We're far too safety-conscious, according to a new report by government advisers, and as a result of cultural and legislative shifts, our national attitude to risk is becoming defensive and disproportionate and the way we try to manage risk is leading to regulatory overkill.
So says the Better Regulation Commission, which published the report Risk Responsibility and Regulation. It argues that government intervention through regulation should be limited, and personal responsibility and trust encouraged. Britain must safeguard its sense of adventure, enterprise and competitive edge, it argues, with responses being evidence- rather than emotionally-based.
Naked streets
From the report:
The issue
The Department for Transport (DfT) and local authorities design and implement safety measures to prevent road accidents from occurring. The basic road markings, lighting, signs and crossings help responsible motorists drive safely. They are often supplemented with traffic calming features such as speed-bumps and chicanes.
Accidents still occur regularly. In 2005, there were 271,017 reported accidents on roads in the UK in 2005. 3,201 people were killed. Even though numbers are decreasing, with ever increasing numbers of people and vehicles travelling in the UK, the risk of transport accidents inevitably remains.
The response
In recent years, several local councils in the UK have been testing an innovative Dutch technique to reduce traffic incidents called ‘de-cluttering’. In Wiltshire, white centre-lines were removed from the roads in Seend Village – accidents decreased by a third and the average speed reduced by five per cent. In Kensington, the High Street has been de-cluttered of devices originally installed to protect pedestrians. Barriers between pedestrian areas and the road have been removed, kerbs have been stripped away from junctions and the number of street signs has been reduced, resulting in a drop in accidents.
The idea originated in the Netherlands, where the concept (called ‘naked streets’) has been taken even further. Dangerous junctions have been stripped of traffic lights, road signs, directional markers and pedestrian crossings. To the approaching driver such intersections are totally ambiguous, and with nothing to tell drivers what to do they have to figure it out for themselves. As a result, drivers seem to approach it cautiously and with an eye on what everybody else in the vicinity is up to.
Supporters of the ‘naked streets’ concept argue that drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are forced to interact, make eye contact and adapt to the traffic, instead of relying on signs and signals. They are given more responsibility for their actions on the road. Without the conventional rules of the road in place, drivers tend to slow down and develop an understanding of their environment. It may be that road users pay less attention to their surroundings if they feel protected by an array of signs telling them what to do.
Where ‘naked streets’ have been adopted, accidents have gone down as have average speeds, and as traffic moves more efficiently journey times have decreased. DfT has commissioned research to explore de-cluttering, suitable speed restrictions and how to minimise the environmental impact of traffic signs and street furniture.
|
The report reveals a growing perception that there are too many rules and regulations, from the absurd (conkers, doormats, bicycle bells) to the less obvious but more costly examples such as planning rules, anti-social behaviour regulations, CCTV or even airport security measures.
Motoring examples
Car-related examples it cites include regulation such as the annual MoT test for cars three years old and over. The report questions whether, because today's cars are safer and more reliable, it wouldn't be sensible to push back the first year of testing to the fourth year.
It argues that: "There could be scope, while still meeting our EU obligations, to put back the date of the first MOT test from year 3 to 4 and have biennial tests until a vehicle is 10 years old. This would save motorists around £80m in test fees (based on an average fee of £35) in addition to savings in time and inconvenience. However any decision to reduce the frequency of MOT testing would need to weigh the benefits against any potential adverse consequences, including for road safety."
Similarly, new rules mandating the use of child seats in cars can have unforeseen consequences, such as forcing parents not to take other people's children in their cars because of a lack of car seats, forcing them perhaps to walk the streets.
National debate
The report calls for government to lead a national debate which explores three questions:
- What becomes possible if we trust people more and regulate them less?
- What happens if classic state regulation is limited to a last resort rather than a first instinct?
- How far are people ready to take more responsibility for managing their own risks?
Commission chairman Rick Haythornthwaite said: “Britain is rightly famous for the achievements of our entrepreneurs, risk takers, adventurers and explorers. We have always pushed boundaries and taken risks in search of greater rewards. Now, our national resilience, self reliance and spirit of adventure could be threatened by a culture that demands the progressive elimination of risk through more and more regulation.
“I want to challenge all of us – government, citizens, media, to accept that:
- risk is an essential and useful part of life
- rules and regulations are often the worst way to try to manage risk
- personal responsibility for managing risk needs to be encouraged
- government intervention should be actively limited to those few areas where it is really required.
The report recommends reducing knee jerk regulation by educating ministers and civil servants about risk management, setting up a Fast Assessment for Regulatory Options (FARO) panel to provide evidence-based advice at a time when emotions may be running high and starting the process of handing responsibility for managing risk back to the individual wherever possible.
The BRC urges the government to come clean with the public about risk and regulation, about where ownership and responsibility should start and stop. It needs to spell out that there are costs as well as benefits of risk reduction measures. It must explode the myth that the government can and should manage all risk. It must admit that zero risk is unachievable, unattainable and undesirable.
The report calls for a campaign against inconsistencies and absurdities, where regulations and those implementing them have lost the focus on the desired outcomes. It demands that the Government commits to re-examine areas where the state is considered to have gone too far in its interference of our freedoms.
Maybe they should include speed cameras in that debate -- evidence analysed by roads safety campaigns such as Safe Speed show that, while they might make some people feel better, they actually don't make the roads any safer.
But then, this is not a purely governmental problem: it needs a shift away from a deep-rooted victim culture -- and that will be tough to undermine.