This Labour Government deserves to be congratulated on releasing a new national road safety strategy after years of delay in Whitehall, but politics and finances seem to have prevented more groundbreaking change.

The headline from the strategy is that Westminster has returned to national road safety targets...sort of. The target of cutting deaths and serious injuries on Britain's roads by 65% by 2035 is challenging but also well outside the parliamentary timescale: far enough into the future for everything to change, including for the current crop of politicians to move on and for technological development to play more of a role in success than government policy.

The Department for Transport (DfT) should certainly be celebrated for taking a Safe System approach and for looking into improving a wide range of safety aspects. Many of the elements of the strategy are highly commendable and have been praised throughout the sector The question is whether enough is being done on the core issues.  

It is easy to be cynical

Key Highways sources have suggested it is a little churlish to dismiss the 2035 target. Well-placed industry figures point out that while there is no interim target set for 2029 ( the time of the next election, assuming this Government holds out for a full five-year term), sector-leading organisations will no doubt draw simple graphs to reveal the year-by-year progress.

However, the key to oversight is what exactly you are monitoring: setting the parameters of enquiry dictates the type of reporting you get back. Outside of the main headline target, the safety performance indicators (SPIs) that will be used to monitor the success of the strategy have raised some concerns.

Road safety specialist, Richard Owen, CEO of Agilysis, a leading transport safety consultancy, said: 'It's important to note that performance indicators should be leading, not lagging. This rules out 14 of the 17 [SPIs] on the list. It doesn't mean we shouldn't look at historic casualty data, but given the tight deadline for such an ambitious casualty reduction target, we need to be monitoring lead indicators. What do we have then in terms of lead indicators?

  • Proportion of traffic volume with drivers travelling within the speed limit on 20mph/30mph/national speed limit roads.
  • Proportion of motor vehicle occupants using a seat belt in front seats.
  • Proportion of drivers using a mobile phone whilst driving.

'I can see why these have been picked, they are the ones DfT already has data for! The problem is that the seatbelt and mobile phone surveys only happen every three years and we don't have local data. I would call for much more widespread monitoring of this SPI at a local level.'

A new Road Safety Board, with transport minister Lilian Greenwood herself at the helm, will be tasked with overseeing the strategy. This gives clear accountability, and it will likely demand a year-by-year progress analysis; but once established, its first job may need to be finding more leading indicators to monitor in the first place.

Safer speeds

There are two other key areas where it is hard not to be a little disappointed - as the strategy itself states: 'Safe roads and roadsides and safe speeds are pillars within the Safe System.'

Brake's CEO Ross Moorlock said: 'We consider the absence of national speed management measures to be a grave oversight. We know from the latest Department for Transport casualty statistics that speed is a factor in almost three-fifths of road deaths, whether that's drivers breaking speed limits or driving too fast for the road conditions.

'Mandating vehicle safety technology such as intelligent speed assistance and automated emergency braking will go some way to mitigating the risks associated with driver speed, but further national measures will be absolutely essential to meeting the Government's targets to reduce road death and injury.'

Under the strategy, the Government has pledged to publish a new edition of the best practice guidance, Setting Local Speed Limits. This is all well and good, but the science on speeding vehicles is pretty well established. (It basically dates back to Newton.)

This new edition might make local evidence easier to present to council members, but it won't change the fundamental modern safety question: Will you make urban roads 20mph and reduce national speed limits for high-risk rural roads? These are questions the Governments in Wales and Scotland have asked, but the Government in Westminster has apparently ducked, opting instead for flexibility.

The concept of flexibility is a bit like the concept of tolerance. As Karl Popper pointed out, being tolerant of intolerance is not really tolerance. Being flexible on a point of well-known safety is not really being flexible; it's being risky. The political reality of devolution, combined with our vast and complex road network, makes the DfT's approach completely understandable and, in its own way, reasonable. However, the science isn't going to change from one council to another.

Safer road design

The other issue is improving the inherent safety design of road infrastructure and dedicating funding to make it happen. It appears no extra funding is delivered by the strategy, although that was only to be expected in the current environment.

We have a mature system for measuring the inherent risk of a road - the  International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) star safety rating. However, this is not included in the strategy's SPIs. The document notes that a 'flow weighted average decimal star iRAP safety rating of the most important roads' is an indicator 'under consideration': why it is still under consideration after the release of the strategy is left largely unanswered.

Mr Owen notes that 'this would be a great lead indicator', and adds: 'A serious discussion needs to take place on the best methodology available to assess network performance with the EU choosing a slightly different approach.'

The iRAP system is already used by National Highways to improve the risk levels of its network. The strategy tells us: 'In the third road period (April 2026 – March 2031), National Highways intends to re-affirm its efforts to improve safety on the highest risk roads, focusing on those locations with the lowest iRAP star ratings. National Highways is also working with key partners, through its Road to Zero harm initiative, to implement safety measures as part of an evidence-based roadmap towards eliminating KSIs on the SRN.'

This is good news, of course, but National Highways has been set iRAP targets before and has been prepared to quietly drop them when they became too challenging. It will be interesting to see how any new oversight board will work with the Office of Rail and Road to monitor this.

Also, to be fair to National Highways, previous RISs didn't ringfence enough dedicated funding to do the work - safety in general has been underfunded at the national level, with the excuse that 'everything we do is safety' - so it will be interesting to see what funds are put against any iRAP improvements this time around.  

On the local level, when it comes to road design and risk, the Government said it would consider reforming rural road categories and support PRIME pilot trials in new regions (PRIME is an excellent, Highways Award-winning initiative and can be cheaply rolled out across the country). However, the main pledge is simply to publish an updated Manual for Streets. This is not a new commitment, as most will know. This latest document (the third in the series) has been in the works at CIHT for years and was basically as 'long-awaited' as the safety strategy itself.

Enforcement and technology

On the key enforcement and technology aspects of the strategy, David Crundall, Professor of Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, specialising in traffic and transport psychology, sums up the situation: 'Lowering the drink-drive limit aligns the UK with other countries and will promote safety. Some drivers will still push boundaries, but at a lower level. The challenge remains that proposed limits don't translate into everyday measures like "a pint" or "a glass of wine," so confusion will persist. The clearest message is simple: no alcohol is the only safe option.

'On vehicle safety technology, concerns post-Brexit about lagging behind Europe are addressed by the new strategy, ensuring UK drivers benefit from advanced systems like autonomous emergency braking and lane-keeping assist. But technology alone isn't enough; we must train drivers to use it. Showroom staff often lack knowledge, and drivers rarely get a safe space to learn these features.

'The proposal for a six-month gap between theory and practical tests could form part of a graduated licensing system for young drivers. While the government resists a full GDL system to protect freedoms and job opportunities, safety experts will welcome this step, even if many believe it doesn't go far enough.

'Finally, seatbelt compliance remains vital. Though traditionally low non-compliance rates have been reported, recent surveys suggest higher rates among some groups. Increasing penalties shows commitment to saving lives and may include educational courses similar to speed awareness programs.'