Transport Committee
Wednesday 11th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 hours, 46 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:17
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Order, order! Welcome to this morning's session. Today, we're resuming oral evidence for our inquiry examining the government's road safety strategy. We'll be hosting two panels today with . Our first panel will be focusing on the issues of drink and drug driving. And our second panel will be looking more generally at issues of enforcement. Before we start, could I please remind witnesses and members of the committee that we should not discuss specific cases, if any legal proceedings on those cases are not completely finished? So but please do feel free to keep talking about the general policy issues.
So please, could I ask our first panel of witnesses to introduce themselves?
So please, could I ask our first panel of witnesses to introduce themselves?
09:18
09:18
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Good morning, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, the chief in Sussex and also the National Police Chiefs Council lead for road policing and road safety. Hello. Professor Kim Wolf from King's expert in drink and drug driving and previously chair of the expert panel that established section five A. Okay, so currently , legal blood alcohol limits are set at higher levels for drivers in England and Wales compared to Scotland. Do you think the government should consider reducing the limit in England as well? Thomas.
09:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions. The limit in Scotland is obviously significantly lower than it is in England. When it was first lowered, there was not an immediate change in the rate of accidents. However, we have seen there's been in more recent evidence, there's much more consistent drop now in the level of accidents involving alcohol and therefore associated deaths. We know that in other countries across Europe the limit is 0.05. And as it is in Scotland, England at the moment is kind of England and Wales are out of sync with the rest of Europe and with Scotland, in that it's reasonable to assume that if we did drop the limit down, then that would lead to a significant drop in deaths, associated deaths and injuries associated with drink driving.
Yes, and that's something we would recommend if we also think that there should be a different limit, a lower limit 0.02 for people who are new drivers because of the cognitive load required to be a new driver, because you have less automatic behavior in your driving. So it takes more mental effort in order to drive safely. So even a small amount of alcohol could impair you enough for that to be more of a problem. So new drivers should have a lower limit of 0.02, which is effectively zero.
Yes, and that's something we would recommend if we also think that there should be a different limit, a lower limit 0.02 for people who are new drivers because of the cognitive load required to be a new driver, because you have less automatic behavior in your driving. So it takes more mental effort in order to drive safely. So even a small amount of alcohol could impair you enough for that to be more of a problem. So new drivers should have a lower limit of 0.02, which is effectively zero.
09:20
09:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, because of the extra cognitive load required to drive when you're a new driver, there's less automaticity about your driving. There's less that you get used to doing automatically. And also for commercial drivers, not because of the automatic, but because of the the kinds of vehicles they're driving, either because they have numbers of passengers or because they're driving large commercial vehicles with a heavy mass behind them. That's harder to control, more significant if they do have an injury or do have an accident.
09:21
09:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My experience here is in the workplace for the last 30 years, and one of the biggest issues we have is our clients not really understanding what the levels are. And by that I mean how many drinks can they have. And quite often we will supply a breathalyzer. They take it home and they say it doesn't work. I've had two beers, I've had three glasses of wine and I've had a shot of brandy and I'm still below the limit. Your device isn't working. And we say, yes, it is working. It's calibrated. It is perfectly fine. I think that the and the other thing is, rather than the blood alcohol industry tends to look at the breath alcohol.
So this is a 35 versus a 80, a 22 versus your 50. Getting those messages across to people so that they actually understand is extremely difficult. And with that we would always recommend zero , no alcohol. So I agree with Doctor Dolphin. I agree with Doctor Piper with both their submissions that we should move to a lower level.
So this is a 35 versus a 80, a 22 versus your 50. Getting those messages across to people so that they actually understand is extremely difficult. And with that we would always recommend zero , no alcohol. So I agree with Doctor Dolphin. I agree with Doctor Piper with both their submissions that we should move to a lower level.
09:22
09:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much for the opportunity to answer this question. I think our view is, is that it's now nearly 60 years since this country last looked at these laws, and there was a view that we should move to 0.5 and and then consider 0.2 as soon as possible. So there is an alignment position shared by groups like the BMA, AA, RAC, many of the Royal colleges and most professionals in this area that point to is the desirable end point. Given the speed of change in these on on drink driving limits in the UK, our view is that now is the time to grasp 0.2 for everybody.
There's, I would say three clear reasons why. Number one, we don't really want to be paying for our police to be clearing up messes. What we all want is prevention, and prevention and deterrence are key. And what is essential to prevention and deterrence is clear communication. The government currently spends significant funds on a don't drink and drive campaign, yet has a limit that says, oh, but you can a certain amount. We're not sure how much. And moving from point A to point five does not solve that problem. In fact, it continues that problem 0.5 is still a certain amount.
How much? Well, we don't know. But it's certainly different to don't drink and drive that mixed messaging is. Any communications expert will tell you is poor messaging. We've already heard about European alignment. You may be aware that many European countries are actually at 0.2. Spain's moving to 0.2. Netherlands are talking about moving to 0.2. And there is a European wide movement towards moving to 0.2 as a maximum for all drivers for all EU countries. So a number of EU countries have put their own moves towards 0.2 on hold because they know there is European movement coming in.
So if we were to move to 0.5, about 20 years after most countries have moved to 0.5, we would end up being way behind again. But I think the third and most important reason why moving from 0.5 or 0.8 to 0.5 to 0.2 is the right solution is you are three times more likely to kill someone at 0.5 and 0.2. You are four times more likely to be involved in an accident at 0.5 compared to 0.2. So this government states that it wants to save lives.
It states in its strategy that it has clear ambitions to reduce road deaths, and also the injuries and the bereavements. Every road death affects many, many people. Entire families, including their economic well-being, are affected by this. If the government wants to achieve those targets, my strong view is it won't won't achieve that with a 0.5 reduction. For the reasons set out, we need to move to 0.2 for everybody.
There's, I would say three clear reasons why. Number one, we don't really want to be paying for our police to be clearing up messes. What we all want is prevention, and prevention and deterrence are key. And what is essential to prevention and deterrence is clear communication. The government currently spends significant funds on a don't drink and drive campaign, yet has a limit that says, oh, but you can a certain amount. We're not sure how much. And moving from point A to point five does not solve that problem. In fact, it continues that problem 0.5 is still a certain amount.
How much? Well, we don't know. But it's certainly different to don't drink and drive that mixed messaging is. Any communications expert will tell you is poor messaging. We've already heard about European alignment. You may be aware that many European countries are actually at 0.2. Spain's moving to 0.2. Netherlands are talking about moving to 0.2. And there is a European wide movement towards moving to 0.2 as a maximum for all drivers for all EU countries. So a number of EU countries have put their own moves towards 0.2 on hold because they know there is European movement coming in.
So if we were to move to 0.5, about 20 years after most countries have moved to 0.5, we would end up being way behind again. But I think the third and most important reason why moving from 0.5 or 0.8 to 0.5 to 0.2 is the right solution is you are three times more likely to kill someone at 0.5 and 0.2. You are four times more likely to be involved in an accident at 0.5 compared to 0.2. So this government states that it wants to save lives.
It states in its strategy that it has clear ambitions to reduce road deaths, and also the injuries and the bereavements. Every road death affects many, many people. Entire families, including their economic well-being, are affected by this. If the government wants to achieve those targets, my strong view is it won't won't achieve that with a 0.5 reduction. For the reasons set out, we need to move to 0.2 for everybody.
09:25
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Know anything different or. I really do support particularly the point that Doctor Piper has made for me. I think it's important for us to bring it back to victims and families and those who do die or are seriously injured at the hands of those who have got behind the wheel, whether through drink or drugs. We definitely support a reduction because obviously we see the impact of it every day. We probably don't think it's for policing to say what the level should be. I think probably the evidence, as we've already heard, is better sat elsewhere. Thank you very much.
Hi. And just to add, I think our our risky group within the UK, our young people. So it's a 17 to 24 year olds who are most at risk. So I do agree that there should be a very low level for that particular group. And some thought about new and novice drivers and how that can be taken into consideration. We are one of the safest countries in Europe in terms of road safety. So that needs to be taken into consideration as well. I think definitely there is an overdue need for the alcohol limit to be reduced, whether that should be to 0.5 and a lower limit of 0.2 for our youngest , most high risk population.
I think we need to gather further evidence. Okay. Thank you.
Hi. And just to add, I think our our risky group within the UK, our young people. So it's a 17 to 24 year olds who are most at risk. So I do agree that there should be a very low level for that particular group. And some thought about new and novice drivers and how that can be taken into consideration. We are one of the safest countries in Europe in terms of road safety. So that needs to be taken into consideration as well. I think definitely there is an overdue need for the alcohol limit to be reduced, whether that should be to 0.5 and a lower limit of 0.2 for our youngest , most high risk population.
I think we need to gather further evidence. Okay. Thank you.
09:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
May I build on a point that Doctor Piper come up with, building on what Richard was saying, the because most of the public don't have any way of measuring what their blood alcohol concentration is, lowering the limit, trying to promulgate what the limit is, is fairly pointless because most people don't know what their blood alcohol concentration is at any given time. They don't know what the concentrations represent. A dropping it from 80 to 50 sends a clear message that it's becoming more restrictive. Dropping it to 20 sends a very clear message that there is no safe level of drink driving that you can do.
So the messaging would need to be qualitative rather than quantitative. When you're promulgating promulgating this to the public, it needs to be very clear that there is no safe level of drink driving, and dropping that to 20 would support that.
So the messaging would need to be qualitative rather than quantitative. When you're promulgating promulgating this to the public, it needs to be very clear that there is no safe level of drink driving, and dropping that to 20 would support that.
09:27
09:27
09:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
There is that risk. And I think in particular, you know, even in the way we're asking the question, we're talking about young drivers or novel drivers. Well, actually, you know, many people do pass their driving test at the age of 40. Are we talking novel or are we talking young? And we also know that many of the alcohol harm deaths on our road are caused by persistent drivers who are have been driving for 30, 40 years. So I would say that the logic would would work against that. It's worth mentioning that pretty much every European country we've referred to that has a 0.5 already has a 0.2 for novice drivers and for.
09:28
09:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And commercial drivers are important to say. And it's those those countries that are looking to move to 0.2 for everybody. And one of the one of the pieces of evaluation has indicated that there is there is confusion, as your question indicates. And there's also huge public support. 83% of the people in the UK believe the limit should be zero. A technically a zero limit is very challenging for reason.
I mean, this is going to sound weird, but things like ripe bananas, certain types of blueberries have got very high levels of alcohol.
I mean, this is going to sound weird, but things like ripe bananas, certain types of blueberries have got very high levels of alcohol.
09:28
09:28
09:28
09:29
09:29
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
09:29
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Okay. Several questions there. I think there is an awful lot of data out there to enable the government to understand the trends and the facts and figures around drug driving. I think since 2012, 2013, when the panel originally sat. Yes, of course, things have changed. And I'm sure people know that the drug driving offensive have recently surpassed surpassed drink drive offences and are up since 2022. So there has been an increase in our our ability to detect and therefore see drug driving offences more effectively. I think there still remains the most commonly used drugs. So cannabis and cocaine are both still up there as numbers one and two.
So I think in terms of the legislation identifying those drugs as a high risk driver safety issue, I think that remains the same. So can you remind me it was.
So I think in terms of the legislation identifying those drugs as a high risk driver safety issue, I think that remains the same. So can you remind me it was.
09:30
09:30
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Okay. I think the different forms is important. I think the data is sometimes in in produced by different organisations. So it would be useful if those could be pulled together and looked at as a whole. I think that would be very useful. I think different forms is very interesting. I think what we've seen over the last ten years or so is, is alcohol drinking . Drinkers and drivers who use drugs can be one and the same thing. So there is a lot of drug users who use alcohol and vice versa, which probably wasn't the case ten, 15 years ago.
So I think that's a very important concept because drink driving and drug driving together are hugely risky. And I think it's something that we could look at in more detail than we already do.
So I think that's a very important concept because drink driving and drug driving together are hugely risky. And I think it's something that we could look at in more detail than we already do.
09:31
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
And can I just ask you about the prevalence of nitrous oxide, which certainly in my constituency is a big issue, and it usually links to anti-social behaviour and being, you know, gathering as groups and all of that that goes with it. Do you think the government has an adequate grasp on that sort of more modern issue that particularly young people seem to want to kind of partake of? And is that something that they should be exploring more?
09:32
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
I think one thing that would be very helpful would be a review of the legislation to take into consideration newer substances like nitrous oxide. I think there has been a lot of work done looking at that particular compound and whether or not we can detect it, and how we might collect that evidence to establish a drug driving offence. So I, I agree, I think there needs to be some consideration of newer substances and a review of the legislation as it stands.
09:32
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
I thank you. I completely agree with that previous point that that review of legislation to understand some of the synthetic drugs as well that are now being produced, including some of those that allude to being sort of, you know, non-alcoholic drink alternatives. But actually in the small print, say don't drive afterwards. I think it's really important we understand some of those. I just wanted to come in, if that's okay. On the point of the extent of this challenge, particularly with drugs, it really is, and I would describe it as an epidemic. It is very easy to go out on patrol, which I still do, and to very quickly arrest somebody who's under the influence of drugs.
And I don't think that we should be afraid to say that. And I think we are running so within the National Road Policing Coordination Centre, which we're very grateful for, the funding, obviously, to be able to have that and be able to take that forward in December. We're trying to be able to develop more evidence to understand not just the extent of the drug driving, but also that double offending of drink and drugs. We're very grateful to the police and Crime Commissioner, Joy Allen, for supporting that work as well because of the funding. But that double testing, we know that at the moment, a lot of, you know, or some of those who are testing positive for alcohol actually would test positive for drugs as well.
If we did that double testing.
And I don't think that we should be afraid to say that. And I think we are running so within the National Road Policing Coordination Centre, which we're very grateful for, the funding, obviously, to be able to have that and be able to take that forward in December. We're trying to be able to develop more evidence to understand not just the extent of the drug driving, but also that double offending of drink and drugs. We're very grateful to the police and Crime Commissioner, Joy Allen, for supporting that work as well because of the funding. But that double testing, we know that at the moment, a lot of, you know, or some of those who are testing positive for alcohol actually would test positive for drugs as well.
If we did that double testing.
09:34
09:34
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
So I could give you some of those statistics. However, what I would say is that that is scratching the surface. So I actually don't think that they are worth that much. Of course, they show an increase in terms of drug driving and, but, but actually, as I say, it is just so prevalent now that, you know, if we had more officers, more resourcing, better testing, arguably more fluid laws, then the figures would be entirely different and much later.
Yeah.
Yeah.
09:34
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Can I just add. So I think there are a few things to point out. Firstly, the high risk group are our young people, 17 to 24 year olds. They commit 80% or so of those offences. So something needs to be done to look at that particular population. I think there's also the risk of repeat offenders. So there is a population within our drug drivers who ignore our legislation, who persistently offend, who commit other crimes. And they're a high risk group that I think we need to look at and possibly consider looking at a high risk offender scheme for drug driving that we already have in place for drink drivers, because I think that would help remove those very, very dangerous drivers from our roads.
09:35
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
So just on the this whole kind of drug driving and the identification of drugs, the BMA have obviously said in your evidence that the road safety strategy does not adequately distinguish between illicit drugs, prescribed medications and other over-the-counter medicines. What changes to the law, guidance or public information are required in respect of this? I was going to ask you, Doctor Dolphin, if that's okay.
09:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There's a couple of things to say about that. I mean, you've got to distinguish between illegal drugs, drugs of abuse from prescription medications, some of which are being used by people who are prescribed them. And some of them are being used by family members, taking them from cupboards and what have you. With illegal drugs, the law is fairly clear , and it's more a matter of detection and enforcement. And we know that drugs, drug testing at the roadside is quite difficult. I'm sure we'll hear more about that from Ian later. About the types of kit you can use, how easily you can detect them, how reliably like false positives and false negatives.
Professor Walsh is kind of the expert on that. I don't want to step on her toes there, but there's also the element of people not believing that they'll be caught. Policing of the roads dropped quite significantly under the previous government, and there were significant drops in the numbers of police officers out on the roads doing this kind of stopping and testing. People now just don't believe that they'll be caught if they drink, drive or drug drive. So part of the part of the invention is going to have to be convincing people that enforcement is going to happen, and there will be consequences if you're caught.
And it also getting people to understand the consequences with the prescription medications, quite often people don't necessarily take in the fact or understand that they're going to be impaired with these medications. Some of them it's fairly obvious, and obviously the doctors prescribing them will tell the patient, you know, this drug will cause impairment, you know, benzodiazepines, sedatives and what have you. It's fairly obvious. And we will tell them some of the other drugs is less obvious. Some of the over-the-counter drugs even like antihistamines, some of the antidepressants can cause impairment of driving. People just don't realize that it.
Professor Walsh is kind of the expert on that. I don't want to step on her toes there, but there's also the element of people not believing that they'll be caught. Policing of the roads dropped quite significantly under the previous government, and there were significant drops in the numbers of police officers out on the roads doing this kind of stopping and testing. People now just don't believe that they'll be caught if they drink, drive or drug drive. So part of the part of the invention is going to have to be convincing people that enforcement is going to happen, and there will be consequences if you're caught.
And it also getting people to understand the consequences with the prescription medications, quite often people don't necessarily take in the fact or understand that they're going to be impaired with these medications. Some of them it's fairly obvious, and obviously the doctors prescribing them will tell the patient, you know, this drug will cause impairment, you know, benzodiazepines, sedatives and what have you. It's fairly obvious. And we will tell them some of the other drugs is less obvious. Some of the over-the-counter drugs even like antihistamines, some of the antidepressants can cause impairment of driving. People just don't realize that it.
09:37
09:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It does say in the packet, but the leaflets are you've seen the the patient information leaflets. They're not visually appealing. Most people don't read them because they think they know what they've got. You need a specific warning when you're given the medication and hand it to you and say, by the way, one of the significant side effects is that this causes driving impairment and you shouldn't drive. If you find that it is causing that, that's difficult to do. And people don't take in all the information, the time you're being prescribed. There's lots of information has come in, in that consultation about your diagnosis and what this means and what the.
So the side effects of the drug are kind of a secondary thing for the patient. So it's quite difficult for them to take that in. So it needs kind of secondary enforcement.
So the side effects of the drug are kind of a secondary thing for the patient. So it's quite difficult for them to take that in. So it needs kind of secondary enforcement.
09:38
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Pharmacists added that would it be helpful if pharmacists made that point at the point they're selling them? I mean, we're told, you know, if you pick up too many packets of paracetamol, the pharmacist A asks you what it's for and B, you've got to make sure you're not buying too many. So would that be a possibility.
09:38
09:38
09:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I've owned a pharmacy in the past and the workload that is now put on pharmacists. You've then got you moving down to your counter staff and the different levels of counter staff. You've then got the complication of how many medications they're on at the particular point in time. It's it's quite tricky, but the patient information leaflets, they'll just depress you. So nobody nobody reads them.
09:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It is possible, of course, to follow up. It's not inconceivable in a few years time. I think it would be difficult to do technically now, but it's possible to conceive that in a few years time, when somebody is prescribed a new drug that could cause that, that you can reinforce that message later on by then getting a text message the next day, automated semi-automated saying, by the way, the medication you were prescribed causes driving impairment. Please be aware.
Here's the consequence. Here's a link to more information.
Here's the consequence. Here's a link to more information.
09:39
09:39
09:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
On the scale and types of drug driving. When we're teaching in the workplace, we use it drugs as the term for illegal. We then use medicines for. So we don't confuse them with drugs as medicines. But then there is that gray area of people using them outside the prescription. But Pareto. The biggest problem we have got is illegal drugs. Just to put it into perspective, OP limit 2024 public information from Merseyside Police. They took 469 drug drive arrests at the roadside versus 191 drink drive at the roadside. Now, when we met the minister at the time.
I explained, well, how many of those 469 were actually prosecuted because the figure that was referred to in the press about being 30,000 being more than 29,000, there was only 156 prosecuted from. This is CPS figures. So if we look at this as a process, I mean, I believe the police are our roadsides are doing a fantastic job in all the circumstances they have. But the process behind that is not sufficient. We are losing at least half of our prosecutions. Not only is that an insignificant enough deterrent, we're actually teaching those people. They can get away with it and we have to stop that.
And later on, I'll explain how I think we could do that on a cost neutral basis.
I explained, well, how many of those 469 were actually prosecuted because the figure that was referred to in the press about being 30,000 being more than 29,000, there was only 156 prosecuted from. This is CPS figures. So if we look at this as a process, I mean, I believe the police are our roadsides are doing a fantastic job in all the circumstances they have. But the process behind that is not sufficient. We are losing at least half of our prosecutions. Not only is that an insignificant enough deterrent, we're actually teaching those people. They can get away with it and we have to stop that.
And later on, I'll explain how I think we could do that on a cost neutral basis.
09:41
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
Thank you. I think I'm the next question as well. Yeah yeah yeah. So this this is a bit of a leap from where we were before. Apologies, but there are widespread reports. Excuse me. There are widespread reports of delays in processing roadside drug testing. What are the broader impacts of these delays? I don't know who wants to go first on that.
Do you want to first.
Do you want to first.
09:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Sorry to jump the queue, but I think that's exactly what the comment about the process and the process can be, that the office has seen. The reason to stop, has stopped, has probably breathalysed maybe then decides to to to drug screen. There is a failure to the drug screen. They then decide to arrest and then remove, wait for transport, remove, take to a police station, wait for a healthcare professional and we're talking about several hours at least before these these samples are taken. So yes, blood might be the gold standard, but we're taking it far too late.
And it might be a case that they've had so much cocaine that they can't actually extract the blood. They may not give consent. I'm sorry. I'm much firmer than that. In France. They can forcibly take the blood sample. But then then you've got it off to the lab. The labs are then, for whatever reason, taking far, far, far too long. And all this time the person is allowed to continue driving. And this this is just shocking. I'll talk later on about how I think there's a cost neutral solution to this, but the process of going from the getting the blood to the lab to back to the station to charge, then to CPS and then to find a court slot, and eventually they're banned.
And just as an example, a couple of weeks ago I was in Blackburn and it was two and three quarter years between the offence and the the magistrates actually banning this kid. And I think that's shocking.
And it might be a case that they've had so much cocaine that they can't actually extract the blood. They may not give consent. I'm sorry. I'm much firmer than that. In France. They can forcibly take the blood sample. But then then you've got it off to the lab. The labs are then, for whatever reason, taking far, far, far too long. And all this time the person is allowed to continue driving. And this this is just shocking. I'll talk later on about how I think there's a cost neutral solution to this, but the process of going from the getting the blood to the lab to back to the station to charge, then to CPS and then to find a court slot, and eventually they're banned.
And just as an example, a couple of weeks ago I was in Blackburn and it was two and three quarter years between the offence and the the magistrates actually banning this kid. And I think that's shocking.
09:43
09:43
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
Just sorry. I don't want to monopolize you, Ian, but just in terms of your written evidence where you recommend and I appreciate you think we put the question in now rather than later. You recommend permitting an immediate saliva sampling to be taken by police officers to speed things up. Do you think that should be more widely used by police officers? And I appreciate other people might have.
09:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I would I would think that we should learn from Australia. That has been. That does. Not quite ten times the testing we do on a third of the population of drug testing. So. But they use random. However. That's been saliva for many, many years. Back in 2016, the French. I did mention that they were forcibly taking blood. They realized that having to take a doctor out with them to do these stops was was almost not feasible. But they changed to saliva because they realized saliva was an adequate sample, especially for the illegal drugs above the level, as our legislation is.
And so they they are now in success rates in the high 90s about the the confirmation between if you fail a roadside screen, you will then also fail. And they have a laboratory that processes the the saliva sample within a matter of days. It costs them €20 to the force and the. The result is they're there in court and they're banned within, let's say, a week. So in that situation, their ability also to suspend the driving licence is credible. But if you were to try and suspend somebody's license for six months, I don't think society would would be so accepting of that.
However, there are other there are other steps that you can increase the , the ability of that with. And one New York state, New York police, state police did a study in the last 2 or 3 years. It was published about a month ago, and they had almost, almost, not quite perfect correlation between blood and saliva on the main drugs. With that that correlation, the error was that saliva saw more drugs than blood, certain drugs.
And so they they are now in success rates in the high 90s about the the confirmation between if you fail a roadside screen, you will then also fail. And they have a laboratory that processes the the saliva sample within a matter of days. It costs them €20 to the force and the. The result is they're there in court and they're banned within, let's say, a week. So in that situation, their ability also to suspend the driving licence is credible. But if you were to try and suspend somebody's license for six months, I don't think society would would be so accepting of that.
However, there are other there are other steps that you can increase the , the ability of that with. And one New York state, New York police, state police did a study in the last 2 or 3 years. It was published about a month ago, and they had almost, almost, not quite perfect correlation between blood and saliva on the main drugs. With that that correlation, the error was that saliva saw more drugs than blood, certain drugs.
09:46
09:46
09:46
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Yeah, it's really interesting. And, and, you know, if we haven't already got the international comparisons, please do send them in. Joe, I wanted to bring you here in. Now, first of all, your response in terms of roadside testing and saliva. I largely support that. I mean, to be honest, from a policing perspective, we need a type approved test that is effective by the roadside. And then the proposals that we've been putting forward for some years now around the ability to be able to immediately, whether it's temporary or permanent, depending upon whether there's any aggravating factors or if the driver admits it straight away and it's their first time that they've been tested in court, then we should have the ability to be able to take the license there and then, which takes the risk off the roads, which is what we need to do, because that prevents the cases and the victims and the families suffering, and then with an escalation process through that.
So a type approved test by the roadside, the ability to be able to then take the license there, and then we need procedural justice in this. It's really, really important. So whether our aggravating factors or whether we do need a follow up test, then, you know, for them to go to custody and also for them to be able to go to court within 48 hours and contest it as well. So we have that procedural justice. You know, I think there is what we mustn't do is overcomplicate this. I think the simpler the test, the simpler the legislation and the ability for us to, as soon as we possibly can remove the privilege of that driving licence from the driver is fundamentally important in this.
The danger to other road users. Exactly that. Yeah. Kim. And then . Tom. Tom.
So a type approved test by the roadside, the ability to be able to then take the license there, and then we need procedural justice in this. It's really, really important. So whether our aggravating factors or whether we do need a follow up test, then, you know, for them to go to custody and also for them to be able to go to court within 48 hours and contest it as well. So we have that procedural justice. You know, I think there is what we mustn't do is overcomplicate this. I think the simpler the test, the simpler the legislation and the ability for us to, as soon as we possibly can remove the privilege of that driving licence from the driver is fundamentally important in this.
The danger to other road users. Exactly that. Yeah. Kim. And then . Tom. Tom.
09:48
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Okay. Thank you. I think it's important to note that we we must understand that countries like Australia have a very, very different judicial system to ours. They have random testing, they have a bus and they only test for drugs. So their legislation is separate and different to ours. And they run a system that would not be possible currently in this country. Completely agree that there should be something that we could do at the roadside that would speed up the process. But I think we also need to understand that that if we're looking at trying to identify either impairment section four or a concentration above a threshold, section five A, we cannot do that with saliva.
The scientific evidence is not there. There is no robust relationship between oral fluid levels and drug concentration in blood. So for the prosecution or the defence, it would be very difficult to interpret oral fluid unless it was a zero tolerance approach. So in much the same way we've been discussing with alcohol, no drugs would be able to be managed through oral saliva testing. But if we've got threshold or if we've got impairment, that would not be the case.
The scientific evidence is not there. There is no robust relationship between oral fluid levels and drug concentration in blood. So for the prosecution or the defence, it would be very difficult to interpret oral fluid unless it was a zero tolerance approach. So in much the same way we've been discussing with alcohol, no drugs would be able to be managed through oral saliva testing. But if we've got threshold or if we've got impairment, that would not be the case.
09:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'd just like to disagree and say, are we not in an environment where we're meant to be looking at the legislation that is required? And if that means that somebody has to stand up and say, well, a per se level for that drug is as per the type approval, then that's what we should do. And we should be looking at the other common drugs like ketamine, that we've requested from the Home Office time and time again. Can we have a level at which we can test ketamine at at the roadside and solve a big issue for the police?
09:50
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
I mean, there's the road safety strategy, obviously is being led by the Department of Transport, but there's at least three other government departments who have, you know, have responsibilities in this area. And, you know, one thing about being a select committee, we can recommend legislative change as and when I did see Thomas, you wanted to come in.
09:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It was a slight side point, but it was just to say that the the collection of samples, etc. we'd be very keen for that to stay with the police and with police surgeons. So police, police employed doctors rather than starting to involve other healthcare workers, partly because we've got to maintain the therapeutic relationship between patients and doctors and nurses. If they start to think that we're working with the police in order to catch them out and take samples, etc., that will impair people's ability to access healthcare. So we're very keen, very happy with them to do that.
But it should stay with the police as a thing , rather than becoming an NHS function or drawn in that into that direction.
But it should stay with the police as a thing , rather than becoming an NHS function or drawn in that into that direction.
09:50
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
That's really helpful. I just want to go back a few steps just to Joe, because I want to pick up a point you made. You you mentioned something about about it would be helpful if the the law was more fluid. It would be useful to know what you meant from that. Of course. So I think the ability for legislation to, for us to be able to escalate, if you like, the I, the, the procedures proportionately or indeed the outcomes, the deterrence. So if you have got that person who has been caught for the first time, I won't say first time, because, you know, they may not be, but it's been caught for the first time and no aggravating factors.
There should be pretty unbureaucratic, but procedurally just way for policing to deal with that and take the risk off the roads, arguably without ever needing to go through court or anything like that. But actually, as you escalate through that legislation where you do have maybe repeat offenders or where they've been the causal factor in a collision where someone's been injured, then of course, proportionately and procedurally. So both the penalties and the legal system in which they would need to go through should increase. And that's what I meant by that fluidity, if you like, of the scale of how they could be dealt with very simply by the roadside, right up to obviously causing death, you know, whilst under the influence and everything.
May I take this opportunity just to make another point that I think it's absolutely right that we are talking about, whether it's saliva or blood. And I absolutely leave that to the experts here who have spoken very well around that. But what I would say my experience, I'm still I still go out on the front line. I still stop vehicles, all the rest of it. And, you know, certainly on a road stop that I was at probably about a year ago, I think it was last Christmas campaign, probably the first. I mean, we, we, we run out of officers within about ten minutes because we'd arrested about the first six cars for being positive for drugs, most of which were young males, but actually they all admitted it.
There was no there was no lack of admittance on their part. They're like, oh, yeah, you know, I took cannabis last night, you know, and one the drivers was like, yeah, I've had some cocaine. So there should also be a route where, where you have an admission of guilt. We actually, as long as and I stress, as long as there is procedural justice in the same way as we do for other crimes, we don't actually waste the time and money going through all of these other routes. If the person is saying, yeah, I'm guilty of that offence, I did it.
I'm driving, I've taken cannabis and cocaine. I just make that point because I think sometimes it gets missed in the sort of the confusion of which system we're going to use in that cultural shift that we have 30, 40, 50 years ago on alcohol. That's, you know, you're not going to stop everybody, but a lot, a lot more people might think twice in the same way they do now before driving. I'm sorry, driving. After drinking.
There should be pretty unbureaucratic, but procedurally just way for policing to deal with that and take the risk off the roads, arguably without ever needing to go through court or anything like that. But actually, as you escalate through that legislation where you do have maybe repeat offenders or where they've been the causal factor in a collision where someone's been injured, then of course, proportionately and procedurally. So both the penalties and the legal system in which they would need to go through should increase. And that's what I meant by that fluidity, if you like, of the scale of how they could be dealt with very simply by the roadside, right up to obviously causing death, you know, whilst under the influence and everything.
May I take this opportunity just to make another point that I think it's absolutely right that we are talking about, whether it's saliva or blood. And I absolutely leave that to the experts here who have spoken very well around that. But what I would say my experience, I'm still I still go out on the front line. I still stop vehicles, all the rest of it. And, you know, certainly on a road stop that I was at probably about a year ago, I think it was last Christmas campaign, probably the first. I mean, we, we, we run out of officers within about ten minutes because we'd arrested about the first six cars for being positive for drugs, most of which were young males, but actually they all admitted it.
There was no there was no lack of admittance on their part. They're like, oh, yeah, you know, I took cannabis last night, you know, and one the drivers was like, yeah, I've had some cocaine. So there should also be a route where, where you have an admission of guilt. We actually, as long as and I stress, as long as there is procedural justice in the same way as we do for other crimes, we don't actually waste the time and money going through all of these other routes. If the person is saying, yeah, I'm guilty of that offence, I did it.
I'm driving, I've taken cannabis and cocaine. I just make that point because I think sometimes it gets missed in the sort of the confusion of which system we're going to use in that cultural shift that we have 30, 40, 50 years ago on alcohol. That's, you know, you're not going to stop everybody, but a lot, a lot more people might think twice in the same way they do now before driving. I'm sorry, driving. After drinking.
09:53
09:54
09:54
09:54
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Your question has been answered. Great. Okay. Thank you Alex. Ambitions and targets of the strategy. Thank you. The road safety strategy sets out targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65%, and child deaths and serious injuries by 70%. Do you think that the measures in the strategy go far enough to achieve this? Who wants to start?
09:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I don't mind throwing a spanner in the works. I think it's great that you've got that ambition, but the hard part is yours. You're going to have to stand up and make some serious decisions. And some of that involves the Home Office. Some of that involves the Treasury. You're going to need to equip Jo and everybody else. There's a lot of other things like the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service, but it's achievable with that money, with those decisions. And if you act quickly, if we spend another five years trying to put some legislation in place, you have not a hope of achieving those figures, whereas everybody in the room wants you to.
We're all here to help.
We're all here to help.
09:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah, I mean, I would say that firstly, I think I think it's important to be clear that other countries have moved towards a Vision Zero approach. So so a 65% reduction is welcome. But the targets could be more ambitious. There should there should be no deaths or injuries on the road. And having that vision is driven in other countries really significant changes to road safety given that. So taking those ambitions as set alcohol is going to play a significant part in that. But it's really important that it's one amongst another range of measures. And I think in relation to that in particular, we're not just talking about the limit, but the communication around the limit is, is super, super important.
In fact, probably more of the benefit will come from the communications than from the reduction, the limit, because it changes our attitudes, it changes behaviours, and you will prevent so many. So I think that's really important that that doesn't get lost. I think we could obsess about the number of limits and forget the communication. And then thirdly is enforcement. And I think enforcement is so, so important. We know that mandatory education is currently lacking. What that means is if you are convicted of an offence, you can choose to attend a course. The effect of those courses, the impact of those courses is really high.
They have a really high reduction in repeat offences, but currently they're optional. In most other countries they're mandatory.
In fact, probably more of the benefit will come from the communications than from the reduction, the limit, because it changes our attitudes, it changes behaviours, and you will prevent so many. So I think that's really important that that doesn't get lost. I think we could obsess about the number of limits and forget the communication. And then thirdly is enforcement. And I think enforcement is so, so important. We know that mandatory education is currently lacking. What that means is if you are convicted of an offence, you can choose to attend a course. The effect of those courses, the impact of those courses is really high.
They have a really high reduction in repeat offences, but currently they're optional. In most other countries they're mandatory.
09:58
09:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
They cost money, but usually the offender covers the cost of that with some exceptions. Well, that's the lower paid people. So so they're essentially cost neutral for the state. They they significantly reduce reoffending. So I think what's needed here, I think it's I would say sort of you're looking at a large target. What's needed is going to be a range of different measures. You're going to I mean, this is why it is a strategy. It does need to be a strategy. It can't be a few silver bullets. It needs to be a proper strategy. This will reduce by 3 or 4%.
This will reduce by another 6 or 7%. This, and I think it needs that comprehensive approach. So I think, you know, the government's moving in the right direction, but it will receive resistance, much of it false resistance. The rural pubs argument is a classic false red herring. But the government needs to be able to stand firm and say, no, we want to deliver this strategy and we will be bold enough to deliver on this.
This will reduce by another 6 or 7%. This, and I think it needs that comprehensive approach. So I think, you know, the government's moving in the right direction, but it will receive resistance, much of it false resistance. The rural pubs argument is a classic false red herring. But the government needs to be able to stand firm and say, no, we want to deliver this strategy and we will be bold enough to deliver on this.
10:00
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
I wholeheartedly support everything that Doctor Piper has said, so I won't repeat that. I do also think there are some additional measures which feeds into that last point though. So for example, if you introduce random drug testing for people taking their driving test, it would be a huge deterrent effect, particularly for young people who are predominantly the people who most want their licence. It would also, of course, I mean, recently we've had some driving instructors who have tested positive whilst undertaking lessons, so I think it would also send a wider message . And I think also improving some of that mandatory knowledge around not just drink drug driving, but also the fatal five more widely.
So actually introducing it into the theory test, making sure that is it a much greater part of that theory that people need to know and understand. But I think if you were to introduce either random or mandatory testing of those who are taking their driving test, I think they would understand the whole legislation a lot more. I also think it would significantly reduce the queues for driving tests.
So actually introducing it into the theory test, making sure that is it a much greater part of that theory that people need to know and understand. But I think if you were to introduce either random or mandatory testing of those who are taking their driving test, I think they would understand the whole legislation a lot more. I also think it would significantly reduce the queues for driving tests.
10:03
10:03
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
Can I ask a very brief? Can I just ask Joe? We've heard about France already this morning, but obviously in France you have to have an alcohol kit in your car along with the high vis jacket. Do you think the government should be looking at putting the responsibility on drivers more than, which then would deal with some of the costs? I'm not advocating this just to put it on the record, but but, you know, I drove for the first time in France this year. I hadn't realised that that was even a thing until I looked into what I needed.
10:04
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
I mean, I'm very much like the French system really, that they that they have around all of this legislation. I think that could be one measure. Again, it comes back to the point that Doctor Piper said. I think that could be one measure around it. But alongside a suite of measures that move from very much the awareness right through to the enforcement and the deterrent. Kim and then.
10:04
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
10:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I was just going to add that there's some evidence from the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety have gathered evidence about public perception on this. I think there was a concern in previous years that the public weren't ready to move more on alcohol limits, on speeding limits, etc. but in fact, people are probably more willing and ready for action on this than I think we'd previously anticipated. And there's new evidence coming to light to suggest that. So I think it would be publicly acceptable if the government were to move ahead with stricter legislation. People would welcome that.
I don't think it would be pushed back too much from from the public in general, both on drink and drug driving and also on speed limits and enforcement around speed limits as well, which which also should be lower if we want to reduce the number of deaths. And I think part of that is trying to reflect the public that if we had a similar number of deaths for something else, I don't know if we had a similar number of deaths on the trains, for example, to those that we do on the roads, there would be an outcry.
There'd be public inquiries about the trains and why it's so dangerous, etc. but we've kind of got used to the number of deaths on the roads. People are actually ready now for that number to come down.
I don't think it would be pushed back too much from from the public in general, both on drink and drug driving and also on speed limits and enforcement around speed limits as well, which which also should be lower if we want to reduce the number of deaths. And I think part of that is trying to reflect the public that if we had a similar number of deaths for something else, I don't know if we had a similar number of deaths on the trains, for example, to those that we do on the roads, there would be an outcry.
There'd be public inquiries about the trains and why it's so dangerous, etc. but we've kind of got used to the number of deaths on the roads. People are actually ready now for that number to come down.
10:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Can I just make a little mathematical point? The think campaign, the recent think campaign on drug driving, I think, was budgeted at £340,000 of an annual figure of about £3 million. The Dft's own figures for the cost of a death is, I think, 2.9 million. So all you need is one death, but that the NHS is suffering a cost of 3 billion. So any significant or even minor changes are going to save things in the NHS. I'm going back to the Treasury here. We don't seem to have this joined up situation where we spend money in one department.
We'll save significant amounts in another department. So the argument for education can easily be funded and will have significant benefits and will save, possibly in the NHS.
We'll save significant amounts in another department. So the argument for education can easily be funded and will have significant benefits and will save, possibly in the NHS.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. So to to Doctor Dolphin first, in your written evidence, you argue the government may need to go further than the actions in the road safety strategy at present. What additional actions on tackling drink and drug driving would make the most significant contribution to reducing those casualties?
10:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think one of the most significant things is going to be, as the chair alluded to, is making drink driving and drug making, drug driving as unacceptable socially as drink driving, which, you know, will take will take time. It will take a sustained public information effort to try and drive societal norms in that way. But I think it will pay off because we've heard about the numbers of the spiralling number of drug related driving offences. We need to get into a situation where it is as unacceptable as drink driving, and that will need specific targeted advertising not blanketed, but targeted at the people who are most likely to commit these offences and combined with enforcement of the laws so that people understand there are consequences.
And it's not just social exclusion, but also loss of driving privileges and so on.
And it's not just social exclusion, but also loss of driving privileges and so on.
10:11
10:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I would suggest the reform has already been developed in other countries, and we go to in a big jump, we just go to saliva sampling at the roadside if you want. I've got the Australian kit here in the in my bag. I can show you that it's just two very simple salivette collectors into test tubes into an evidence bag. That means that when they've failed the screen, they immediately give a sample at the same point in time. That's what gives the accuracy and the ultimate prosecution in our workplace environment. We can have that sample processed next day, and that's from the same labs working under different paperwork, but it's the same machine, same labs.
We can have it next day for a cost of £50, not the £400 or whatever the current blood cost is. So it is feasible. It's all feasible. That then allows you allows the CPS to put their their prosecutions forward, get these people in court. I think somebody mentioned we should be able to have some sort of traffic court, and people should be within a week. And if that was if that was all processed within a week, two weeks, I think it would be completely acceptable to take their licence off them, suspend their licence because the judge would take their licence off them, would ban them, and you will get.
Anecdotally, we sell 120,000 test kits, easily 50% of those are positive at the roadside . For just two drugs, that's 60,000. Yet the MoJ has only just got the figures up to 30,000 prosecutions. The
We can have it next day for a cost of £50, not the £400 or whatever the current blood cost is. So it is feasible. It's all feasible. That then allows you allows the CPS to put their their prosecutions forward, get these people in court. I think somebody mentioned we should be able to have some sort of traffic court, and people should be within a week. And if that was if that was all processed within a week, two weeks, I think it would be completely acceptable to take their licence off them, suspend their licence because the judge would take their licence off them, would ban them, and you will get.
Anecdotally, we sell 120,000 test kits, easily 50% of those are positive at the roadside . For just two drugs, that's 60,000. Yet the MoJ has only just got the figures up to 30,000 prosecutions. The
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We give them good. education and tools they can use and pass on. And then we create the deterrent. And that might be random testing or it's with cause testing. Now the police are with cause testing. effectively because the incidents already happen. They've seen bad driving. What we try and do is stop them doing it in the first place. And I would love to discuss the workplace charter at a .
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:18
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Such as oral fluid, on a number of occasions. So we can I can provide those reports to you if that would be helpful. I think if. something sounds too good to be true, then you know the rest of the . sentence I. I do think that we need more tests or more drugs available at the roadside to be tested. However, I, I think the system that Ian is.
proposing might work for workplace testing, but this is not workplace testing. And again, oral fluid is a substance which we don't know enough about in terms of.
proposing might work for workplace testing, but this is not workplace testing. And again, oral fluid is a substance which we don't know enough about in terms of.
10:19
10:19
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Or in terms of, as I've mentioned previously. Relation to our threshold in terms of how our body is impaired at the time of the offence. So oral fluid doesn't have that capacity. What Ian is. describing is a zero tolerance approach. And perhaps that's where we're going and perhaps that's where we'll end up. But at the moment we're not there and the system that we use is based on blood for a very good reason. It's because it gives us the information we need about the driver at the time of that collision. So I just want to make clear that I'm, I'm supportive of, of looking at a better way of doing this, but I, I think what Ian is describing is a system that may work in France and may work in Australia, but that's because they have very different.
10:21
10:21
10:21
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
We our impairment levels aren't necessarily the same when we've got the same level of blood alcohol count? Sorry. I mean, is there not that same uncertainty about. capacity with among different people who have drunk alcohol? But nevertheless, we have a we have a fixed amount, you know, we have, you know, we have a set level for alcohol, whether how you know, and, you know, I may not be able to walk in a straight .
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Result in prosecutions. Can you just expand on that a little bit? What do you mean? Well, I'd love to expand on it, but nobody actually measures it. All I'm working on is I know how many devices the police go through. It's well. documented many times in the fantastic operation limits and other studies that they the police officers are. 50% correct. They're higher than 50% most of the time.
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. It's okay. You wanted to come in? Yes. I wanted to expand on the point that Prof. Wolf, and that you made as well, which is that there is a variation in the individual's response to a certain level of blood alcohol, which in itself is an argument for having the. 0.02 level effectively nil, because you can't say when the when the level was originally set, the country, the society accepted a certain level of risk and said that at.
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
That need to work together. The Department for transport, the Home Office, police forces, etc., etc. and obviously we've got the Department for transport setting national policy, but we also need an effective system for. enforcement of that. So do you think that the Department for transport has effective ways to support enforcement. activity across the different departments and agencies involved in this area?
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
I'd like to pass on that for the moment as well. Oh well. Policing views on this. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, obviously I'll speak from a policing. perspective . , and I know that my colleagues in the MPC would be disappointed if I didn't say that. Of course, we are underfunded in many areas of policing and we would be able to do much more enforcement were we not. However, within this area, first of all, I think it is a probably the most. collaborative Chiefs Council portfolio that I have had, because I think everybody wants to reduce the number of people who are killed and seriously injured.
And when we talk about numbers and cost reduction and everything, it makes me slightly uncomfortable because these are people in their families. At the end of those numbers, I just make that point.
And when we talk about numbers and cost reduction and everything, it makes me slightly uncomfortable because these are people in their families. At the end of those numbers, I just make that point.
10:32
10:32
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
We have just launched in about three months ago, I think it was the National Road Policing Coordination Centre that has been supported. hugely by the Department for. transport and the funding that has come into that. Without that we wouldn't be able to do that, and that is really pump priming the ability for us to be able to. understand how we're going to be able to work areas such as drink, drug driving, but others ghost plates, E mobility and everything like that as well.
So from the support.
So from the support.
10:33
10:33
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
In terms of the Home Office, the DFT and others working together actually is probably as strong as it has ever been. And the National Roads Policing. Coordination Centre is going to be really influential, I think, in the future, certainly for policing, to enable us to coordinate those efforts across the country and prevent a sort of a postcode lottery approach, very much supported .
10:34
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
As well by some members of the PCC as well. And does the new. coordination centre have a role in sort of monitoring the full sort of chain of, of things that are happening because, you know, you've got policy being set, you've got by the Department for Transport and Home Office, then you've got individual police forces, you've got the laboratories we heard about before. We've got the CPS who's kind of keeping an eye on that whole .
10:35
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
10:35
10:35
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
But I would strongly encourage those to be checked and looked at. So organisations like, like break like Road Safe and, and others who represent the voices of families who. represent exactly the sort of communities that are ripped apart by poor transport. And it is the roads, the roads are by far the place where so many people's lives are affected. And this matters to people. It really matters to people , and those organisations as well as.
10:38
10:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Really can support the Department for transport with with understanding, I suppose , the the national feeling on these issues and the way that. victims and others are affected by them. So I think the first point there, I think, would be just to check that, because it can become quite in my experience as a DFT, it can be quite technical. There's quite a lot of stuff about. Yeah, there's a lot of.
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
We went back to an awful lot of data and we wanted to make sure we had the most recent data. Yes, there are good academic studies from a few years ago, but we wanted to look at the current data sets, the current data sets, and this is not an international comparison. You've had a lot of international comparisons today. This is not an international comparison. This is just a metaphor. Our data on drink driving, and I suspect drunk driving in the UK is total Swiss cheese. It is full of holes. There are some police services that don't submit any figures at all.
It's not that they're submitting zero. They're submitting. They're not submitting at all. We don't have data for how many drink driving offences there are in many police forces. And and there is. consistently only a recording of data if it breaks the limit. So what we don't have is if the limit was 0.5, if the limit was 0.2, how many offences would . That data is also missing? Now there are some progressive police forces that do produce that data and actually have made it. available either through FOI requests or sometimes proactively. But if I was in the DFT and I wanted to know how effective these policies are going to be, I would absolutely be insisting in sorting out data collection and data monitoring.
That is the way that we we achieve success with with. strategies and government level and international level. So .
It's not that they're submitting zero. They're submitting. They're not submitting at all. We don't have data for how many drink driving offences there are in many police forces. And and there is. consistently only a recording of data if it breaks the limit. So what we don't have is if the limit was 0.5, if the limit was 0.2, how many offences would . That data is also missing? Now there are some progressive police forces that do produce that data and actually have made it. available either through FOI requests or sometimes proactively. But if I was in the DFT and I wanted to know how effective these policies are going to be, I would absolutely be insisting in sorting out data collection and data monitoring.
That is the way that we we achieve success with with. strategies and government level and international level. So .
10:42
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
That question. Oh, we're going backwards again. Yeah. Okay. Joe, just a couple of months ago, I found myself agreeing very strongly with Doctor Piper. There's just two points. First of all, there is not the same. equity for victims of crime that there are for other. crimes in most areas, and particularly those charities that support them , just simply do not attract often the funding to look after those families and take them through what is often a very long judicial process.
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:46
10:46
10:47
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Have been put in place. Sorry, Alex, I cut into you see we do want to do that the supplement. So sorry. Please do. specifically back to Ian again then in your written. evidence you note that drug driving enforcement sits across government departments. And you commented. specifically that that has not proven to be the most effective working structure. Can you give us .
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Probably want 150. £200 to do that. Okay, I can give you an example as well, which is increasing use of alcohol and drug treatment services for people who have addiction problems. They're very cost effective interventions that reduce because quite, quite a lot of the people who are caught with these offences are repeat .
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:51
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Any burning points they want to add in, now would probably be the chance. Yeah, Joe. And then I'll thank you. I think there needs to be far greater deterrence. I think having a driving licence is a privilege. And of course, being in a vehicle, particularly under the influence of either drink or drugs, does make it a weapon, frankly. And I think there does need to be far greater use of lifetime bans, bands of longer bans, and and for there to be a real.
incentive for people to think twice before they take those.
incentive for people to think twice before they take those.
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Brilliant police officers who are out every single day in all weathers at all times of day and night, who are trying to challenge this problem and to arrest people and to bring people to justice and to reduce the the number of deaths and serious injury on the roads. And sadly, we don't always see the outcomes at court despite a very long judicial process. So I think it's important for us to .
10:53
10:53
10:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah, yeah, I would up to you, Tom, in terms of the effectiveness of messaging to the public, we know that some messages are more effective than others. And psychology led messaging, I think is important. So when we looked at the effectiveness of messaging around drink driving, targeted at people saying, don't you drink and drive, that was less effective than saying, don't let your mates drink and drive because of people. People don't see themselves as drink drivers. They don't see themselves as offenders because it clashes with your mental self image. As a good person, most people think they're a good person, so it clashes with that, whereas you can very easily see it in somebody else.
So if you switch the messaging and say, you know, don't let your mate drink and drive, that's much more effective.
So if you switch the messaging and say, you know, don't let your mate drink and drive, that's much more effective.
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The limit effect is very, very limited. I think one of the really important points about enforcement, which is kind of your key question, is that there is a a consensus within the literature that only increasing penalties without also increasing the likelihood of being caught is ineffective. So, so I. 1,000% agree with Joe's point that I think there is a moral. inequity at the moment about the degree to which offences are punished for drunk driving compared compared to other areas of life where you're maiming or killing someone. But that needs to be accompanied by increases.
Enforcement level goes back to my point about a strategy made up of a suite of things get all of this right. The government will deliver on its ambitions. But, but it needs it needs to consider enforcement levels,
Enforcement level goes back to my point about a strategy made up of a suite of things get all of this right. The government will deliver on its ambitions. But, but it needs it needs to consider enforcement levels,
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Given that, you know, there is, you know, we use I'm going to call it osmosis. Forgive me, my. scientific friends on the panel, because it probably isn't that. But actually, if you put your hand on the steering wheel, it detects drink or drugs. You can't actually, you know, move the vehicle, stuff like that. There is emerging. technology that. enables us to be able to. design the ability to be able to drive under the influence of drink or drugs out. And I think there is more work that needs to be done on that, because that then significantly reduces the need for enforcement, which arguably we probably .
10:59
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
Won't be able to afford in the future any more than we can now. Do you think, just briefly, whether there's more that could be done, particularly around the kind of anti-social driving aspect as well, of linking the two together so that, you know, police are incentivized in one sense perhaps to, you know, ensure that where there are meets taking place or, you know, those sort of enhanced vehicles, or my brain has forgotten the correct word for it now adapted cars and things to, you know, there's a correlation, isn't there? I'm assuming, between young people, not so young people who do those sorts of, you know, changes to their cars want to meet, who are also then going back to my first question at the beginning about nitrous oxide, kind of partaking in that as well.
Does more need to be done to .
Does more need to be done to .
11:01
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Join up those areas in the strategy, or do you think that's covered enough? Yeah. So I think it is the modified cars that you're talking, the modified cars that you're talking about. I think more we need to understand that all much more. And I would be loathe to sit here and say that a whole load of those things are linked. We need to understand it more because actually, quite a few people in those kind of communities really care about their driving licence, keeping it, and are completely teetotal and don't take any drugs. So I think we need to understand more about that.
What I do think is that we should link the driving licence and any driving offences to wider crimes. So because again, you would have a deterrent effect and you would be preventing not just the crime on the roads, but also wider crime. And of course, there are .
What I do think is that we should link the driving licence and any driving offences to wider crimes. So because again, you would have a deterrent effect and you would be preventing not just the crime on the roads, but also wider crime. And of course, there are .
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Help with. compliance and deterrence? There is so so we have a we have a really strong study which looked at the introduction of reduction of limits in Sweden and Denmark. They introduced them at a very similar period in history. It was in the 1990s, by the way, Sweden introduced it. alongside random breath testing and saw a much bigger reduction. Interestingly, they relaxed the numbers of roadside testing after three years, but. maintained the benefits for a decade. And I think what that does, because we're talking about perception and cultural change. You mentioned the car being a weapon.
Culture and perception are such powerful weapons if governments get them right, which is why I've been banging on about. communication and that cultural shift, but actually that random testing, we stand a chance of getting caught. People telling each other, are you talking about talking to your mate? There's a range of measures here that I think shift perception. And once.
Culture and perception are such powerful weapons if governments get them right, which is why I've been banging on about. communication and that cultural shift, but actually that random testing, we stand a chance of getting caught. People telling each other, are you talking about talking to your mate? There's a range of measures here that I think shift perception. And once.
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Both drink or drug driving from re-offending specifically? Yeah. One brief point, which I think probably links both those points, is actually important to mention our colleagues. We haven't really touched on them. Alco locks. So an alcoholic is a device that stops your car from starting. If you if you breathalyze as being over the over, whatever the limit is set, we currently have a problematic situation at the moment, and this could well be addressed in the strategy in that UK. vehicles do not have to be designed so that alcoholics can be fitted. It's a standard thing in most of the OECD, most of the world.
It's. It's a requirement that a vehicle must be able to have an alcohol lock fitted. That's .
It's. It's a requirement that a vehicle must be able to have an alcohol lock fitted. That's .
11:09
11:09
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
A very simple solution. Is it an EU requirement? It's an EU requirement. It has been for over a at least a decade, I believe. So there is actually cars, cars, cars sold in the UK have have. adaptations so that they can't have alcoholics fitted, which is kind of nonsense. Those those alcoholics. I think there's a really interesting choice, and I think it would be good for the government to be very clear about this choice between tagging, which. specifically affects the offender. versus alcoholics, which affect everybody in the household who drives that car. There is a there is a choice to be made.
We've got some in our submission have made sort of, and can produce further. information on the relative effectiveness of those two. But we would be really clear that we want to see one or the other. I think neither of them is a real cop out. And I think.
We've got some in our submission have made sort of, and can produce further. information on the relative effectiveness of those two. But we would be really clear that we want to see one or the other. I think neither of them is a real cop out. And I think.
11:10
11:10
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
There's a bit of a narrative that most drink driving crimes are re-offending. That's not true. It's less than 50. Most drink driving offences that are caught are actually first time offences. But there is there is a hard core group of people who do re-offend, and they're not receiving those sorts of tagging or alcoholic. interventions that would prevent them from changing their behaviour. And their re-offending continues. They're not receiving what Tom referred to. There is good quality alcohol interventions, which is an area where we have real expertise on, and they're not even receiving sort of preventative advice or guidance.
So, for example, the courses that people attend cover the impact of your drinking on driving and the impact of that on the road, but they don't have any content at all in those courses about about alcohol generally and its role in your life and how you might have an issue. So actually, pretty much every repeat offender in drink driving has been shown to have some degree of alcohol harm in their lives .
So, for example, the courses that people attend cover the impact of your drinking on driving and the impact of that on the road, but they don't have any content at all in those courses about about alcohol generally and its role in your life and how you might have an issue. So actually, pretty much every repeat offender in drink driving has been shown to have some degree of alcohol harm in their lives .
11:13
11:13
11:13
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Missing. opportunities to support those individuals. I think you want to come in. Yeah. If I could just come in. I think re-offending is really, really important. And we know there is a relationship between drink driving offenders and alcohol dependence, or problematic alcohol use. And the high risk offender scheme does take some note of that in terms of requiring a medical assessment before that person can be relicensed. So re-offending is a very important criteria. I think it would be good to see if something similar could be done for drunk. driving around the high risk offender scheme and and the very serious.
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Drink, drink, drug driving? Because yeah, do you want. Yeah, I think public awareness is really, really important. We've heard already this morning that awareness tends to be low. I think that's true. So I think it's a. societal wide issue that we need to better inform people that are driving themselves or have young men and women in their families who are learning to drive. Do we need to talk about school.
education and bring this out as early as we can? I think public awareness is extremely .
education and bring this out as early as we can? I think public awareness is extremely .
11:16
11:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
We need to do more if possible. I would argue that the current strategy is too quiet on that, but there are some significant gains to be had. We have one very specific problem. So much of my work generally on Alcohol Change UK, is working with 30, 40, 50 and 60 year olds. That's where many of the problems are commonly. People want to talk about young people all the time, but I am going to flip and say we do seem to have a perception problem. So I think it's not about awareness, by the way. I think it's about perception.
So I think I would encourage the Department for transport to really embrace the concept of.
So I think I would encourage the Department for transport to really embrace the concept of.
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Of Gen Z believing it's socially acceptable to drive when marginally over the limit. That compares with. 9% of the rest of the population. So, so so what has happened is there has been a stop essentially in. communications over the last 20 years. Many of us who feel quite strongly about drink driving, just from a personal point, as as citizens, we feel it's a moral duty not to. We're exposed to hard hitting.
campaigns in the.
campaigns in the.
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
Problems in this area are not about young people, but this one is I know you've advocated today that there shouldn't be any. alcohol allowed for people to drive. We've said that sometimes people don't know the unit limit. It's quite difficult, you know. Is it a pint? Is it a glass of wine? So if they are going to .
11:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Continue with that, how do you think would be best to communicate that to the public? I think that would be almost a nightmare. So if you ask a government communications colleague you need to communicate, don't drink and but we also want to try and communicate what the limit actually is for individuals and what their particular risk would be. That communication colleague would probably say, I can't that can't be done. And I think that is where my evidence comes from. I think if if the government therefore had a choice, it would need to say drink, drink, drink driving limit is lowering.
But this is the problem with the communication message. But actually the safest level for drink driving is zero. Don't drink and drive, which is the current messaging. So so yeah, I think I think it would create a problem. Communication around enforcement is important as well. So so I think it's so easy, I think for all of us to focus on this number, the limit 2050, whatever. Actually, we're increasing enforcement, we're increasing penalties.
And the police also have new powers for.
But this is the problem with the communication message. But actually the safest level for drink driving is zero. Don't drink and drive, which is the current messaging. So so yeah, I think I think it would create a problem. Communication around enforcement is important as well. So so I think it's so easy, I think for all of us to focus on this number, the limit 2050, whatever. Actually, we're increasing enforcement, we're increasing penalties.
And the police also have new powers for.
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:24
11:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The other. You're done. Great. Thank you. Scott. I think that's a really important point. When the limit was reduced in Scotland, I can remember being out and people were saying that they had to stop drinking at an earlier time because they were really, to a certain extent, over worried about what the change in legislation was going to mean for them. And I remember speaking to my sister and saying she just wouldn't drink the night before.
Now, I think .
Now, I think .
11:26
11:26
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Have normalized a little bit, but I think we've got some useful, I'm sure, a question in here. But what I would say is nobody in Scotland is asking for the drink drive limit to be increased. Nobody. And in fact, a lot of people probably want to reduce further. So point two don't drink heavily the night before and we're all quite happy.
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:27
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Our first panel to an end. And thank you very, very much, not only for the time you spent. preparing and for coming today, because I. appreciate but particularly for coming today, because I appreciate you've all had to fit. into a very busy divides. And, and some of you have had to be rather. flexible in, in, in being able to come today. So we're very, very grateful, as we always say, if there's anything you didn't get a chance to cover or cover in sufficient detail and you've not already submitted it, please do feel free to write to us.
I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few moments .
I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few moments .
11:28
11:32
Samantha Dixon
-
-
Samantha Dixon
Welcome to our second panel. And before we start, a reminder to those present and watching that we will suspend our. proceedings just before 11 to observe the two minute silence for Armistice Day. I also again want to reiterate for both witnesses and members that we should not discuss specific cases of any legal. proceedings on those cases are not completely completed. So but to keep keep referring talking about general policy issues.
So could .
So could .
11:33
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I ask each of the panel to introduce themselves, starting with Joy? Good morning chair. My name is Joy Allen. I'm police and crime commissioner for Durham, but I'm also the joint lead for roads policing. And interestingly, from this previous session, I'm also the joint lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners for .
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Because I think it's currently sort of on the network. We've got fixed cameras, we've got average speed cameras, and we've got the mobile enforcement. And I think depending on the type of enforcement that also I think drives, drives. behaviour along the road. And I think enforcement, I suppose, is, is required because of. compliance and lack of compliance. And I think there are other ways to sort of tackle compliance as well.
So it's not all on enforcement. But I think in order to achieve the.
So it's not all on enforcement. But I think in order to achieve the.
11:36
11:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My view is we do need more funding to go into the system to enable the police force to to enforce more. And I think certainly within Oxfordshire, there's a very strong, willing volunteer community as well in terms of speed watch. And I think we can actually make more of that as a as a sort of country as well, in terms of actually really sort of pushing that and .
11:37
11:37
11:37
11:37
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
In the fines, for instance, for uninsured driving is they're. antiquated at best , and certainly need to be brought up to date. And I would certainly support the view that enforcement is a wider. It's many constituent parts to what enables enforcement. And we feel that needs to happen, as well as who can enforce. We work closely with the police and they do a remarkable job. But for instance,
11:39
11:39
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Instances when perhaps local authorities may have roles in this. Thank you. Chair. It's really a pleasure to to be here and also to have had the last session. I'm going off slightly off script here because I want to sort of join the two sort of discussions in because I think it's quite relevant. Joe mentioned about the Roads Policing Coordination Centre, and really that was very innovative from the DFT, where one department has given another ministry some money to help deliver a joint strategy. And that's something that I would welcome across more areas. And one of the things that we do, and when you're saying, have we got enough money and a resource and then somebody has to pay for it.
And so I am looking for the the select committee from the Treasury point of view. And I think there's a real opportunity there to say, bring the ministers together for the various sections from IT health, be it prevention, be it Home Office. We talk about the roads. One is chaired by a minister, but if you bring in all the ministries together, I've seen from a drugs and alcohol. perspective how that works. So you've got a joint aim to deliver a.
strategy that's going to save lives and killed and seriously injured. And the Treasury.
And so I am looking for the the select committee from the Treasury point of view. And I think there's a real opportunity there to say, bring the ministers together for the various sections from IT health, be it prevention, be it Home Office. We talk about the roads. One is chaired by a minister, but if you bring in all the ministries together, I've seen from a drugs and alcohol. perspective how that works. So you've got a joint aim to deliver a.
strategy that's going to save lives and killed and seriously injured. And the Treasury.
11:41
11:41
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
It's one pot of money. And so when we do road safety, if we're doing some enforcement on the roads with cameras, that all that money goes into the treasury, that could be used for other things where if it went into roads, road safety, roads, policing, and we're trying to find a solution to the problem, where where's the money going to come from to deliver this ambitious strategy?
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Impact on reducing cases? I think most people from from the practitioners and also the evidence would say speeding is a key area to focus on, but obviously that does. require investment in capacity and enforcement. So we know probably what the causes of deaths and seriously injured are. But how do we do it? I think that's an area to focus on, but also where where the occurrence. So we've got the rural roads. I think it's really important where there's significant amounts of death and serious injury on rural roads.
And how .
And how .
11:45
11:45
11:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Attention to safe speeds and safe roads. So do you want to expand a bit on that? Yes, I think it's and it's sort of I appreciate that. Obviously, there is a sort of setting local speed limits being worked on, but from from our perspective, I think we're very keen that actually the sort of lower speed limits do save lives, which is obviously why Oxfordshire has really pushed quite hard, locally led, but pushed quite hard in terms of making sort of 20 mile an hour, the new 30 mile an hour and a lot of the urban areas.
And we've been very successful at doing that . And sort of the sort of evidence we've got is that that has made a difference in terms of safer streets, and we are very keen on the safer streets, not the safer roads, I think, as well, because we actually want to make sure that it's sort of everyone feels safe and moving around. I think in terms of the other thing that we did about 15 years ago, which was just renewing, is the higher speed roads, the A and B s, and we're looking at actually. reducing significant, if not all of those down to 50.
There's a lot of work done, I think about 15 years ago, but there are still significant numbers of A and B roads at 60. So we're looking to to do a review and reduce those down. It leads us to really we believe that actually the norm should be 20 mile an hour for sort of the the urban areas and 50 potentially 40 for the rural areas. And actually you have to justify as a local. authority why it should be higher. At the moment, we're having to sort of justify and have arguments about why we're wanting to make .
And we've been very successful at doing that . And sort of the sort of evidence we've got is that that has made a difference in terms of safer streets, and we are very keen on the safer streets, not the safer roads, I think, as well, because we actually want to make sure that it's sort of everyone feels safe and moving around. I think in terms of the other thing that we did about 15 years ago, which was just renewing, is the higher speed roads, the A and B s, and we're looking at actually. reducing significant, if not all of those down to 50.
There's a lot of work done, I think about 15 years ago, but there are still significant numbers of A and B roads at 60. So we're looking to to do a review and reduce those down. It leads us to really we believe that actually the norm should be 20 mile an hour for sort of the the urban areas and 50 potentially 40 for the rural areas. And actually you have to justify as a local. authority why it should be higher. At the moment, we're having to sort of justify and have arguments about why we're wanting to make .
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:49
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Yes. Yeah. Okay. That's that's helpful. Angus, anything to add? I wonder if I may take a slightly different perspective on this, because I think it's essential that the. strategy is fit for the future. And one of the elements that we're seeing is a change in the nature of the vehicles on the road, a prime example being what we call. micromobility or e-scooters.
So yes, we'd certainly advocate that we have an. appropriate policy for speed.
So yes, we'd certainly advocate that we have an. appropriate policy for speed.
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Modified e-bikes or modified well, I can expand on this if you'd like. So we compensate the victims of accidents. And we have seen a. 60% increase this year. The amount of reserves we now hold has increased from 30 million to 128 million. And this is a trend that's continuing. These vehicles are illegal on the road.
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And local authorities? I think part of it is like any sort of local government, police and public sector agency. Data sharing is really, really important. And sometimes lack of it sort of prevents that, you know, restrictions. But it's a way where we can share that. information to look at the problem solving. So if it's intelligence led, data driven problem solving partnership approach, so if you've got your data, you.
understand where your case is. That's what I've asked in my area if I have to, you know, looking at reducing.
understand where your case is. That's what I've asked in my area if I have to, you know, looking at reducing.
11:55
11:55
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
70%, where's it at? But what we don't do, and this is what I'm really passionate for, I think Cumbria does through the road harm index. They record. collisions not just serious injuries. So it's a bit like you have five bumps or. potential serious injuries, but they're not. recorded and you can't see them until you have. And this is from a public point of view, very frustrated when their petition for. reducing safer roads and lower speeds because the highways will say there's only been two. And you're like, well, I see I see them every day. But if they're not seriously injured, they're not recorded.
So that would be a key area key. Ask if we're looking at problem solving and data, just even getting those other reportable. If you've had a collision in an. insurance is.
So that would be a key area key. Ask if we're looking at problem solving and data, just even getting those other reportable. If you've had a collision in an. insurance is.
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Difference to this kind of work? Well, I hope not. because I have seen with the recent. strategy a lot of the funding, significant funding is going to mayors and mayors. Officers have been given the target to what are you going to do to. reduce deaths and serious injuries? So they've been given the targets. So if the money's gone into the highways and rather than, you know, you're doing your corridors, your roundabouts, significant.
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
They are leading the way in the Vision Zero because they're bringing partnerships across the region. together to look at how they're going to reduce it, rather than just smaller. partnerships that can look at. So my people in my area might work in Newcastle. It's not boundary committed. So if you can take a big region together, those targets that you've set, ambitious. targets could .
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Has the real appetite for that happen, and actually it works really well. We work really well with the police. We work very well with the DVLA as. examples and indeed the DFT. If there were two things I'd ask for. The first was echoing absolutely what Joy has said around data, I think data, I wonder whether we're looking at this problem sometimes from a. The data would be useful to know what happened. But the data also has a role to play in predicting what could happen and then preventing and anticipating. And without that data, that source.
So, for instance, the DVLA, we're exploring how we could link insurance to MOT, to tax, to everything else connected with the vehicle. So for the end.
So, for instance, the DVLA, we're exploring how we could link insurance to MOT, to tax, to everything else connected with the vehicle. So for the end.
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Areas that we need support from government on. Yeah, I think in terms of partnerships is key, but I think where you end up with funding constraints and where you end up with. potentially the ability to have slightly different priorities, you get tension. And I certainly think for, for. Oxfordshire working with with Thames Valley, there's a there's a challenge there because the size of geography and actually you've got different priorities. Everyone may well want to deliver safer roads, but how you go about that is challenging. And then you've essentially, I suppose, got a police force that is trying to operate in a particular area with, as a local.
12:04
12:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Different asks coming through which, which makes it makes it sort of challenging, really. And I think the other thing for me just wanted to pick up on, I suppose the, the focus resources on, I suppose, chaos cases that have actually happened, what we're trying to sort of push. And I think working with the Road Safety Foundation as well is sometimes about actually looking at the preventing the accidents that may happen. So actually looking at the environment, looking at actually the.
features and looking at enforcement on particular areas where we .
features and looking at enforcement on particular areas where we .
12:04
12:05
12:05
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The ability to enforce existing road traffic laws effectively? Unanimous decision would be no, but I think that there is opportunities. Then I think just thinking people need to understand roads, police and road safety and the impact it can have. It isn't just about cases, it's what's on the roads. If you're transporting drugs, if you're. transporting knives, if you're transporting people, it's on the roads. They're not coming, not flying in with drones.
So we've seen recently with the with the support of the DFT, the work that Joe's team is doing.
So we've seen recently with the with the support of the DFT, the work that Joe's team is doing.
12:06
12:06
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Serious and organised crime. And I think that is a key area. A lot of the harm the NCA will say their biggest demand is on drugs. Well, if it's being transported on the roads, our roads, policing a plane are really, really important part in that. So I think it's just getting that oversight that it's it's. wider than just roads policing, it's road safety, but it's also some of the key .
12:07
12:08
12:13
12:14
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Most significant sort of capacity constraints are within the system in all your views, I think it's policing in general for where you put your resources. A couple of years ago, I think there was some funding put into neighbourhood policing, and I would have probably put 100 million into neighbourhood policing and 100 million into roads policing. And because they are in the community as well. So it's a very much where a lot of. PCCs and also the, the the chief constables will be saying we need a fairer funding model because the cost of the demand in certain areas, people, it is quite tight and resource.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
A presentation from Sweden, very small, very small force. And I think it's mentioned in different places. And what she said is they work smarter, not harder in a way that. 40 minutes of every day of their shift is spent on roads policing. So every officer is at the front line, has got roads. Policing is a priority. So rather than creating a separate one, everybody has got that. responsibility and. everybody takes on that role. And also, if the court drug driving the reform into drug and alcohol treatment, if they've got children, they'll let the social services know.
But also they could let the employer know because these people who are caught drug driving and drink driving could be driving a busload of people. It could be surgeons, etcetera. So when we talk about the previous conversation about the data, that is sometimes you're constrained about what you can share. But if something. happened and you were aware that somebody had tested positive for drugs, and then there's an.
But also they could let the employer know because these people who are caught drug driving and drink driving could be driving a busload of people. It could be surgeons, etcetera. So when we talk about the previous conversation about the data, that is sometimes you're constrained about what you can share. But if something. happened and you were aware that somebody had tested positive for drugs, and then there's an.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
It's like trying to work with what we've got. I think I've got maybe three reflections. The first is that we work very closely with all police forces, and our experience is that they they do have. challenges and we do all we can to support them. So I think there is some. opportunity around, given the collective community that's trying to address road safety, working in partnership, which is what we do very much in order to almost. counteract some of the challenges that the police have. The second is, is sort of building on Joy's point around data.
I think there's a danger you can think. exclusively as this of how many policemen are there on the streets. It's also about the tools they've got in order to do their job. So tutelage is a big initiative that we contribute to and support the police on. And I know the police are very anxious to get the funding to move that forward and, and make that even stronger, which is all about bringing data together in order to help with the.
I think there's a danger you can think. exclusively as this of how many policemen are there on the streets. It's also about the tools they've got in order to do their job. So tutelage is a big initiative that we contribute to and support the police on. And I know the police are very anxious to get the funding to move that forward and, and make that even stronger, which is all about bringing data together in order to help with the.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Load that we put onto the police? Just in terms, I think it's not just the police that I think are struggling resource. I think that the county council, with the level of funding, is also. And I think there's probably from a local authority perspective, an element of capability as well. I think probably ten, 15 years ago, local authorities had really strong road safety, dedicated road safety teams within within. councils because of particular policy decisions and funding streams. That has reduced. That is growing, I think, because of the latest initiatives, the latest, obviously requirements, local authorities are building back up that that capacity.
But we've got it. It's a partnership. And I think actually the resource that the police need to put in to do this, you I think we've almost got to match that because it is a partnership, actually, in terms of some of the RTC.
But we've got it. It's a partnership. And I think actually the resource that the police need to put in to do this, you I think we've almost got to match that because it is a partnership, actually, in terms of some of the RTC.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Also couple that with with suitable resource into the local authority. Can I just I just mention it as another opportunity for partners is we've talked about in the previous session about the indoors and the education around, you know, the for speed and penalty points, but there's real opportunities there for drug drive and for dangerous driving, because quite.
12:15
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Mandatory education, if you're if you're driving under the influence of drugs, there's a there's not a mandatory course. It's a. You can go on a course. Middlesbrough's pilot and that. But if it was a mandatory course to say it's not just taking drugs, it's the impact it's having on the wider society. So I think the indoors funding as well goes to local partnerships. So that's something that we do get some. If we do that work, it's about the education, it's about. reducing the risk and it's about the. prevention side and then that that education has been proven to be very, very successful.
So it's another opportunity to bring money into.
So it's another opportunity to bring money into.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If I take the uninsured driving, hit and run driving, which we are financed by, sorry, we do. That's funded by everybody who takes out an insurance premium, right? So if our costs come down, then that comes down and it's spread more fairly. There's a real fairness point. However, I think, Scott, your wider point on.
12:16
12:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I completely endorse the education as a fundamental role to play. And indeed, we've done a lot of. research on how we might educate. And I think it's it's very targeted. You have to really. understand who is uninsured and by proxy, inevitably probably causing other road traffic offences. And then how do you actually influence them to change their behaviour? Now, if that if that was.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Has there been an impact to that cut? Yeah, I think I think from from a resourcing point of view, the police and roads policing as it was, is a shadow of itself currently. And you've got a lot of officers where they're doing a dual role. So in Durham, you've got armed response as well as roads policing, and then you've got that that road side of it. And also you've got different government agendas where you're putting more officers into neighbourhoods, you've got safeguarding issues. So we had in and we've made obviously links to the fairer funding in in areas like Durham, Cleveland and.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of our police officer numbers generally, whereas our near neighbour. So North Yorkshire, we lost 6%. So we lost. That was nearly half. You know, when you're looking at the force that was generally. And then your roads policing would be where do you put the resources? Because you have to. prioritize risk to life as well. So that was quite depleted. So where you've got a.
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think and, you know, accidents as well as accidents as well. I think it is, as we've talked about, isn't just a policing issue. There's a lot of education goes on. Local authorities do it. But what we've seen is it's that, you know, flatline. And where are we at now? We do need some . drastic we have to do something significantly. And we all I think we're all. celebrating ten years to get the road safety strategy.
And we hear it's absolutely fantastic. You can't believe what we were like when it was.
And we hear it's absolutely fantastic. You can't believe what we were like when it was.
12:16
12:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It came. And sometimes that doesn't happen. We're all looking a gift horse in the mouth today that this is an opportunity. And I think it's looking for your quick wins. I think that the parliamentary times is absolutely critical. But you've got people who want to deliver, they want to deliver, they want not just want to achieve your targets, which .
12:17
12:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
You're just focused on delivering what you can with a limited budget. I definitely need the funding. I think looking at the funding model, but I'm just going to pick up, I think on the education side, I think there is a lot that needs to be is happening and probably needs to continue with education. But also I think about.
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That I think is really important because I think that is lost, that sort of not want to do shock tactics, but being able to say, actually, when you step into a vehicle, if you're not driving it in a different way, if you're not sort of recognising the environment you're driving, you can kill someone. And I think that took quite a few people back and it didn't go well at the time. We were looking at our travel to work. policy and trying to push some requirements in there, which didn't necessarily come through, but we were trying through the conversation.
It's really interesting to see people's reaction when you start to use purposefully emotive, emotive language. I just want to pick up it's not just about education. I think it's really recognising the ownership and people's. responsibilities when they when they drive the car. And so I flip on to something slightly anecdotal, but obviously recently with the. additional sort of weather and the foggy weather, we've had a lot of. drivers who probably don't turn on their fog lights, aren't able to turn on their fog lights don't know they should. Again, that's about proper ownership. When you step into that car, you should be able to drive it safely.
That's a bit on the education piece and ownership. Just want to touch on. I think the other thing for me is around talked a lot about, I think. enforcement and police , you could vehicles are capable of of essentially restricting speed. So actually bearing in mind, particularly with with some of the satnavs, they know when you're going through. particular different speed limits, it knows you can, I think legislatively, you could presumably put in some caps that.
It's really interesting to see people's reaction when you start to use purposefully emotive, emotive language. I just want to pick up it's not just about education. I think it's really recognising the ownership and people's. responsibilities when they when they drive the car. And so I flip on to something slightly anecdotal, but obviously recently with the. additional sort of weather and the foggy weather, we've had a lot of. drivers who probably don't turn on their fog lights, aren't able to turn on their fog lights don't know they should. Again, that's about proper ownership. When you step into that car, you should be able to drive it safely.
That's a bit on the education piece and ownership. Just want to touch on. I think the other thing for me is around talked a lot about, I think. enforcement and police , you could vehicles are capable of of essentially restricting speed. So actually bearing in mind, particularly with with some of the satnavs, they know when you're going through. particular different speed limits, it knows you can, I think legislatively, you could presumably put in some caps that.
12:17
12:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And what they can can bring along with, sorry, a few of you, you've just got yourself a story in the Daily Mail or something by saying we should limit the speed of cars in that way, but there is a real issue because it's a cultural issue, isn't it? Because we've not really touched on this. If you if you get caught speeding, a lot of people view that as just being unlucky. And then the next question is, how fast were you going? There's always a bit of excitement. We have to change that culture, I guess. So in terms of the strategy, we look at the strategy.
If funding doesn't.
If funding doesn't.
12:17
12:17
12:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That's for all three of you, I guess. Yeah, I mean, I mean, the county council, we've decided that we are putting in because it's so important to us. And I think it's something we are very keen to to deliver on, improve. We are making the decision to put the limited money we have into into road safety.
12:17
12:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The government doesn't have to increase your funding. Then you've already found the money for it? No. So I think what we found is we we can only do limited things. So I think we have really constrained with how fast and how quickly we can go. So we've got a really ambitious target, which is sort of zero deaths and serious injury by 2050. Our current trend isn't going to get us there whilst we're putting in money. It is tinkering around the edges. We're making some inroads, but without a. significant injection of funding for probably both us and the police, it's going to be very difficult, probably.
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Anybody that's the hardest. I mean, is there any other ideas though? I think that's if the Treasury saw. Because really we talked about the. We did a. I think this is done in other parts of the country. Accentus where they did the video of people who were driving without seat belts and, and. driving with mobile phones and had children unrestrained on seats. It was things that you would never, ever think was happening. Thousands of images. And this obviously the company was doing. It gives us all the images, but our road safety bureau had to process them, process them all, obviously find them sometimes.
There was a safeguarding issue with that one I was talking about with the child unrestrained in a in the front seat. But the Treasury gets all that.
There was a safeguarding issue with that one I was talking about with the child unrestrained in a in the front seat. But the Treasury gets all that.
12:18
12:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So we didn't get any money back to do more of it. So it's that partnership. So it's a bit like an investor save. If the Treasury can give us some funding, they're going to get get money back or we can do indoors and the money comes back. So you can have, you know, the challenge is getting, you know, the 20 mile an hours are great, but you do need enforcement. So you do need. opportunities to .
12:18
12:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Risk on the road that you can, you want to see the money for that coming back. There's real opportunities where there's, you know, there's win wins. And I know there's a lot of forces that sort of applied to say, well, if we put the road safety in and different areas have got different issues. So if you looking at rural roads or major roads, if it if it's we are reducing the risk on the road, be it motorway highway, rural roads, urban roads, and then we, we sort of doing that .
12:18
12:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Don't get any benefit from catching a burglar. But is that not the tension? I think it's the risk. Well, we can see that we've got so much evidence, haven't we, in this field of work, international, locally. So we know where the risk is and we know where our deaths and serious injuries are. And really, for me as a PCC and I think Joe mentioned it, you know, we are saw also the victims. commissioners and we see bereaved. parents and we see bereaved families. And it's not just that when we talk about, you know, young, young people in a car, if you've had two, two cars and two collisions with young people in the car, that could be.
£9 million in two, you know, from an insurance.
£9 million in two, you know, from an insurance.
12:18
12:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Because the people might survive and they might have long term serious injuries. But if you've got those people, it's our fire and rescue. It's our police officers, it's our. paramedics that are that are responding to these things. So part of that work, that's why everybody's so passionate, because we don't want bereaved families. We don't want the knocks on the door. We want to save people.
We want to save lives. And we've got the .
We want to save lives. And we've got the .
12:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Intelligence to do that as in data. But we could do better. Definitely better. You know, you make a really, really important and obvious points. But we always know that budgeting in this country, we get very little. hypothecation from, say, reducing harm and saving money in the NHS. You know, we it wouldn't it be great, but can I, I think, Paul, you were trying to come in. There's something more specific and doable in terms of the, the, the, the linking between income from. enforcement and the, and the, the running of that cost, like we have in terms of, you know, residents parking schemes that the .
12:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Income funds, the enforcement. How does that work in Oxfordshire? I think there's a couple of things I just want to say. I think one was around, obviously, the ongoing costs, as I mentioned, obviously we put a rollout of 20 mile an hour because it's not the it's not a 30. And it's the same with the 50. We haven't put it on a lot of signs. So that's costing us more to implement. It's costing us more to essentially maintain. Were those speed limits shifted than actually, as we've got with the national speed limit and 30s, we could have significantly reduced that signage.
So that was one point. I think the the other is as an authority in terms of part of making our roads safer, we've obviously got the moving traffic offence which has been criminalised. So the sort of the banned turns or keeping cycleways clear.
So that was one point. I think the the other is as an authority in terms of part of making our roads safer, we've obviously got the moving traffic offence which has been criminalised. So the sort of the banned turns or keeping cycleways clear.
12:18
12:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That is enforced through Anpr. And that means that the money comes back into the authority. That is a deterrent. And that does mean that we can then reinvest it within the transport system. And I think whether or not and I think there was discussion at the time whether or not enforcement for 20s should could fall to a local authority and could be enforced in that way. But I think there's a view, and I'd probably agree with that a little bit. Like the structural weight limit is if you decriminalize it and you essentially make it acceptable, it's just a fine.
You don't necessarily recognize the seriousness of breaking .
You don't necessarily recognize the seriousness of breaking .
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Dangerous driving. And what you've seen is people driving. 140 mile an hour. taken a picture of the speed, or why would you be doing anything like that? You know, and that's a in my area, there was deaths and serious injuries linked to that person. But he was also under the influence of alcohol. People driving around the down the wrong way. I was quite surprised. Just had a look on on the news and it's one one a week is actually being taken to court for driving the wrong way down a motorway. Given what happened in our area in Cleveland with those those police officers and not just, you know, the police officers, the family, but it's how it affects the.
community is significant because those people, as well as police officers, could have been somebody coming back from holiday. And these people are doing it, and often they're doing it and pushing it on social media. Social media are then pushing it out and everybody's saying, oh, have you seen I can do better than that, I can do. So I think social media, through the work that's going on .
community is significant because those people, as well as police officers, could have been somebody coming back from holiday. And these people are doing it, and often they're doing it and pushing it on social media. Social media are then pushing it out and everybody's saying, oh, have you seen I can do better than that, I can do. So I think social media, through the work that's going on .
12:19
12:19
12:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Big part in driving down the wrong side of the motorway for social media. The take the take the parish where they've had with with balaclavas on not necessarily our area, but they do. Even the car meets that. They do. It's on social media. It's actually on the phones as well. So really what we're seeing with when you're when they're stopped in the cars, a lot of the work, a lot of the legal things they've been doing, be it taking nitrous oxide, driving dangerously. speeding car meets, it's chance to be a photograph or a video will be on the phone.
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Media companies have got around this? Because it's obviously not just all the government. I think if it's if it's if it's a crime in the facilitate and that I think it should action should be taken, I think that's a real opportunity given the work that we we do and with the social media companies to make people aware of that. And if it's if it's notified, it should be taken down immediately. They've got a lot of very clever people who are working behind the scenes. If they can do it for certain things, why can't they do it for that?
Because it is linking to serious issues around deaths and serious injuries, and we don't want our young people particularly. It's not all young people, because the one I talked about earlier on was a an older man that's doing this. So it's not just it's for everybody who sees things on social.
Because it is linking to serious issues around deaths and serious injuries, and we don't want our young people particularly. It's not all young people, because the one I talked about earlier on was a an older man that's doing this. So it's not just it's for everybody who sees things on social.
12:19
12:19
12:19
12:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Area, just, just can I remind you not to refer to any existing cases? Yeah, I just said just for this is this is something that a case has gone through, but it's I think it was £315. It's not a different case. £315 fine and banned for, for a couple of months. So you just think after what had happened, you just think that's a really given that life life's about. This is where the obviously, the committee has a real opportunity to look at. penalties for dangerous driving and to say, is that because that's maybe that's what's currently there, should there be stronger and higher fines, bigger .
12:19
12:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Those emerging trends and potential offences that are coming out? I think the strategy has been I say it is ten years in the coming. So I think a lot of the work that I think most. practitioners and experts, from a research point of view, a lot is in there. Just getting that out and getting it delivered. That's the key for us. I think there will always be emerging issues, new trends, new. patterns and being. responsive to what we've got. We've got what's in front of us at the moment. And I think from from our side, the biggest thing for me, from a dangerous driving point of view, is probably the young drivers.
And that's something that, again, it's probably been picked up by by the panel about the graduated driving licences and young people in cars doing very, very vulnerable because of the passing the test. But there's also. opportunities to do a lot more if we are to achieve that target, if if we're looking at, you know, sort of the percentage wise is at. 24% of. 17 to 24 year olds. So that's the key. See, so that's a quarter of your deaths and seriously injured in that small group. And again, something as a parent, it's not unfairly penalised in young people.
If if you said that to a mother who's lost a son or a daughter, you'd say, I'd rather have that for a few months and keep my .
And that's something that, again, it's probably been picked up by by the panel about the graduated driving licences and young people in cars doing very, very vulnerable because of the passing the test. But there's also. opportunities to do a lot more if we are to achieve that target, if if we're looking at, you know, sort of the percentage wise is at. 24% of. 17 to 24 year olds. So that's the key. See, so that's a quarter of your deaths and seriously injured in that small group. And again, something as a parent, it's not unfairly penalised in young people.
If if you said that to a mother who's lost a son or a daughter, you'd say, I'd rather have that for a few months and keep my .
12:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Son and my daughter for for a long time than anything else. Yeah. Can I just I couldn't comment on the specifics around the social media connection, but just one observation, one suggestion. I think one of the things we're suffering from is an enforcement regime that was historically never really looked at. And whatever. recommendation comes, it's essential that whatever we decide, we then also commit to saying it's regularly reviewed because of these new offences, because of these, you know, the the landscape's.
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Improve compliance with them? I think from, from an enforcement point of view, and we've said that's one of the key areas that we want to do. And I think you do need that. enforcement response. resource and. capacity to do that. So from from our side, you know, we've you've got your police officers, and I know that the previous minister, Lee Greenwood, was very keen on the community speed watch. And I think a number of. PCCs are funding the Community Speed Watch, which does some community speed watch enforcement. I know in my area we've got local.
councillors who funded Speed watch vans, so they're not just on the side of the road. They've got the vans and they've got the equipment. But even now the technology is there where as well as the commitment, the the equipment for the speed, the also can. potentially pick up seat belts and mobile phones. So it's using that technology where people come out and do the. volunteering for the speed watch is part. And also you've got your cameras, which I'm sure somebody else will , will pick up on about the average speed camera as well. It's really important that we again, that's a resource.
It's capital, but if it's there and it's put it in the areas that's the most at risk, which we can maybe pick up on. But that's .
councillors who funded Speed watch vans, so they're not just on the side of the road. They've got the vans and they've got the equipment. But even now the technology is there where as well as the commitment, the the equipment for the speed, the also can. potentially pick up seat belts and mobile phones. So it's using that technology where people come out and do the. volunteering for the speed watch is part. And also you've got your cameras, which I'm sure somebody else will , will pick up on about the average speed camera as well. It's really important that we again, that's a resource.
It's capital, but if it's there and it's put it in the areas that's the most at risk, which we can maybe pick up on. But that's .
12:20
12:20
12:20
12:20
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We've got local authorities not necessarily got expertise. I have I have a view though, with with data. And I think I think it's something Wales has done very well, which is I think is a more key to roll out of average speed cameras. And I think that does make a difference in terms of driving speed down, rather than the fixed cameras, which are known and essentially might deal with a.
12:20
12:20
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Accident hotspot, but doesn't really drive down that culture of actually needing to stick to the speed limit. I think for me, there's a couple of things. I think one of the things because of the, I suppose. Approach that several local authorities are trying to take to actually really address the road safety challenges on the road network. We're there's quite a lot of. inconsistency across the UK. I mentioned, obviously, the work that has been done on the 20s and. 30s. That's slightly different when you go elsewhere, etc. we're all. Whilst we're achieving the same thing in.
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And we recognise the benefit of lower speeds to essentially a national approach than. actually that would remove the confusion. It would become a lot more obvious. People wouldn't. necessarily get confused in terms of driving through different regions. I think the other thing, which is can be misleading, is what's on the satnavs. So Satnavs pick up speed limit changes.
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Speeding, probably through confusion or not, not necessarily directly intention. I think that's important to recognise. I could just give you a practical fact on that. I think sometimes the cars. read the lorry speed. So if it's a continental lorry and it says 80, it will think that's the speed on the road, which is a demonstration .
12:21
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Of why we need to get the technology right. Yeah. Well could I ask you. Sorry to cut in. Could I just ask you you mentioned clutter earlier. Is that another danger of in different local authorities having different. policies and not having a. default speed limit , that if you have a non default speed limit implemented.
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And therefore the cost of local implementation. It does. It increases the cost and the ongoing maintenance. And to be honest is another feature that you could you could hit if you come off the road. So I think for me, it's around the same sort of setting , setting that. But yeah, I mean, that's, that's why I think, I think we put aside. £8 million to roll out across Yorkshire. We actually spent, I think just over four in the end because we were able to utilise a lot existing poles and we have done the bare minimum, some to the sort of discussion with with the police as to whether or not they're comfortable with that, because obviously they if they're and they will enforce.
20 if there's evidence to do so, they need to make sure it's signed appropriately. So there's been a bit of discussion there, which means that we've done the minimum. possible because of the .
20 if there's evidence to do so, they need to make sure it's signed appropriately. So there's been a bit of discussion there, which means that we've done the minimum. possible because of the .
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:21
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Wasn't signed correctly. You don't. Joe. I just want to quickly pick up on the on the enforcement point. Obviously, we've heard a lot about a bit of a divide between the urban and the rural roads. What, in your view in particular, Paul, your experience in Oxfordshire? Are there any particular lessons on those on those rural roads where. I certainly see in my constituency .
12:21
12:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Level of accidents and high levels of local concern around those roads? Yes, I think I mean, the I think there's a I think each what we have found, surprisingly, is there's quite a variance of compliance within the cities that we've rolled out. And we rolled them out quite different places, I think where and some of them have been on sort of historical where they've been thought and we've dropped them because they've been in a village. environment where it is a village environment or a short distance, the compliance tends to be better than if it's over a longer distance.
Whether that be a fact as fact sort of come in really. So, so I think there I think we've certainly had a range of experience, but we I say we are we've rolled out 20s and focused initially on there because actually this is about, from our perspective, making people feel safe when they're walking and cycling want to target those particular areas. But there's no obviously some of the more serious accidents happen at the higher, higher end, which is why we've obviously done the rural A and B network and looking at those. But that still leaves a lot of the.
unclassified rural roads, which are national speed limit. Ideally, you'd be able to to allow people to say, actually, this is clearly an environment where you shouldn't be speeding, shouldn't need to sign it. But we do have some some speed challenges on there, but we haven't tackled that. We wouldn't have the money to sort of tackle tackle those areas. Well, we are looking at, I think is particularly where they're not necessarily needed for the sort of core network is turning them into core restricted quiet lanes. So sort of making sure that. people can use it for access and can use it for walking and cycling and taking .
Whether that be a fact as fact sort of come in really. So, so I think there I think we've certainly had a range of experience, but we I say we are we've rolled out 20s and focused initially on there because actually this is about, from our perspective, making people feel safe when they're walking and cycling want to target those particular areas. But there's no obviously some of the more serious accidents happen at the higher, higher end, which is why we've obviously done the rural A and B network and looking at those. But that still leaves a lot of the.
unclassified rural roads, which are national speed limit. Ideally, you'd be able to to allow people to say, actually, this is clearly an environment where you shouldn't be speeding, shouldn't need to sign it. But we do have some some speed challenges on there, but we haven't tackled that. We wouldn't have the money to sort of tackle tackle those areas. Well, we are looking at, I think is particularly where they're not necessarily needed for the sort of core network is turning them into core restricted quiet lanes. So sort of making sure that. people can use it for access and can use it for walking and cycling and taking .
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Not at the moment. Okay. There's a prediction for the future there. Okay. Yeah, it's one to watch for the future, but I'm happy to expand on the nature of uninsured driving. Yeah. So we estimate uninsured driving costs the economy about £1 billion a year. We alone pay. £260 million in claims every single year for uninsured driving. And as I explained earlier,
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It's over 100 million. So it's actually becoming it's slightly different numbers. Apologies, apologies. I we pay out. 260 million a year. The amount we've got in our reserves at the moment for e-bikes is 127. And it will take a few years to pay out. Got you. Okay. However, it's going up every year. The amount we're having to pay more generally on on uninsured driving though, we carried out a really big intervention actually with the Department for transport about 15 years ago called Continuous Insurance Enforcement, where we write to everybody and say, you're uninsured. And that had a material impact on reducing it.
The trouble is, it's remained steady now for about ten years, the number of claims that we're experiencing. So we're really keen to lean into our uninsured drivers. And we've touched on a number of themes, the enforcement piece, the fine at the moment for uninsured.
The trouble is, it's remained steady now for about ten years, the number of claims that we're experiencing. So we're really keen to lean into our uninsured drivers. And we've touched on a number of themes, the enforcement piece, the fine at the moment for uninsured.
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The moment. It needs to increase. Yeah, but it's designed to be an intern. It's designed and we've done some research which we've recommended the level as part of our response to the to the RSS. As far as your connection with the cost of insurance, we've actually just done an enormous piece of work where we've gone out and spoken to uninsured drivers. We've actually tried to understand, well, why are you uninsured? And it's not as simple as saying, because I can't afford it. There's five different categories of uninsured drivers. There are those that their life's just too busy.
They haven't got around to doing insurance. There are those who think somebody else has done it for them. There are those who think they've done it correctly, but they haven't done it correctly. There are those who actually think it's a great idea to not .
They haven't got around to doing insurance. There are those who think somebody else has done it for them. There are those who think they've done it correctly, but they haven't done it correctly. There are those who actually think it's a great idea to not .
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Some technical reason, it's void. They've modified their vehicles and not insured. There's under. Underinsurance as well is a consideration. Yeah. Well, that's our technical term. Apologies, but yes, but my point with given that I think that the. interventions we need need to be carefully thought through that combine both enforcement. education and the kind of specific intervention, like the continuous insurance enforcement that I alluded to.
Modernising that as a tool.
Modernising that as a tool.
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It could take a few years, I think, to get there. Just a quick one on the uninsured drivers, there's another sort of grey area where people can sell sort of cars for pieces. Somebody can go and pick it up and it's not roadworthy and they can drive it away. And there's no checks, there's no balance and who's insured. So that that happens. And we've had another thing. Richard Holden and Liz Twist has sort of picked that up in recent times. But you just think how if you're selling a car and you know it's not roadworthy, where's your responsibility?
Because you know, it's not it shouldn't be on the roads. You should be coming with a trailer to put the car on the trailer, to take it away because it hasn't got its MOT and has got insurance and have you is the person who's buying it got a driving licence. So you must feel. But there's a there's there isn't the. legislation there to, to, to do that. So there's a bit of a grey area, an area that maybe needs to look at around that where you're selling cars and the rahkshi on our roads and there could be causing death and serious injury if they aren't roadworthy.
So it has to be on the, the person who's selling it to have that responsibility.
Because you know, it's not it shouldn't be on the roads. You should be coming with a trailer to put the car on the trailer, to take it away because it hasn't got its MOT and has got insurance and have you is the person who's buying it got a driving licence. So you must feel. But there's a there's there isn't the. legislation there to, to, to do that. So there's a bit of a grey area, an area that maybe needs to look at around that where you're selling cars and the rahkshi on our roads and there could be causing death and serious injury if they aren't roadworthy.
So it has to be on the, the person who's selling it to have that responsibility.
12:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Because until it gets insured, I imagine it's back to that person. And I think just we already have the data that could facilitate that. So if it was that offence that you're advocating for, that we've got information that monitors each vehicle. So we could do that to support that. I should just add, actually in uninsured driving, that there is .
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Make roads safer, safer? I'll start with joy. I'd like a fully funded. strategy delivery. strategy with clear. accountability of who's going to. deliver that. But also there's PCC. We do an annual plan, a report of our delivery of our strategy. So an annual report of how this. target is being achieved and what we have to do.
So that keeps our focus on where we're going in one year, two year, three year up to .
So that keeps our focus on where we're going in one year, two year, three year up to .
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
12:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Really a big issue. It's been a long time coming. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I think I think for me, probably as an element of. requiring authorities by that might mean the highway authority and the police authority to have a Vision Zero strategy that the local strategy, I think is missing. And then I suppose for me, I just want to add on I think the sort of setting of local speed limits is quite important. And obviously there is a a commitment to publish new guidance, but I think it's going to be really important as to what is in that new guidance.
And I'd probably like to have seen some of that points of principle clearly set .
And I'd probably like to have seen some of that points of principle clearly set .
12:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Within within this strategy, road safety strategy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for the evidence and the time you spent. preparing for today. And as I always say, if there's anything you didn't get a chance to cover or cover in sufficient detail, please do feel free to write to us. That concludes today's meeting, and our inquiry will continue next week with further oral.
12:24