, say, the design of roads is looked at?

Mr Fitzpatrick: I would have thought and hoped that to a certain extent that is the role of the Department for Transport. We produce document after document to try to address all manner of different issues. It is our responsibility to take a holistic approach to design the safest and most efficient roads and to take into account how best to design out casualties in addition to making sure that people get from A to B as efficiently and quickly as they can.

Chairman: I am told that the department held a high-level seminar in May on transport safety but road safety was not mentioned in it. I just leave that thought with you. Thank you for coming and answering our questions. We look forward to seeing you again at another session.