Young Drivers
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00620, in the name of David Stewart, on young drivers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that research published by Dr Sarah Jones of Cardiff University suggests that there is epidemiological evidence available indicating that young drivers are more likely to crash at night or with similar-aged passengers in the vehicle; understands that between 2000 and 2007 there was no change in the number of collisions in Scotland involving young drivers while collisions involving older drivers fell by 19%; supports the view that, if a graduated licence scheme was introduced in Scotland, up to 22 lives per year could be saved and in excess of £80 million saved to the Scottish economy, and further notes and recognises the work of the Sensible Driving – Always Arriving campaign being undertaken in the Highlands.
17:03
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
I place on record my thanks to members across the political divide who have supported my motion and to colleagues who have stayed behind this evening, who have shown their interest in and concern about the road safety of young drivers across Scotland.
It is a truism that is not depleted by repetition that there is no greater tragedy, sorrow or loss for a parent than the death of a young son or daughter, as I know from my own personal experience. However, let me tell you why I am here tonight debating young driver safety.
In early spring last year, I was approached by the Matheson family from Inverness and asked to do what I could to stop the carnage on Highland roads. Their son Callum and his friend died in March 2010 in a fatal road collision in the city of Inverness. The car involved was a high-powered, 2-litre Skoda Fabia and the driver was only a provisional licence holder.
I had a discussion with my local team and we decided to launch a major campaign to raise awareness among young people of their responsibilities for their passengers, not in a top-down, patronising way but by involving them in the campaign. I will give three or four examples. Last week, I went to Anderson high school in Shetland and spoke to the whole sixth year about the campaign. They were really enthusiastic and wanted to take part.
We managed to get a car from a local firm—Macrae & Dick—which changed the livery of the car to reflect the campaign, which was great; we managed to get hundreds of leaflets sponsored by a local nightclub; we managed to get a local bus company to put 150 posters in all the local buses; and we also hope to involve the Scottish Youth Parliament. Finally, through the support of the business community, a DVD is being sponsored; part of tonight’s debate will feature on it, and I promise that each member who wishes one will get a copy.
Our first step was to consider best practice across the world. We discovered that one in five newly qualified drivers crashes within six months of obtaining a full driving licence; that most newly qualified drivers are under 25; and that in the United Kingdom four people a day are killed or seriously injured in road collisions involving young drivers.
There is a rural component. As we all know, rural roads across Scotland are more likely—in terms of road collisions per passenger mile—to be the scene of a fatal injury than urban motorways or dual carriageways. If we ever needed an argument for the dualling of the A9, that is it. However, road design and engineering are only one part of the equation—we also need to consider driver safety, training and education.
Elsewhere in the UK, Wales has an excellent and innovative initiative called deadly mates, which warns young drivers that their passengers are their responsibility. Dr Sarah Jones of Cardiff University has, for 10 years, carried out research into road collisions involving young drivers in Wales and Scotland. As part of that research, she has considered a graduated driver licensing scheme. She has revealed that, if such a scheme were introduced in Scotland, 1,500 fewer injuries would occur each year, 22 lives could be saved, and £80 million could be reinvested in the Scottish economy. In short, the graduated driver licensing scheme is a system that allows new drivers to gain further skills in driving under conditions in which the risks are reduced. To use a very simple analogy, it is like a nursery slope for drivers—an apprenticeship designed to increase skills and reduce the risks for new drivers. It works by adding an intermediate stage between the learner stage and the full licence stage. There are restrictions on the number and age of passengers allowed to be carried, and the driver is not permitted to consume any alcohol.
There is no consensus across the world on whether such a scheme should apply to all new drivers or just to young new drivers. New Zealand has one view; Australia has another view. However, the evidence from Dr Jones shows clearly that young drivers are more likely to be involved in a collision at night if they have passengers of the same age. As we all know, the drivers most at risk are male drivers under the age of 25.
Across the world, the graduated driver licensing scheme has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing collisions and casualties. However, we have a problem here in Scotland. Current practice is not having an impact on young driver crash rates. Between 2000 and 2007, there was no change in the number of collisions for young drivers. However, among older drivers, the numbers dropped dramatically—by around 15 per cent. Enforcement is essential to reducing collision and casualty rates. In other countries, sanctions take the form of penalty points, fines, and, in some cases, the seizing of vehicles.
Keith Brown, the minister, will outline the Scottish Government’s view on my proposals. However, his predecessor—Stewart Stevenson—in reply to a parliamentary question on 26 October 2010, said:
“The legislation for graduated licensing is reserved but in our reply to the Driving Standards Agency ... we highlighted that there is strong support for regulated driving for new drivers amongst the road safety community”.
He continued:
“Transport Scotland is in the final stages of awarding a contract to facilitate a national debate on young driver issues.”—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 October 2010; S3W-36632.]
Perhaps the minister will confirm the timescales.
I believe that a graduated driver licensing scheme is an innovative idea whose time has come. Tom Paine, the American revolutionary author, once said:
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
For families who have lost loved ones, unfortunately we cannot turn the clock back. We can, however, adopt a new, safer, proven driving regime, aimed at slashing the carnage on our roads and preventing the deaths and injuries of our young drivers.
17:09
I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate. Every member across the chamber would echo the sentiment that the loss of young lives on our roads is a tragedy and something that we must do everything in our power to prevent. He spoke of the carnage on Highland roads. I come here as a North East Scotland member to say that the issue has been the cause of great concern in the Grampian area for a long time as well. Both the police and the fire service have done a great deal of work to try to educate young drivers—of which, more later.
I am generally supportive of the graduated licence scheme. There is a need to be cautious in viewing one particular solution as a panacea, but I do not think that David Stewart is doing that. The Government undertook a survey of young drivers through the form of a national young drivers debate in October 2010, which looked at, among other things, the graduated driving licence scheme. Interestingly enough, the young people themselves were not very keen on it, and we can probably understand why—the potential restrictions to their driving.
Over the summer, I attended an agricultural show and got talking to a driving instructor. He told me that he had discovered that fewer young people are putting themselves forward for pass plus than previously because they have found that insurance companies are no longer offering discounts to people who have pass plus because they do not see any differential in the accident rate between people who go through pass plus and people who do not. I do not know whether the statistics bear that out, but that is certainly what the insurance companies are saying. We have to ensure that we have the empirical evidence, and the study that David Stewart alluded to will certainly help to back up any argument.
The issue around the insurance companies and their attitude to pass plus demonstrates that the question is one of not just driver skill but driver behaviour and attitudes. In that regard, I note that David Stewart’s motion makes mention of the sensible driving, always arriving scheme, which I assume is similar to the safe drive, stay alive campaign that exists in Grampian and, I think, other areas. The campaign gives schoolchildren a fairly graphic presentation about what happens when a young person loses control of their car due to poor driver behaviour. That brings home to the young people exactly what the consequences of their actions can be. Victims of car accidents and parents who have lost their children speak to the young people and tell them about the consequences. The young people are often visibly moved during the presentations.
Presentations such as those have an important role to play alongside any measures that might be introduced. If we are going to tackle the issue, it is fine to do all we can to improve driving ability and perhaps remove night-time driving, but a reckless driver will be reckless during the daytime as well as at night, so we must ensure that the behavioural aspects are dealt with, too.
I noted with interest that young males are most likely to die on our roads as a driver but, crucially, young females are most likely to die as the passenger of a young male. David Stewart spoke about the restrictions on passengers, and that issue needs to be looked at. We may need not a restriction on passengers but a requirement for a responsible older person to be in the car for a period after a driver has passed their test, in the same way as someone who is learning to drive can go out in a vehicle only if they have somebody of a responsible nature over a certain age in the car with them.
I welcome the debate. There is a lot of discussion to be had, but at least we are having that discussion.
17:14
I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate. I am sympathetic to the proposal as he has put it. He is a sincere and passionate member of Parliament—I have had the pleasure of working with him on committees, and that has been evident to me.
As members, we will all have our own experience of fairly ghastly accidents, particularly ones that have involved the loss of young lives. As some members will know, my background is in the retail motor industry. A large part of the business that we operated was accident repair, and many of the vehicles that ended up with us were damaged or ones in which people had lost their lives.
At one point, the business was located next to a police holding compound where vehicles that had been involved in accidents ended up when a prosecution might follow. It was astonishing, at times, to think how many people had survived those accidents and tragic to stand looking at a vehicle in which I knew that several people—invariably, when multiple deaths were involved, it was several young people—had lost their lives.
It is interesting to think how many more people might die on our roads each year had not considerable progress been made both by the industry and by the Government on road improvement. Cars are much safer vehicles than they once were and are now designed with anti-roll bars, airbag technology and impact absorption that seeks to mitigate the potential damage and prevent loss of life. Those things have helped to reduce the loss of life in road accidents.
I travel home to Troon down the M77, which, as the A77, had one of the worst loss-of-life records of any road in Scotland. That was because there were two lanes in each direction with space for nothing more than a sheet of paper between the four sets of cars that were zooming in either direction. Many of the accidents on that road were caused by inexperienced young drivers who were not necessarily travelling above the speed limit but who simply lost control of the cars while driving on such a road. The dualling—the motorway status—of the M77 and the reduction in speed that has been achieved on the section that is not divided through the use of the vulture-type traffic control cameras have had a profound impact in reducing the number of accidents that take place on that road. However, many of the accidents that still take place happen on rural roads or roads on which it is not practical to install vulture-type cameras and which it is not practical to dual or convert to a higher status. It is on those roads that inexperienced young drivers are still losing their lives and are potentially at risk.
I have read Dr Sarah Jones’s report, which adds a significant weight of evidence to the argument. I am instinctively nervous, however, about rushing to further regulate although I see that that course may prove to be best. I am slightly anxious because a lot of the support for such a move is fuelled by the concern that some inexperienced young drivers drink. There are also young people who do not drink, who become fairly experienced drivers at an early age. I sometimes wonder whether the imposition of regulation on everybody is the way forward. As with all such things, I would like to see what else can be done first. We are continuing to improve the training processes, there is a new post-test vocational qualification, we are modernising the driver training industry and the insurance companies are considering technologies that would allow vehicles to be adapted to enable young drivers to produce evidence for the insurance companies that would perhaps allow their premiums to be reduced, thereby providing an incentive to drive with even greater care.
However, if none of those proves to be effective—and even if they do prove to be effective—there is an argument that the Government should look further at the issue. If, in doing so, it concludes that there is merit in producing legislation, we would be happy to support it.
17:18
I, too, commend David Stewart for lodging the motion and for all his work in the field. His compassionate and detailed involvement in the issue is widely acknowledged.
As members might expect, I got a load of statistics provided to me by one of my employees, but I have decided to abandon those and be unashamedly anecdotal in my speech. As a police officer, I attended many road accidents in advance of an excellent campaign that I am sure David Stewart is familiar with—indeed, his colleague Councillor Deirdre Mackay spoke about it in the media last week. Driving ambition is a scheme—no doubt replicated elsewhere—through which every effort is made to encourage responsible driver behaviour. Significantly, it also encourages responsible passenger behaviour. We need to empower people not to get in vehicles if they are not comfortable—that is important, too.
I will spare members the war stories about the grisly sights from the scene of accidents—I am sure that members can imagine them. As Jackson Carlaw said, advances in vehicle design have greatly improved the situation. In the past, officers had to attend harrowing scenes involving crushed vehicles. I once dealt with five deaths in a submerged vehicle—thankfully, such incidents are extremely unusual—and the complications surrounding that.
Of course, that was just part of the process. The follow-up to accidents often involved trying to deliver a death message. I have had various responses to that, from having a door slammed in my face to a situation in which I had to establish which of the male relatives in the household was the fatality in the car. Those are all harrowing situations. The statistics are frightening, but the statistics are people—they are neighbours and loved ones. It is important to say that.
I am not impressed with the cost figures, although they are important. A cost can be put to some things but what cost do we put on a life? I had a brief discussion with David Stewart about that yesterday. Like me, he attended two funerals last year, those of Callum Matheson and one other young man. Schoolchildren should not be attending funerals in such numbers. If anything can be done to avoid the tragedy that unfolded in both of those cases, that is the route that we have to take. We should rule nothing out.
To be unashamedly parochial again, suicide is a problem in the Highlands. An awful lot of young people—far too many young men—take their own life. I would not want a situation in which we did nothing about that either.
There is an opportunity here to ensure responsible driver behaviour. I do not think that we will ever put an end to such tragedies. Training does go on, and David Stewart’s initiative in Shetland is an excellent example of how it is possible to capture a lot of interest and get a lot of community support. There is not a village or town in the Highlands that has not been touched by such tragedies, which, I am sure, are replicated elsewhere in Scotland. Anything that can be done to improve the situation must be done. I am happy to lend David Stewart my support.
17:22
I congratulate David Stewart on securing the debate. I acknowledge the work that David has done in the past on the issue. There has been an interesting range of contributions. We had someone who has campaigned for a long time on the issue. We had someone from the motor industry. We had someone who had served in the police. In Mark McDonald, we have as near as we get to a young person, at least in the current crowd—no offence to anyone else, including myself. It was a good range, even though it was a fairly small number of speeches.
David Stewart alluded to and is well aware of the fact that significant challenges face us in respect of the safety of young drivers on Scotland’s roads. The latest confirmed figures for road casualties in Scotland, from 2009, show that road casualties are at their lowest level in 60 years. We should acknowledge the progress that has been made.
That said, the Government believes that more can be done, particularly for young drivers. While, as with other age groups, rates are falling, they are not falling as fast for young drivers as they are for other groups. I would particularly like to take action with regard to fatalities and serious injuries.
Jackson Carlaw touched on the fact that in all cases we are talking about adults. No one can get a provisional licence till they are 17 years old. There is the issue of responsibility—if someone is an adult, they must accept adult responsibilities. One can make a mistake with some adult responsibilities, such as the ability to marry, and many of us do. One can make a mistake with drinking. When we first get the chance to drink legally, we can make a mistake by overconsuming. However, the consequences of a mistake when we drive can be far more serious. We are talking about young people but they are also adults.
The statistics show that around one in four drivers or riders killed or seriously injured on the roads in 2009 was in the 17 to 25-year-old age group. That figure changes to 29 per cent for car drivers only. However, young driver accidents are not increasing. If we compare 2009 with the average for 1994 to 1998 for all casualties—that is, all severities and all road user types—we see that casualties among 16 to 24-year-olds fell by 30 per cent, compared with a 33 per cent fall for all age groups. If we consider the category “killed and seriously injured” for car drivers only, we find that in the 16-to-24 age group there was a 48 per cent reduction over the same period, compared with a 47 per cent reduction for all ages.
“Go Safe on Scotland’s Roads—it’s Everyone’s Responsibility: Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020”, which was published on 15 June 2009, was debated by the Parliament in September 2009. The framework sets out our commitments for greater road safety for all road users and includes our intentions on education, publicity and young drivers. In the framework, we set ourselves challenging targets to reduce fatalities by 40 per cent and serious injuries by 55 per cent, based on the 2004 to 2008 average. Young drivers are identified as one of the eight national priorities in the framework.
Road Safety Scotland has focused much of its recent publicity on young drivers, as well as talking about rural roads, which also cause concern, as members said. The organisation’s recent publicity measures feature young drivers and include a national cinema and television campaign on country roads and distraction. As Mark McDonald said, and as I know from experience, some of the work that is done in schools has a visible impact on young people, especially when people take part who have been involved in serious accidents with dramatic consequences.
There is evidence that the behaviours and factors that contribute most to fatal and serious accidents that involve young drivers and their passengers are speeding, driving while impaired through drink or drugs, distraction, not wearing a seatbelt and—this is crucial—lack of experience. All those factors are addressed comprehensively in Scotland’s road safety framework.
David Stewart made a good point about passengers. Parents—especially parents of daughters, given the figures—are very concerned to say to their children that once they are in a car that someone else is driving, they have no control, so they really must ensure that the person who is driving is aware that they must not take risks. Taking risks with oneself is one thing; taking risks with other people is quite another.
In late 2010 we commissioned a nationwide debate with young people and key partner road safety bodies, which gave young people a chance to voice their needs and concerns and put forward their ideas and suggestions on the issues that affect them—I think that David Stewart referred to the debate and I am happy to let him have the findings from it. As I think that Mark McDonald said, the response from young people on graduated driver licensing was different from the response of older people. As we perhaps would have expected, there was much less support for the idea among young people and support grew as people got older. The report on the discussions, “National Debate on Young Drivers’ Safety”, was published on Transport Scotland’s website in March.
My officials and I are aware of the research that Sarah Jones, from Cardiff University, conducted. She was invited to present her findings to the road safety strategic partnership board meeting in March. Her research found that between 2000 and 2007 the number of crashes that involved 17 to 19-year-old drivers appeared to be steady, at around 1,400 per annum. However crashes remaining steady does not equate to injuries remaining steady, and we categorise a young driver as being between 17 and 24 years old.
I urge members to support the spirit of David Stewart’s motion and to note that graduated driver licensing is a reserved matter, as he said. We wrote to the UK Government to encourage it to move in that direction, and when it replied, “No,” we wrote back to express our disappointment and ask it to keep the option open.
The report of the national debate on young drivers’ safety contained 17 recommendations to improve road safety outcomes for young drivers—I mention that to make the point that although we have had a refusal from Westminster we have not left matters at that but realise that there is much that we can and will continue to do. We have gathered evidence to help us to consider whether and how graduated licensing could be implemented in Scotland, if we have such an opportunity.
As I said, to deliver the framework commitments we brought together key stakeholders to form the road safety operational partnership group and the road safety strategic partnership board. The group met on 30 June and agreed to consider all 17 recommendations in the report, one of which is to get further evidence on graduated driver licensing. We have not let the issue slip. We have made representations and we are taking other actions. We will keep on at the issue.
Meeting closed at 17:29.