- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Old Street HGV and cyclist collision (copyright Simon MacMichael)Department for Transport launches consultation on setting up a Road Collision Investigation Branch
The Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a consultation into setting up a Road Collision Investigation Branch (RCIB), organised along similar lines to existing independent bodies for the aviation, maritime and rail sectors.
The proposed body would be “dedicated to learning lessons from road traffic collisions, including those involving self-driving vehicles,” says the DfT.
In particular, it would “carry out thematic investigations and probe specific incidents of concern to establish the causes of collisions and make independent safety recommendations to help further improve road safety across the country.”
During 2020, 1,460 people – 140 of those cyclists – were killed in road traffic collisions in Great Britain, and a further 22,069 sustained serious injury.
Besides the effect on victims as well as their families, friends and the wider community, road traffic collision are also estimated to cost the British economy £28.5 billion annually, including £1.5 billion in emergency costs to the National Health Service.
According to the consultation document, which you can find here, a proposed RCIB would have three main responsibilities, namely:
to have a singular focus on analysing the causes of collisions
to look for patterns emerging from the data, across police and highway authority boundaries where this data is currently only examined locally and
to make independent safety recommendations for action.
Safety recommendations from an RCIB are anticipated to be used “to inform decisions made by relevant statutory oversight bodies as to whether enforcement action is required. It is proposed that an RCIB would not, however, apportion blame or liability, unless that was necessary to achieve its objective of improving safety.”
The DfT says that “Given the scale of collisions on the roads, we intend for an RCIB to focus primarily on thematic investigations drawing on evidence across multiple cases, rather than on individual incidents.”
It asks respondents to the consultation to rate, on a five-point scale, the investigation criteria that an RCIB should “give weight to when deciding what to base thematic investigations on,” as follows:
Scale – factors impacting a large number of fatal or serious collisions (as opposed to more minor collisions/near misses)
Risk of harm – collisions impacting those who might sustain the greatest risk of harm including children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians
Emerging risks – new technology or behaviour without an established evidence base
Other, please provide detail.
The DfT added that “The consultation is being launched now due to the huge developments which are taking place across the transport sector, such as the rollout of increasingly automated and electric vehicles.”
Of the three existing bodies, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was set up in 1915, while the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) have been in operation since, respectively, 1989 and 2005.
Both of the younger bodies were established following public inquiries into major incidents that led to significant loss of life.
Those were the capsizing of the roll-on, roll-off ferry Herald of Free Enterprise off Zeebrugge in March 1987, with the loss of 193 lives and, for the RAIB, the Ladbroke Grove train crash in October 1999 in which 31 people died.
Roads minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton said: “The UK’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we’re always looking at ways to make them even safer.
“A new investigation branch would play a huge role in this work by identifying the underlying causes of road traffic collisions, so we can take action to prevent them from happening again.
“It would also provide us with vital insight as we continue to modernise our road network to ensure better, greener and safer journeys.”
Director of the RAC Foundation Steve Gooding added: “After excellent progress across many years, sustained road safety improvement has been hard to achieve over the past decade, both in the UK and further afield.
“We should be challenging ourselves on whether we are understanding all we can about the causes of road collisions and what could be done to prevent them – our research to date suggests that more could be learnt – which is why today’s consultation is so important and so welcome.”
The consultation runs until 9 December 2021.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Dadams7378 6 min 42 sec ago
The valves are a weak point on Revoloop tubes. I've had a number of them fail at the valve, generally after a few hundred miles. If you look...
- cyclisto 21 min 21 sec ago
The truth is than in the Netherlands that I saw them, they were indeed a bit huge for cycle infra. However they were rather rare.
- Secret_squirrel 51 min 42 sec ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 34 min ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 1 hour 35 min ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
- 11waterloo 1 hour 41 min ago
12 corners in just over 2km is a terrifying prospect if it rains!
- chrisonabike 2 hours 8 min ago
I think it's:...
- NeilBedwin 2 hours 27 min ago
As it's often said -'the way to justify the building of a bridge is not too count the number of people swimming the crocodile infested river!'
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 36 min ago
I used to go that way to work. It's nasty and congested. I doubt any changes will make the congestion worse.
Add new comment
24 comments
Roads minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton said: “The UK’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we’re always looking at ways to make them even safer.
They must have excluded the West Midlands from that analysis.
The Rail, Maritime and Air ones investigate near misses and actual events, but they don't have many of the latter which is why they have the investigations. Those boards also have the ability to ground aircraft and order the companies involved to stop. Will this board be able to order stop using a road, add temp enfoceable speed limits or action other emergency safety actions like the above can?
And unless they are going to be hiring 10000 people, I can't see them investigating too much directly but just relying on the reports sent in from the scenes, not bothering with near misses and maybe directly looking at major incidents or the wierd one-offs (like a person killed by a cyclist).
Well colour me surprised - it's almost enough to make you believe in the existence of a cycling lobby at the heart of government that ministers are scared of.
While this is all good albeit over 100 years behind the time when compared to the AAIB the real interest is what will happen with the reports? We do currently have:
As everyone else points out the real issues we have are:
Might be worth updating the article with a link to the online survey - https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/0I6Y3M/
(Pretty surprised to see a govt dept using a 3rd party to collect sensitive information, but at least they're UK-based)
The NHS use SmartSurvey. If it's safe enough for them, then it's of no real concern. Your medical information is about as sensitive as data can get.
So that it could then discount them and draw a line under those distractions once and for all, allowing us to move on to something more meaningful...
If you want to reduce harm on the roads, the only reason you'd start with anything remotely to do with danger from bicycles is that you're making an emotional, prejudiced decision not supported by the data, given that it's a vanishingly small part of the picture.
It was the first (and so far only) 'suggestion' you posted. So you were starting with it. And made no mention of (never mind advocating) a 'holistic review'.
He only missed out the riding in groups part to get his trolling perfect for him. I mean if all of the above were causing the deaths of cyclists, I'm sure the DM, Torygraph and Express would have been all over them.
Thanks
You can also see the questions beforehand
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Question 6
What other investigative powers, if any, do you think an RCIB should have and
why?
Might be one for the 'hive mind'
I just finished the survey and I put something along the lines of allowing the RCIB to keep junctions/roads closed to motor traffic following a fatal collision until a suitable remedy is put into place.
1. Legislate for all new motor vehicles to be required to carry "black box" data recorders with video from front and rear cameras. With appropriate provisions to discourage tampering .
2. Presumed liability along the lines of hierarchy of roaduser vulnerability.
3. Significantly greater requirement to design the needs of non motorised road users into all new public access infrastructure. From footpaths and joined up quietways in housing developments to protected lanes at junctions.
4. Policies to enable the change from person driven, privately owned vehicles to autonomous driving car share type usage.
Another irrelevant pseudo-'consultation' like the Highway Code one.
Q: What change would any RCIB make to the usual procedure of 'you killed the cyclist by running over him from behind'; 'the sun was in my eyes'; 'Oh, that's all right then!'
A: None
"Roads minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton said: “The UK’s roads are among the safest in the world, but we’re always looking at ways to make them even safer."
Unless you're a cyclist. This is so long overdue that I thought it might be the review of road law announced all those years ago, but I guess not, it's just the replacement bus service.
With a cost of £28.5bn, it seems pretty well undeniable that investigating the causes of collisions and devising ways to prevent them would be economically viable, but it isn't only the economics, it's the effects on those injured and their relatives, and on the survivors of those killed. At a very basic human level, this new agency has been necessary for decades, and has been called for frequently, the only problem being what criteria it will use.
If, as seems inevitable, it finds that the laws, their enforcement and the social acceptance of dangerous driving all need radical reform, and that many drivers will lose their licence, I foresee political problems for the government.
That must be why they are consulting when what is needed is action.
It's not exactly rocket science
roads could be made safer by
1) enforcement of existing legislation
2) actioning on near misses
3) ending exemptions for hardhsip that keep dangerous drivers on the roads
4) responding to coroners judegments that dangerous junctions need fixing.
None of these are ccurrently done.
And judging by the suggested remit none of those they would touch with a barge pole.
5) expand the war on the motorist - more troops, more ammunition
Take off and nuke 'em from space.
What about cars in space?
Damn, I missed this.
I believe the correct response is "...its the only way to be sure"
F**kin' A!
It's the only way to be sure!
There is also the approach used in some Scandinavian countries, of examining the problems, not just counting the bodies. They don't just look at the number of KSIs, they look at roads and junctions to find out where the dangers are, and then re-engineer it to make it safe, especially for vulnerable road users.
Our approach is self-defeating and will never tackle the real problems, as if a road is dangerous, vulnerable road users will avoid it and thus not appear in the KSIs, but the problems remain.
With the exception of a single troll, I don't think anyone on this forum would disagree with you. What is needed is for everyone on the forum to take an active part and share such sensible considerations on the government website.