Discussion on the new National Road Safety Strategy

Comment Categories

1. Welcoming the Strategy/Consultations/Targets
2. Young Drivers/GDL
3. Older Drivers/Eyesight
4. Drink/Drug Driving
5. Motorcycles & P2Ws
6. Work-Related Road Risk
7. Tyre Safety
8. Technology
9. Victim Support
10. Vulnerable Road Users
11. Education & Training
12. Behaviour Change
13. Road Design
14. Data
15. Enforcement
16. Ghost Plates
17. Road Safety Investigation Board
18. Miscellaneous
19. Delivery
20. Webinar Feedback

Speaker Timings

• James Luckhurst, Project EDWARD

• Chief Constable Jo Shiner KPM, NPCC
• Chief Fire Officer Dan Quin, NFCC
• Nicola Foster, RSGB

• Dan Campsall, Agilysis
• Saul Jeavons, ARRM
• Jamie Hassall, PACTS

• Joy Allen, Durham PCC
• Chris Lewis, pp Warwickshire PCC

• Paul Steinberg, Road Safety Trust

• Jon Robertson, UKROEd

• Stewart Lochrie, ADI National Joint Council
• James Evans, First Car
• Joy Allen, Durham PCC

• Prof Charles Musselwhite, Aberystwyth University
• Rob Heard MBE, Older Drivers Forum
• Malcolm Palmer, GEM

• Leanne McMahon, NFCC
• Saul Jeavons, ARRM
• Craig Carey-Clinch, National Motorcyclists Council

• Saul Jeavons, ARRM
• Mark Cartwright, National Highways

• Stuart Lovatt, TyreSafe

• Chris Spinks, Westcotec
• Meredydd Hughes, Road Safety Support

• Sharron Huddlestone, bereaved parent
• Dr Ian Greenwood, bereaved parent
• Raymond Williams, Slater & Gordon Lawyers

• Dr Rob Török

• Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK

• Alan Hiscox, British Horse Society

• Jo Shiner KPM, NPCC
• Leanne Savigar-Shaw
• Joy Allen, Durham PCC

• Dan Campsall, Agilysis
• Jamie Hassall, PACTS

• Leanne McMahon, NFCC
• Jamie Hassall, PACTS
• Saul Jeavons, ARRM
• Chris Lewis, pp Warwickshire PCC
• Joy Allen, Durham PCC
• Nicola Foster, RSGB
• Dan Campsall, Agilysis
• Jo Shiner KPM, NPCC

• James Luckhurst, Project EDWARD

Welcoming the Strategy/Consultations/Targets

Great to have a challenging and supportive framework for road safety nationally finally. It is fantastic to be looking at and developing/consulting upon the filling of key gaps in many areas that have existed for years. It is interesting that it still references PCCs. A key thing it doesn’t do is tackle the huge inequality in road safety delivery effort around the country, due to continued pressures on local authority highways (and other) related budgets.

Thank you to all your efforts to get the strategy to where it is. We’re delighted in Devon and Cornwall that this government is taking road safety seriously with many things included we have all lobbied on.

I thought the strategy was a great start. Like others have commented, there is a lot that now requires consultation so action on the ground will take time and for me, other than the existing funding routes, I am keen to see what this means for funding opportunities to meet the targets especially training.

The consultations are a legal requirement and fantastic that these 5 consultations are already up and running. The questions give us an opportunity to ‘push’ further (with evidence). We have influence.

My reading of the strategy seems to be talking a lot about already announced financial commitments, rather than an overarching plan on how the implementation of these ambitious targets will be funded. Without this, much of this ambition will remain aspirational. Hopefully one aspect of consultation to be prioritised will be how all this is paid for, recognising how much road trauma costs the national economy.

Where consultations are statutory, they obviously need to happen but some of these are issues which have been consulted on time and again – for example the 1998 consultation on reducing the drink/drive limit and yet here we still are… the 2000 strategy said “We will implement XYZ following consultation”. It’s a big tonal difference between that and simply “we will consult on”. And the 2000 strategy was launched by the PM in person, which was an indication of how seriously the issue was being taken.

Shame they didn’t establish a Road Safety Executive when they started the HSE. Years of catch up needed!

This strategy is a very valuable foundation to enable change to be built upon. We can’t eat the whole elephant at once. This strategy, very sensibly, stops those who need to make the change from being overwhelmed. Additionally, whilst some things, now being consulted upon, have been consulted upon before it is politically and socially necessary for consultation responses to be current. Doing this now will prevent obfuscation and frustration further down the road.

Is there a reason why no mention was made on a MAIS 3+ definition of serious injury to align with the rest of Europe?

Disappointing to see that HSE is omitted as a stakeholder from the Strategy. Was this their own choice? How can government leadership change HSE reluctance?

It would be great to see involvement of the HSE with work related collisions. Rather than taking their usual line of it is an RTC so we’re not interested!

Likely an intentional strategic decision as the HSE is already overtasked for the resources they do have.

The reductions in RTCs seen over the previous years could be attributed to safer vehicles, safer roads, and improved post collision medical response. The sticking point has always been safer drivers. The fear factor of being caught when transgressing road traffic law is not as great as it once was. Investment in enforcement is required but not the only answer to the problem.

There’s no mention in the document about Police and Court Diversion Schemes to educate rather than punish. The Speed Awareness Courses borne in 2003 were a big part of getting messages over and supporting the 46% reduction in fatalities 2000 to 2010.

The scheme is used by some companies as part of an induction, not just an education for a breach.

I’m not a fan of targets, but in this case, it might focus minds whereas, before, they were not. What gets measured gets done!

Regarding all of the consultations, the deadline for responses is end of March, but I didn’t see any indication in the RSS of how long analysis of these responses it is expected to take or a deadline for this.

Back up to category index ⇑

Young Drivers/GDL

[Daniel Ward] Hi all, Big thanks to James and the team for putting this together, and to everyone contributing today. The discussion and different perspectives are what make sessions like this worthwhile. I lead telematics at the Acorn Insurance Group across Carrot, My Policy, and Acorn Protect, supporting a large community of young drivers (for context, we’re the largest insurer for 17-19yo’s). As ‘black boxes’ are always a hot topic, If any road safety experts or researchers want to chat properly about telematics/insurance for young drivers, feel free to reach out anytime. Always happy to demystify the space and learn from you too.

With graduated driving licence, curious why we’re looking at USA comparisons who have over 10 times the road fatalities of the UK. I feel we need to look at mandatory POST-driving test interventions for car and motorcycle riders – perhaps a two-hour session within six months of passing, another within 2 years after passing. No test-prep pressure allows exploring real world issues. In time, reduction in insurance premiums (less collisions) would cover cost by some margin.

I think that was an easy to access data set as many states already have quite restrictive licences for young people

So: (a) Nothing that we haven’t done before and (b) Still a postcode lottery on whether you have safe speed limits in your area. The 20mph urban default limit in Wales may have prompted some controversy but has worked incredibly well in terms of improving road safety – and has reduced drivers’ insurance premiums too.

Agreed but new speed advice is likely to be safe system based and progressive. With devolution, local determination is likely to remain, but new guidance and this strategy will help raise the importance of speed within the safe system and embolden politicians to make tough (but right) decisions. Here’s hoping.

Fair enough. I hope your optimism will prove well-founded – though I suspect we will need to push hard, both for strong guidance and then for strong local implementation.

Cross-party agreement required on GDL so it can’t be used as a political point-scoring issue in the next election.

With GDL there are not enough recourses to police it.

Stewart Lochrie’s insight and perspective – superb and I’m in total agreement!

Could we introduce age-appropriate road safety education into the national curriculum in schools, from an early age up to 17 where it could be linked to the driving licence. By teaching road hierarchy, the effects of the speeding, Drink/drug driving and by utilising technology such as SIMs and VR, when new drivers do qualify for their licence they are prepared for what lies ahead. Funding could be provided by speeding fines, tech companies and motor manufacturers linked to government support.

Young drivers is a very important group. There might be one more group overlooked – those, who exchanged driving licences to British from overseas. Nothing is required apart of application form and original licence. With plenty of changes, with a totally new Highway Code (and driving on left hand side), this might pose even greater risk.

Please don’t forget young riders, they suffer more KSI’s than young drivers but get overlooked.

Back up to category index ⇑

Older Drivers/Eyesight

Eyechecks at 70 – great start, why still allowing self-declaration for health? 80-year-old plus insurance premiums go through the roof as there are a significant number who shouldn’t be driving – a proper medical with own GP will benefit older drivers.

Eye tests should be across the board, never mind those over the age of 70. My son wears glasses purely for driving – he’s 22.

I completely agree… I think that would be a great further development.

This issue of who should declare is in the consultation so you can comment.

Totally agree. Young people’s eyesight is deteriorating at a rate as well due to their increased use of screens with mobile phones and computers. I have witnessed that when they have been sat next to me in a traffic car on patrol and they couldn’t read a VRM of a vehicle in front of us to check it through!!

Eye tests: Synchronise test pass confirmation with license photo card renewal. All ages.

Yes, I think we all agree this too. And it should be not just distance acuity but contrast sensitivity, recovery from glare, brightness, peripheral vision etc. That is where the evidence lies in potentially making a difference.

Great to hear Malcolm Palmer highlight the needs of older people regardless of transport mode.

Agree with Rob Heard, that the Road Safety Strategy has to be complemented by an Integrated National Transport Strategy which does far more to improve the alternatives for those who cannot drive, for whatever reasons. That obviously includes children and many people on lower incomes, as well as older people and/or people with various health conditions and disabilities.

Reminder of the Road Safety GB Mature Drivers’ Conference 28 April 2026 – Birmingham. The conference, titled Safe System Thinking for Mature Road Users, will consider mature road users in the context of the Safe System.

In relation to eyesight testing for all. Ideally, we would support compulsory eyesight testing for all drivers, beginning at first licence application and continuing at regular intervals — for example, every 10 years at photocard renewal. We hope this is a direction policy may move toward in the future. However, we recognise the practical challenges of introducing such a system immediately for the 6.3 million people who currently hold a driving licence. Introducing compulsory testing initially for a specific group is a measured and proportionate approach, allowing systems to be tested and refined before any wider rollout. This is particularly appropriate given that from age 60, individuals are entitled to free NHS-funded eyesight tests.

[Rob Heard] I have created a document to brief Mature and Older Drivers about how the new Road Safety Strategy changes and how this may affect them. You can view this on our Older Drivers Forum website on this link. New Road Safety Strategy – Information for Mature and Older Drivers

Great suggestion in this thread that at 10yr driving licence renewal EVERYONE has to have an eyesight test and sit an online Highway Code test. What a difference this could make.

The introduction of random testing like in Australia for police rather than suspicion for eye sight testing and drink/drug driving would act as a deterrent? Thoughts?

We will be covering all about a Safe System Approach in April for Mature and Driver support and interventions with the RSGB Mature Drivers Conference on 28th April 2026 in Birmingham, we still have some availability. Mature Drivers’ Conference: Safe System Thinking for Mature Road Users

Back up to category index ⇑

Drink/Drug Driving

Would be very keen to see the introduction of the temporary licence suspension whilst under investigation for drink/drug driving – especially those who’ve been charged and awaiting court. A very common tactic I see here in Staffs is people employing solicitors who go to great lengths to extend the period of time between charge and court through erroneous/excessive requests and defence statements, describing this as ‘extra driving time’ before their ban.

Regarding drug/alcohol safer driving for business we need to engage with the chamber of commerce and employers – some really good work locally with our haulage companies who are doing drug testing and cameras in cabs around mobile phones, etc.

Our company has a ‘zero alcohol’ policy – I’m led to believe drugs are a bigger issue just now (prescribed and illegal).

Certainly from what I have seen whilst out operationally, drugs are certainly more of a challenge than alcohol now.

Why does the Road Safety Strategy and DfT just talk of 260 road traffic deaths, when in their own data within the RSS it shows a greater percentage of deaths with impairing drugs? We need separate figures of drink and drugs rather than this recent trend of adding them together as drink/drugs which is effectively hiding the growth in drug driving. See OpLimit results in Sussex 134 drink 165 drug; Lancashire 82 drink and 124 drugs; Hampshire 146 and 185; Thames Valley 209 drink to 260 drugs. Essex was 200 drink to 300+ drugs.

It is great to see the interim disqualification being recommended. It was always frustrating to release a drink/drug driver from custody, after being charged, to be allowed to continue driving until a court date.

This is something we are working with the courts in the West Midlands to ensure strict bail conditions are given by the courts to prevent people taking advantage of the court backlogs to delay disqualifications.

The delay in extracting blood loses many prosecutions; the ridiculous delay in analysing the bloods of 4-6 months is bordering criminal. The driver continues to drive. Worse still, if they plead not guilty, this could be 18 months. Simple solution is to allow Immediate Roadside Evidential Saliva. In workplace the same labs process these results in days. So a drug driver would be off the road in virtually the same time as drink. Then a police suspension until court ban would work. Worked in Australia and France for over a decade. Just get on with it!

Back up to category index ⇑

Motorcycles & P2Ws

The CBT is all well and good but, as a Scooterist, I see electric bikes and the like being able to be ridden fast and with little or no protective equipment. These are high-powered vehicles that can and are ridden on our roads with zero governance. Is this going to change?

We need to distinguish between legal e-bikes and what are effectively illegal electric motorbikes. The gig economy is responsible for much of the latter. These are already illegal, so it’s about resources for effective enforcement, and consumer/rider awareness and education.

With e-scooters, we don’t need more trials – legislate to align 15.5mph devices with e-bikes to get them out of the shadows and allow road safety conversations. Motorcycle stats are skewed by ‘powered two wheelers’ including unlicenced, untrained and illegal use. STATS19 appears to separate these devices so we need to analyse properly.

Agree totally the stats are over inflated for P2Ws due to e-Bikes as in Stats 19 there’s no other place to put these.

As a provider of CBTs, we have seen a move away from any formal training with an ATB to no training or licence for eBikes. This is a cost saving measure on the riders, especially in the goods delivery market and a reduction in Road Safety. What is needed is compulsory training for eBike riders to address this and the ATB network is already in place to deliver this.

Definitely a problem in town centres and, when you interact with the riders, it’s apparent that there isn’t any awareness of Highway Code or rider training.

A more flexible, decisive and pro-active response to micro-mobility is needed – along with technology type approval for vehicles/systems.

The BMF and NMC welcome the proposals regarding the need for reform of the current trading testing and licensing regime which is no longer fit for purpose. The proposed consultation needs to look fully at the detail with a focus on simplifying the current regime and putting more emphasis on training rather than repeated tests. The permanent CBT rider loophole needs to be addressed. The proposed focus on rural roads is also welcome given current statistics.

Evidence suggests motorcyclists often make better car drivers due to heightened spatial awareness, superior hazard perception, and greater road mindfulness – skills developed from being more vulnerable on two wheels, leading to better anticipation of other road users’ actions and dangers like potholes. Though some studies note motorcyclists take more risks on bikes, these skills transfer positively to cars, making them more observant and safer overall drivers.

‘Motorcyclists need to be part of the safe system’ – spot on!

I thought the question to Saul was strange should motorcyclists be in a safe system.

It’s a fair question – motorcycling is not currently fully part of the Safe System, but there’s now a real opportunity to change that.

Repeated CBTs – we need to ensure the route is inclusive rather than restrictive. For those that can’t take the Theory test, this may exclude them from transport and opportunities, so we need to work out how to get them to full licence but not exclude them. The government strategy is absolutely right to try and make riders safer. We just have to make sure the choice is not between safety and inclusivity. Both can be achieved if it’s done in the right way.

Genuine question: What prevents some people from taking the theory test?

Nothing, but not everyone can pass them.

SEN, language, anxiety of a test to name just a few. A lot of repeat CBT riders can’t pass the theory test in the current form for a number of other reasons. To exclude them would be a massive disadvantage for some people

CBT – Theory – MOD1 & MOD2 – plus all the lessons, etc that need to be done are very expensive! I totally get why riders only take a CBT every 2 years. I also think that keeps them current, but a rider with a CBT isn’t really a learner as they are not under instruction!

Absolutely, why I’d like to see it being more of a pipeline than an external option. Can’t blame people for using the system as it exists given current financials for most people. If we gave someone the option of a 1 day session that needed renewing every 2 years but they could only drive smaller cars but didn’t need to do the full licence and all costs. People would jump at it.

Previous consultation on P2W training/licenses had ‘actions’ which were ready to be implemented, so just repeating and delaying.

P2Ws were 41% of fatalities in 2025 in Kent.

Riders happy to stay on low powered 125cc motorcycles should not be penalised.

Motorcyclists must of course be part of a safe system approach with a sea change needed within transport policy to include motorcycling, and position motorcycling front and centre of the new Integrated National Transport Strategy as a sustainable, cleaner and efficient future transport source.

The bit about motorcycles too felt very motorcyclist centric – that is only part of the story, huge aspect of other road users’ behaviour around them.

In an ideal world ‘L’ riders would not be permitted to ride for work – however, is the genie out of the bottle with the rise of illegal devices? Why go the hassle of bike training and tests, MOT, insurance, crash helmet – when I can ride an illegal device with only a balaclava for protection with little chance of being stopped?

Research has shown that it’s not the training and testing in its current form that drives poor road safety, but the delivery apps themselves. Riders are paid more for working in poor weather conditions and at night and the more they deliver, the more they earn. These are driving poor riding with most not having a full licence or additional training. TfL has done a really good piece of work trying to work with the app providers to reduce the risk but to no avail as they appear to not be interested in road safety – only making money from the delivery apps. This needs to be addressed better.

Same with many paid per job operators – the pressure is on to drive to the next job quicker to earn.

It’s this pressure of earning more, the more they do that drives poor road safety, not training or testing as there is no time pressure when completing this.

National Young Rider Forum welcome the review of motorcycle licensing particularly CBT proposals. www.newriderhub.net

On motorcycle training, testing and licensing, participants may find the NMC’s position an interesting read.

One little noticed but important part of the Strategy is the commitment to role out PRIME road markings for rural motorcycle safety. These markings are proving to be notably effective at reducing incidents on bends.

Back up to category index ⇑

Work-Related Road Risk

It’s nice to see that work-related road risk is finally being looked into – this is an area that can have a huge impact – needing more accountability for operators who do not take their duties seriously.

I was interested to see the reference to a “National Work-Related Road Safety Charter for businesses that require people to drive…” It would be good to hear more about what that might look like and when it might happen.

CPC should be rolled out for any business that employs drivers for work.

How many delivery drivers are foreign nationals driving on EU driving licenses and haven’t taken a UK driving test? it would be interesting to see the figures.

We really welcome the launch of this Charter and are pleased to see work-related road risk recognised as a national road safety priority. Driving and riding for work should be treated in the same way as any other health and safety risk at work, with appropriate assessment, management, and accountability to protect workers and other road users.

I’d be interested to see that research (on driving for work risk) mentioned by Saul. Is there a link?

This is the TRL report that springs to mind: https://trid.trb.org/View/664740

Stats about van driver RTC should be available from insurance companies, when reporting an RTC you have to state the driver’s profession.

In some industries, there seems to be a significant lack of knowledge and understanding around GB domestic driving rules and working time regulations.

Really good point by Mark Cartwright – We [police] find that businesses are increasingly supportive, and that those who are not are well worth looking at in other areas.

Many fleet operators have policies – the problem is the ‘action’ – enforcing it, and a lack of being held to account when things go wrong. This involves joint commitment from HSE, DVSA and updating legislation. And the biggest issue being LCVs/cars.

As was mentioned by Mark from Driving for Better Business, road risk management should be an integral aspect of H&S legislation that requires corporate bodies to ensure that their drivers are safe and free from all drugs (inc alcohol) applying the same burden as all other areas of H&S with the same oversight.

Driving policy. Duty of care by employer and employee under the Health and Safety at Work 1974 – safety of everyone at work or affected by their actions at work.

It’s already covered by the legislation – it’s just than enforcement falls down a black hole.

Absolutely agree – that’s what I mean. There is little oversight and enforcement so as with other aspects it is given lip service.

Policies around management of road risk are the very foundation for businesses to get to grips with these issues. If employees are not crystal clear on the organisations expectations how can they be expected to comply and how can they be disciplined? We have some templates at DfBB to help. Driving for Better Business Policy Builder.

I’d suggest compliance ‘should’ be a given. We should be more ambitious and look for risk management beyond compliance.

Public and private businesses have a massive opportunity (and responsibility) to influence the driving behaviours of not just their at-work-drivers but all of their people.

Back up to category index ⇑

Tyre Safety

If a vehicle’s maintenance is neglected – if the tyres are bald or underinflated – the most advanced safety ‘brain’ in the world cannot stop that car. By focusing on new tech while ignoring the 2.1 million dangerous tyre defects found in MOTs every year, we are building a high-tech house on a crumbling foundation. Maintenance isn’t a peripheral task; it is the physical baseline that allows every other part of the Safe System to function.

Back up to category index ⇑

Technology

Digital ids for vehicles!

Would be interesting to see how this got converted into something that is broadcast/received so the location or movements can be known similar to ANPR.

Technology has huge potential, but we have to understand every innovation in context. Lots of things that work ‘in the lab’ have unpredictable implications when let loose on society, and significant implications for the wider CJS. Full impact assessments, piloting and evaluation are essential.

You can buy a speed limit alert unit for less than £80. Why are these not mandatory in each vehicle on UK roads?

The vehicle safety measures include Intelligent Speed Assistance – so this does put speed limit advice in all vehicles going forward.

Not sure whether manufacturers would ever go for this but most modern vehicles already know where they are and either have a database or read the speed limit for the road and display it. Would be nice to see this hard wire linked to the speed limiter system.

Excellent points by Meredydd Hughes… so much technology that can be brought together and ‘weaponised’ against criminals.

No mention yet of the responsibility of car manufacturers to make safe vehicles. Cars are now less safe due to the sheer number of often poorly designed minor controls available to the driver. And features that are actually illegal such as ‘welcome/coming home headlights’ that come on when the car is unlocked or stay on after parking. A truly stupid idea.

OEMs are collecting so much information from vehicles – none of that is being shared? Commercial fleets moving towards telematics/dash cams – only comes to light in the event of a collision – problem is GDPR and how to get around the challenges of collating this centrally or in a way that is used in the correct way.

Key to the technology piece is for R&D, research, the Statement of Safety Principles, etc, to fully incorporate the visibility of motorcycles and also cyclists into new technologies, with this properly tested before approval.

Problem with smart vehicles and auto speed limits is that these can be wrong. I get many complaints from people, often professionals, who will rely on their cars database of road speed limits rather than their own eyes, i.e. passing responsibility to the technology.

Agree – let’s invest in the drivers, not driver aids. We have reached the tipping point with driver aids where some do more to distract than aid.

I fully support ‘tracking’. If there’s nothing to hide, there is no issue!

Totally agree. When my daughter first passed her driving test the car was fitted with a dash cam – not only to protect her from false blame/claims by others, but also she drove with the knowledge that her driving behaviour was also being recorded and available.

In talks of technology, it seems there has been an oversight on the use of telematics devices. This technology already exists as a reliable and accurate way of tracking, has there been any talks of utilising this technology beyond an optional form of insurance primarily for young drivers?

There are plenty of examples of the technology not being reliable and accurate which is why commercial insurers have not taken the leap in the way personal lines insurers have. Too many providers with poor device data quality. There are a handful of good quality ones and this area needs to be regulated better.

The same goes for the mobile phone App safety products. Businesses don’t seem to want to reduce the risks that texting, social media access and phone calls add to the incident rates.

Agree – the software is already on our phones to automatically turn on a “driving mode” something needs to be added to make it harder to off rather than just to dismiss it with a swipe on your screen.

Back up to category index ⇑

Victim Support

Support for families shouldn’t not be a postcode lottery and I think this is still the case.

Sharron Huddleston, Ian Greenwood and other bereaved families deserve the greatest credit for being brave and clear about what is needed.

Completely agree with Sharron and commend you for your bravery and dedication. Thank you.

My daughter had 2 years of counselling following her father being killed in a collision (provided by Northamptonshire Police) – 500m further along the road and she wouldn’t have got anything.

As well as better support for road crash victims, we also need better data on how the criminal justice system responds in the aftermath of collisions. We have STATS19 data which tells us about the circumstances and outcomes of collisions, and MoJ data on what prosecutions, convictions and sentences result from collisions – but we have no linkage between the two. We therefore lack data on whether (or why) the legal system treats some road user groups differently from others etc.

Thank you for speaking up on behalf of victims. When we look at stats and targets, we can forget every single fatality is a tragedy.

The victim’s code can feel like a toothless tiger and so few bereaved families are actually made aware of it. And it is never clear at what point road crash victims are truly classed as victims, due to the gap between the collision and charges being pressed (if they are).

Pleased to see the reference to the consultation on the Victims’ Code in the strategy (p24).

Well done to Ian and Sharron, the passion and drive of families who have gone through the consequences of such avoidable collisions is what helps bring about change and helps motivate us all.

Sharron – your use of ‘safeguarding’ as a description rather than ‘restrictions’ for GDL is a great reframing to help people understand.

Back up to category index ⇑

Vulnerable Road Users

Horse riders are shown as one of the “most at risk” groups but glaringly omitted in strategy?

Not just horse riders, motorcylists too! Money to promote ‘active travel’ to support some vulnerable road users, not all.

Though it was nice to see that there was an acknowledgment of the need to encourage more people to progress from CBT to full licence to ensure they get more training specific to 2 wheels.

[Charles Musselwhite] I co-wrote a paper on this – see recommendations in particular section 5. Equestrian Road Safety: A review of the literature and where next.

There is nowhere near enough investment to significantly boost active travel. I’d agree with others that the strategy contains some very useful proposals, and congratulations to everyone involved in getting us to this point. But there are also a lot of frustrating omissions – notably: funding for active travel, funding for roads policing, and reductions in speed limits (which nobody else has mentioned so far).

They are going to deliver new guidance on setting speed limits and on use of safety cameras.

Organisations like Cycling UK (and others) want to see a clear plan for Highway Code promotion & education because there is still so much ignorance and confusion about the 2022 changes.

I’d love to see this being a ‘default app’ on all UK smart phones. The amount of people of all ages stopped after committing an offence that I’d ask ‘when did you last read the highway code’ and it was never within the last 5 years.

In London we’ve learned that the three London lorry safety standards – Direct Vision Standard (DVS); Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) and Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) – have helped reduce HGV collisions due to poor driver vision. Expanding such standards UK wide would surely help meet the 65% target. London Cycling Campaign has suggested this to the Minister but no response yet.

I agree that the overall casualty reduction target is welcome – though I share the concerns expressed by others that the policies and resourcing of the strategy may well prove inadequate to achieve them. I am also concerned that the child casualty reduction strategy may have counter-productive effects, given the prevalence of walking and cycling injuries among child casualties. Given this, there is a risk that the child casualty target could create a perverse incentive for some authorities to aim simply to reduce children’s walking and cycling, in order to meet an over-simplistic casualty reduction target. Road safety targets for walking and cycling really ought to be rate-based, i.e. aiming to reduce the risk per mile or per trip of walking and cycling casualties, not simply the numbers of these casualties.

Back up to category index ⇑

Education & Training

We already have an ideal opportunity with the 10yr licence renewal, to update drivers Highway Code knowledge on a regular basis.

Online Highway Code test at the renewal period would be great, even if done open book it would force people to interact with the document.

A national curriculum for road safety officers to deliver to schools from reception classes to 6th forms would help, all delivering the same lessons/workshops would ensure consistency and accuracy and could be altered centrally to target emerging trends.

This is promised but we still have choice whether to use it! needs leadership. The more that deliver using the resource, the larger the evidence base will be to see what is working.

Good practice guidelines are welcomed, however, I don’t agree the same lessons/workshops should be consistent and prescriptive throughout the UK. Being able to tailor lessons/workshops/messages to audience need is much better.

The person behind the wheel is the most important factor in road safety. One of the biggest challenges out there is the mindset when it comes to driver capability. Everyone (including ourselves) at times believe they are the best driver on the road, which unfortunately can give people a false sense of confidence. There’s a great deal of work to do around altering that mindset and altering the acceptance of distractions when driving.

As per any risk assessment, a hazard becomes the risk due to the introduction of ‘a human being’

Can anyone expand please on why young driver education is not a non-negotiable aspect of the school curriculum?

It is in Scotland. Wouldn’t that be good?

Increasing compliance to the Fatal 4, through behavioural change, is vital. It is a partnership responsibility but sometimes for impaired driving/riding and speed, it doesn’t feel like new research on changing behaviour is being applied and reaching road users.

And proper understanding of how behaviour change works with habitual, emotional, automated behaviour that driving entails, not just traditional information provision.

I’d suggest compliance ‘should’ be a given. We should be more ambitious and look for risk management beyond compliance.

If we could encourage insurance companies to recognise post test training provided by organisations around the country such as ROSPA Advanced Driving and Riding and IAM RoadSmart. A larger number of the younger and older drivers would come forward for additional training.

Many of insurance companies do. They have bursaries which support commercial fleets in funding this. What you find is the culture and enforcement isn’t there.

If the insurance companies offered better financial incentive for any drivers/riders to participate in further training, medicals. eyesight tests, would more people join the safe system?

Most commercial insurers do recognise this through bursaries.

Before promoting the Highway Code properly, it does need a bit of a re-write. Some new rules are often mis-read and mis-quoted, and the pedestrian fatalities have not changed 2023 to 2024 suggest there are issues to overcome.

We also do not have enough resources in Policing to go out to all schools or communities to raise important awareness (Fatal Four for example). Even if popular TV shows had a storyline of Fatal Four or similar. We spoke to the incredible Natalie Horner (Durham Policing) about the Fatal Four and had such a powerful campaign, that really needs national attention.

Part of the issue of education relates to the lack of resources available to go into schools, colleges etc to deliver. There are digital options available for schools to deliver however due to competing demands and issues – road safety always seems to be at the back of the list over knife crime and other criminality so how do we encourage schools to provide support in this area?

I still remember the Hedgehog Campaign, and we got reflective bag tokens to help raise awareness and safety of young people. Just yesterday I saw a juvenile riding in the road, dressed in all black, balaclava which obscured their vision, and riding out in front of the bus repeatedly. The bus driver tried to mitigate risk with speed and distance, but the rider also needs to take some personal accountability for the risks of riding this way.

Agreed, Joy Allen. There is so much more we can do in education with a focus on behavioural issues. Upskilling driving instructors, who spend so much time – one on one – with young people, to work more effectively in this area is imperative.

Driving instructors teach learners to pass a test not how to drive.

Not all driving instructors!

Because this is what the government trains driving instructors to do. It does not have to be this way.

DVSA qualified assessors support with behavioural coaching and change with collisions and telematics in commercial fleets.

Instructors have a duty to teach a pupil to drive the vehicle safely but there is always an element to teach what is required on the test so the assessment has to be looked at!!!

Back up to category index ⇑

Behaviour Change

I think we need national information with behavioural change strategies to help people see the benefits and change the view point to see these as positive moves.

Bring back TV/Social media public information films!!

I still remember the ‘belt up’ advert that ran with the youngsters and the pizza. They made an impact.

Campaigns and visibility need to increase. Using all appropriate and impactful channels. I find really good content from individuals (not orgs) on things like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram which is easy to digest and aimed at younger audiences. I remember still being traumatised by adverts, Casualty, the Bill and other media. and school campaigns. Cannot help but feel these are lacking now, less school campaigning, and as TV consumption has changed, it is not targeting audiences.

Agreed – I still have a fear of railway lines from those videos!

We need to go back to basics with education and comms plans – ‘stop, look, listen’ is embedded in my head since primary school… it worked!

Definitely some good lessons for our own social media depts.

Our comms team have started using Youtube more as it allows for more a targeted approach.

Need to be careful about campaigns that tell children they need to be more careful…whilst failing to tell drivers of massive SUVS to slow down/not park on zigzags/not look at their phones etc. I see too many victim-blaming “safety” campaigns put out by councils etc, but they fail to assign responsibility on the people capable of exerting the greatest harm. e.g. how can children “find a safe place to cross” if there IS no safe place to cross? How can they listen when there is so much traffic and engine noise? How can they look when there are cars parked on double yellow lines, on pavements and right up to junctions?

Traumatising viewers is popular but shown to not be an effective way of achieving behavioural change

There is some excellent research about ‘fear factor’ campaigns which suggests they don’t actually change behaviour. Campaigns need to be underpinned by behaviour change theories.

Good point – you don’t teach swimming by showing someone drowning!

On the other hand, if you swim into someone else, it doesn’t generally cause too much of an injury.

Yes – evidence says these have most effect on already very safe road users. Those most dangerous ignore or “other” them (these are horrible but I am not the issue/target of this).

In Devon & Cornwall, we have altered our Fire Service led Learn2Live education seminar for young people on the back of ‘fear factor’ not the right approach but was less exciting. There needs to be a careful balance – it’s not all or nothing.

Exactly. The upcoming national guidance on road safety education mentioned in the strategy should provide evidence-based guidance on what actually does work!

Watch the Project EDWARD/RedSpeed webinar on effective speed management campaigns.

I agree with Leanne Savigar-Shaw on the importance of taking the public along with us. There is lots of evidence of the public supporting enforcement.

Sometimes the only way to get the messaging across is with hard hitting localised materials.  Not necessarily the blood and gore aspect but showing necessary parts of footage and imagery. Localised is important as it makes people realise “this is happening to people in our area” which is more likely to make them sit up and take notice.  As well as this, without hard hitting materials, those people we need to get the message through to won’t always feel the impact of a lesser image.

I completely agree with Joy Allen. Having education which looks to change behaviour, comms which are grounded in evidence-based research, but most importantly we have joined up campaigns which can help to cut above the noise are key.

Back up to category index ⇑

Road Design

Great to see so many road safety professionals taking part this morning. In collision prevention, road safety audits are/should be undertaken for any new additions and changes to the highways and byways however, these are only recommendations and these recommendations can be challenged and are sometimes just ignored unfortunately.

It is good to see rural roads highlighted as a key issue, that is a welcome and very much needed focus.

In particular, we were delighted to see that there is a recognition that not all rural roads are the same. Looking forward to work to create a meaningful classification that is the basis of prioritising action.

1960’s Road engineering regs are not safe for the 21st century!

Totally agree, with the extra weight in EVs some of the street furniture is just totally inadequate and there needs to be more passive safe.

Back up to category index ⇑

Data

The ABI and Insurers should be able to help here – the data sets should have to be submitted centrally which can help to advise which commercial industry trades are involved in the most collisions including severe and fatal.

I agree that the data does not provide enough granularity to solve the issues to get close to the vision of zero.

Two big aspects across the strategy which are missing are (1) working towards mandatory ISA, limiting speed to the speed limit – huge potential to improve safety and; (2) data sharing is our friend – sharing healthcare and police data is a start but what about insurance and telematic data? In any other safety critical industry, nuclear, aviation, marine, railway, these would be made to be mandatory (where possible).

No amount of talking, data analysis or training of learner drivers is going to have a significant effect on accident figures. Safe driving and riding comes down to one thing, and one thing only – ATTITUDE. No amount of money or talking will make a dent in accident figures. If it did, we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

Agreed. Insurers are sat on huge amounts of data that can be shared appropriately.

If police data is to be relied upon to inform this strategy, it is essential that the data (including Stats 19/20) is accurate and consistent. Currently, forces use different software systems to record statistics, resulting in significant variation between forces. In addition, these records are often not revisited or updated when further information becomes available, as we saw with the previous older driver eyesight initiative, where factors such as defective eyesight, impairment, excess speed or vehicle defects were identified at a later stage but not reflected in the data. Given the millions of pounds likely to be invested in this strategy, it is imperative that the data is accurate, up to date, and recorded consistently across all forces.

I have commenced re-introducing the importance of accurate collision recording in our Force as it has not been touched for years, meaning that Officers are not giving it the attention that it deserves. Accurate collision recording leads to good engineering decision making and spending to engineer out a problem, which includes enforcement. I would like to see this being reviewed across police forces, as better collision recording will lead to better long term outcomes, and happy to share what I do. I give one example where accurate collision recording saw the local authority stop up a road, changing a crossroads to a T junction. 9 lives have been saved at that one location since the solution was put in, but it all comes down to good and accurate collision recording to prompt such reviews and action. This is often overlooked but crucial.

I have access to connected vehicle speed data via Agilysis, and harsh braking through RoadTrace. This of course costs.

Sharing all data is great but must be for near misses as well as collisions if we are serious about safe system approaches. How else will we learn and mitigate for what is dangerous?

Perhaps even more important to get that near miss data, I’d agree.

Not only near‑misses, but also a substantial volume of non‑injury collisions – approximately four times the number recorded in police injury collision (PIC) data – are reported to the police but are not captured in STATS19. As a result, highway authorities have no visibility of these incidents.

The key to linking the data and information effectively will be to ensure that we can do it in a way which is not bureaucratic and requires hundreds of MOU’s – let’s use common sense and pragmatism to drive this forwards with speed so that we are data driven in a progressive way.

Back up to category index ⇑

Enforcement

More and better driver training would be great, but the most echoed sentiment I ever hear is that speed enforcement and compliance is ‘something to be dodged’ by drivers. If the vehicle itself was unable to speed, acknowledging that we’d need a tandem activity to improve data accuracy they use. Then, rather than being a distraction, it would enforce safety when we cannot trust drivers to abide.

With the artificial lowering of speed limits, we have created a culture of ‘I am at the speed limit, I must be safe’. As we know, NO speed limit can account for a hazard you might come across. I would suggest inappropriate choice of speed is a big issue with we need to tackle, and ‘letting the car go as fast as it will let me go’ with no thought makes this worse. The ONLY way to tackle inappropriate speed (other than after a collision has happened) is through developing the operator.

All valid points but, I think it’s agree to disagree. Appropriate speed is a different issue in my mind than those who exceed posted limits.

Speed limit is not a target, it’s a maximum!

Agreed but drivers who drive well below the recommended speed limit for certain roads also cause major hazards to other road users

Lower speeds appear to be about reducing impact speeds which is valid – perhaps a bigger priority is AVOIDING a collision rather than reducing consequence.

It’s a lot easier to avoid a collision at a lower speed than a higher speed. Lower speeds have multiple benefits for people outside of cars – easier to judge gaps, easier to crossroads, easier for drivers to slow down to a stop to yield to pedestrians crossing side roads, lower noise levels, generally more pleasant street environment. Lower speeds encourage and enable more cycling and walking, which is vital.

Not sure what you mean by “artificial lowering…”  The speed limit on many, many roads is artificially high. 60mph on rural lanes? 30mph on residential roads and high streets?  We have seen how reducing the speed limit makes an immediate and significant reduction in casualties. For England alone, changing the default on urban roads to 20mph, with 30mph where there’s evidence that it’s safe, would reduce KSIs by 3,000 every year!

20mph limits on high streets makes sense, and regrettably is often undermined by applying to roads where 20 is not appropriate. Having spent a lot of my professional life helping drivers understand reasons for speed limits and why it’s important to adhere to them – and only as a limit as there will be many times where hazards dictate a lot slower – It is an increasing source of frustration to see this message being over-written.

Well, making 20mph the default and then excepting up has been seen to reduce casualties by 25%.  If that means 1% of roads having a speed limit which is too low, I’d accept rather than having 99% which are too high.

I don’t see how clumsy implementation is helpful to any parties especially the motorist’s buy-in to road safety ?

The pedestrian fatalities not dropping 2023 to 2024 (all of GB – not just Wales has gone down the blanket route) does seem contrary to this evidence. Perhaps we need a little more data. The Wales experiment has generated a lot of conversations and focus on driver safety, I suspect this is a factor too.

Will the NPCC be offering any advice to police forces to discuss the proposed new offences such as reduced drink drive, seatbelt sanctions etc?

We will be coordinating the response to consultations and briefing out appropriately… we have already written to Chiefs and given an overview to regional leads.

Could the West Midlands programme of enforcement and consequent deterrence of offending by public (dashcam) reporting bear fruit elsewhere?

Every force in England and Wales now accepts journey cam footage (from body cams, helmet cams, mobile phones and dash cams), and there are thousands of submissions every month. To me, this is clear evidence that the public want safer roads and support road policing. See this link for more: Research outlines how digital evidence can be used more effectively to reduce offending and improve road safety

With the examination of force structures nationally again on the agenda, does road policing need looking at to ensure it is not overlooked?  The Home Office will drive crime targets which over the past 20 years has seen the erosion of road policing resources. Whilst technology can deliver some enforcement, drink/drug driving requires physical intervention. Equally a professionalised RTC response will help improve Stats 19 submissions, an area which probably needs some attention.

Properly resourced Roads Policing Units can be at the forefront of crime reduction AND road safety. We shouldn’t see it as different disciplines. Plus, we should talk about Road Crime to help some police leaders get onboard with the strategy.

You are quite right, and Op Topaz links Roads policing and wider crime… the pilots so far have been very positive, and we will continue working to improve the language used.

The police need the RPR to be announced and some ring-fenced money for RPUs; and all forces to have the same commitment to funding RPU as those top forces such as Sussex. Without effective RPUs this ambitious RSS will be deflated.

RPR must work more closely with the CSW+ teams. In our Parish we have reduced speeding from 20%+ of transits to less than 3%. It can be done.

Observing the speed limit does not necessarily mean that the speed is appropriate.

Granted but at least prevent those exceeding it is a starter for ten.

If the government revisit the strategic policing requirement we could try again to get roads policing included as we failed a number of years ago. I suspect with police reform coming this may be an opportunity.

Roads Policing is recognised as a cross-cutting capability in SPR – this strategy will enhance the profile of this critical area further in decision making; great to see both the commitment in the strategy to robust enforcement and the review of some legal parameters around motoring offences (especially given the connections to non-motoring offences and the co-benefits of action in this area). Partnerships, scalable enforcement and sustainable operations will be key.

When authorities post a speed limit it implies it is safe. That is a very dangerous assumption to make. This was crucial to the discussion around the recent consultation on reducing default rural speed limits in Australia.

The primary contribution of road policing to road safety is population-based deterrence. The target audience for road policing is every single road user, not just those who are in breach of road safety legislation, either deliberately or unintentionally. With such a huge scope, it needs to be resourced and prioritised accordingly.

Enforcement should be the last option, not the first. RSE, etc should be the first.

Education and enforcement are inextricably linked. Education is needed to build public support for enforcement. Enforcement is necessary to address the minority who would otherwise ignore the educational messages, creating the impression that those messages don’t really matter.

Agree with your comments Jo, but we have to accept that there are audiences which we won’t be able to reach, so enforcement remains vital. I’d like to see the Strategy lead to the release of the type of resources the police need in this area.

I absolutely agree with you and we will now develop the refreshed NPCC Roads Policing Strategy on the back of this one, linking it strongly to criminality to ensure that we maximise the resources allocated by forces.

Enforcement should become predictive rather than reactive – how do we use innovation, technology and the wealth of data available across partners to identify potentially risky drivers – I would be interested to see how private industry could help policing with this.

Just 3% of drivers are 97% of the problem. CSW+ allows us to identify those drivers but as you know the Police don’t want to know. All we ask is for a few letters per village a month but we are consistently bounced back with all sorts of misguided reasons – GDPR being the favourite one.

What is meant by ‘introduce a new Roads Policing Innovation Programme’? p43

I wondered that! After a 3-year consultation (or “call for evidence”) on a roads policing strategy, this seemed like a very weak outcome.

Joy, agree completely, ‘user pays’ or should I say offender pays!

I wish this could be implemented. Proactive enforcement punishes stretched Roads Policing budgets!!

I can’t see how enforcement should be the priority given that most collisions are not caused by a driver consciously choosing to ignore the highway code, but caused by carelessness – not looking adequately, misjudgement or poor vehicle control. Educate drivers to be thinkers, not rule followers.

Joe Shiner’s point about not enforcing our way out of this really resonates. We’re seeing growing interest from police and highways in using UK-wide connected vehicle insight as a shared evidence base across the system. Aisin RoadTrace already holds this data across all UK roads, to support prevention and more consistent decision-making

Back up to category index ⇑

Ghost Plates

Glad to see some moves towards control of “Ghost” number plates – an issue pursued by Sarah Coombes MP.

DSTL recently did a study and one of their findings was average of 900 vehicles cloned every day, lots of these ghost plated as well. Would be very nice to see a specific offence linked to driving bans or harsher penalties.

Ghost plates are an issue I accept in that it allows illegal and dangerous vehicles to be on the road, however, there are lots of other dangerous issues on vehicles that could have been addressed, such as stiffer penalties for vehicles being used on the road with no MOT, stiffer penalties for illegal tyres, make tinted windows part of the MOT test. The last one – it seems absurd to me that a vehicle that is clearly dangerous with tints, yet can pass an MOT because MOT testing doesn’t included tinted windows.

Back up to category index ⇑

Road Safety Investigation Board

Great to see the establishment of the Road Safety Investigation Board. We must press the government to establish this as quickly as possible to enable accountability and focus for delivery of the rest of the strategy.

Can we get a start date for the RSIB. Was going to start last year!

If it’s data based it would not need legislation but to get the most from it, it will need some powers.

Back up to category index ⇑

Miscellaneous

Has anyone got access to the ‘published’ DfT research quoted on p24 re post collision landscape?

Support for victims of road traffic collisions

Good to see 3 leading indicators in the SPI on speed, seatbelts and mobile phone use in the strategy.

Each Australian state has a legislative mandated road safety account that allocates every dollar collected from camera-based road penalties back to the implementation of road safety strategies. With the introduction of the Acusensus cameras, this revenue has significantly increased. Perhaps an example that has potential opportunity for localised resource mobilisation in the UK?

I totally agree with Dr Török and as a retired paramedic and a current Road safety Engineer, I previously mentioned that road safety audits are / should be undertaken however recommendations made are still only recommendations that can be easily challenged or just ignored by developers. Not enough RSA stage 4s are undertaken too. The EVs on the roads have changed the view of road safety engineering totally.

I would like to see a strong link between coroners and ‘prevention of future death reports’ to the road safety investigation branch. Ref the PACTS report, as an explicit part of the post collision response.

The stats show that you are 6x more likely to be in a fatal or seriously injury collision on a rural road but rural authorities are facing huge budget cuts. Will more money be allocated to rural Counties like Shropshire to help meet these targets?

It was interesting to see ‘roadworkers’ specifically mentioned more than once, as a vulnerable road user group.

Delighted to see child safety in vehicles now explicitly prioritised. Increased accountability for drivers to ensure they use the correct restraints for children is greatly reassuring. Seatbelt and child seat misuse is rightly being treated as a serious safety issue. Amen.

Back up to category index ⇑

Delivery

Have to drop out for another meeting. Thank you for today’s webinar. It will be important that all the experience and knowledge around the table today is recognised and engaged by government and feeds into the new Road Safety Strategy.

I agree with Jo Shiner – the largest resource available to address road safety are Volunteers. Bureaucracy can’t fix this… but the people in the villages and towns who volunteer their effort can. Government will have to embrace and grow CSW (Community Speed Watch) to meet their target.

I believe that, as leaders and influencers, we have a professional responsibility to be collectively energised by the endeavours that are within the Strategy – with a positive attitude and working with the good will and knowledge that we already have as a road safety community, we really can make a huge difference!

I would make a similar point around journey cam reporting, and the thousands of road users who are supporting road harm reduction via programmes like Op Snap.

My understanding is that public reporting varies very significantly by force as does the level of NIPs issued.  I understand that some forces make the process easier and more effective – others say that the software available to them is poor. West Midlands has been cited as good practice.

We can all pick parts of the Strategy to disagree with. But it is obvious from today, that this has and will bring us all together and help shape the future of road safety with some backing from the government.

Great to see the reference to the UN DOA, the Marrakech Declaration and a commitment to international engagement in road safety. Successful implementation of this strategy will go a very long way in restoring UK leadership in global road safety.

Are the consultations deadline of 31.3.26 feasible – masses to consider?

No politicians are going to be brave enough, but we all know the best way to improve driver safety, is for drivers to be retested on a regular basis.

Devon and Cornwall has vision zero targets bolder than the government. It focuses the mind on whether we’re being radical enough and has made us better evaluate the interventions to test if they are having a big enough impact.

The 2011 Road Safety Strategy came when the austerity cuts hit and many road safety roles across the industry were lost and have never been replaced. This could be a barrier to achieving these targets.

Overall, I think the strategy provides a good starting point but I think there is an urgent need for delivery standards as there is huge disparity between partnerships, local authorities and emergency services. Some areas are very well established and doing a great deal but others are struggling with lack of resource especially for education and engagement. Roads policing desperately needs investment in some forces too.

I joined this webinar in the hope that it would be more than a talking shop. It isn’t. Advanced Vehicle technology simply allows drivers to relax their own control on the basis that something or somebody else will deal with it for them. Until and unless the very real human nature factor is addressed statistics will not change. Additionally the changing climate of our country’s cultural influences have a huge effect. The psychology of cultural influence impacts negatively on what was once received as our personal responsibility to our community.

Ring-fencing some of the money back into road safety from courses and fines is essential.

I think we need a series of themed webinars to follow up!

Perfect answer to this massive response. I hope DfT are in here and would be involved!

We have a huge opportunity to rethink how we collaborate and develop strategies together.  At the risk of being a little controversial, should we deliver the fatal four/five campaigns as a single approach, one message, one voice across the country at the same time so every road user gets the same message at the same time?

We need to prioritise those actions that will have rapid effects. Getting drink and drug drivers, something like 2 of the 5 deaths a day, off the roads as soon as possible is one such solution.

Social pressure, such as that which encourages observation of zebra crossings and using dog poo bags, is much cheaper than police enforcement. Relevant advertising can help generate such social pressure.

Remember! Consultations end on the 31st March 26, so get cracking!

Back up to category index ⇑

Webinar Feedback

Have to go to another meeting but thank you for putting this together. The fantastic road safety community coming together like this is always impressive.

Thank you, lots to think about! Thank you to all and for all speakers for their contributions.

Thank you to James & team for pulling this together, amazing.

Great webinar, thanks for all for such excellent discussions.

I hope the minister and her team gets a copy of this recording so she can see all the support she has and the will to work with her to meet targets.

Many thanks for an excellent webinar and for pulling it together so quickly.

Thank you to James and the fellow speakers for an incredibly informative and enthusiastic webinar.

Well done and thank you to James and team. Our positive journey to deliver starts here as leaders!

Many thanks all – Excellent webinar and the future in road safety looks promising and thankfully back on the agenda. Well done all. Now let’s deliver!

Thanks, everyone! Very positive session.

Thanks all – great session.

Very interesting session and looking forward to further conversations about this.

Thank you for putting on this webinar so quickly. Great to see the large attendance figures from the whole road safety community.

Excellent session overall. One disappointment though is the lack of discussion on the need for lower speed limits. The Welsh urban 20mph limit policy has been SO effective in road safety terms.

Well done James, great host and brilliant keeping people to time.

A very informative, thought-provoking and professionally delivered webinar – thank you.

Brilliant webinar, thank you all.

Well done, Project EDWARD.

Well done James, Simon, Saul and everyone great webinar.

Thank you everyone – really great webinar and insightful – Well done James and Project Edward team for pulling this together.

Absolutely fantastic webinar, thank you to all who put it together and were involved. Also really enjoyed reading the conversations in the chat. As someone who works in comms, the conversations about how comms can support this strategy, and safety in general, were really refreshing.

Keeping 27 speakers to time was incredible, thanks James. Such a wealth of expertise in the room, let’s use that to really make a difference.

Back up to category index ⇑

We can’t believe you read this far down – well done and thank you!!