Andy MacNae

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. How we value road safety interventions must recognise the full gamut of those impacts. Far too often, we use narrow measures of cost-benefit. Emergency response, impacts on wider infrastructure and the general feeling of being unsafe are hugely important considerations. I have tried to highlight a few approaches to identifying areas of risk proactively before collisions occur. Again, we know how to do this. With those risks identified, we also have a range of effective, advanced interventions that we can utilise to reduce the risk of incidents. Average speed cameras have been proven to be particularly effective, yet due to fears about cost and a lack of awareness of advanced technology, many authorities have been reluctant to implement them. Looking at the evidence, a review by the RAC Foundation found a 36.4% reduction in serious or fatal injuries at sites with average speed cameras installed, with a further 16% reduction in incidents of all severities. In some cases, the installation of speed cameras has reduced incidents by up to 86%. With Lancashire county council valuing the cost of a road-related fatality at £2 million—I do not know how it gets to that figure, but none the less that is the figure being used—it is no surprise that effective safety measures like these save the Government money in the long term. The College of Policing has found that through a reduction in medical treatment and repair fees, the financial benefits of these schemes exceed their costs by 3:1. On the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), that is on a narrow basis, perhaps not recognising some of the wider impacts. The figure only increases when we look at the benefits beyond five years. I urge the Minister to use the upcoming strategy to stress the significant long-term benefits of proactively implementing speed reduction schemes with average speed cameras.