Precisely. And of course, much more subsidy for local bus fares and a little more for metro and local rail to bring them down to a competitive rate with driving and parking would result in people of all ages and occupations driving less, and thus fewer collisions and injuries. Combined with the other benefits this would so clearly have a net benefit. But of course it's not really something that the current government has ever been interested in.
What on earth makes you think it's just about costs? Convenience will trump costs most of the time, because people's perception is all over the place. People can get into their car from right outside their house, and it's there waiting whenever they want it. A lot of people don't want the hassle of walking to a bus stop or a railway station, then having to wait for a bus or train which might be late, or overcrowded, or have people in it that they consider to be antisocial. They would rather pay more and take the car. But even then, to them the car is free because they already own it so it costs nothing in deprecation, tax or insurance, and they often don't even perceive the fuel it will cost for that journey because it's already in the car. They then see that the cost of parking is less than the train or bus fare, and they won't have the hassle of carrying their purchases on the bus or train, worrying about having to keep their eyes on them for security etc.
So no, providing a little more subsidy for public transport provides just a small carrot which often fails to get people out of their cars, and in turn does virtually nothing to reduce collisions and injuries on the roads. It needs the stick approach too, ie repeatedly drawing attention to things that drivers do badly, by whatever means necessary (to be developed as needed although I remain highly sceptical about the national desire to do this) until their habits improve.
Things should only be done if they pass a cost-benefit analysis.
This is an economist's idealism which works for some things, but for road safety, no chance, because people would never agree on the costs and benefits. What costs would you put on a human life, loss of a limb, NHS costs of treating injuries, economic congestion costs caused by delays with roads blocked, police and fire service costs in attending accidents (including their subsequent reports) etc etc. Then you might say there are huge resource implications for repeat driving tests and enforcement against unsafe driving practices, when in fact you could see this as a huge and beneficial job creation opportunity. So how would
you do a cba on this?
One thing I would point out that is that overenforcement is a vote-loser. If you allow the use of fines to fund enforcement, what happens is that management will constantly push for more and more fines in order to expand their remit further, and in turn, they can profit by getting increased salaries due to the increased levels of responsibility. That in turn angers the electorate, who will punish the political bosses at the next election.
This is down to bad presentation. Of course over-enforcement is a vote loser, so don't over enforce! Just enforce the necessary amount and sell it as a "life saver"!
What I'd say is needed is more focus on getting rid of dangerous behaviour while allowing for reasonable rule breaking. Breaking the speed limit on a nonsense 40 limit between towns is not a major crime, but tailgating is. So, take motorways: let's severely punish people who drive within a second of the car in front, but at the same time, let's stop worrying about speeding on empty motorways. If someone is doing 90mph on a totally empty motorway at night, are they really committing a crime?
Exactly, but once again the point is being missed. A review of speed limits should be a major part of this campaign, because the whole speed limit system is poor and outdated. At the same time the enforcement of speed limits is selective, highly inconsistent and unfair, which understandably generates concern about it being used to fund Government coffers, rather than being about improving safety. A speed limit of 30mph outside schools at their opening or closing times with many children around is far too high, whereas on that same road at 3am, it's likely to be unnecessarily low, and yet you can still be fined for exceeding it when the road is completely quiet. So speeds limits need to be variable, just as parking restrictions are. It doesn't need to be complicated, it just needs thinking about, developing, advertising properly, and getting into our psyche.