Recent announcements of the coalition government’s cuts are to dramatically worsen the plight of Britain’s poorest and most underprivileged children, new research reveals.
Recent announcements of the coalition government’s cuts threaten to significantly worsen the plight of Britain’s poorest and most underprivileged children. New research highlights how the inequitable nature in road safety afflicting children from the poorest parts of the country is set to get worse.
The Road Safety Analysis group found children from the poorest wards in Britain are disproportionately more prone to being the victims of road traffic accidents. They concluded that the riskiest area in the UK is Preston, where one child in every 206 is likely to be involved in a road collision annually.
Kensington and Chelsea is the safest place in the UK, with a risk of only one in 1,158. The national average is one in 427 children is injured or killed in a road accident each year.
Cuts announced by the coalition government to the Road Safety budget – amounting to £38 billion – will only exacerbate the situation and increase the danger on roads and highways in Britain’s poorest neighborhoods. Added to this, the government has also ceased central funding for speed cameras, with the result that councils up and down the country are being forced to majorly scale back or even scrap their speed enforcement measures.
There are 6,000 speed cameras in the UK. The financial sustainability of the system is now at serious risk. This year’s road safety budget is being cut by a shocking 40 per cent. This is made up of a 27 per cent cut to the revenue grant (with £20.6m being taken off a promised £76.7 million) and a 100 per cent cut to the capital grant (£17.2m). Both grants fund the maintenance and improvement of the speed cameras network.
These cuts are a reckless move by the coalition government, which undermines their claims to be following a progressive agenda. All the evidence points to the effectiveness of speed cameras in cutting road safety deaths, with Richard Allsop, professor of transport studies at University College London, stating there have been “substantial reductions” in casualties in the first five years of the roll-out of cameras:
“There is a bit of statistical debate about exactly how many, but the picture of a substantial reduction is quite undisputed and it’s consistent with measured reductions in speed at camera sites.”
Abolishing speed cameras (which in effect the government is doing) will impact upon all parts of Britain, but particularly for those in deprived and disadvantaged areas. Children in poorer areas tend to reside in urban conurbations, and will walk and cycle more often than their affluent peers. Their safety cannot be jeopardised, and society must be firm in opposition to what is one of the coalition government’s most socially regressive actions to date.
To further dismay, it is widely believed that Philip Hammond is set to reject an independent and expert review into reclassifying the permitted drink-driving limit. The review, led by Sir Peter North, proposed as one of its key recommendations that the drink-drive limit be reduced from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg. This is the same limit that applies in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain.
Other measures included introducing random breath-testing of drivers, taking away the right to have a second breath test conducted at a police station, reducing the limit to 20mg for new drivers, and bringing in a new offence of driving with an illegal substance in the bloodstream that impairs the ability to drive. Collectively, these measures could save as many as 300 lives per year.
The transport secretary has also dismissed the idea of a blanket reduction of the speed limit in built-up areas to 20mph. This is a key measure advocated by Brake, the road safety campaign, to reduce the risk for children who live in urbanised and built-up areas. At the very least, these measures should be debated in parliament.
Road safety has markedly improved in recent years. However, the current government’s early decisions on the issue are set to reverse that trend. The stakes are high, and lives are at risk. Their actions should be vigorously opposed by anyone who aspires to improve road safety, cut deaths, and safeguard children, especially the poorest, from the dangers of Britain’s concrete arteries.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Coalition cuts endanger the poorest children on UK roads”
Betty Holmes
Coalition cuts endanger the poorest children on UK roads | Left … http://bit.ly/aofooX
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Once again the obsessive and compulsive side of your character has got the better of you. Situation normal I guess – remember to pause before you post Chris, you don’t need to respond to every line I write – it’s weird.
Before I post about road accidents reducing all over the Western world due to better safety in cars for example and the situation of Swindon let’s just go over what you’ve said. For once will you please answer what you’re asked, preferably without resorting to bad language.
Since the majority of people that drive hate speed cameras, why do you think it is “progressive” to have the state monitor you by remote machines?
People hate ID cards and 90 days detention – it is all state encroachment of our lives. Do you really not see that? Have you still not realised Labour lost the election and these types of views are exactly what the public rejected?
That’s why I mention this blog publishing lies about Brown and Blair and speed cameras being “progressive” and PFI a good idea etc – it’s all the same.
For example Claire French has published an article on LFF called: “Glass half-full for Tony as half-price books fail to fly off the shelves”
I cannot believe that she isn’t aware of the way books are sold in this country (half price) or the fact it is the fastest selling political memoir ever. And if she knows what she has printed is wrong, then she’s being deceitful, tribal and dishonest.
And that’s the point Chris – the values you seem to think are acceptable, dishonesty for a cause I’ll call it, is unattractive the public. It’s why Labour lost 5 million votes and became as popular as Michael Foot in 1983.
It’s why if David Miliband isn’t elected (he will be) you’ll be in opposition for a long long time.
Remember Chris Labour lost the election for a reason…
John Slinger
The ConDem government must be held to account for the increase in death and injury brought about by their direct or indirect actions. Of course speed cameras work. Those who despise them used to disguise their irresponsibility towards their fellow road users as concern that government was using cameras as a cash cow. Now that we hear they’re being dismantled in order to save money for councils and police, the same people clap their hands. Bizarre. Thanks to the Lib Dems and their Tory chums, irresponsible speeders can now defend their dangerous actions on the grounds that the right to speed is part of some wider defence of freedom and attack on the so-called ‘Nanny State’. So much for the progressive ConDems eh?
No-one has a right to speed. Speed kills. Almost every crash (let’s not insult the victims by calling them ‘accidents’) is caused to some extent by human error. Sadly we can never eliminate human error. But when it comes to people choosing intentionally to do dangerous things like drive at excessive speeds, or under the influence of drink or drugs, we can and must do all we can to dissuade them. Imagine if we’d taken a solely libertarian attitude to drink driving? Just think of all the children who lived to reach adulthood because we as a society chose to tackle drink driving. The same is true of speeding. What speed-defenders are basically saying is that they have a right to break the law and endanger us all. I say we as a society have a right to enforce the law which was democratically passed by Parliament in order to protect innocent people from dangerous behaviour.
Anon E Mouse
John Slinger – If as a society we adopted your views nothing would ever be done.
No smoking in case of cancer, no drinking because of liver disease, no fatty foods because of obesity, no horse riding in case you fall off, no rugby, boxing blah blah – nothing that puts anyone at risk.
Where does it end John? Contrary to every effort by the Labour government you simply cannot legislate against risk and if you think that the use of mechanical surveillance as a means of controlling society is acceptable than frankly Labour needs to be out of office for a long time.
I personally believe that education is the way to change behaviour not state control. I guess I really am a liberal.
Someone in the Labour Party needs to realise that freedom and a smaller progressive state is surely the ideal we should all aim for and tax raising speed cameras are not the way to do it.
I cannot believe that in my lifetime Labour supporters are advocating a big government that controls peoples lives with dna databases, cctv etc and state control enforced by large prison sentences and huge penalties for anyone who breaks their rules.
I ask you the same question John Slinger: Why do you think it is “progressive” to have the state monitor you by remote machines?
(Do you personally drive regularly btw?)
Anon E Mouse
John Slinger – I am not in any way advocating speeding and the very democratic law you mention at the end of your post works both ways…