The problem

There were 132 people killed on London’s roads in 2013, of which half were pedestrians. There were, too, more than 2,000 serious injuries. While the casualty figures on the roads have been reducing over the years, in absolute terms the number of deaths is still far too high and there is still a casual acceptance that this is the price that must be paid for Londoners’ mobility. That is not the case. As examples from other countries have shown, treating the road casualties as a serious public health issue can lead to dramatic improvements in road safety. A radical new approach to the issue is required.

The issues

Road safety has long been one of those Cinderella issues that mainstream politicians have done little to address. Indeed, every improvement, whether it affects the individual, such as seat belts or stricter drink drive legislation, or whether it affects car manufacturers for example more crash-resistant cars, has been resisted by vested interests or the loonier end of the motoring lobby. Nevertheless, each of these measures has led to improvements in road safety.

In London, where traffic speeds are necessarily lower, the issues are somewhat different to the rest of the country. That is reflected in the high percentage of deaths of pedestrians and also the relative high number of cyclists in the casualty figures.

While there have been improvements in the past, these have often resulted from imposing restrictions on vulnerable street users, rather than tackling the root issues. For example, putting up barriers alongside main roads may reduce pedestrian casualties, but it imposes restrictions on people’s ability to move around the city freely and actually encourages faster driving. The fact that fewer children walk to school, and very few now cycle there, may have resulted in fewer casualties, but the cost in terms of long-term health issues and inconvenience for parents taking children to school has been great.

Therefore a road safety strategy must not rely on making roads more sterile and unfriendly to pedestrians or cyclists. Quite the opposite -he strategy must be tailored to the needs of those vulnerable users and consequently contribute towards the city’s liveability.

Sweden has had a policy of ‘Vision Zero’ for road deaths written into law since 1997. This implies zero tolerance to road deaths and involves a long-term programme of designing out risk to road users, greater enforcement of traffic infringements by police and designing much safer pedestrian crossings. Consequently pedestrian deaths have halved and overall Sweden has the lowest rate of road deaths of developed countries, with only 3 per 100,000 people, compared with a European average of 5.5.

New York City has recently followed suit under new mayor Bill de Blasio and consequently in 2014 recorded the lowest rate of pedestrian deaths since 1910, thanks to better enforcement, slower speed limits, more speed cameras and the creation of ‘slow zones’.

Towards a solution

There is the need for both an overall strategy – a zero tolerance to road deaths – and individual measures to work towards that goal. The purpose of having a vision is both to set an ultimate target but also as an emblematic policy which will attract the imagination of Londoners on safety issues.

Here, therefore, are three ideas which can be implemented quickly in London:

• First, a default 20 mph zone across the capital. This is the single most important measure that will make cycling in London safer. A speed limit of 20 mph is already being imposed in other towns and cities across the UK. Of course there will be the occasional exception, such as dual carriageways and a few main roads in non-residential areas. However, by setting a default 20 mph limit, a signal will be sent to drivers everywhere that higher speeds are unnecessary and dangerous. Default limits in residential areas are already being imposed in several inner London boroughs and many towns and cities across the UK, are following suit. Most notably, nearly all of Edinburgh is now 20 mph and, in Europe, several cities are also implementing similar strategies. Most notably the new Mayor of Paris Mme Anne Hildago, elected last year, recently unveiled plans for virtually all urban streets to be limited to 30kph (19 mph. Whereas previously the police refused to enforce 20 mph limits, this has now changed and they are willing to do so. Moreover, no longer do 20 mph zones have to be protected by physical measures such as humps and width restrictions. The ‘Wolmar for London’ campaign would like to see the reinstatement of a specific traffic role for the police.

• Secondly, a freight strategy to reduce the number of lorries on the streets especially at peak times. There are numerous ways of doing this, from outright restrictions on some roads –as happened to the Olympics – to the creation of consolidation centres to which deliveries in particular areas would be channelled. These have been successfully established in several European countries, notably Holland and, nearer home, in Bristol. Local deliveries could be reduced, too. One idea would be to have a van delivery franchise for each postal code, with private bidders competing to have the franchise for each area. This would reduce the phenomenon of several delivery companies having vans making effectively the same journey.

• Thirdly, there needs to be an accident investigation body for road deaths – and possibly some of the accidents involving serious injury – that will look at the accident in a thorough way, examining both the immediate reasons behind the incident and the wider issues such as, for example the reason why the particular road lay-out was designed and the incidence of other accidents nearby.