Research and Policy

20mph zones, areas and limits have been gaining in popularity in recent years but their overall impact on road safety is at best unclear.
Schemes to reduce speed through communities are often popular with local residents but their biggest benefits are often in health and environmental improvements rather than injury reduction. Speed limits must match the road environment or drivers can become confused so getting the speed limit right promotes self-compliance and removes the need for expensive enforcement.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations:

• IAM RoadSmart do not favour a blanket approach to speed limits or a wholesale change in the urban limit from 30 to 20
• Distributor roads should always remain as 30mph or above with segregated design features for enhanced pedestrian and cycling safety.
• The key requirement of any 20mph zone must be that it is self enforcing through signposting that makes sense or traffic calming features
• IAM RoadSmart do not support the use of speed cameras in 20mph areas but would like to see a specific retraining option available for those caught breaking the limit
• Given the low number of injuries on residential roads limited police enforcement resources must be prioritised elsewhere
• IAM RoadSmart has no wish to deny anyone the opportunity to live in a better environment with limited traffic intrusion and we would not object to 20mph limits across housing estates where average speeds are already below 30mph
• More research is needed on the long term safety performance of different approaches eg mandatory limits versus advisory, traffic calming versus sign only
• Research suggests that drivers use the clues from the environment around them to judge the correct speed. Where limits do not match the environment uncertainty and confusion are generated which can raise stress levels and provide an unwelcome distraction from safe driving and lead to a wider disrespect for limits.
• IAM RoadSmart has no objection to the relaxation of traffic order requirements to make schemes easier to implement
• Local consultation is crucial to ensure that those people who live on and use the affected roads fully understand what to expect
• Detailed design and high quality materials in traffic calming features and signposting are a basic requirement in all schemes
• Schemes must not be promoted on purely road safety grounds but in an open and honest way that shows the wider benefits to the local population.

Estimates suggest as many as 200 drug driving related deaths occur every year in GB. Surveys suggest that one in ten young male drivers have driven under the influence of cannabis, and 370,000 have driven under the influence of class A drugs.

Many drug users simply do not believe that their driving is affected by the drugs they are taking, and in some cases they believe it enhances driving skill. Many habitual drug users continue to use a car as part of the everyday routine of their lives.

New drug testing equipment has now been tested and approved by the Home Office for use in police stations and this will allow quick and accurate detection of a range of drugs. To reflect these advances in technology, the government has introduced a new offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified controlled drug in the body. The details of the limits for drug driving are now set in law but are based on the findings of a report from a panel of medical and scientific experts.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations:

• IAM RoadSmart welcomes the new legislation and the general approach of setting a limit and testing to it. This is in line with the well understood approach adopted for alcohol
• A set of limits and a proven machine to analyse them in every police station will reduce the time taken to process drugged drivers. These time and money savings should be used to increase high profile enforcement patrols
• IAM RoadSmart believes the report of the expert panel raised important questions which the Department for Transport, Home Office and medical experts must continue to research to reassure the driving public that drug limits have been correctly set and fairly enforced. These include;
• Should field impairment testing still be available as a screening tool?
• Will the police be able to safely and consistently deal with these issues at the roadside and in a busy police station environment?
• Are there sufficient traffic police numbers to deal with this new approach?
• Are the new drugalyser machines accurate enough to implement the thresholds?
• Have the limits for alcohol and drugs been correctly set in the light of experience?
• Can those taking prescription drugs be confident that they won’t be caught out by the new limits?
• Have government departments set aside sufficient resources for a sustained education and information campaign to explain the new limits?
• What plans do the government have to support the expert panel recommendations for more research including routine blood sample taking at crashes?
• What safeguards will be in place for those who wish to challenge the drugalyser?
• How soon can all drugs be tested for in roadside and police station equipment?
• The implementation of drug limits and new equipment in Scotland is long overdue and should be brought forward as a priority by the Scottish Government.

• IAM RoadSmart will adapt its product portfolio to meet the requirements of EV users based on our fundamental coaching principles of observation, anticipation, and planning
• On behalf of its members IAM RoadSmart will work to promote fair and equitable consumer rights for the users of EVs.  These include issues such as availability of charging points, transparent pricing, use of contactless payments, safe street design for charging and the sustainability of the electricity network
• IAM RoadSmart support the reduction of VAT on electricity from roadside charges to the same level as that for domestic sources
• IAM RoadSmart insist that EVs must meet the same EuroNCAP crash standards as existing cars with additional protection from risks such as fire, battery life and safe interaction with the emergency services in the event of collisions
• Investigating crashes involving electric cars should be a priority area for the new Road Safety Investigation Branch (RSIB) to build and share knowledge of real-world safety issues
• IAM RoadSmart support better consumer information for drivers and riders to allow informed choices to be made on EVs including information on life cycle analysis
• IAM RoadSmart expect to see long term clarity from the government on subsidies for the purchase and use of EVs
• IAM RoadSmart would like to see more support for employers to put their drivers through EV training and awareness courses
• IAM RoadSmart support the mandatory fitment of acoustic vehicle alerting systems to EVs for the safety of vulnerable road users
• IAM RoadSmart support equal consumer rights for the riders of electric motorcycles.  This includes compatible access to all public charging points

E-scooters may have a role to play in the future transport mix, but this can only happen once their legal status has been made completely clear.  IAM RoadSmart have welcomed the numerous pilot studies involving hire e-scooters in cities across the UK. 

However, waiting for the results of these studies have delayed a final decision on key elements of e-scooter construction and use that must be clarified before progress can be made.  In the meantime, the completely uncontrolled private use of personally purchased e-scooters goes on, leading to more and more incidents and injuries on our roads and pavements.  The latest government figures suggest a 900% increase in fatalities between 2020 and 2021*.

The Government had promised a new Transport Bill would be laid before parliament in late 2022 which would have clarified the law on e-scooters.  This has now been further delayed by the new administration with no firm guarantees of a Bill anytime soon.  This is unacceptable given the daily risk that e-scooters are now causing to their riders and the general public. 

E-scooters are simply not safe enough to be on our roads alongside motorised vehicles or mixed in with vulnerable pedestrians.  Research using crash tests dummies shows how vulnerable scooter owners are, and the complete lack of protection offered by these fast moving machines.**  IAM RoadSmart support a ban on all e-scooters on public roads or on pavements with use restricted to private land or cycle lanes only.

IAM RoadSmart supports immediate action to deal with dangerous and illegal private e-scooter use.  This must start with a clear information campaign explaining that private e-scooters cannot be used on the roads or pavements.  The campaign can then move on to explain the consequences of illegal use setting out the substantial fines and driving bans available.  IAM RoadSmart fully supports the police in taking enforcement action against illegal and unsafe use of e-scooters.  We also call for action to be taken against retailers who fail to properly inform customers of the illegality in using them and the risks involved.

Additional research is required on casualty numbers, the causes of fatal and serious crashes and the additional fire risk caused by e-scooters.

IAM RoadSmart believes the Transport Bill must urgently set minimum standards for e-scooters including:

• Maximum speed of 12.5mph (20km/h)
• Controls on power outputs
• Anti-tampering mechanisms with tampering prohibited by law
• Minimum wheel size
• Front and rear independently controlled brakes
• Lighting
• Indicators
• Audible warning devices
• Helmet wearing
• Rider age limit of at least 16 years
• Carrying of a passenger to be prohibited
• Drink driving, dangerous or careless riding, and handheld mobile phone use to be prohibited
• In-person rider training and third-party insurance recommended.

The future for e-scooters can be bright if it is based around continuously monitored, well managed and geo fenced hire schemes, plus limited and tightly regulated private use.  Whatever legislation is proposed, action is needed now with no more delays.

Notes;

*https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-e-scooter-factsheet-2021

**https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/crash-test-dummies-reveal-injury-risks-of-low-speed-e-scooter-accidents

ISA uses global satellite positioning (GPS), a digital map to establish a car’s location and sign recognition cameras to identify what the speed limit is at any point on the road.

This information can be used to:

• Tell the driver they are exceeding  a speed limit through a warning display on the dashboard or a vibration through the pedals (Advisory ISA)
• Control the speed of the vehicle, if the driver so wishes (Discretionary ISA)
• Automatically control the speed of the vehicle (Controlling ISA)

Once controlling ISA has identified  the speed limit, it does not allow the driver to accelerate beyond it. The promise that speeding fines, penalty points and subsequent loss of licence will become things of the past is an attractive proposition. In the UK alone, millions of motorists are fined and given penalty points for speeding every year. A team from the University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) has found that the system could achieve significant reductions in road crash deaths and injuries.  This was confirmed in a 2017 report by TRL for the EU that recommended ISA, and a range of other vehicle technologies,  as a positive benefit for road safety.  This led to the introduction of the GSR2 (General Safety Regualtion2) which will lead to the installation of advisory ISA in all new cars in the EU from 2022.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• IAM RoadSmart support the standard fitment of advisory ISA in all new cars to alert drivers to changes in speed limits
• The more complex, ‘discretionary’, version, which a driver can switch on or off, could still offered as an optional extra on new cars
• IAM RoadSmart do not support mandatory fitting of full control ISA at the current time
• ISA needs basic safeguards built in from the outset such as 100 per cent reliability of equipment and speed limit mapping, and failsafe mechanisms for when things go wrong
• More studies are needed on driver behaviour in ISA controlled cars, for example;
  1. Do drivers keep their foot firmly on the accelerator in discretionary systems, secure in the knowledge that they cannot exceed the maximum permitted speed?
  2. Do drivers rely on the ISA system and fail to drop their speed when conditions require?
  3. Do drivers place themselves at risk if they are unable to accelerate out of trouble?
• IAM RoadSmart support the adoption of GSR 2 and its list of new vehicle technologies in the UK as an urgent policy priority for the government. IAM RoadSmart members believe that a well trained driver will never need such a system but new drivers or those with a poor crash record may benefit most from it
• Most fatal crashes take place on rural roads and enhanced ISA systems which can locate bad bends, deal with bad weather and highlight local dangers would make an even greater contribution to accident reduction

Information on the UK ISA trials can be found here.

IAM RoadSmart welcomed the banning of hand held mobile phones. Scientific research clearly demonstrates that a driver cannot safely control a car and make or take phone calls at the same time. Deaths and injury caused when a driver is distracted by a mobile phone are completely avoidable and a senseless waste of life.

The number of casualties in crashes where a driver was using a mobile phone is difficult to establish. But, research in simulators has shown drivers who use hands-free phones are up to four times more likely to be involved in a crash. Texting or smartphone use whilst driving increases reaction times by up to 35%.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations:

• As technology constantly changes continued education campaigns are required to reinforce and clarify the current laws
• Insurance companies should increase the premiums of those caught using a hand held phone or who have other phone related convictions
• IAM RoadSmart would like to see mobile phone, car makers and technology companies developing new products that reduce or remove completely the potential for phone use when a vehicle is in motion
• IAM RoadSmart has no objection to increasing the fines and points tally for mobile phone use but the key is sustained high profile police enforcement of the current laws
• As part of their safety management policy companies should be encouraged to take a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to phone use when driving on business
• Those companies who actively force drivers to use mobiles when in motion should be prosecuted under corporate manslaughter or health and safety laws
• Social media and app providers should allocate part of their profits to road safety campaigns and issue frequent warnings about the dangers of using their products whilst driving.

Encouraging drivers to take regular breaks from driving is the Government’s main objective for motorway service areas (MSAs).

But if drivers don’t believe motorway services are attractive places to take a break, many won’t stop and they will exercise their consumer choice and continue driving, or leave the motorway to seek out alternative facilities.

From petrol to polo mints, MSA customers pay significantly higher prices than they would pay at retail outlets off the motorway network. This is mainly because MSA operators have higher running costs because they have to be open 24/7 and 365 days of the year, but also because there is no competition between service areas on the same motorway. It has been estimated that well over half of visitors stop only to use the toilets or to take a break from driving, without buying anything.

Just a few years ago, Britain’s MSAs were bottom of the European league for quality and value.

Operators have invested heavily and worked hard to achieve higher standards, but motorists continue to pay high prices. Recently, the government announced some relaxation of the ancient rules on MSA signing by allowing descriptions of what is available to be included on the advanced signing. The IAM believes this does not go far enough and it is now time for another independent inquiry into how motorway service areas can serve motorists better, and make our motorways even safer.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• Convene an independent inquiry to review all the rules and to propose reforms
• Trial fuel-only rest areas that also sell a small range of snacks and goods, and which operate successfully on the continent
• Following the recent M5 trial install signs showing the price of fuel at the next service areas
• Introduce independent inspections for quality and value
• Produce a national strategic /aspirational plan for service areas based on user needs
• The Government gives no money to support its objective to make motorways safer by encouraging drivers to ‘take a break’ - this should change
• Encourage more park-and-ride and car-share at service areas
• Assess if the often strictly enforced two hour maximum free parking limit at many MSAs is working against the core objective of encouraging drivers to take an adequate break

Motorways are our safest roads because they are designed for high speeds and the vehicles using them today have also never been safer.

Speed surveys show that on uncongested motorways, 57 per cent of car drivers exceed the 70mph speed limit, and 20 per cent exceed 80 mph. IAM RoadSmart’s most serious concern is that legalising today’s unofficial and tolerated 80 mph speed limit could create tomorrow’s unofficial 90 mph limit. Average traffic speeds would increase, as would accidents and their severity and more people could be killed and seriously injured.

Options

Not all UK motorways are built to the highest standards and many have sections with limited sight lines, tight curves, only two lanes and slip road designs that may not be able to deal with a higher limit safely.

Closely monitored smart motorways which set the speed limit according to traffic flows and density do however offer the ability to increase limits and enforce them. If the speed limit can be lowered below 70 mph in congested conditions, it could just as easily be increased to 80 mph when traffic flows are much lighter and conditions are good.

In Holland the limit was recently increased to 80mph (120kph) after a comprehensive review of motorway capacity, congestion and safety. The limit has only been increased on those sections where the road can cope with it. The vast majority of the busy Dutch motorway network remained unchanged or had variable limits applied to recognise varying traffic conditions throughout the day.

British motorways are the most congested in Europe so few drivers actually achieve 70 mph consistently on every journey. Any change in the limit is therefore unlikely to affect most drivers on their daily commute.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• The Department of Transport should announce once and for all if it is even considering raising the motorway speed limit
• Technical work should begin on the feasibility of raising the limit to 80mph on existing and future smart motorways
• Trunk road agencies across the UK should carry out comprehensive reviews of their motorway network to identify those sections that could safely accept a higher limit and those that could not
• Highways England, Transport Scotland and The Welsh Assembly should bring forward proposals for an 80 mph speed limit pilot to assess safety, practicality and driver acceptance.

More and more Britons are living longer and healthier lives but, at this report finds, the car is still by far the most popular transport option for them and one they are not keen to give up. The number of drivers over the age of 80 is now getting close to two million and many are using their cars more often as a central part of their active lives.

Older drivers up to the age of 80 are not a high risk group on our roads and most actually have a very positive appetite for changes to ensure they can stay mobile for as long as possible. As in the 2015 report it is still clear that medical professionals have a key role to play in informing and influencing the choice to give up driving. It is also clear that little
has changed since 2015 to help older drivers prepare and plan for life without the car. If we are to avoid a demographic time bomb of isolated older people stuck in their homes requiring extra services, it is vital that governments across the UK engage in an open dialogue about their plans and actions to deliver safer roads and continued mobility. We
called for action six years ago and that call is now even more important as our population ages. IAM RoadSmart acknowledge the generous support of the Department of Transport in funding this report.

Click here to download the report, or use the link below.

Cycling is on the increase in the UK and the recent increase in injuries is clearly linked to its growing popularity.

It brings major benefits to society in the form of better health, reduced congestion and lower emissions but our cycling facilities lag well behind those found in Europe. Over 60% of the population believe cycling is too dangerous for them to cycle on the road.

More cyclists will bring safety in numbers but until that time IAM RoadSmart will continue to support segregated infrastructure, raised awareness of cycling and above all the need for all road users to take responsibility for their safety and that of those around them.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations:

• Adult cycle training should be widely available and cycling should be part of the National Curriculum taught in every school
• Teaching new drivers about the risk that vehicles pose to cyclists must be a priority
• Information campaigns should highlight risky behaviour by drivers and riders and encourage safer interactions between motorised and two wheeled transport
• Drivers must adhere to the Highway Code by giving cyclists safe room, respecting advanced stop lines, parking safely and controlling road rage
• Safety mirrors and improved window designs should be fitted to all large vehicles and at key junctions
• Infrastructure improvements which separate cyclists and heavy traffic should have the top priority for investment. Well maintained and pothole free roads, pavements and cycle lanes will assist in the encouragement of cycling
• Innovative shared space designs should be encouraged which create cycling friendly environments where it is clear that all road users have equal priority. 20mph zones can help promote cycling but the results so far have been mixed and more research is needed to identify streetscape improvements that will encourage more cycling
• IAM RoadSmart does not support changing the civil law to place blame for cycle crashes solely on the driver as all road users have an equal responsibility to behave safely
• Cyclists should adhere to the highway code, obey road signs and signals and cycle in a safe and predictable manner
• Cyclists should wear helmets, reflective clothing and use lights at night, but IAM RoadSmart does not support compulsory wearing of cycle helmets although all riders should always wear one to avoid turning a simple fall into a life changing brain injury
• There is no evidence that insurance for cyclists would make any difference to cycling or driving behaviour and IAM RoadSmart does not support compulsory cycle insurance or road tax for this reason.

Road designers frequently ignore the needs of motorcyclists when they design and upgrade our roads.

The location of manhole covers, junction design, fuel spills, use of bus lanes and basic road maintenance programmes all have a direct effect on the safety of motorcycle users.

The solutions to all these problems are well known but the will is not yet there to ensure that the special risks that bikers face are designed out of our road system. The IHIE have just revamped their detailed guidelines for motorcyclist friendly designs but progress has been slow in getting a motorcycle champion or design expert in every highway design office.

The IAM’s 2007 report Barriers to change: Designing safer roads for motorcyclists highlighted how lethal a crash barrier can be to a rider unfortunate to hit one, and the simple safety measures that can be implemented to reduce the severity of injuries.

Hitting a barrier is believed to be a factor in between eight and 16 per cent of motorcyclist deaths. A rider who hits a barrier is 15 times more likely to be killed than a car occupant, and injuries will be up to five times more severe than if the rider had hit the rigid object at the roadside that the barrier is there to guard against.

Two-thirds of riders in collision with crash barriers are killed or maimed by sliding into the supporting posts. Road authorities around the world are now working to make barriers ‘crash friendly’ to riders, with a particular focus on these support posts. Evaluation suggests that these strategically placed barriers halve the number of biker deaths caused by the old style barriers.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• The UK government must implement a mass action programme of motorcycle crash friendly barriers at the highest risk locations on our motorways and trunk roads
• Local highway authorities should urgently retro fit motorcycle crash friendly products at the worst sites
• All new crash barriers on bends should be designed with bikers in mind
• All highway authorities should adopt the IHIE guidelines on safer design for motorcyclists
• Every highway authority and trunk road body should have a motorcycle design champion in their office to ensure the needs of bikers are met
• Proven road safety success stories such as allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes should be adopted as standard practice across the UK

England’s motorways are among the most congested in Europe and the government has plans to convert over 10% of the motorway network to smart (previously known as managed) motorways.

This offers a cheaper way to increase capacity than motorway widening but will change the way we drive on our safest roads. Smart motorway pilot schemes have successfully increased traffic flow on the M42, M1, M25 and M6 by adopting peak time hard shoulder running, CCTV monitoring, speed cameras and gantry mounted lane control signs. For drivers, the most comforting feature about them is knowing that the traffic situation is being constantly watched and a control centre can take immediate action in the event of incidents or congestion.

The latest generation of smart motorways are different - they involve all lane running, bigger gaps between refuges and less frequent roadside electronic signs. In theory detection and monitoring of incidents is at a high level and lanes can be signalled as closed and resources dispatched quickly to assist drivers.  However, there is mounting evidence that drivers who break down in live running lanes are being exposed to unacceptable delays before their predicament is being detected.

IAM RoadSmart Policy:

• IAM RoadSmart supports smart motorways as Highways England studies show most drivers like them and they reduce congestion
• Smart motorways have been intensively modelled but have yet to fully prove themselves in the real world. The early schemes had more refuges, signs, CCTV and detection equipment and we expect these standards to be maintained
• Most breakdowns and incidents on motorways are avoidable and the IAM will work closely with the Highways Agency to improve driver behaviour on our motorway network
• Intensive education campaigns are needed to explain the new road designs to drivers who only use motorways on an occasional basis
• Compliance with lane control signals is key to the success of smart motorways and IAM RoadSmart support enforcement of Red X signs
• IAM RoadSmart would like to work with Highways England to provide retraining and re-education options for drivers failing to comply with motorway regulations. IAM RoadSmart's own motorway module would be an excellent starting point
• The government must address drivers concerns about removing the hard shoulder by ensuring that all stretches of smart motorway are delivered as promised.  This requires full incident detection technology, CCTV coverage and more frequent refuges
• IAM RoadSmart’s advice for driving on a managed motorway is: always be aware of the displayed speed limit, obey Red X signs, don’t change lanes; don't join a motorway if your fuel is low or car faulty, if you believe your car is in trouble try to get into an emergency refuge where you will be safe, if you break down in a running lane wait for help in the car.

Since their introduction in the UK in 1992, safety cameras (formerly known as speed cameras) have become one of the most controversial aspects of road safety strategy, at times dividing opinion among motorists, road safety professionals and activists and even within central and local government.

IAM RoadSmart research indicates 79% overall support for safety cameras as a safety measure. However 44% of respondents did not believe that cameras were always sited at collision hot spots and 44% felt that the main purpose of cameras was to raise revenue, not to improve road user safety.

Contrary to popular opinion cameras can only be installed after an exhaustive decision making process and all fines raised do go to the Treasury. All central government funding of safety cameras has ceased in England and Wales and local partnerships have had to look at new ways of funding. This has led to more widespread use of speed awareness courses with locally retained income.

These funding changes also coincided with the need to replace wet film cameras with more expensive digital units and this led to many predicting the demise of the safety camera on our roads. With one or two local exceptions this has not happened and mobile and fixed speed cameras remain in use across the country.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations:

• IAM RoadSmart supports the use of safety camera systems at collision hot spots, on roads with a bad crash record and at areas of proven risk, such as motorway road works
• It is vital for their credibility and road safety policy, that their use is concentrated on these areas, directly linked to speed related crashes and casualties
• Speed cameras should remain highly visible to provide a deterrent to drivers
• IAM RoadSmart has no objection to the inclusion of speed camera information on sat navs and other databases
• Cameras should be seen a temporary solution until long term engineering improvements can be implemented to remove the problem permanently
• Partnerships using cameras must be transparent in their funding arrangements
• The Home Office should make traffic policing a higher priority for Chief Constables and Local Police Commissioners and work to significantly increase the number of traffic police available to deal proactively with all aspects of reckless and careless behaviour on the roads.

The debate on the maximum permitted blood alcohol limit for drivers has continued ever since the Scottish Government lowered the drink-drive limit north of the border in 2014. It has also become more pressing with the flat lining in drink related deaths over recent years.

Surveys of the public also show a consistently high degree of support for a lower limit across the country. So, there is seemingly an appetite for change. But what is IAM RoadSmart’s view?

The UK legal limit was set in 1967 at a level where impairment was undeniable - 80 milligrams of alcohol for 100 millilitres of blood (0.8). Recent research suggests that impairment begins at 0.5 and lowering the limit could save at least 40 lives a year on Britain’s roads. We are now out of step with the rest of Europe where most countries have adopted the lower limit of 0.5. 240 people were killed in drink drive accidents in 2018 and the total number of collisions and accidents where at least one driver was over the alcohol limit rose by 3% from 2017 to 5,890.

Long term alcohol related incidents have been flat lining for the last five years - 13%, or around one in seven, of all fatal crashes involved alcohol in 2018. 

Research shows that drink driving is most common amongst young drivers and the middle aged and police still catch thousands of drivers over the limit across the UK every year. Most were stopped by routine patrols rather than as the result of a crash.

IAM RoadSmart acknowledges that a lower limit could risk diverting police resources from catching the most dangerous offenders who pay little regard to any limit, but it would also send a very powerful signal on drinking and driving. For the moment, the government is committed to keeping the current legal limit of 0.8 but this approach can only work if there is vigorous and focused enforcement on drink driving. Given the recent cuts in police budgets and the lack of improvement in drink related deaths it is clear the battle has been not yet been won and the ‘status quo’ is not good enough.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• IAM RoadSmart believes that a new consultation is needed now to reflect the growing support among the general public and a range of influential organisations, including the police, for a lower limit in England and Wales
• Consistent high profile enforcement effort is needed to ensure that we return to a downward trend in alcohol related driving deaths
• Education campaigns targeting young drivers are needed to reinforce the anti drink drive message
• Only half of those involved in crashes are routinely tested - this figure should be as near 100% as possible across the whole of the UK
• Legal clarification of terms such as ‘random testing’ and ‘suspicion of drink driving’ are still needed to demythologise drink dive enforcement and give the police clarity for action
• IAM RoadSmart has welcomed the removal of the blood test option in some circumstances but the government must bring forward proposals to allow evidential breath testing at the roadside to save time and free up police resources
• IAM RoadSmart support an 'opt out' approach to drink drive rehabilitation courses for all drink drive offenders

You may also want to read more about IAM RoadSmart's £70,000 drink campaign raising awareness of the potential financial cost of a drink drive conviction. You can see details here

Road crashes are the biggest killer of young people in the UK today and yet road safety does not merit the same priority as issues such as knife crime or drugs.

Young people have no incentive to treat driving as a skill for life and often seek to learn as quickly and as cheaply as possible. New drivers are most at risk in their first year of driving and yet the current system abandons them to learn by their own, sometimes fatal, mistakes.

The risk factors are well known; lack of experience (in all traffic conditions but especially rural roads, darkness and poor weather), attitude, distraction (by peer passengers or smartphones) and alcohol and drugs. Choosing effective restrictions to limit the effect of these risk factors should be the key objective of the government in creating a new licensing system that is practical, affordable and works to reduce young driver road deaths and injuries.

IAM RoadSmart recommendations

• Road safety education should be part of the National Curriculum and theory and hazard perception training and testing should take place within the education system
• IAM RoadSmart support a 12 month minimum learning period with an online learning log for learner drivers to complete prior to taking the practical test. Low speed parking and turning manoeuvres could be assessed as part of this process. There is evidence that around 120 hours of driving experience in mixed conditions would produce safer new drivers but not all of this has to be with a paid for instructor.
• L drivers are a safe group and there is no case for increasing insurance premiums when they use the family car
• The practical driving test should include driving on high speed roads
• IAM RoadSmart strongly supports the development of a 'post' or 'second' phase  test as part of a refreshed licensing system. After passing the practical test refresher and eco driving lessons must be taken before full license status is granted. IAM RoadSmart wants to work with stakeholders to develop the best solution using the resources currently available in the UK
• Alongside these interventions IAM RoadSmart supports some graduated license controls in the first year/six months of driving, for example to limit the number of  peer passengers (but no limit on older passengers) and a lower blood alcohol limit
• IAM RoadSmart do not support night time curfews on young drivers as they reduce opportunities to gain experience, impact on the economy and job prospects and raise problems of enforcement
• IAM RoadSmart is ready to provide its knowledge and expertise in developing the content of the minimum learning period and post test interventions, as well as on line learning and new recording systems
• Low income drivers should not be disadvantaged by an extended system of learning to drive. At IAM RoadSmart we believe there is strong potential for volunteers and employers to help all drivers gain a full licence.