Safer driving behaviour is a sustainable choice
The WSCC RSS document embraces the Safe System philosophy, which is based on the principle of shared responsibility between all those who design, manage, and use the road transport system. It acknowledges human fallibility and the fact that road user errors can lead to unintentional death and injury. A fundamental element of Safe System recognises that higher speed collisions are likely to result in more severe injury due to the higher kinetic forces involved.
According to the RSS document, ‘Department for Transport estimates of the average value of prevention of each reported collision as being: £2.5m per fatal collision, £290k per serious injury collision, and £29k per slight injury collision’.
In this article I am not overlooking or ignoring the human cost of road accidents, the loss of loved ones, life changing injuries, and the impact on our health services.
In West Sussex in 2023 a total of 531 people were killed or seriously injured in road accidents of which 85 were pedestrians, and 79 cyclists. That compares with a 10 year average total of 501 of which 70 were pedestrians and 86 were cyclists. Not statistics that would encourage active travellers to share the road network with motorised transport.
However, here I want to focus on the hidden environmental costs. I have previously spoken and written about the negative impact on our rivers and potentially our drinking water of spillages of oil, petrol, diesel and coolant entering our roadside drainage system, which can often end up in our rivers. Modern vehicles have a high proportion of plastic in their body panels. The debris is often left on the roadside and the smaller particles can be washed into the same drainage systems as the spilt fluids, along with fire extinguishing chemicals that may be used to extinguisher vehicle fires.
It is known that some of these contaminants can end up in the water we drink and the livestock we eat who may have access to rivers and streams to drink from. The same can be said where this water is extracted to water the crops we eat. There is also the negative impact on all the plant and living organisms that live in our rivers and streams.
Other factors to consider are the emissions from emergency vehicles in travelling to the scene of an accident and having to leave vehicle engines running or use auxiliary generators in order to power rescue equipment, plus drivers in queued traffic leaving their engines running, particular in winter to keep themselves warm.
All road users should be able to travel safely by whatever means they choose, but it would be better for the environment and our health and wellbeing if more of us used active travel more, and we should feel safe in doing so.
Whilst all road users have a responsibility for the safety of themselves and others, as stated in the WSCC RSS, The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has identified the ‘Fatal Four’ causes of death or serious injury as ‘speeding, driving under the influence of drink or drugs; driving while distracted (e.g. mobile phone use); and not wearing seatbelts’. The common factor here is human behaviour. The key factor that the strategy document states it has least influence on is human behaviour, other than using education to try to change behaviour.
The environmental impacts of speeding are that the faster a vehicle travels the more kinetic energy is stored in it, the more fuel it consumes, more braking materials, tyre, and road surfaces are abraded, leading to more particulate matter being released into the environment while the vehicle is in motion.
The effect of the stored kinetic energy impacts the amount of energy dissipated in the event of an accident and its severity. Also, it will increase the braking, tyre, and road surface abrasion which in turn will release more particulate matter into the atmosphere and deposit them on the road surface, with the potential to end up in our rivers and streams at some point.
Changing behaviour is a subject of study for many academics: in their work Organisational Behaviour (2004) Buchanan and Huczynski make reference to Morrison (1998), who proposed that change can be a dynamic and continuous process of development and growth that involves a reorganisation in response to ‘felt needs’. It is a process of transformation, a flow from one state to another, either initiated by internal factors or external forces, involving individuals, groups or institutions and leading to realignment of existing values, practices and outcomes.
Buchanan and Huczynski cite Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) techniques for managing individual’s reaction and resistance to change, such as those identified by Eccles (1994) and Egan (1994) who argue such techniques are on a continuum from collaborative to coercive, with collaborative the preferred approach.
Historically coercion has been used as a tool to change people’s behaviour by penalising the unacceptable through legislation and legal processes, but sufficient enforcement resources are needed for this to be wholly effective.
I would argue that the WSCC RSS implies that there is a role for a collaborative approach through road user education, including users’ responsibilities to themselves and others. The saving of the lives of others and the environment should be seen as a ‘felt need’ for road users.
The desired behaviour change, which the WSCC RSS document acknowledges it has very little control of, is road user behaviour. Examples cited are the observing of speed limits, not to drink or take drugs, use a mobile phone, to wear seat belts when driving, and keep vehicles regularly serviced, all of which would potentially significantly reduce the incidence of road accidents. It would also encourage active travellers, walkers/cyclist etc, by their feeling more comfortable in using our road network with decreased fear of death or serious injury.
What can be done at the individual level is to embrace the Safe System philosophy, which is based on the principle of shared responsibility when using the road transport system and acknowledges the fact that road user errors can lead to unintentional death, serious life changing injury, as well as the economic, societal and environmental costs that impact on all of us.
In this short article it was my intention to draw the reader’s attention to the range of the often-unintended consequences of our actions when we are speeding, driving under the influence of drink and drugs, not wearing a seat belts, using a mobile phone. Likewise failing to adjust our vehicle speed and distance from other road users in rain, floods and fog, and being unaware whether or not roads have been gritted because of ice and snowy conditions; and most of all keeping our cars maintained in safe condition as advised in the Highway Code.
While so many of us are trying to live more sustainably, I wonder how many of us have previously considered that using our roads safely is also a sustainable choice?
Bibliography of references in this article’s text:
Buchanan, D, and Huczynski, A, Organisational Behaviour, An Introductory Text (2004): Prentice Hall
Egan, G,Working the Shadow Side: A Guide to Positive Behind-the Scenes Management (1994): Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Eccles, T, Succeeding with Change: Implementing Action Driven Strategies (1994): McGraw Hill, London
Kotter, J P and Schlesinger, L A, ‘Choosing strategies for change’ Harvard Business Review 1979, Vol 57, no.2, pp 106-14 in Buchanan, D and Huczynski, A
Morrison, Keith, Management Theories for Educational Change (1998]