KEY POINTS:
The Government has lofty aims for the sweeping new road-safety rules that were released just before Christmas. Their purpose, said the Transport Minister, was to slash the road toll to less than 300 deaths a year by 2010. The size of the task was immediately evident, given that on the day of the announcement, when most holiday wheels had yet to turn, the toll for 2007 already stood at 407.
Has the Government come up with a formula that will reverse this trend in time for the 2010 target to be achieved? Probably not. Much of what has been prescribed will help, but the new package is as notable for what is absent as what is in it. A useful point of comparison is the police's prescription for meeting the 2010 target. In 2005, they stressed the need to reduce speed limits and breath and blood-alcohol limits, introduce demerit points for all speeding motorists, and improve their ability to tackle drug-impaired driving.
What have they got? Steps are in train for those driving under the influence of drugs, and now there are to be tougher demerit penalties for speeding drivers and new demerits for seatbelt and intersection offences.
Next year will see a three-tier demerit scheme of 25, 50 or 75 points - depending on the seriousness of the offending - towards the 100-point threshold at which licences will be suspended for three months. The toughest clampdown will be on those running red lights. That will attract 75 points, compared with 20 now.
All this makes sense. The wider use of demerit points will be a better deterrent than fines, which do not deal effectively with repeat offenders. Often, indeed, fines are not paid, or, in the case of youngsters, come from the pockets of parents or fellow passengers. The strategy should also end claims the police act as revenue collectors.
Young drivers are, quite rightly, a focus of the new rules. The minimum time for which they must stay on learner licences before graduating to restricted licences will be doubled to 12 months. They will also face tougher practical tests before moving up. This increases the supervision requirements for vulnerable young drivers and means, hopefully, that they will be more skilful behind the wheel. But it steers well clear of more contentious means of tackling their continued over-representation in crash statistics.
Missing, for example, is any mention of compulsory third-party insurance, the lifting of the legal driving age to 16, or compulsory driver training to a high standard. All these steps are logical, and would have added bite to the policy.
The omissions do not end there. The Government has put much emphasis on the fact that motorists will not be allowed to use radar detectors to avoid being caught speeding. "If people don't like it, tough," thundered Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven. But he knows full well that most drivers will support this initiative. More relevant is the Government's failure to act in areas where widespread backing could not be guaranteed. Still, for example, nothing has been done about the use of hand-held cellphones by drivers. This lapse is the more incomprehensible given that Britain has just elevated the practice from careless to dangerous driving, liable to a penalty of two years' imprisonment.
This package seeks to change driving behaviour. That needs to happen, but it would occur more quickly if the Government changed its own behaviour. A bolder approach less mindful of the ballot-box would have yielded a far more comprehensive and cogent package. Then there would have been a real chance of the 2010 target being met.
