If a politician proposes any measure to improve road safety, they should do a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, work out whether the proposal will save more in financial terms than it costs.
The benefit of any road safety scheme can be estimated by looking at the likely reduction in casualties and what they might be worth. For example, the Department for Transport (DfT) publishes estimated costs of accidents – these are £2.2 million for a fatal casualty, £250,000 for a serious injury and £20,000 for a slight injury. One can argue as to whether these are accurate and realistic estimates. Some people argue that they are pessimistic – for example would you pay £20,000 to avoid a minor bruise or cut that did not require hospital treatment? But they do provide a good starting point for any examination of any proposed scheme. The cost of any proposed scheme can usually be estimated fairly closely and it’s not difficult to estimate the likely reduction in casualties from looking at the historic records of police reports on accidents on a stretch of road.
For example, take the wide-area 20 mph limit schemes that are springing up everywhere, particularly in London. From research published by the DfT these are known to have minimal or negligible impact on casualties. But they cost a lot of money to implement – to put up signs, maintain them and the associated road markings, and to enforce them by the police.
In reality spending money on such schemes might be much better spent on other road safety measures – such as education and road engineering to improve accident black spots. Reducing traffic speeds alone costs money in driver and passenger wasted time (bus passengers can be badly affected for example).
A recent article published by the Telegraph (see link below) shows that many London councils do not do any cost/benefit analysis on new schemes. They rely solely on the often mis-informed views of councillors. This irrational behaviour is one reason why London is now the world’s slowest city as reported by satnav company TomTom.
Transport for London (TfL) has spent millions of pounds on it’s Vision Zero plan to cut casualties by reducing speed limits – to no obvious effect (see https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/ ).
If people wish to reduce road casualties, they need to do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed scheme, and compare it to the alternatives. All we tend to get at the moment is prejudiced opinions from ill-informed commentators.
Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/12/london-councils-did-not-do-cost-benefit-analysis/
Roger Lawson
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London