A leading personal injury solicitor has warned that the Government’s ambitious road safety strategy, whilst well-intentioned, fails to address fundamental gaps in enforcement and accountability that lie at the heart of Britain’s road casualty crisis.
Chris Germaine, Director at Optimal Solicitors, argues that the proposals—described as the most significant reforms announced in over a decade—risk missing the mark when it comes to legal enforcement and liability frameworks needed for modern road use.
The strategy, currently under consultation, sets an ambitious target of reducing deaths and serious injuries on British roads by up to 65% by 2035. Among the measures being considered are a minimum learning period for learner drivers, mandatory eyesight checks for older motorists, and a lower drink-drive limit.
Yet despite these initiatives, approximately four people continue to die on Britain’s roads every day, with thousands more sustaining serious injuries annually. According to Germaine, the scale of the problem is reflected in his firm’s caseload. Last year alone, Optimal Solicitors received 3,355 personal injury enquiries, with road traffic accidents forming a substantial proportion of the cases.
The crux of the issue, Germaine suggests, lies in how fundamentally road use has evolved. Today’s road network accommodates a far more diverse range of users than the legal framework was designed to regulate. Cars, heavy goods vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters now compete for space on increasingly congested routes.
This creates a complex environment where speed differences and unclear accountability between different user groups frequently contribute to serious injury claims. But whilst motorists face extensive restrictions through speed limits, traffic calming measures and rigorous enforcement, the legal framework governing other road users has failed to keep pace.
Cyclists, e-bike riders and e-scooter users remain among the most vulnerable on the road, yet the laws controlling their use are outdated, fragmented and poorly enforced. Some cycling legislation still on the statute books dates back to the 19th century.
A significant imbalance exists in accountability, Germaine notes. Unlike motorists, many of these road users are not required to hold compulsory third-party insurance. Enforcement of the limited offences that do exist is extremely rare, creating a situation where drivers regularly witness other road users ignoring traffic laws that motorists themselves must strictly follow.
On the specific proposals around older drivers, Germaine acknowledges progress but argues the measures don’t go far enough. Eyesight checks alone fail to address broader fitness to drive, including reaction times and cognitive ability—issues that will only become more pressing as the population ages.
Whilst some countries require re-testing at licence renewal, this may not prove practical in the UK given existing examiner shortages. However, a structured re-education process could be introduced, similar to existing driver awareness courses, to tackle deteriorating habits and update drivers on changes in the law over time. This could incorporate mandatory eyesight testing and driver reaction-time assessments.
Germaine also advocates for greater use of compulsory re-testing following driving offences, including lower-level convictions. This would transform re-education into a corrective tool within sentencing, rather than merely a punitive afterthought.
For younger drivers, the proposals should require greater experience before granting unrestricted access to the road network. Mandatory training on motorways and high-speed roads would address a critical gap in current provision. Driving simulators could play a valuable role in preparing drivers for high-risk scenarios before they encounter them in real life.
The issue of uninsured and untaxed vehicles also demands attention. Driving bans alone often prove ineffective, as those who drive illegally frequently ignore them altogether. Drug driving remains a serious and growing risk, and where individuals are convicted of drug-related offences, temporary exclusion from driving should be considered as part of sentencing to protect other road users.
The strategy aims not only to save thousands of lives but also to ease pressure on the NHS and support safer communities. These are laudable objectives. But according to Germaine, meaningful progress requires more than headline policy announcements.
If the Government is serious about reducing deaths and serious injuries, road safety reform must focus on enforceable, modernised road traffic law that reflects how Britain’s roads are actually being used. Without addressing the fundamental imbalances in accountability and enforcement across different road user groups, even the most ambitious targets may prove difficult to achieve.
The consultation period offers an opportunity to address these deeper structural issues. Whether policymakers will seize that opportunity remains to be seen.
