Volume 2

Government policy on the management of risk / House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affaris.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on Economic Affairs.
Date:
2006
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Government policy on the management of risk / House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affaris. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    245/260 (page 239)
    5. Itis necessary to accept a level of risk as part of the convenience of personal motorised transport. However, PACTS is concerned that there is insufficient reflection of the disproportionate level of death or injury risk from road casualties in policy and resources. PACTS would suggest that this is in part due to ambivalent community attitudes to road safety measures, which can be reflected within decision making structures, as well as the inconsistent application of risk methodologies across transport modes. 6. Itis a contradiction that, while road safety, drink driving and speeding in suburban streets regularly feature as concerns in community safety surveys, at the same time, hostility is expressed towards the use of road safety measures known to be effective such as cameras and some traffic calming. There is thus a tension not only between contradictory community attitudes, but also between public perception and expert advice based on risk analysis that supports such measures. The key element within this tension is competing perspectives on the locus of risk. 7. One illustration of where reducing the risk of road casualties is seen as the responsibility of a range of actors is Sweden’s road safety strategy. In 1997 the Swedish Government introduced the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to achieve zero road collision fatalities by making safety paramount over other transport aims and explicitly sharing responsibility for road casualty reduction between all road users: “Previously, most of the responsibility for a traffic accident was placed on the individual road user. However, according to “Vision Zero”, this responsibility is shared by all those who have an effect on, or participate in road traffic: — Politicians who make decisions concerning community planning and traffic issues. — Planners who implement political decisions concerning the shape and design of society and the road transport system. — Road managers, like the Swedish National Road Administration and the municipal authorities, that construct and maintain roads. — The police who ensure that traffic rules are followed. — Vehicle manufacturers and dealers. — Organisations that strive to improve road safety in society. — Companies, organisations and private individuals that purchase transport services. — Companies, organisations and private individuals that transport goods and people. — All those who use roads and streets.” (Swedish National Road Administration, 2004) 8. By contrast, in this country there is a higher degree of individualisation of road risk. As such, there is an anomalous level of tolerance for the risk, or casualty rate, and a reluctance to engage in risk reduction measures that is not reflected in attitudes towards other harmful activities in which individuals can engage. For example: — Misuse of guns is not tolerated at all — Behaviour that spreads disease evokes very low levels of tolerance — Crime against the person or property frequently elicits demands for strong punishments and — Misuse of substances, although subject to a range of attitudes, also elicits demands for strong punishments. 9. The individualisation of road risk is further evident when considered in comparison to attitudes towards casualties in other modes of transport. The 1994-2003 average rates of fatality per billion passenger kilometers across the modes varies greatly: — Aijr 0.00 — Rail 0.4 — Bus/Coach 0.3 — Car 28° — Motorcycle 113 — Pedal cycle 39 Pedestrian D2 (DfT, Road Casualties Great Britain: 2004, p116) 38 This includes the driver and passenger.