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.
23 Responses to “Coalition cuts endanger the poorest children on UK roads”
Chris
@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.”
Yawn.
“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.”
Fuck off. On the point of Swindon, a death has already occurred on a stretch of road protected by a speed camera.
“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?”
Silly mouse, how is it any more progressive for the state to use people to monitor citizens? Do try and think your arguments through mousey.
And I believe opinion polls show a majority of support for speed cameras. The people that moan and bluster about speed cameras are the fucking morons who drive to fast, like the absolute wanker who nearly smashed into me yesterday afternoon.
“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?”
Conflating speed cameras with ID cards and detention without trial really is moronic. While I don’t agree with ID cards or 90-days, I do agree with speed cameras which are there to protect people’s individual right not to be knocked down by a speeding driver. Do you not realise
that most people are extreme libertarians?
“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.”
No its not, do you really believe what is written on central office’s script? All governments do good and bad things, your just peddling central offices line that Labour were all bad. They weren’t, my father had an angiogram yesterday within a two weeks of seeing the GP; he waited 6 months in 1995 and only got one that quickly because he had a heart attack.
“It’s why if David Miliband isn’t elected (he will be) you’ll be in opposition for a long long time.”
wtf? You rant endlessly about Labour abandoning working people, yet you want the most Blairite of the candidates? Consistency isn’t your strong point is it, mousey.
Now be a good mouse and go play in the traffic.
Anon E Mouse
Chris – I actually think you’re genuine and you really don’t get it! Do you really NOT see the big picture?
When people like park wardens, bus conductors and the like “monitor” people it has to be better than cameras – you worry me. I don’t want anyone to monitor me – I have been driving regularly for 30 years and have no points on my licence.
I do not need CCTV to watch my behaviour thank you and before you start your usual compulsive/delusional/reactive and obsessive response, the one your friends have mentioned I’m sure, how did this country fare before you and your Stalinist friends installed your cameras?
Why doesn’t the electorate vote for your party anymore and you’ve lost 5 million voters?
If you are at university and I personally doubt you are, what course are you on?
Remember Chris – Labour lost the election and without capturing the centre ground, like Blair did, you can’t win. Do you REALLY not understand that?
Chris
@Mousey
Oh dear, after all your progress, you’ve slipped back in to deluded fantasy; your’ll be under the chemical cosh again if you don’t calm down.
“When people like park wardens, bus conductors and the like “monitor” people it has to be better than cameras – you worry me. I don’t want anyone to monitor me – I have been driving regularly for 30 years and have no points on my licence.”
Are you saying it is better for park wardens, bus conductors, etc to spy on you than for a camera to do so?
And so what if you’ve got a clean license after 30 years, don’t speed then the camera doesn’t go off and you don’t get monitored. Plus, if a disadvantaged child runs into the road you’ve lessened the chance of killing them.
“I do not need CCTV to watch my behaviour thank you and before you start your usual compulsive/delusional/reactive and obsessive response, the one your friends have mentioned I’m sure, how did this country fare before you and your Stalinist friends installed your cameras?”
Yawn, central office have omitted a key fact from your flow chart – CCTV was in fact the brain child of one David Cameron, then a spad at Michael Howards home office. And are the condems going to start removing cameras?
“Why doesn’t the electorate vote for your party anymore and you’ve lost 5 million voters?”
The economy had tanked, people wanted “change”, Brown lacked charisma and looked old compared to the cleggeron, tories had a new leader not a throwback from pre-97 who tried to sound less rightwing, certain parts of the electorate were annoyed that the Labour party hadn’t showered shit loads of money on them, certain parts of the electorate were annoyed Labour had showered money on those they deemed scroungers and certain parts of the electorate didn’t like immigration. Plus of course the constant drip, drip of black propaganda stating Labour had wasted money: NHS managers, etc. Oh and disillusionment with politicians after expenses.
“If you are at university and I personally doubt you are, what course are you on?”
Oh really and what makes you say that? What does it matter what course I’m on?
“Remember Chris – Labour lost the election and without capturing the centre ground, like Blair did, you can’t win. Do you REALLY not understand that?”
I understand that perfectly but that is one thesis, and to a certain extend true Blair captured the centre ground in 97 but since then its moved.
But don’t delude yourself, my little mental mousey, your *not* the median voter; the way your opinions swings widely from one post to the next makes me wonder if your there is actually more than one personality inside your crazy mousey head.
Anon E Mouse
Chris – Why do I not think you’re at university? Emm let’s see.
You do not seem to have the ability to see the big picture in things and your analysing of every line smacks of immaturity, the type normally seen in someone not old enough to be in further education.
Your tribalism is frankly ridiculous and why I say “Labour lost for a reason” yet you seem unable to modify it – again it’s very immature.
You certainly seem to lack any reason or an ability to reason and are unable to play Devils Advocate and that’s generally associated with youth.
Despite repeated requests you seem unable to desist from using bad language in a public forum and you resort to smearing at every opportunity – again actions consistent with lower intelligence or youth.
What course would you be on (if you were) – nothing involving politics, philosophy that sort of thing. Probably the arts or graphic design or media studies.
And keep blaming everyone but the Labour Party Chris and you can stay irrelevant and in opposition for a long time yet…
Marcus Cotswell
Would it be better if you could implement a policy that meant the same number of children would die but more of them were from affluent backgrounds? Is that really what you mean by being ‘progressive’?