The Government welcomes the Transport Select Committee's
report on road safety. Road safety is an important issue and Government
continues to focus on effective ways of reducing the risk of road
accidents. Despite the increase in fatalities in 2011, provisional
figures show that Great Britain and the UK remain the leading
performers in Europe with regard to road safety.
Since the publication of the Strategic Framework
for Road Safety last year, the Government has continued to focus
on its vision of empowering local decision-makers, improving driver
training and a more targeted approach to enforcement. Recent developments
- The introduction of legislation
on drug driving to help improve enforcement;
- Launching a consultation on introducing a fixed
penalty notice for careless driving to enable more efficient enforcement;
- Launching a consultation on a new Speed Limit
Circular to improve local authorities' flexibility in setting
- Working with the insurance industry to develop
policy opportunities to reduce risk to young drivers and in turn
insurance premiums; and
- Creating a £15m fund to improve safety for
cyclists outside London by tackling dangerous junctions, alongside
a £15m fund for the same purpose in London.
The Government's response to the Committee's recommendations
is set out below.
The Department should provide a clearer explanation
of the role of casualty forecasts in its road safety strategy.
We recommend that it set out in its annual report whether road
safety is improving each year in line with its forecasts, or,
if not, explain what is going wrong. The Government should also
state what action it will take if its road safety forecasts turn
out to be inaccurate. (Paragraph 13)
DfT response: The casualty forecasts
within the Strategic Framework for Road Safety set out a range
of potential casualty reductions. As Government set out in the
Strategic Framework, we believe that the central projection is
achievable if everyone plays their part. However, Government believes
that a more sophisticated measure of road safety performance is
required. This is set out in the Outcomes Framework. Performance
against the Outcomes Framework will be published as part of the
Department's annual statistical release Reported Road Casualties
If the central projection within the casualty forecasts
is not achieved, Government will consider carefully the statistical
data underpinning this in order to understand which groups of
road users are not experiencing the expected reduction in risk
and will consider policy options for addressing those risks.
As part of its evaluation of the Strategic Framework
for Road Safety, the Government should publish an analysis of
the resources used for road safety at a local level to highlight
best practice by local authorities, in particular noting innovative
practices and multi-agency approaches to achieving road safety
goals. (Paragraph 17)
The Government should explain how it intends to
measure which are the worst performing local authorities and how
it expects "naming and shaming" them will improve their
performance. (Paragraph 18)
DfT response: The Government agrees
that it has a role to play in sharing information on local authority
performance and best practice. We have commissioned a local road
safety comparison site that pulls together a number of metrics
that will allow members of the public to be aware of their local
highway authority's performance in the road safety arena. The
site will provide a variety of metrics such as historic annual
Local Highways Authority data (including capital and revenue spend
on roads); and detailed casualty and collision data.
The data will be presented in a variety of formats
including maps, charts, graphs and tables. Annual data will be
available for 2006 onwards. Where appropriate, rates will be derived
using an applicable divisor, for example the number of collisions
against traffic volume or revenue spend against resident population.
An overview of an authority's performance will be presented via
a "dashboard", along with that authority's contact details.
The user will be able to select another authority
to compare against after generating a selection of "most
similar" authorities from a list of metrics, for example
the 5 most similar in terms of road type mix.
The Government believes that making this information
available will help the public; lobby groups; and council officers
and members to identify where there remains room for improvement
in performance, as well as highlighting those authorities with
exemplar performance. Users will be able to generate URLs of the
data they have found and these can then be sent to the authority
with a plea for action. Council members, both in office and in
opposition, will be able to see what issues are affecting their
residents and campaign accordingly. Lobbyists will also be abler
to gather data to support their causes and members of the public
will, for example, be able to see how safe a journey is for their
child to get to prospective secondary schools.
In addition, with the support of industry we are
developing a web portal - the Road Safety Observatory, which will
be an independent site and provide a wealth of online resources
and evidence to local decision-makers. The Road Safety Observatory
will be open to the public and will provide a set of research
syntheses accredited by an evidence review panel from a pool of
expert practitioners. Evidence will be distilled into key messages
for those with a passing interest, an in depth summary of available
evidence for more serious practitioners and links to the base
evidence it has drawn upon. The Observatory will work in collaboration
with the Road Safety Knowledge Centre, which has become a successful
on-line library of road safety information and resources, and
vetted at a superficial level. This is a different role from the
Observatory, which will aim to bring different stakeholders together
to give an overview, and indentify best practices by referring
users to other resources including; the Knowledge Centre for wider
information on themes and topics.
The Road Safety Observatory will be launched before
the end of this year.
We recommend that the Department provides an update
of the initial findings of the Learning to Drive programme with
its response to this report. (Paragraph 24)
We recommend that the Government initiate an independent
review of driver training to assess thoroughly the various options
put forward to reduce the casualty rate for young drivers and
make recommendations about which are likely to be most effective.
We recommend this review be completed before the end of this Parliament.
DfT response: Government notes that
we are seeing faster reductions in casualties in the 17-24 age
group than for drivers as a whole. Following a further reduction
in 2011, the number of young driver KSI's is now 40% below 2007
However, whilst our young drivers are amongst the
safest in the world, we are not complacent and further improving
the safety of young drivers remains a road safety priority. Using
the underpinning new National Standards, we are looking to build
upon the steps that have already been taken to improve both the
learning to drive and testing process.
The results of research evaluating some of the measures
will be available shortly. This will be useful in our ongoing
work with the insurance industry and other key stakeholders, including
local authorities, to identify what further steps could be undertaken
to ensure that newly-qualified drivers are properly prepared to
be safe and responsible drivers so they are less of a road safety
risk. Over the next few months, we will be speaking to young people
to seek their views on policy options and to improve our
understanding of their attitudes to driving and experiences of
the current learning to drive process. The Government intends
to announce further proposals to improve the safety of young drivers
before the end of this year. Whilst this work is ongoing, the
Government does not believe that an independent review of driver
training would be appropriate.
The Government wants to see these improvements in
young driver safety reflected in their insurance premiums. Through
telematics, or in-car technology, insurers now have a real time
data feed, which allows them to see an individuals driving behaviour,
something which simply has not been possible in the past. Research
so far, has shown that use of telematics can significantly reduce
crash rates, and levels of risky driving behaviours. We welcome
the increasing number of insurers who are making use of this technology.
The Government should consider how to encourage
greater adoption of these measures [HGV sensors]. (Paragraph 32)
DfT response: The Government is supporting
a number of initiatives to improve the safety of cyclists and
other vulnerable road users. These include improving the field
of view from HGV mirrors; improving roadside infrastructure and
improved driver training, for example in supporting the 'Exchanging
Places' events for cyclists and drivers of HGVs and buses.
New technology has an important role to play in helping
to improve the safety of all road users. We fully support the
voluntary initiatives by some construction companies to fit their
vehicles with additional safety devices including sensors and
cameras but at this time we are not in a position to support mandatory
fitment of proximity sensors in HGVs.
The mandatory introduction of any new vehicle technology
would need to be agreed at EU level, it would require evidence
that the technology is reliable and robust, and that the systems
will deliver the expected benefit rather than simply imposing
additional cost that could otherwise support more effective safety
Whilst basic proximity sensors are widely available
as parking aids, they might not be capable of reliably detecting
cyclists along the full length of an HGV. To be effective sensors
must be robust (e.g. not react to roadside railings) as repeated
false warnings might actually distract drivers or lead them to
turn the system off.
Sensor technology is developing rapidly and some
advanced systems now combine input from both sensors and cameras
to improve the detection capability. These systems are typically
designed to detect pedestrians and are available on some top-of-the-range
As this technology matures we would expect systems
to become more affordable and to offer real opportunities to mitigate
the type of accident involving cyclists and HGVs. We remain committed
to improving the safety of cyclists but investment, whether in
infrastructure, in training or in the designs of vehicles must
be targeted to where it can be most effective.
We agree that joint working between departments
will be necessary to achieve road safety outcomes. We recommend
that the Government shows how its efforts to work in partnership
with departments such as DCLG and local authorities have been
effective in encouraging the provision of cycle infrastructure
and outlines which problems in securing this joint-working have
yet to be overcome. (Paragraph 37)
DfT response: The Government recognises
that joint working between Departments is needed to help road
safety outcomes. The Department uses positive working relationships
with other Government departments as well as with key stakeholders
to secure improved outcomes for road safety as a whole.
With regard to cycling, DfT is working with a number
of other Government departments, and officials meet regularly.
Furthermore, DfT is engaging with the Local Government Association
to increase local awareness of the evidence and best practice
on active travel.
DfT also supports local authorities in improving
cyclist safety, including by producing guidance for local authorities
on providing for cyclists in Cycle Infrastructure Design
(Local Transport Note 2/08): http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/local-transport-notes/ltn-2-08.pdf.
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2,
Part 4, TA 91/05 Provision for Non-Motorised Users gives
advice on the trunk road network: http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol5/section2/ta9105.pdf
We have also just published updated advice on providing shared
use facilities, in LTN 1/12: Shared use routes for pedestrians
and cyclists (http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/ltn-01-12/).
This local transport note complements the advice in Cycle Infrastructure
Given the Prime Minister's support for The
Times cycle campaign, we recommend that the department
issue a formal response to each of its eight points showing how
they are being addressed and, if a point is not being acted on,
what alternative action is being taken to address the matter.
DfT response: Ministers responded
in full to each of the eight points raised by The Times in the
Westminster Hall debate on 23 February 2012 and this was followed
up by a joint letter from Norman Baker and Mike Penning to Leaders
and Chief Executives of local highway authorities on 28 February.
This letter described the action the Government is taking to both
promote cycling and to make it safer; it also asked local authorities
for help in furthering these aims at a local level.
The issues raised by The Times campaign are relevant
to a number of departments and organisations, including DfT and
local authorities. There are also further barriers and opportunities
for promoting safer cycling that we want to explore with partners
beyond the eight points raised.
Last year, Government set up the Cycling Stakeholder
Forum, which includes representatives from cycling stakeholders
and local and central government. Government is working with the
forum to both make cycling safer but also to encourage it. The
forum is currently working on a list of ideas and actions to propose
On 28 February 2012, the Government wrote to local
authorities in England responding to the points raised in the
Times. Since then we have made progress on a number of the points.
For instance, in June the Government announced a £15m fund
to improve safety for cyclists outside London, by tackling dangerous
junctions. This was in addition to the £15m fund awarded
to Transport for London in March for the same purpose. We have
also given councils the power to use Trixi mirrors to make cyclists
more visible to drivers, rather than asking them to come to the
Government for approval. Until now, local councils need to get
authorisation from the Government if they want to use these mirrors. The
Government produces a wide range of statistics on cycling. With
regard to monitoring the number of cyclists, on 30 August DfT
released figures to show the prevalence of cycling at local authority
level. This was the first time this statistic set has been released.
However, most cycling provision is provided by local
authorities. The Government continues to provide significant amounts
of funding to local authorities who have discretion to spend their
allocations in line with their own priorities. As well as the
Integrated Transport Block funding, we are also providing £600
million through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund to support
local authorities in their use of transport to lever growth and
cut carbon at the local level. The majority of the 96 projects
have a cycling element. This is in addition to the £15 million
awarded to Sustrans and the Cycle Rail Working Group to improve
cycle infrastructure mainly in and around railway stations.
Prior to The Times campaign on cycle safety it
was difficult to see how the Government was showing leadership
in cycle safety. There is now evidence of commitment, but, as
Jon Snow said, leadership requires joining up Government. We are
not convinced that this is happening and therefore there is much
work still to be done. (Paragraph 40)
DfT response: The Government is committed
to working with partners to improve cycle safety. In 2011, before
The Times's campaign was launched, the Government set up the Cycling
Stakeholder Forum. The first meeting was held on 13 September
2011 and comprised cycling stakeholders and central and local
government. Subsequently sub-groups on safety and heath have been
set up. The safety sub-group includes additional representatives
with a specific interest in cycling safety issues. Good progress
is being made and the forum is currently working on a list of
ideas and actions to propose to ministers.
We recommend that the DfT should, in its reply
to this report, explain what lessons it has learnt from [the delay
to revising the motorcycle test] and how it will go about implementing
future European directives on the subject of driver or rider training
without undue delay. (Paragraph 42)
DfT response: The Department always considers
carefully how any European Directive would be translated into
British law and would follow this process for any upcoming Directives
on the subject of driver or rider training. This includes committing
to consultation with stakeholders formally and informally and
undertaking impact assessments to ensure we reach the most practicable
solution for transposing the Directive. We will bear in mind the
lessons learnt from implementing the Second Driving License Directive
as we continue our engagement with Europe
We recommend that the department write to us on
a quarterly basis to explain progress in this area. (Paragraph
DfT response: As part of the Motorcycle
Test Review research is being undertaken to evaluate the standards,
suitability and safety of the proposed revised motorcycle manoeuvres
to verify whether they can be done on the road and the kinds of
location that could be suitable. We have completed phase 1 and
phase 2 of the research, which was conducted by the Transport
Phase 1 of the research involved holding independent
off-road trials on mock road layouts with test level candidates
and concluded in December 2011. The findings confirmed that the
proposed new manoeuvres are feasible to be carried out on the
road, with the exception of the figure of 8.
Phase 2 involved trials at on-road locations with
expert riders, to establish feasibility and safety in real road
environments and concluded in August 2012. The key findings from
Phase 2 confirmed that, with appropriate control measures, it
is possible to proceed with Phase 3 but only on roads that meet
specific safety criteria.
Phase 3, will involve test ready candidates undertaking
the manoeuvres at both off-road (in multi-purpose test centres)
and on-road sites. Phase 3 will begin in September and conclude
by the end of the year.
Following these trials, there will be a full public
consultation on any proposals for changing the motorcycle test
and, subject to the outcome of the consultation, a new version
of the test could be introduced in April 2014.
The Department is unlikely to have anything additional
to report to the Committee in three months time as Phase 3 of
the research will not yet have concluded and no decision will
have been taken about next steps. The Department will notify Parliament
when a decision has been taken and a consultation is published.
The Government should encourage the development
of inter-agency partnerships and include examples of best practice
in securing joint working in its forthcoming guidance for local
authorities. (Paragraph 46)
DfT response: The intent of the revised
guidance on speed limits is to provide technical criteria for
setting local speed limits rather than advice on partnership working
and funding. The Department has launched a consultation on
the revision of the speed limit guidance, which we intend to finalise
by the end of the year.
In addition, the Road Safety Observatory (mentioned
in response to Q2) will aim to bring different stakeholders together
to give an overview of road safety policy, and indentify best
practices by referring users to other resources including the
Knowledge Centre for wider information on themes and topics.
We recommend that as part of its consultation
the Government calculates the costs associated with stricter enforcement
of an 80 mph limit and creating more variable speed limits on
sections of the motorway network deemed inappropriate to see an
increase to 80 mph. (Paragraph 47)
The possibility of increasing the motorway speed
limit has been discussed since September 2011, it is now time
for the DfT to publish its consultation document or to explain
the reason for delay. (Paragraph 47)
The Government should ensure that any decision
to increase the speed limit should follow a debate in the House
on a votable motion. (Paragraph 48)
DfT response: The Department is developing proposals
to trial 80mph speed limits on motorways in some areas, under
certain conditions, where variable speed limits are currently
In May the Government published its response to Alan
Cook's review of strategic roads, in which we committed to produce
a long-term strategy for the strategic road network and we wish
to align the development of proposals for trialling an increased
maximum speed limit with this wider work on a long-term strategy
for the network.
As part of the development of proposals, the Department
is considering criteria for identifying suitable sections of the
motorway network to trial an increased speed limit, as well as
for the circumstances in which the speed limit may be raised.
This includes what, if any, changes to enforcement
requirements may be required for sections of the network where
the trialling of a maximum 80mph speed limit is proposed. It
will be for the police to consider their approach to enforcement
in these locations and we will work with the Association
of Chief Police Officers on this matter.
Alongside the development of proposals, the Department
is carrying out work to assess the potential economic, safety
and environmental impacts of trialling 80mph speed limits. This
work will also need to consider any costs associated with changes
The Impact assessment is still being developed and
no final decisions have yet been taken about which stretches of
motorway would be included in any proposed trial or under what
conditions an 80mph limit would be applied. We plan to bring
forward detailed proposals and start consultation later in the
year as part of the broader work on a roads strategy.
In order to carry out the proposed trial of an increase
to the speed limit on motorways, the Department would need to
amend the Motorways Traffic (Speed Limits) Regulations 1974. This
would be achieved using the power to make regulations for special
roads in section 17 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 ("the
1984 Act"). Regulations made under section 17 of the 1984
Act are subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
Technology and engineering
We recommend that the Government includes engineering
measures in its outcomes framework, for example by providing EuroRAP
assessments of road safety. (Paragraph 50)
DfT response:. The EuroRAP programme
is a welcome contribution to the road safety debate and highlights
the need for highway authorities to continually strive for
improvement, as well as encouraging drivers and other road users
to take greater care and to play their part in improving road
safety. The Highways Agency recognises the value of this
pro-active approach to road safety and works with the European
Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) and the other organisations
involved in the area of road risk mapping and road safety assessment
to facilitate exchange of information and ideas.
Local highway authorities have a duty to maintain
the public highways in their charge, but it is ultimately their
decision as to how they use the funding which Government allocates
them, including determining what safety standards and strategies
should be applied, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances
using a risk based approach. The Department encourages good practice
in highway maintenance through channels such as Well-maintained
Highways, the Code of Practice for highways maintenance produced
by the UK Roads Liaison Group (available from www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org).
The Code advises local authorities to establish an inspection
regime for their highways and recommends inspection intervals
for the various categories of highways. The Code also provides
guidance on safety inspections and recommends that those defects
that are likely to create danger or serious inconvenience should
receive urgent attention.
We recommend that the Government provides an update
on progress in those areas which it committed to developing at
an EU level in the last road safety strategy and sets out forthcoming
areas for prioritisation. (Paragraph 51)
DfT response: The Framework set out
a range of areas to improve the safety of road vehicles including
some that rely upon the development of regulatory measures through
the EU processes.
On Motorcycles and associated small vehicles (e.g.
quadricycles) good progress has been achieved since publication
of the framework. The European Commission published a revised
"Framework" regulation that updates existing type-approval
procedures and includes new provisions to improve the safety of
users of these types of machine/vehicle. A timetable has been
set for the introduction of anti-lock braking for large motorcycles
and combined braking for smaller types, and research suggests
that once all vehicles have these technologies fitted, over 70
fatal injuries could be saved each year.
The workstream on advanced lighting has not made
as much progress as anticipated when the framework was published.
Investigative research into alternative front lamp layouts could
not demonstrate a safety benefit over existing designs. Nonetheless,
proposals emerging from the EU negotiations include the mandatory
implementation of "automatic headlamp on (AHO)" switching,
alongside measures providing flexibility for users to preferentially
select AHO rather than using daytime running lamps.
The Government has also made noticeable progress
in upgrading the standards for HGV mirrors based upon research
undertaken at Loughborough University. The evidence from this
research has been presented in the UN-ECE technical group and
in April this year a UK-led proposal to change the regulation
dealing with mirrors was finalised. We expect this to be adopted
in November and then included within the type approval process
for all new trucks.
Separately the Government has also taken a leading
role in the UN-ECE developing technical specifications for automatic
emergency braking and lane departure warning systems. These provisions
were recently included within the EU type approval system for
all new heavy vehicles (i.e. lorries and bus/coach) and will apply
The research on heavy goods vehicles at EU level
mentioned in the Framework was not pursued. The Government nonetheless,
participates in the supervisory boards of three EU sponsored research
programmes dealing with advanced safety systems, crash performance
of vehicles, and human injury predictions.
Alongside the work required to implement the measure
for motorcycles mentioned earlier, and other anticipated regulatory
activity, the future priorities for improving vehicle safety will
focus on the approach taken by the European Commission following
a UN-ECE review of the current crashworthiness standards that
are expected to apply from 2015. While this will require careful
assessment of the costs and benefits of any new proposals, it
also provides an opportunity to improve car occupant injury protection
in frontal impacts, particularly regarding the protection of an
ageing population and improvements for female occupants. Initial
studies suggest that casualty reductions of 7% for female and
2% for older drivers could result from new requirements.
There has also been good progress on our transposition
of the EU Directive on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and
we are currently working closely with the European Commission
and other Member States on the first set of specifications identified
as priority actions in the Directive.
The period since the Coalition Government took
office has seen the first increase in road fatalities since 2003,
despite there having been no overall increase in road traffic.
This is a worrying development and raises questions about the
Government's road safety strategy. These casualty figures should
be a wake-up call for the Government to step up and provide stronger
leadership in the road safety field. The Minister, Mike Penning
MP, told us that success of his strategy could be judged by seeing
a reduction in road casualties. From the latest figures, it would
appear there is a risk that the strategy is insufficient. In the
response to this report, we recommend that the Government outlines
why it thinks road deaths increased in 2011. (Paragraph 52)
DfT response: The success of the Strategic
Framework for Road Safety should be judged against its impact
on long term trends in road casualties, rather than statistical
changes in a single year.
Since 2003, deaths in road accidents have fallen
steadily, and 2010 saw the highest ever fall (17 per cent) in
a single year. Despite the increase in fatalities in 2011 the
annual total is below that of 2009, and is indeed the second lowest
figure since the end of the First World War.
There are a number of factors that may have contributed
to the year-on-year increase in road fatalities from 2010 to 2011.
However, there is evidence that extreme winter weather conditions
tend to reduce the number of road fatalities, as there is much
less traffic than usual and those motorists who do venture out
tend to drive more slowly and cautiously.
In this context it is particularly notable that there
were two separate periods of sustained snow and ice across many
areas of Great Britain during 2010 (one at the beginning of the
year, one at the end), but no such periods on a comparable scale
during 2011. This year-on-year difference would be expected to
lead to a higher number of fatalities in the winter months of
2011 than in the winter months of 2010, holding all other factors
The statistics bear this out: during the four winter
months of 2011 (January, February, November and December) there
were 81 more road fatalities than in the same months of 2010.
During the remaining eight months of the year (March to October
inclusive), which were not affected by extreme winter weather,
there were 30 fewer fatalities in 2011 than in 2010.
The Government should update us regarding the
development of new advertising campaigns for road safety, particularly
on how it intends to engage with social media to help improve
public awareness. (Paragraph 57)
DfT response: The Government's strategy
for new THINK! road safety campaigns encompasses two elements:
protecting the vulnerable and cracking down on the irresponsible.
Three priority issues were identified at the start of the
year: drink driving, motorcycling and cycling. These issues
are being targeted because of relatively high and/or increasing
killed and seriously injured (KSI) statistics and because communications
are an effective means of changing the attitudes and behaviours
that cause KSIs relating to those issues. In addition, we
seek to engage young and learner drivers to address risky behaviours.
A cycling safety campaign is being launched in September.
This will inform cyclists and drivers of the steps they
can take to avoid collisions and seeks to engender a sense of
shared road and shared responsibility amongst the two road user
groups, by focusing on their similarities rather than differences.
A review of the motorcycle safety advertising campaign
is underway to inform the development of a new campaign planned
THINK! will continue to work with stakeholders such
as local authority road safety officers and teachers to communicate
road safety messages to children.
We will continue to target our campaign expenditure
on the channels that provide the most impact in delivering our
messages and helping to change behaviour. Social media has
been, and will continue to be, included in this approach, used
alone or as part of a more integrated campaign where evidence
shows it will be effective. Social media is a useful tool,
particularly when targeting a specific 'niche' group of road users,
such as motorcyclists. These groups already have a sense
of community, which THINK! can tap into - they can also be hard
to reach through traditional media and they can more efficiently
targeted using social media.
THINK! has used social media since 2010 when a Facebook
page was created to support the THINK BIKER motorcycle safety
campaign. This page created a community of motorcyclists
and now has over 45,000 fans. The page is used raise awareness
amongst motorcyclists of advice on training, protective gear and
defensive riding, as well as information from DfT agencies including
All new THINK! campaigns are promoted through DfT's
corporate Twitter feed to increase awareness of activity. We
are also exploring ways to engage young and learner drivers through
social media this autumn.
THINK! has a dedicated You Tube channel for its adverts.
During the launch of the THINK BIKER campaign, this channel
was branded and online users were interrupted and taken to the
channel to engage in conversations about the campaign.
A year has now passed since the publication of
the Strategic Framework for Road Safety. The next version is due
in September 2012. This provides an opportunity to include a number
of areas insufficiently addressed in the original strategy - including
engineering measures to improve road design and technological
research. It is also an opportune time for the Government to publish
an update of its progress against the action plan and outcomes
framework, to clarify its vision, highlight areas of local authority
innovation or best practice, and reassess the strategy in light
of recent worrying casualty numbers. (Paragraph 59)
The Strategic Framework for Road Safety sets out
the Government's long term vision for road safety. The road safety
action plan contains measures which are expected to start between
2011 and 2015; and the Framework's casualty forecasts run until
2030. In this context, it would not be appropriate to alter the
Government's vision for road safety after just one year.
In September 2012, the Government will publish its
detailed report on road safety statistics, Reported Road Casualties
Great Britain. The Report will include the latest figures for
the Road Safety Outcomes Framework and is therefore an important
milestone. The Report is a statistical publication and it would
not be appropriate for the Department to use it as a broader policy
document; however the Department will publish an update to the
Road Safety Action Plan (at Annex A of the Strategic Framework)
alongside Reported Road Casualties Great Britain.