Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The purpose of this paper is to agree the County Council's response to the Department for Transport's consultation document seeking views on the vision, targets and measures for improving road safety in Britain for the period beyond 2010.

1.2. This paper seeks to respond to those challenges described in the document that will most affect Hampshire, the proposed targets and what they mean.

2. Contextual information

2.1 On 21 April 2009 the Department for Transport (DfT) published its consultation document: A Safer Way, Making Britain's Roads the Safest in the World. This describes its assessment of the key road safety issues facing the nation and proposals for casualty reduction targets to the year 2020. This document is likely to form the basis of Government policy on road safety for this period.

2.2 The consultation includes a list of questions to assist in structuring responses (see Appendix 1), and the consultation runs until 14 July 2009. An executive summary of the consultation document is attached as Appendix 2.

3. Key Proposals

3.1 Analysis of casualty statistics and other data has identified a number of key areas upon which the proposed targets are based, and the document provides detailed background and reasoning for these. While some relate more closely to Hampshire than others, they are all existing areas of concern that are well documented and largely the subject of existing safety programmes.

3.2 However, the DfT proposes a number of actions to support work in these areas which may affect the way the County Council carries out its road safety functions. These include the appointment of an independent expert Panel tasked with providing an annual report on road safety, which may make recommendations to delivery agents, and the provision of political advocacy and leadership, championing the road safety profession and the work it does.

3.3 It is also intended to amend guidance on speed limits, recommending that highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 miles per hour (mph) zones or limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature, and other areas where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high. Revised guidance is proposed to assist the ongoing review of speed limits and recommending that highway authorities prioritise the review of `A' and `B' class national speed limit single carriageways.

3.4 An annual account of progress on road safety by local authority area is proposed which will challenge and support those that are not reducing casualties fast enough to do better.

3.5 The DfT also intends to develop a suite of educational materials which will flow through from toddlers to young adults and funding is being made available to give an extra 500,000 children nationally the opportunity to undertake cycle training by 2012, over and above the training already provided by local authorities.

4. Proposed Targets

4.1 In order to address these challenges the DfT proposes a set of casualty reduction targets for 2020:

(i) To reduce the number of people killed in road collisions by at least 33 per cent.

(ii) To reduce the number of people seriously injured in road collisions by at least 33 per cent.

(iii) To reduce the number of children and young people under 18 years killed or seriously injured in road collisions by 50 per cent.

(iv) To reduce the combined rate of death or serious injury for pedestrians and cyclists, per 100 million kilometres walked or cycled, by 50 per cent.

4.2 The split between fatal and serious casualties is in response to a slower reduction in fatalities than serious injuries. However, the document identifies that because of the relatively small numbers of fatal injuries in each local authority it would be impractical and unreliable to measure these separately below national level and so they will remain combined in the same form as the current target.

4.3 The existing target to reduce the number of children killed and seriously injured (KSI) by 50% covers children under 16. The proposed new target extends that to under 18, taking in riders of mopeds, motorcycles and young car drivers. While there are existing programmes in place for these groups it may be necessary to reassess priorities in this area.

4.4 The final proposal aims to address the slower progress that has been made in reducing the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists killed or seriously injured, particularly in urban areas, and the document supports further measures designed to assist these groups. At the same time the document recognises the need to support and encourage these modes of transport for reasons of health and sustainability.

4.5 Therefore this target is measured as a rate rather than in terms of total casualties, such that while increased cycling and walking may not result in large numerical falls in casualties, the personal risk of injury per mile travelled diminishes.

5. Discussion of Key Issues

5.1 The County Council's reduction in KSI figures has been extremely good in recent years. The 2008 figure was 587, a reduction of 42% from the 1994-98 base level, and already meeting the 2010 target. The 2004-08 average is 640 and if the proposed new targets are adopted it will be challenging to achieve a further 33% reduction by 2020. As the consultation document shows, Hampshire is in the lowest quartile for fatal and serious casualty rates nationally.

5.2 There are likely to be diminishing returns in the highest performing areas such as Hampshire as the tried and tested techniques continue to be applied throughout the network in the period to 2020 but priority is able to be given to sites and lengths of road with lower numbers of casualties. In addition resources will increasingly be directed to maintaining the effectiveness of existing safety schemes at previous high risk sites where accidents have already reduced, and this work will not be reflected in further year on year reductions in casualty numbers.

5.3 Rather than a blanket target to apply equally to all local authority areas, there is therefore a case for an approach where relatively high risk areas which have not performed well in the past would have a higher target, but high performing areas which have already implemented extensive safety programmes are able to continue their good practice to maintain the gains achieved, but with a lower expectation of further casualty reductions.

5.4 However, there are some particular issues raised in the document which are extremely important in achieving further progress in casualty reduction. Speed management is considered to be very effective in reducing the number and severity of casualties and proposals for increased use of 20 mph speed limits and zones are supported.

5.5 Implementation of lower speed limits has in the past been limited where the need is not justified on traffic safety grounds and compliance is expected to be self-enforcing through the installation of expensive engineering measures. The development of the Manual for Streets has evolved thinking about 'roads' and introduces the concept of streets for people where the emphasis on a living community is considered to have a higher priority over the traffic priority. As recognised in the consultation document, Government policy is to encourage walking and cycling and the approach to safety needs to consider 'feeling safe' and minimising the risk of accidents. The DfT could assist in promoting the delivery of 20 mph zones by recognising that in some urban situations where a corridor is more akin to a 'street' than a 'road', then the introduction of a 20 mph limit should be the norm and not need to rely on accident records as justification and speed reducing features for enforcement. Where a corridor's main function is to act as a road and cater for traffic, the priority should be to maintain an appropriately higher speed limit unless there are overriding safety concerns. There would be advantages in developing a link between the concept of 'streets' and 20 mph speed limits introduced and It may be this could be provided by the DfT.

5.6 Coupled with this and to complement other speed limits such as the Village 30 mph programme it is important to maintain funding through the Road Safety Grant to support the enforcement and other activities of the Safer Roads Partnership.

5.7 A further important issue which should be recognised and links directly to road safety relates to standards of road maintenance. In addition to the road structure this includes drainage, carriageway markings, signing and trimming vegetation in rural areas to maintain visibility standards. A particular example which has been identified is that on some lengths of road which have not been a priority for structural maintenance, high numbers of skidding accidents have occurred and tests have shown relatively low skidding resistance. Extremely good results have been achieved in reducing casualties by surface treatments to improve the skidding resistance. It is therefore important in the longer term to increase levels of funding for maintenance, and in the meantime to maintain funding targeted at casualty reduction so that this type of accident situation can be addressed.

6. Conclusions

6.1 The DfT consultation document is welcomed in setting out the issues affecting road safety and proposed casualty reduction targets for the period to 2030. As a high performing authority with road safety as one of its main corporate priorities, Hampshire County Council is committed to give its road safety programmes and activities a high priority through this period.

6.2 However, the DfT's attention is drawn to the crucial importance of continuing to provide funding for local authorities to deliver these services, particularly casualty reduction engineering programmes and improved speed management, together with the enforcement activities of Safer Roads Partnerships.

6.3 The other main area where improved overall delivery might be achieved is in the cooperation and sharing best practice between authorities, particularly where smaller authorities might be assisted by forming consortia to pool resources with other authorities for this purpose.

7. Recommendation

7.1 That the County Council responds to the Department for Transport as described in Appendix 1 of the report.

2098Rpt/716/PDB

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

Links to the Corporate Strategy

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

1. Equalities Impact Assessment:

1.1. Road safety strategic affects all sections of the community.

2. Impact on Crime and Disorder:

2.1. None

3. Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

· Reduced vehicle speeds will result in reduced levels of fuel consumption.

· Encouraging walking and cycling will reduce fuel consumption.

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

· The documents takes into consideration the likely changes in land use, travel patterns and changing vehicle mix that may occur over the period.

APPENDIX 1

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CONSULTATION - A SAFER WAY

LIST OF QUESTIONS AND COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSES

Vision and targets (Chapters 3 and 8)

1. Do you agree that our vision for road safety should be to have the safest roads in the world? (Chapter 3)

Yes, while recognising its challenging nature particularly when viewed in relation to driver behaviour. Many accidents result from inappropriate or foolish behaviour by road users and the level of intervention required to achieve the necessary control may not be acceptable or affordable.

2. Do you agree that we should define a strategy running over twenty years to 2030, but with review points after five and ten years? (Chapter 3)

Yes, a further review after five and ten years is considered appropriate.

3. Do you agree that our targets should be to reduce:

· road deaths by at least 33 per cent by 2020 compared to the baseline of the 2004-08 average number of road deaths;

· the annual total of serious injuries on our roads by 2020 by at least 33 per cent;

· the annual total of road deaths and serious injuries to children and young people (aged 0-17) by at least 50 per cent against a baseline of the 2004-08 average by 2020;

· by at least 50 per cent by 2020 the rate¹ of KSI per km travelled by pedestrians and cyclists, compared with the 2004-08 average? (Chapter 8)

The overall targets are supported, although an accident rate per kilometre travelled by pedestrians is difficult in practice because numbers of pedestrians are not normally recorded. It is not clear how this figure would be derived for the 2004-08 period and extra resources would be required for pedestrian flow monitoring if it were to be used in future. The County Council's reduction in KSI figures has been extremely good in recent years. The 2009 figure was 587, a reduction of 42% from the 1994-98 base level, and already meeting the 2010 target. The 2004-08 average is 640 and if the proposed new targets are adopted it will be challenging to achieve a further 33% reduction by 2020. As the consultation document shows, Hampshire is in the lowest quartile for fatal and serious casualty rates nationally.

4. We are proposing a set of indicators in order to help us to monitor performance (Appendix A). Do you believe these cover the right areas? (Chapter 8)

Yes, much of the data required is already collected, but this does raise the question of extra resources for data collection costs, particularly if monitoring of pedestrian flows is to be undertaken in a meaningful and consistent manner.

Context (Chapters 2, 3 and 4)

5. We have identified a number of factors that may affect our ability to deliver road safety improvements in the future world we are planning for. Do you think we have taken account of the key risks and opportunities? Are there others you would add? (Chapter 3)

An important factor affecting travel patterns, particularly in peak hours, is the likelihood of increasing changes in working arrangements facilitated by new technology, particularly developments in IT. The introduction of more flexible working patterns including for example working from home, nine day fortnights, choice of drop-in work locations and more effective mobile IT equipment can have a significant impact on peak hour traffic conditions.

6. We think that the key challenge for road safety from 2010 is better and more systematic delivery, rather than major policy changes. Do you agree? (Chapter 4)

Hampshire County Council believes that partnership working with a clear framework of complementary road safety programmes and delivery mechanisms is the right approach. Road safety is regarded as a high priority and there is a road safety target in the County Council's LAA agreement. However, policy does need to be kept under review to assess to what extent targets are being delivered and whether any policy changes are required, for example in relation to increasing numbers of older people through the strategy period.

7. This consultation document sets out the current evidence on the key road safety challenges. Do you agree with our analysis? Would you highlight any others? (Chapter 2)

It is felt that the key challenge is poor road user behaviour, particularly inappropriate speed. The main group that this relates to in Hampshire, which is reflected in casualty statistics, is motorcyclists, who form a relatively high proportion of both fatal and KSI casualties. Targeted campaigns of training and enforcement have been implemented in cooperation with Hampshire Constabulary, but it is a challenge to devise more strategic and innovative approaches which will be effective and practical. Further research on Intelligent Speed Adaptation applied to motorcycles might give options in this area, perhaps linked to the penalty system as suggested in the response to Question 12.

New performance framework (Chapters 4 and 8)

8. We are proposing a number of measures to support the effectiveness of the road safety profession. Do you think they will be effective? What else might need to be done? (Chapter 4)

It is agreed that it is important to attract and retain staff with the right expertise and skills to maintain progress in driving down casualties and develop the innovative approaches that will be needed. This will be especially the case in high performing authorities where diminishing returns are likely once tried and tested techniques have been implemented throughout the network. The sharing of good practice and pooling of ideas will be an important part of the approach to achieve this.

9. Do you agree that an independent annual report on road safety performance, created on an annual basis, would be a worthwhile innovation? (Chapter 4)

It is clearly important to monitor progress annually but it is not clear how an independent annual report would assist improved performance.

10. Do you agree that the Road Safety Delivery Board should be tasked with holding Government and other stakeholders to account on the implementation of a new national road safety plan? (Chapter 8)

Casualty data and progress towards achieving targets is already closely monitored and it is important to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.

Roads and local authorities (Chapter 5)

11. Do you agree that highway authorities reviewing and, where appropriate, reducing speed limits on single carriageway roads will be an effective way of addressing the casualty problem on rural roads? Are there other ways in which the safety of rural roads can be improved? (Chapter 5)

Yes, reducing rural speed limits can help but to ensure their effectiveness enforcement is also required. It is essential to continue the Road Safety Grant to local authorities to enable them to continue to fund Safer Roads Partnerships, so that appropriate enforcement can be provided. In addition, rural roads can suffer maintenance related problems and targeting more resources at safety related maintenance would be effective In reducing casualties. For example, in Hampshire particularly good results have been achieved from surface dressing and treatments to improve skid resistance on lengths of road with high numbers of accidents involving skidding. (See Case Study No 5, Audit Commission Report "Changing Lanes" February 2007.)

12. How can we most effectively promote the implementation of 20 mph zone schemes in residential areas? What other measures should we be encouraging to reduce pedestrian and cyclist casualties in towns?
(Chapter 5)

It is agreed that lower speeds in towns would help to reduce casualties in urban areas and appropriately targeted schemes will assist pedestrians and cyclists at difficult locations. Raising awareness through publicity campaigns such as Hampshire's "20 is Plenty" and "Choose 30" initiatives will help bring about the attitudinal change that is required. In addition, the development and promotion of Intelligent Speed Adaptation is supported and it is suggested one line of approach which could be explored is to build its compulsory use into the penalty system for speeding offenders.

Implementation of lower speed limits has in the past been limited where the need is not justified on traffic safety grounds and compliance is expected to be self-enforcing through the installation of expensive engineering measures. The development of the Manual for Streets has evolved thinking about 'roads' and introduces the concept of streets for people where the emphasis on a living community is considered to have a higher priority over the traffic priority. As recognised in the consultation document, Government policy is to encourage walking and cycling and the approach to safety needs to consider 'feeling safe' and minimising the risk of accidents. The DfT could assist in promoting the delivery of 20 mph zones by recognising that in some urban situations where a corridor is more akin to a 'street' than a 'road', then the introduction of a 20 mph limit should be the norm and not need to rely on accident records as justification and speed reducing features for enforcement. Where a corridor's main function is to act as a road and cater for traffic, the priority should be to maintain an appropriately higher speed limit unless there are overriding safety concerns. It would be useful if the DfT could provide this link between the concept of 'streets' and 20 mph speed limits introduced.

13. How can we provide better support to highway authorities in progressing economically worthwhile road safety engineering schemes? (Chapter 5)

One approach which may help smaller authorities who are unable to maintain specialised resources for this purpose is the use of consortia, which would include larger authorities to enable specialist expertise to advise and enable best use of resources. It is also important to provide adequate funding for programmes to enable appropriate solutions to be adopted. Sharing best practice could be facilitated by carrying out relevant research and benchmarking data, with timely guidance on new legislation, standards and procedures.

Vehicles (Chapter 6)

14. What should Government do to secure greater road safety benefits from vehicles?

15. Do you agree that, in future, crash avoidance systems will grow in importance and will have the potential to greatly reduce casualties?

16. How can we best encourage consumers to include safety performance in their purchasing decisions?

Behaviours (Chapter 7)

17. We have highlighted what we believe to be the most dangerous driving behaviours. Do you agree with our assessment?

Using mobile phones while driving is not individually identified. While reliable data may be difficult to collect there is little doubt that inappropriate use is a causation factor in a significant number of crashes and continued efforts are required in this area.

A new behaviour is emerging which is causing concern. That is the use of motorised electric disability vehicles on footways, pedestrian areas and on the road. There is little guidance on the use of such vehicles. With the aging population and the improvement in this type of vehicle it is becoming more popular and frequently used. There are significant concerns about the interaction between these vehicles and pedestrians and also with road vehicles. With the likely increase in usage this behaviour is likely to become a problem if not taken account of at this time.

18. What more can be done to persuade the motoring public that illegal and inappropriate speeds are not acceptable behaviours?

A continued long term commitment to raise public awareness of the dangers of dangerous and inappropriate speeds would be most effectively promoted from the centre and local authorities can support these at a local level. It is also most important to continue Road Safety Grant to local authorities so that the enforcement and other activities of Safer Roads Partnerships can continue.

19. What more can be done to encourage safe and responsible driving?

As with irresponsible speeding there must be a long term aim to change social norms which must be well funded, researched and targeted. This could include a combination of vehicle technology, campaigns such as Hampshire's "Choose 30" and "20 is Plenty" mentioned in the response to Question 12, coupled with the Safer Roads Partnership enforcement and promotion activities. This links with the approach suggested in the response to Question 13 for cooperation between authorities and sharing of best practice for maximum benefit.


20. Should more be done to reward good driving? If so, what?

It would be desirable to encourage drivers to participate in additional training. This might be done with the cooperation of the insurance companies if research is able to show that drivers who have undertaken further training are less likely to be involved in accidents, perhaps with the incentive of a reduction in insurance premium. This would be particularly helpful if wider use of programmes, such as Pass Plus, could be encouraged for young drivers.

APPENDIX 2

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CONSULTATION - A SAFER WAY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This consultation seeks views on the vision, targets and measures for improving road safety in Great Britain for the period beyond 2010.

2. We have made good progress in reducing road casualties over the last decade. In 2007, the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads had dropped by 36 per cent from the average of 1994-98, and we are on course to meet our target of a 40 per cent reduction by 2010.

3. However, nearly 3,000 people still die on the roads each year, and there remains a great deal to do to improve road safety further. This consultation document includes proposed targets for reductions in deaths and serious injuries to be achieved by 2020.

4. The consultation covers the following areas:

· the context;

· our vision for the future;

· our approach to road safety;

· the road network;

· safer vehicles;

· road user behaviour;

· targets and ensuring success.

Background and context

5. The Department for Transport's publication Towards a Sustainable Transport System in 2007 and consultation Delivering a Sustainable Transport System in 2008 established five key goals: health, safety and security, supporting economic growth, tackling climate change, quality of life and the natural environment, and equality of opportunity. The proposed road safety strategy has been developed within this context.

6. The strategy needs, therefore, to consider any potential impacts on all of these goals. This means we need to be sure that our approach does not, for example, have a detrimental effect on greenhouse gas emissions, or lead to disproportionate economic impacts, and has a positive impact on public health.

7. A thorough review of the evidence underpins the proposals in this strategy. We have been particularly keen to understand where collisions happen, who is involved (age, gender, socio-economic group), what they are doing and why, which types of vehicle are involved and what the consequences are.

The challenges

8. This analysis of the evidence has led us to identify the following key challenges for the new strategy:

· reducing the number of road deaths, which have fallen at a slower rate than serious injuries;

· pedestrian and cyclist casualties in our towns and cities - particularly in deprived communities;

· protecting children, particularly in deprived areas, and young people, who are greatly over-represented in the casualty statistics;

· protecting motorcyclists, who represent 20 per cent of road fatalities but just 1 per cent of traffic;

· safety on rural roads: 62 per cent of all road fatalities in 2007 occurred on rural roads, which carry only 42 per cent of traffic;

· variations in safety from area to area and road to road;

· poor road user behaviour amongst a minority, where drink-driving and failure to wear a seatbelt remain a problem;

· illegal and inappropriate speed: excessive speed was recorded as a contributory factor in 26 per cent of road fatalities in 2007.

A vision for the future

9. Wider factors, notably the environmental, economic and social context, will influence what we will be able to achieve over the period of the strategy. The further ahead we look, the harder it is to predict the impact of these factors. It is, however, likely that we will be living in a more carbon-constrained world, but with a continued increase in demand for travel over the longer term.

10. We propose to set targets over a ten-year time period, long enough for changes to make an impact, but not so far ahead that the impact of external factors is too hard to predict. However, many changes, particularly in areas such as vehicle technology or road design, may not begin to significantly affect casualty outcomes for a number of years. We are therefore proposing that the period of the strategy should be twenty years, to encourage longer-term steps.

11. We feel that a vision for road safety will be an important factor in enabling a diverse range of road safety stakeholders to work effectively together. We feel that any vision should be credible, challenging and engaging for all concerned. We are proposing a long-term vision of `Making Britain's roads the safest in the world'.

Delivering our goal - the overall approach

12. We have recently consulted on a package of possible changes to road safety enforcement, including improvements to the enforcement of speed and drink and drug drive laws. The results of this consultation will be reflected in our final strategy.

13. Beyond this, and after two successful road safety strategies, we believe that we now have a legal and regulatory framework that is broadly fit for purpose for delivering improved road safety. A first key focus of this strategy is on improving the delivery of road safety, through better use of data, more systematic information sharing, better evaluation, supporting skills development and new arrangements for national reporting and scrutiny.

14. A second key focus is on dealing with certain dangerous road user behaviours, which persist despite generally good levels of compliance with road traffic law. We aim to work smartly to understand the motivations behind the most dangerous road user behaviours and the characteristics of the individuals undertaking them.

15. We want to work with our delivery partners to deliver a safe, holistic road safety system where road design, vehicles and education work in combination to minimise the risk to road users. We recognise that human beings make mistakes, and the holistic system needs to reduce the chances of mistakes on the roads having serious or fatal consequences.

Strengthening the weak links in our road network

Rural roads

16. On the whole, the British road network is relatively safe by international standards. Nevertheless, there are considerable variations of the levels of safety on different parts of the network. Of particular concern are rural roads: over 60 per cent of all deaths occur on rural roads, but they account for just over 40 per cent of traffic.

17. Many of these roads are single carriageways where the national speed limit applies (60 mph). We know that speed is a factor in many of the fatalities, but compliance with the speed limit on these roads is good. The high casualty figures suggest therefore that speed limits are not at the appropriate level on some of these roads.

18. The characteristics of single carriageway roads vary greatly and can offer very different levels of safety. Some are well engineered; others are not suitable for high speed limits. For this reason it is important to get the right speed limit for each road.

19. However, our research has shown that reducing speed limits on the most dangerous of these roads could save a great number of lives. Highway authorities are currently responsible for reviewing speeds on these roads, and we believe that this remains the right mechanism for delivering change. Progress with reviews has however been patchy, and renewed efforts are needed to bring everywhere up to the standard of the best.

20. We propose to tackle this problem by revising our existing guidance to highway authorities, recommending that lower limits are adopted where risks are relatively high and there is evidence that a lower limit would reduce casualties. To support the review process we will - with the Road Safety Foundation - provide clear comparative information on the safety performance of rural `A' roads.

Pedestrians in urban areas

21. Pedestrian and cyclist deaths are, unsurprisingly, concentrated in urban areas. Engineering measures (e.g. crossings, traffic calming) can reduce pedestrian casualties, but too many pedestrians are hit by vehicles in residential streets at speeds causing serious injury or death.

22. In order to improve safety on the streets where people live, we are proposing to amend our guidance on speed limits, recommending that highway authorities, over time, introduce 20 mph zones or limits into streets that are primarily residential in nature, or other areas where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (for example around schools or markets) and which are not part of any major through route.

Supporting the choice of the safer vehicle

23. Improvements in vehicle safety, particularly in the protection they offer in the event of an accident, have played a crucial role in delivering the casualty reductions we have seen over the last decade. Vehicle manufacturers have also implemented innovative technologies that help people drive or ride more safely and avoid collisions.

24. To achieve further improvements in vehicle safety, we need to understand the main issues and prioritise our work. Our research programme provides these insights, and we will look to extend and improve our evidence base, both to analyse the effectiveness of existing measures and to target areas where technology can deliver improvements. We will explore the trialling or piloting of new systems and working in international circles to obtain the best available data. We will put a particular emphasis on the development of advanced crash avoidance systems, which we think will become more important over the period of the strategy.

Delivery

25. Regulations for vehicles are set at a European and increasingly global level. This can be a lengthy process, but it is appropriate in certain circumstances. We will continue to promote regulatory solutions where this brings the greatest benefit in a timely manner.

26. However, with technology developing at an ever faster rate, regulation is not always the most effective method of effecting change. Over the last decade we have seen an increasing role for independent consumer testing programmes, which can play an important complementary role to regulation in improving market penetration of safety technology. We will continue to support market-based measures and explore ways to develop new opportunities in areas such as providing better consumer information and raising awareness among the motoring public.

Responsible and irresponsible road use

27. We aim to support responsible road use and to tackle irresponsible behaviour.

Supporting responsible road use

28. Following the Learning to Drive consultation, we will take forward a programme of measures that will strengthen the way that people learn to drive and are tested, and create a culture of continued and lifelong learning.

29. We will continue to raise awareness and improve road user behaviour through the award-winning THINK! campaign. The campaign has previously addressed specific dangerous behaviours, including speeding and drink-driving. As well as continuing this approach, we will also consider a future campaign based on a wider theme of road user responsibility, to challenge complacency about road safety and encourage people to make positive safety choices.

30. We are also developing a suite of road safety educational materials for everyone from toddlers to young adults, and we will promote these materials to schools. As many parties are involved in delivering road safety education, we will encourage local authorities to ensure work is coordinated to form a high-quality whole.

Tackling irresponsible road use

31. We aim to reduce further the prevalence of behaviours that, whilst seen to be unacceptable by the vast majority, persist in causing death and serious injury, notably drink-driving, failure to wear a seatbelt, and careless or dangerous driving. We also believe that drug driving presents a significant danger. We consulted on a package of measures to address these issues in our recent road safety compliance consultation. The responses are now being considered and will be reflected in our final strategy.

32. Excessive speed also remains an issue. We need to improve compliance with limits if we are to improve our casualty record.

33. We estimate that uninsured and untraced drivers kill 160 people and injure 23,000 every year. Working with the police, we will therefore continue to vigorously pursue our programme of seizure of untaxed and uninsured vehicles and of the vehicles of unlicensed drivers.

Measuring and ensuring success

Targets

34. We believe that our key national target should be to reduce deaths, since we have been less successful in reducing deaths than serious injuries over the last decade. At the local level, as road deaths are much rarer occurrences, it is more reliable to address the combined number of deaths and serious injuries. We will monitor local progress against this benchmark.

35. We are therefore proposing the following targets:

· to reduce road deaths by at least 33 per cent by 2020 compared to the baseline of the 2004-08 average;

· to reduce the annual total of serious injuries on our roads by 2020 by at least 33 per cent compared to the baseline.

36. We also consider it important to maintain our progress on child road safety and to tackle the pressing problem of young people's safety, and therefore propose a more challenging target for children and young people:

· to reduce the annual total of road deaths and serious injuries to children and young people (aged 0-17) by at least 50 per cent against a baseline of the 2004-08 average by 2020.

37. To improve health, the environment and congestion, we are keen to encourage more walking and cycling. We wish to reduce the risk to the individual walker or cyclist, and to take into account expected growth in activity. We are therefore proposing a target based on the rate of casualties:

· to reduce by at least 50 per cent by 2020 the rate of KSI per km travelled by pedestrians and cyclists, compared with the 2004-08 average.

Performance indicators

38. We also intend to maintain further performance information. We will publish annually a set of key indicators of progress on road safety, showing a range of measures of casualties, behaviours and trends. A full list of these indicators is at Appendix A.

Ensuring delivery

39. We will appoint an independent expert panel to advise us on road safety trends and policy. We will also draw up a new integrated national road safety delivery plan, and ask the Road Safety Delivery Board to manage its delivery.

40. We will also submit to Parliament an annual report about road safety in Great Britain. This will assess progress against our targets and the national indicator set.