Review of Speed Limits - Revised Policy - Ministerial Response - 12 December 2011

Key Findings

Comments

1

The Working Group's review of speed limit policy was not carried out to an acceptable standard. No meaningful research was done, and no aims and objectives were ever defined other than to look at the existing policy.

The  aims  and  objectives  were  taken  from  the States  proposition  P.166/2008  (as  reproduced below), a Group was set up in accordance with the proposition,  and  that  group  conducted  what  it considered to be an appropriate level of research in order to draw its conclusions.

Proposition P.166/2008 –

to  request  the  Minister  for  Transport  and Technical Services –

1. to  establish  a  Review  Working  Group  to review  the  implementation,  operation  and suitability of the current Speed Limits Policy (P.1/2004) as approved by the States on 15th March 2005;

2. to appoint 3 States members as members of the  Review  Working  Group  of  whom  at least 2, including the Chairman, shall not be Ministers  or  Assistant  Ministers,  with  the Working  Group  to  receive  appropriate assistance from relevant officers; and

3. to  present  the  conclusions  of  the  Review Working  Group  with  any  associated recommendations for change to the Assembly before 30th June 2009 (subsequently amended to 30th September 2009).

2

Evidence of key issues such as actual speeds and accident records was never considered; consequently public concerns about road safety were not addressed.

The  Group  did  not  undertake  any  new  detailed analysis of road accidents and their relationship with road speed and speed limits, though some investigation had been carried out by TTS on these issues in the past, and TTS officers advised the Group appropriately.

3

The only substantial consultation carried out (the public survey) was so seriously flawed in methodology and interpretation that its results are wholly unrepresentative and seriously misleading.

It  is  accepted  that  there  were  flaws  in  the interpretation  of  the  public  survey.  The  most significant  consequence  of  this  was  that  the Group's  report  claimed  that  67%  of  public respondents supported increasing the green lane speed  limit  to  20 m.p.h.,  when  the  correct percentage  could  have  been  much  lower. However, re-adjustment of the analysis in light of the  recognised  flaws  identified  an  even  higher level  of  support  for  key  parts  of  the  policy, specifically  40 m.p.h.  remaining  as  the  Island's

Key Findings

Comments

maximum limit, 30 m.p.h. the limit in urban areas, and 20 m.p.h. the limit in housing areas and part- time at schools.

4

Other public consultation was inadequate; no stakeholders were even identified.

The Group considered that an extensive and well- advertised  public  consultation,  combined  with consultation with the States and Honorary Police, was sufficient.

5

The Department did not identify the failings of the Working Group's report or carry out any consultation of its own before the Minister lodged his proposition.

Noted. The Department and Minister considered the  Group's  public  consultation,  public  meeting and  discussions  with  the  States  and  Honorary Police to be comprehensive enough to enable the States to be asked to decide whether the policy should be adopted or not.

6

Aspects of the proposition have the potential for negative impacts on road safety, compliance with speed limits, and enforcement.

With  the  exception  of  green  lanes,  which  were proposed  to  increase  from  15  to  20 m.p.h.,  the proposed policy would result in generally lower speed limits and therefore be unlikely to have a negative impact on road safety. The proposal for a default 30 m.p.h. on roads without white centre lines  would  require  a  period  of  education  and publicity, but there is precedent in that the public are expected to know of other default lower speed limits without signage, for instance 30 m.p.h. for vehicles over 3.5 t. or when towing a trailer.

7

The proposition is considered unsound and unfit for purpose.

As the States agreed to defer consideration, I am obliged to accept that it is not ready for debate in its current form.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The proposition in its present form should be withdrawn by the Minister.

TTS

Accept

The States voted in favour of a deferment and the policy will be reconsidered before any new proposition is lodged.

2

In the event that Recommendation 1 is not accepted, the States should reject the proposition.

See above.

3

The Transport and Technical Services Department should change their culture to recognise the value of genuine consultation. This should involve an awareness of the importance of engaging with others, training in consultation techniques, and respect for States guidelines.

TTS

Reject

TTS, overall, has a proven culture of good consultation, though in this instance it is accepted that a further (White Paper) consultation when a proposed policy had been drafted would have been advisable.

4

In future, before bringing a proposition to the House, the Minister should ensure that it is fit for purpose, based on solid evidence, and a proper consultation process has been followed.

TTS

Accept

The Minister considered that there was sufficient evidence for the States to be able to consider the policy, but it is accepted, following the States' decision by

26 votes to 21 to defer consideration, that this view was not supported by the majority of States members.

5

The practice of appointing Panels of States Members to review specific aspects of policy has clearly failed in this instance. In future, consideration should be given to making better use of Scrutiny for these purposes.

All

Accept

The Minister would be pleased to make better use of Scrutiny (the Environment Scrutiny Panel will recall that the development of the Sustainable Transport Policy involved considerable Scrutiny involvement during the policy development).

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

With regard to the speed limit policy, the Minister was obliged to follow the direction of the original Proposition (P.166/2008), which specified a different approach.

6

The Department should bring forward effective policies to improve road safety, based on evidence and proper consultation, in line with the above Recommendations.

TTS

Accept

The Minister is in the process of developing a road safety strategy, which will set a target for road injury reductions and explain the rationale behind that target, using appropriate evidence and consultation.

End 2012