In April 2025, HM Senior Coroner for Lancashire Dr James Adeley produced a Prevention of Future Deaths Report addressed to the Transport Secretary, calling for reform to road safety laws. This followed an inquest into the deaths of four people killed by drivers found to have had failing eyesight after being involved in fatal accidents.
In August, the Government outlined its intention to deliver the first Road Safety Strategy in a decade. This includes not only reforms to introduce a mandatory eye-testing regime, but other reforms around drink-driving and medical records which aim to tighten up a system described by Dr Adeley as “the laxest in Europe”.
Proposals
The proposal making the most headlines, and one which directly stems from Dr Adeley’s Report, is the proposed introduction of a requirement for any driver over the age of 70 to undergo mandatory eyesight tests on renewal of their driving licence every three years.
Another significant proposal relates to alcohol consumption and driving. Currently the drink-driving limit of alcohol in England and Wales is set at 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The Government is considering reducing this limit to 22 micrograms, thereby bringing the drink-driving limit in line with the current law in Scotland.
Challenges in obtaining evidence to prosecute suspected drug-drivers have also been considered as part of the updated strategy. The Government is proposing allowing police officers to rely on roadside saliva tests for evidence of drug-driving, rather than obtaining blood samples and sending these for forensic analysis.
Finally, the Government have proposed imposing penalty points on drivers of a vehicle if they are stopped and it is found that their passengers are not wearing seatbelts. Such an obligation on drivers makes it clear that the Government considers that a driver’s safety awareness should extend beyond themselves, and they should not continue to drive knowing that passengers are risking their own safety.
Younger Drivers
Perhaps controversially, the Government is not currently proposing the introduction of a graduated licence system for new/younger drivers. There have been repeated calls from bereaved families to introduce changes to the licensing system for new drivers, for example imposing restrictions on the ability to carry passengers and imposing penalty points on any young driver caught failing to comply with this restriction.
The Department for Transport has indicated that it considers a graduated licence system would potentially “over-target younger drivers and unfairly discriminate against them”. It instead points to its THINK! campaign as a measure targeting young male drivers and improving safety awareness.
Effect
While the proposals are not set in stone at this stage, it would be surprising if the proposals for compulsory sight tests and reducing the drink-driving limit were abandoned.
Mandatory eyesight reporting can only be considered a positive when it comes to road safety. It is worth noting that the Government has limited itself at this stage to mandatory testing for over 70s and has not sought to impose something similar across all age groups, i.e. mandatory eyesight testing every three years for drivers over the age of 70 and every ten years for other drivers. Such a development may follow to ensure complete consistency in testing.
Research on lowering the drink-driving limit from academics at the University of Bath and the University of Essex has found that lowering the limit has no impact on how many accidents or collisions are caused. However, lowering the limit in line with Scotland achieves nationwide consistency and will lead to more prosecutions of drivers who push the lower limit.
Finally, it is worth noting the Government’s proposed changes to testing for drug-driving. This has undoubtedly arisen from a desire to speed up the charging process, forensic services being heavily oversubscribed at the present time. We can foresee teething problems in this approach given that there is currently no infrastructure in place to support such a system and we consider it likely that there will remain circumstances in which a blood sample is likely to be preferable and, potentially, more accurate.