16th February 1999 Venue: Leicester City Football Club

ROAD DANGER REDUCTION FORUM CONFERENCE

1 Opportunities for Change
- putting the road safety strategies into perspective

Lord Whitty

Introduction
Last year’s White Paper marked a turning point for transport policy in this country. It set out a package of measures to deliver a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair, and to make it easier for people to make more sustainable travel choices.

At the core of the white paper was a straightforward principle: integration.
Integration is about four very practical things:
Bringing transport into the heart of government policy making, into our drive for a healthier, wealthier nation; into our social agenda; and into our program for the environment;
Linking local transport policy with a national framework to produce a coherent national strategy;
relating private and public sector activity so that we are all pulling in the same direction and all reaping the benefit; and ensuring that all transport modes operate smoothly together.

But integration is not an end in itself. Integration is a means to achieve our vision for transport, providing real choice, providing a real alternative to the car. The key to the success of the White Paper is partnership. The health of our communities, of our environment, of our economy, is a shared responsibility. Every sector, every interest group, has a stake in safe, clean, efficient transport.

But whilst achieving integrated transport must be a job for all of us, we recognise that Government must start the ball rolling. We have already committed, in the Comprehensive Spending Review an extra £1.1 bn over the next three years to improve local and public transport, and the government will also be spending a further £700m in better maintenance of and use of the existing road network. There are many examples of what Government is already doing to take the New Deal for Transport forward.
In the budget, we provide fiscal incentives for buses and cleaner vehicles. We have also increased financial support for rail freight and rural buses.
We have launched consultation on how road user charging and workplace parking levies will operate in practice.
We are establishing a Commission for Integrated Transport to provide Government with independent advice, and will announce appointments to the senior posts shortly.
We are also in the process of appointing a new Chairman of the British Railways Board/prospective Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, a new Franchising Director/prospective Chief Executive of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and a new Rail Regulator. We will make announcements on appointments to these posts soon. We intend to seek new statutory powers to establish the Strategic Rail Authority at the earliest opportunity to provide a focus for strategic planning of the passenger and freight railways and with appropriate statutory powers to influence the behaviour of key industry players. Once the key appointments have been made, steps will be taken under existing powers to form a shadow Strategic Rail Authority to pave the way for possible changes to the way the privatised rail industry is controlled. We have invited a wide range of organisations from the rail industry, including passenger and freight train operators, Railtrack, local government representatives and Rail User Consultative Committees to a National Rail Summit in London on 25th February to discuss ways of securing long term improvements to rail services.
We have announced the outcome of our Roads Review which meets our promise of improving maintenance and management of existing roads before building new ones, and re-launched the Highways Agency with a new emphasis on network management.

Since the publication of the White Paper six months ago we have also published five of the daughter documents; on road, rail, shipping, road user charging and workplace parking levies and on draft guidance on local transport plans. Over the coming months we will be issuing follow-up documents to the White Paper, covering buses, sustainable freight distribution, walking and inland waterways.

Some of these will provide the opportunity for further consultation, but the most important opportunity to contribute further will be at local level later in the spring, with local authorities relying on active and widespread participation in preparing their local transport plans.

Local Transport Plans
The White Paper set out our approach for an integrated transport system which embodies new, modern thinking on integrating transport with other aspects of Government policy. In the modern world we simply cannot do without a modern transport system, but we must ensure that we do not look at it in isolation. Transport is not only an integral part of our everyday lives but it has a direct impact on our health, our environment and our economy.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in our local communities. At the core of our integrated transport policy is our proposal for local transport plans. Local authorities such as Leicester County Council, will set out in these plans their strategy for transport in their area, looking at all aspects of transport policy - including reducing congestion, improving public transport and encouraging more energetic forms of transport such as walking and cycling - in a strategic way. Not only will this ‘joined up thinking’ enable local authorities to plan transport measures in a more strategic way but it will also enable them to be considered alongside other important policies such as planning, health and the environment as well as economic factors.

Road safety is an excellent example of an area of transport policy which should benefit as a result of this ‘joined up thinking’. Road safety is a priority for this Government and local authorities will be expected to ensure that road safety is a consideration in all aspects of plan policy, such as social policies and measures to encourage walking and cycling. Elsewhere, local planning authorities need to take it into account in the design and layout of development proposals and the education authorities need to consider the safety of children on their way to and from school. The local transport plan guidance advises local authorities of the need to consider road safety in all relevant aspects of the plan.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the key road safety priority which is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries as a result of road accidents. Although Britain has one of the best safety records in the world, there is no room for complacency. Over 325,000 people are killed and injured on the roads each year and road traffic accidents account for 52% of the accidental deaths of children and 73% of the accident deaths of adults. We cannot accept this in a civilised society. Therefore in addition to the general road safety consideration with their transport plans, local authorities will be expected to include a five yearly local casualty reduction target and local road safety strategy to achieve it.

Under the current Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system, funding for road safety engineering measures was specifically ring fenced and I know that some people would have preferred to have it stay that way. In particular they are worried that without the ring fencing local authorities will not devote sufficient resources to road safety

I understand those concerns but I believe that local authorities are best placed to understand the local situation, identify the problems and rectify them. We in central Government do not need to authorise and cost approve every single scheme. What we do need to ensure are that they bring results. Local authorities will therefore be expected to set local casualty reduction targets, in line with national targets, and provide a local safety strategy to achieve it. Robust monitoring will be the key to the process. As long as local authorities achieve, and can show that they have achieved, the casualty reductions set out in their local transport plan then it is not necessary that we have details of every single measure. However, if local authorities fail to set or achieve those targets and it is clear that this is because they have not devoted enough resources to the problem, or spent resources on the wrong type of scheme, we will have the power to revert to stronger accountability. I would not wish to have to use those powers, so I will be working hard to ensure that such a situation does not arise.

I am sure that local authorities will welcome the freedom the new system will afford them and embrace the responsibilities that come with it.

The consultation period on the draft guidance for local transport plans - which I hope you have seen - closed in January. I know that the Road Danger Reduction Forum and some of its member authorities responded and I am grateful for these comments. We are currently working to revise the guidance, taking on board as many of the suggestions we received as we can, and will be publishing revised guidance in the spring.

It is important that in the interim, authorities should continue to develop their plans for submission by the end of July. Of course, it won’t be possible to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s by then, But we are expecting local authorities to have properly identified the main issues, and the best way of tackling them. Where this has not been possible, we will be looking for details of the work programme which has been set up to fill in the gaps.

This will not be easy, we know that. We are asking for a great deal from authorities. But we are keen to help. I would urge authorities to keep in close contact with their local Government Office. The Government Offices will be able to help answer any questions that they may have, and keep developing plans on track. Clearly it does not help anyone if we receive plans that are wildly unrealistic or head off in the wrong direction.

The key to success is partnership, partnership between us and local authorities, partnership between local authorities and local communities. Initiatives should complement each other, not compete. It is in this spirit that we are inviting local authorities to seek our views and advice as their plans emerge. We would not be doing this exercise at all if we did not think that local authorities were best placed to meet the needs of local circumstance. But we do have expertise to share, and we can also offer clear advice as to how far the emerging plans meet the Government’s objectives. Working together does, of course, have the added advantage of minimising wasted effort.

Home Zones
The integrated nature of our work also comes into play on Home Zones. The Home Zone concept originated on the continent and they are common features in Holland, Germany, Denmark and Austria. They are intended to improve the quality of life in residential areas of towns and cities by reducing the dominance of motor traffic and providing better conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and the local community.

I should make clear at the outset that Home Zones are not a road safety measure in themselves, although they may well confer some road safety benefits. But they are about integration in a wider sense too - of the community with its environment.

There is considerable interest amongst local authorities in piloting the Home Zones concept in this country and a number already have plans to trial them. Before Christmas, my officials met with representatives from 50 or so local authorities who had expressed an interest in implementing a Home Zone. We have since written to all authorities inviting them to put forward schemes for possible inclusion in a monitoring programme we are to undertake.

The programme will help us assess the effectiveness of a selection of different projects in achieving Home Zone aims and to identify and disseminate good practice. Straight adoption of the continental model of Home Zones is not an option at present because it would require legislative change. So we will also use the monitoring programme to help us come to a view on the extent to which the objectives of Home Zones can be achieved within existing legislation.

We are going to monitor a selection of schemes. Keeping speeds low will be one important element in a Home Zone. We expect to get responses from the authorities in April and I am looking forward to learning about the type of schemes which are suggested. The monitoring programme will commence shortly thereafter and run for at least 3 years.

One of the objectives of the Home Zone initiative is to create a more acceptable environment for walking. As most of you are aware the White Paper promised an action, or strategy, to encourage walking. At the time this was being written by a partnership of organisations, including campaign groups, local authorities, and Government departments. Their report was completed in December last year. After considering this we have decided that it would make an excellent basis for a Government strategy statement on walking.

Walking Strategy
Although it has not yet been published, I would like to outline the ideas behind the strategy, and some of the themes within it. The Government has promised a greater focus on the needs of pedestrians, with better conditions to make it easier, safer and more convenient for walking; and better links with public transport. The benefits in terms of wide policy integration are similar to those from cycling in terms of more energetic life and traffic reduction.

Although recreational walking is on the increase, the average number of journeys walked per person per year fell by 10% in a 10 year period up to 1996/97, and the average distance walked per person fell by 20% to just 200 miles per year. The decrease in the proportion of journeys made on foot is a consequence of many factors including increasing car use, changing lifestyles, inadequate planning and poor conditions for walking may have contributed to the decline.

About 16% of journeys under a mile in length are currently undertaken by car, so there is clearly the potential for increasing the number of these journeys that are walked.

In addition it’s easy to overlook the important role of walking as a component of journeys where the main means of travel is by another mode such as a bus or train. If the concept of the seamless journey we advocated in the White Paper is to become a reality, people need to be able to move quickly, safely and easily from one form of transport to another. To deliver this walking needs to be taken into account when providing for all journeys and means of transport.

Much of the responsibility for improving conditions rests with local authorities. Some authorities have already made great strides at local level. I believe we need to tap into some of the good things that are taking place at the local level, share that information with others, and provide encouragement for all authorities to embrace the new priorities in transport.

Cycling Strategy
Cycling is also an integral part of the new integrated transport policy. The White Paper highlights the role that cycling can play both as a mode in its own right and in combination with public transport to help achieve wider aims. Cycling is an active and environmentally friendly form of transport. It is widely available and offers the individual direct, door to door, flexible, reliable transport at any time, and the personal freedom associated with the car.

Speed
As you know, I launched the speed management review in October. Not only will this consider ways of supporting road safety targets but also how best to balance this with the wider objectives of the Integrated Transport White Paper. Just looking at some of the road safety issues gives an insight into the complexity of the exercise.

Many of you will be familiar with the accident statistics, but I think they are worth stating here. Last year 3,600 people were killed. Over 300,000 were injured. It is hard to imagine any other walk of life where this toll would be acceptable.

Speed is now considered to be the biggest single factor in accidents on our roads. But, still too many of us seem to see no danger in exceeding speed limits, or driving too fast for the prevailing conditions. Sadly our confidence is misplaced.

I can only assume that because speeding is common place, and that accident casualties are spread across the country and are thankfully, a relatively rare occurrence, it is hard for motorists to see the link between their actions and the death of 10 people every day. However, there is compelling evidence that in around one third of all road accidents vehicle speed was a major contributory factor. It is these accidents where lives could be saved, and the severity of injuries reduced, simply by drivers slowing down.

I believe that driver behaviour can be changed through education and publicity. Hopefully you will have seen the latest ‘Kill your speed’ campaign which I launched on 26 January. This graphically demonstrates the damage a vehicle can cause in a collision with a pedestrian at around 30mph - a particularly important message given that 70% of car drivers exceed the urban 30mph speed limit.

Success with drink-drive campaigns shows that in the long term this form of advertising can be effective, but of course we still need to address the immediate problem.

Speed cameras are one way of achieving results. At sites with a history of speed related incidents they have reduced both the likelihood and severity of accidents. The treasury recently announced that it was persuaded to consider an alternative funding mechanism whereby some of the revenue from camera fines would be used to fund their use if certain criteria could be met. Government officials are now working to identify a way of meeting treasury criteria to make this a reality. Whilst this should allow better use to be made of existing cameras, and the provision of more where there would be a road safety benefit, sadly this will not provide a complete solution. Cameras will still only influence speed in the vicinity of each site, and over wider areas other measures need to be employed.

Traffic calming is becoming more and more widespread in urban areas as communities experience the benefits of reduced vehicle speeds. examples of this are the spread of 20mph zones. In these areas the speed limit is a statement of the maximum speed at which drivers will be able to proceed. Traffic calming measure ensure that they can go no faster.

To help local authorities implement these zones I have recently laid regulations before parliament. This will remove the need for them to seek the Secretary of State’s approval for 20mph speed limits. But care will still need to be exercised by Local Highway Authorities when introducing these lower limits to ensure that vehicle speeds are reduced. Research shows that that without speed reducing measures 20mph limits are mostly ineffective.

The limitations of 20mph zones illustrate one of the basic problems of speed management. Changing speed limits alone has little effect on driver behaviour. Drivers tend to believe that they are the best judge of what is safe. Added to this the perception of what is safe appears to change with an individual’s perspective. For example the residents ask for lower speed limits, but when they themselves drive ignore those already in force.

Education, publicity, enforcement, and road design all play a part in influencing vehicle speed. But a balance has to be struck between measures necessary to achieve results and the effects of these on other areas of our lives.

The speed review’s aim is to ensure that future policy reflects diverse issues such as safety, mobility, the economy, the environment and also results in improvements to the quality of peoples’ lives. This is an ambitious goal, but I believe it is deliverable.

The Road Safety Division is currently engaged in dialogue with colleagues in DETR and other Government Departments to establish how the full range of speed management issues affect government objectives. During this stage there will also be a review of existing research on traffic speed and its effects, and an analysis of current practice and legislation. Stage 2 will involve people and organisations who can offer informed opinions and advice. The final stage will be for drawing conclusions and preparing a report.

Road Safety Strategy
Policy on speed will be a fundamental part of the road safety strategy for good reason. As I have already mentioned today, excessive or inappropriate speed is a factor in a very significant proportion of the injury accidents on our roads. With increasing speed, more accidents occur, more people die and injuries are more likely to be serious and disabling.

I know that many of you will be wondering about the progress with the road safety strategy and targets. I want to use this opportunity to let you know that I have decided that the strategy should be linked more closely with the on-going speed review. This means that we will now be aiming to publish the strategy later this year, probably in the autumn, when the findings of the speed review will be available and can be factored into the strategy and targets.

I realise that this may come as a disappointment to those of you who are waiting for the national strategy to inform your own planning; and others may ask why it has taken until now to reach this conclusion. The fact is that as our thoughts on both the strategy and the speed review have developed, it has become increasingly apparent that the timing should be brought into line.

The decision to wait for the speed review has not been taken lightly, nor with our eyes closed to the effect that the delay may have on others. I am currently considering what guidance we may be able to give in the meantime to those waiting for the national targets.

So although we may have to wait a bit longer for it, synchronising the strategy and the Speed Review will mean that the strategy can take account of state-of-the-art thinking on speed and the result will be a substantially more comprehensive and relevant document.

Conclusion
This Government is committed to achieving the ambitious and long-term transport agenda that was set out in last year's White Paper. It is not an agenda driven by dogma or doctrine. It's driven by practical imperatives and pragmatism. It's about getting the right balance between private and public, national and local, carrot and stick. It's about a balance between economic growth and the protection of the environment. It's about changing behaviour.

There is now, for the first time in this country, a real climate for change. There is widespread acceptance that we cannot go on as we are. This Government intends to build on that. It wants to see that drive for change sustained in continued and stronger partnership. It wants to see momentum for future change driven not only by Government, individuals, local authorities, businesses, providers and users. At the national level as well as at the local, consensus will be the key to continued and lasting improvement. We are committed to an integrated transport system. We are committed to a sustainable transport system. It is more than desirable. It's crucial to a competitive economy, to a healthy environment, and to a healthy nation.

2. Planning for Safety
- Danger reduction through local transport plans and targets

(presentation slides)

Graham Read - Leeds City Council

3 Building Alliances
- A Local Authority Perspective

Peter De La Bertauche

Local Government has been striving for years to make our roads safer. The Government’s casualty reduction target set in 1987 has had the effect of focusing local authority casualty reduction strategies in two directions:-

Engineering
We investigate the causes of accidents at locations with high numbers of personal injury accidents and implement remedial measures. That could be at isolated junctions, within an area or along a route.

Education; which includes training and publicity.
This has focused on the training and education of the most vulnerable road users and undertaking campaigns in support of national initiatives such as Drink Drive and Kill Your Speed.

These strategies have had mixed success; Whilst fatal and serious casualties have been reduced, slight injury accidents have increased and overall the numbers of casualties have remained constant. Why?

Let’s look at the 3 main factors that contribute to accidents

The vehicle
Over the last 10 years there have been significant improvements in vehicle design to improve safety, particularly for the vehicle occupants. Air bags, side impact protection and seat belt tensioners are all common on modern cars.

Environment
There have also been improvements to the highway. The accident remedial programme is clearly a success but each site we treat will only save a handful of accidents and the level of funding we can attract would never be sufficient to meet the Government’s targets. Safety audit has also been successful in designing out many of the faults within improvements and lessons we have learnt from that has influenced highway design. There has been a shift in design principles away from sweeping bends and long straight roads.

Road User
It is here where I believe we have failed to make a significant impact. Remember, driver behaviour is a contributory factor in 95% of all accidents yet our education programmes have had only a marginal effect. That is not surprising when we constantly have to compete with car and petrol advertising which portrays a more glamorous image and television presenters are shown driving at speed and if we can only reduce average speeds by a few miles per hour, the potential for accident reduction is significant.

We must also turn our attention to the public’s perception of danger. The Government’s White Paper on integrated transport and the Road Traffic Reduction Act identify the need to change the way we travel. However people will not walk, cycle or use public transport if they perceive these modes to be dangerous or feel they do not have the skills to use the road safely. Through the community safety audits carried out in Surrey “fear of traffic” was shown to be the number 1 safety issue in the county. 10 of our 11 districts have traffic in their top three concerns and overall 22% of respondents highlighted it as their number 1 concern, ahead of burglaries and vandalism.

We must therefore continue to reduce casualties and at the same time reduce road traffic. The way to achieve this is to reduce accidents and the perception of danger created by traffic.

However we will not solve this problem on our own. We do not, and are unlikely to have the resources and the skills to deal with all the issues raised. We must therefore work in partnership with our stakeholders to develop integrated solutions to the challenges facing us.

Surrey has already adopted this approach with some success.

For 5 years we have worked with the countryside commission to develop rural transport strategies and implement demonstration projects through the STAR initiative. Many of our rural lanes are narrow, have no footways and visibility is limited. Yet we continue to accept 60 mph as an appropriate speed limit. Not only is this a contributory factor in accidents (minor rural road have a high accident rate relative to traffic movement) but these conditions inhibit walking and cycling in rural areas even for the shortest journeys. The Countryside Commission’s contribution has been to:
act as a catalyst for rural demand management throughout the county. Bringing together local authorities from around the country to share common objectives, information and experience
financially support the initiative. They have contributed to salary of the development officer and paid for one off studies associated with the initiative.
promote research projects. These projects brought together experience from around the country to assist with the development of strategies and demonstration projects to provide the environmental perspective within the initiative. Ensuring that the qualities of the countryside are maintained for future generations.
provide a link to central government. They are the Government’s agency for Countryside matters

Two of the demonstration projects have included blanket speed limits on minor rural roads: 40 mph generally and 30 mph through villages. A year on and early results have shown traffic speeds reduced by 5% and accidents in one area by 30%. Encouraging results, but we must wait a little longer to fully evaluate the success. We are now looking to develop appropriate traffic calming to bring speeds in the centre of villages down further.

The initiative initially raised tensions with the police and prompted the development of a speed management strategy. This looked to define the appropriate speed for any given location and identify the most appropriate technique to ensure compliance. This work is seeking to move away from the car dominated evaluation methods of the past and focus on the needs of all road users particularly the more vulnerable. That work has been given more emphasis by the Crime and Disorder Act which seeks to develop multi agency solutions to local problems. The police are only one of several partners looking to provide a safer environment for the public.

Already the police have set up a community speed management unit which is to be driven by local concern rather than accident lead and Surrey County Council has contributed by providing the camera. We are now looking at further ways in which we can work together to address many of the problems identified in the community safety audits. However, it is recognised that to be effective we must identify what action is necessary and which authority/agency can best deal with the problem. We particularly have to look at areas like enforcement and education, to remove duplication and make best use of available joint resources. For example, would parking enforcement be more effective in the hands of local authorities leaving the police to concentrate on moving traffic offences? Should local authorities take the lead in road safety education but continue to involve the police with driver training where they clearly have the expertise?

The communities must also play an important role. It is pointless providing solutions that do not meet the needs as it will not change their behaviour. In providing safer routes to school the needs of parents, teachers and children must all be met. Surrey has addressed this issue by launching the safe routes to school challenge within our overall strategy. The community is encouraged to identify the locations which they perceive to be dangerous and thereby discourage walking and cycling to school. With the carrot of providing funds to improve the situation we work with the community to develop solutions that are widely accepted by parents. However, for their part we expect much of the consultation and promotion to be carried out by the local people. This is an important area where local people can make a valuable contribution. Within the project we have also developed family cycle training to give parents as well as children the skills to cycle on the road and show parents how they can ensure the safety of their children when cycling together. We must not forget the teachers and it is equally important that they set the right example. By introducing green commuter plans into the school and introducing behavioural driver training for the teachers the environment around schools can be substantially improved.

Much of the above can also be applied to business. Bad driving causes accidents and this is a cost to business particularly where they are running fleets of vehicles. Car parking on site takes up valuable space, on street creates a conflict with neighbours and can be dangerous and off street can take the space required by shoppers. It is interesting that since 1985 there has been a change in casualties by age. Whilst casualties to the 15 to 24 age group remains the highest, casualties to the 25 to 55 age group are increasing and there could be many reasons for that. Increase in population is an obvious reason. However if we are to take steps now we must get out the message to these age groups. School children are easy to reach through schools and businesses which offers us the opportunity to address this growing problem. We can offer training both in skills and behaviour; integrating this with the development of green transport plans to meet the needs of individual of companies, as well as our own needs, thereby resulting in safer roads.

Sponsorship is another area of potential partnership with business. Surrey has for a number of years worked closely with ESSO who have actively supported our road safety work. But increasingly other opportunities are presenting themselves. Sponsorship of roundabouts is becoming more common place particularly in Surrey. Providing the safety of road user is not compromised, we need to find other projects where we can attract external funding.

We must not forget internal alliances. Local authorities deliver a variety of services which impact on safety. Education is perhaps the most obvious and this is highlighted by the regular debates about changing our clocks. I have previously given examples of successful partnerships so let me now show you what can happen if things go wrong.

Our first venture into Safe Routes to School was extremely successful in gaining support from parents, teachers and children. A variety of measures were introduced including traffic calming and the lighting and surfacing of a regularly used footpath. However soon after the works were complete, Education changed the admissions area for the school leaving much of our work outside the new boundary. Whilst it will continue to provide benefits for existing pupils long term we need to revisit the principle routes to school. You can imagine the press had a field day with that one.
I cannot finish without mentioning district and parish councils.

In more urban areas, the road safety problems we now face are in part a result of the land use planning policies which have shaped our built environment over decades. It is now very difficult to devise safe routes to school or dedicated cycle routes, when we have to graft them on to an infrastructure not designed to accommodate them.

Land use planning will not give us quick solutions. But we owe it to the future to be altogether smarter in the way we plan new developments. And we have opportunities too. With the additional housing which we are all required to provide come opportunities to design in safe routes to schools, shops, bus and railway stations. But we must be alert to those opportunities.

Highway authorities can contribute with the production of relevant design guides, because that is what the planners and the highway engineers follow. A simple test for a local authority is therefore to ask when the design guide was last revised. Does it contain guidance on safe routes to school, access to passenger transport, provision for pedestrians and cyclists? Or is it simply a guide which sets out details of highway layouts, turning circles, junction radii etc.? If so then it needs reviewing.

I hope I have shown the needs and benefits of building alliances but I have only touched on a few. Local Chambers of Commerce, Health Authorities, bus and train companies and the Freight Transport Association are further examples of potential partnerships which if used effectively can provide improved safety and security on our roads.

4 Building alliances
- A police perspective

I am very grateful to the Road Danger Reduction Forum, for this opportunity to explain the views of the police service on the importance of alliances and partnerships in an integrated approach to road safety. The fact that so many groups, with an interest in reducing road danger, are represented today is a positive sign that we - have recognised the benefits of working together to make a difference. Certainly my committee is under no illusion that any one organisation alone, can address the risks on our roads.

My interpretation of the word danger, along with the views of this forum, is a wide one. It includes not only the danger associated with actual collisions, both injury and damage only, - and I use the word ‘collision’ deliberately as these occurrences are not accidents. But not also the so-called ‘near misses’ which for the sake of a split second are nearly but not quite, a collision. This definition also needs to consider danger from the view of the road user as it their perception, or that of a parent in the case of a child of danger that needs to be addressed if the Governments policy of Integrated Transport is to be achieved.

Such danger or fear, as viewed from the perception of the road user, is an element included within the strategic aim of the National Road Policing Strategy produced by my committee in 1997. In that same year there were 240,000 personal injury road collisions resulting in 3,599 deaths and nearly 43,000 serious injuries. But does this tell the full picture of danger on the road? The answer is quite clearly NO.

Research has estimated that there are in the region of ten times the number, 2.4 million, so-called ‘damage only’ collisions. If we assume a similar ratio between ‘damage only’ and ‘near misses’ as between injury and non injury we find ourselves with a potential of 24 million incidents of danger a year. I notice from the several nods in the audience that this figure is probably not far wrong. There are clearly a great deal more incidents of danger than is apparent from the statistics traditionally used to shape policy. Furthermore it is the underlying causes of the collisions that we need to understand if we are to apply the most effective solution.

Road Policing History
I feel it is appropriate to pause very briefly at this point whilst I put road policing in context of what has been happening within policing in general. Up to the end of the 1980s, somewhere between 12 and 15% of police resources were employed specifically on policing the roads. In 1994 the Police Research Group and the consultants KPMG Peat Marwick carried out a review of traffic organisation and activity and found that the percentage had reduced to only 8%. More recent Government data indicates that figure has been further eroded to a figure of only 6.5% of officers concentrated on road policing duties. When one compares this against nearly a 100% increase in the number of registered vehicles between 1966 and 1996 I am sure you will agree with me that delivering an effective road policing function within this context has been a challenge.

Strategic Guidance
Since 1993, the Home Secretary has issued key policing objectives to all police forces and these have never included a specific ‘road safety’ or ‘traffic’ element. This is despite the fact that in 1994, the Home Office conducted a review of traffic policing as part of the Review of Police Core and Ancillary Tasks and defined the aims of traffic policing as follows:

“To protect, help and reassure the community by the promotion of road safety and free flow of traffic to provide a rapid mobile response in support of the broader aims of detecting and combating crime, upholding the law and bringing offenders to justice...”

The review recognised “that traffic policing is an integral and vital part of policing as a whole”. Yet while a series of crime performance targets were published and monitored there was no corresponding approach to road safety issues. It is not surprising based on the principle of “what gets measured gets done” there has been a shift in police resources and management effort away from road safety to other measurable targets.

There are, however, encouraging signs for the future.

Firstly the Home Secretary has stated that he ‘expects’ traffic objectives to feature in local policing plans.

Secondly the Government, ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities have now agreed ‘overarching aims and objectives for the police service’ which include an objective to - ‘contribute to improving road safety and the reduction of casualties’

Thirdly the Home Secretary in his Ministerial Policing Priorities for 1999/2000 although not mentioning road safety or casualty reduction does include the priority ‘to identify and reduce local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with other agencies and the public’

These local community safety strategies require in the first instance a Crime and Disorder audit to be completed - followed by local consultation on the findings. The Home Office guidance to the Act clearly states that it is the local community who should decide what the priorities should be. Nothing, within reason, is “ruled in or out”. Therefore dangerous and careless driving, speeding, motor vehicle crime and even so called ‘road rage’ can be included. Have you viewed your local Crime and Disorder Audits? Have you expressed an opinion on what your local community safety strategies should be? I have been encouraged to hear that following our lobbying of both the DETR and the Home Office, another example of building alliances, that these Crime and Disorder Act Audits will be included in the DETR as part of its new Road Safety Strategy. Unfortunately the delay in its publication misses the opportunity to influence this years plans which commence in April.

National Road Policing Strategy
In 1997 my committee, aware of the decline in emphasis being given to road policing issues, developed the National Road Policing Strategy and publicly launched it last year. The strategic aim is to “secure an environment where an individual can use the roads with confidence, free from death, injury or fear”.

This strategy now provides the rationale for road policing in all forces within England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A key feature is the commitment of police to working in partnership - in alliance - with others and hence the title of our strategy ‘Joining Forces for Safer Roads’. The recent HMIC, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, report into “Road Policing and Traffic” acknowledged the importance of working with others. It also emphasised the need for these partnerships to be based upon a clear agreement of what is to be done, by whom and by when if they are to be effective.

Road Policing model
We are currently developing a Road Policing Model to assist us in clarifying our role within the road safety arena. This model, still early in its development, will continue to evolve following discussions with our road safety partners and I intend to briefly cover the main elements now.

Based upon the aims of the National Road Policing Strategy the so called problems or issues we are seeking to address are death, injury, damage, fear and road use related crime. Taking into account the complexity of the problem on the road we have sought to group these problems under three broad headings.

The first is Hotspots and is about identifying problems from the familiar geographic perspective such as particular junctions or stretches of road.

The second is Behaviour, which is about viewing problems from how broad groups of road users behave. Examples here include the tendency, 70% based on research, for drivers as a group to exceed the 30mph limit or the higher likelihood of novice drivers as a group not to recognise hazards in time.

The third is the Offenders group and is about viewing problems on the basis of an individual, or company, where intelligence has identified a link between offending and road danger.

There will be occasions when these three broad groups overlap. The real key to this model is having a comprehensive intelligence system in place. By this I mean access to all the relevant information that can assist in accurately identifying, understanding and then prioritising the problems. It is only when we know and understand the What, Where, When, Who, How and Why can we be effective in our selection of remedial measures.

The solution side of the equation is very much a toolbox approach to problem solving and is grouped around the familiar three ‘E’s of: -

Engineering involves designing in safety both on the highway and within the vehicle. A similar approach to some individuals might be appropriate but somewhat radical!

Whilst Engineering might be viewed as ‘hard’ systems approach Education is very much about a soft systems approach about adjusting attitudes and behaviour. The work of local road safety officers and aspects of the work of DETR, the Driving Standards Agency, other road safety organisations, such as Road Danger Reduction Forum, contributes significantly to the education of road users.

With over 90% of collisions being as a result of road user error the police service views the role of education as having the most potential to achieve the aim of safer roads and the National Road Policing Strategy acknowledges this. We are aware for instance of the benefits of operational police officers having ‘one-to-ones’ with individuals at the time of incidents to influence behaviour directly and also inform those travelling past the scene who frequently put “2 and 2” together and smile to themselves!

Engineering and Education have crucial roles to play in delivering safer roads. However their success will be limited unless there is an effective Enforcement capability in place to deal with those who choose to offend. In order to police the road effectively we must maintain a strong and highly visible police presence on the roads and posses powers that give us a realistic chance of detecting and convicting those who pose a danger to other road users. An intelligence-led approach to targeting of drivers known to be drinking and driving, or driving without insurance, or flouting road safety regulations is an important aspect of road policing - as is the use of road policing resources and skills to disrupt other criminal activity, such as burglars.

My committee believes that one of the keys to safer roads is inextricably linked to the issue of funding for speed and red light camera enforcement. The cost effectiveness of this type of enforcement was established beyond doubt in research conducted by the Home Office Police Research Group and published in 1996 which established that casualties were reduced by 28% at camera sites. If cameras could be located at all ‘high risk locations it has been estimated that 300 lives a year would be saved. This could be done and the police service wants to do it. You may ask what is preventing this from happening? The answer is that whilst the cameras are fitted at no cost to the police, the additional cost of administering the system falls upon our budgets. Is it unreasonable to expect the offender to pay rather than society as a whole?

Alliances
We must change the attitudes of society towards offending generally, and the behaviour of high risk groups and individuals within it, specifically. A partnership approach, across a large number of organisation’s, has been successful in reducing drinking and driving. The challenge is now to replicate that success in other areas such as excess speed that is an underlying factor in a significant proportion of all collisions.

Improving road safety is a complex issue and what is needed is a multi agency and multi disciplinary approach that involves not only obvious partners - the police and local authorities - but also Government departments and Agencies, insurance companies and other road safety organisations. Any organisation, in fact, be it public or private sector, that can contribute to or stands to gain from reductions in death, injury, damage or fear on the road.

An example of such alliances in action from the basis of existing proposals put forward on behalf of my Association by Pauline Clare, Chief Constable of Lancashire constabulary. In short we are proposing a pilot scheme in Lancashire, base on the road safety initiative in Victoria, Australia. The key to the scheme is the development of true and equal partnerships to attack road safety problems in the area and is aiming to change attitudes towards offending. It will rely on education in the form of high impact road safety advertising and supported by high visibility, high volume enforcement, particularly of speeding and drink driving.

Additional resources are required by police to deliver its commitment but the business case is very much of ‘spend and save’ approach, which would be funded by those who stand to gain the most from the success of the scheme. In this case local authority and highways authority, the Department of Health, the Health Authority and insurance companies.

If developed nationally, it has been calculated that this scheme has the potential for freeing up between 1 million and 2.5 million hospital bed-days each year and reducing death and injury which is calculated at £14.6 bn/year nationally. We are encourage by the interest being shown by the government in these proposals and believe that such a scheme could form the basis for road policing in the UK for the next century.

And this approach is starting to make the link between road safety and the cost to the health service. Lord Whitty and Tessa Jowell, Minister for Public Health, appeared together in October at a conference entitled ‘Road Safety and Health: Making the Connection’.

Hopefully this means that there is now a recognition that substantial savings can be made by one government department or agency through the work of others and that this is an ideal area in which to show that ‘spend and save’ policies can really be seen to be effective.

In conclusion I would like to emphasise three points: -

One. The Prime Minister has emphasised the benefits of “joined up government” and it is clear to the police, and I believe the many organisations we work with, that we also need “joined up road safety”.
Second. Effective partnerships or alliances are essential if we are to fully understand the complexity of the problems before us and then marshal our resources to deliver cost effective road safety solutions.
Third. The police service has a role, and is keen to have a role, in Joining Forces for Safer Roads.

Thank you again for this opportunity to put the police viewpoint.

5 A health perspective: broadening the agenda

Adrian Davis, Adrian Davis Associates

Introduction
In histories of late 20th century transport policy, yet to be written, a number of defining periods or episodes are likely to be identified as marking the beginning of the ‘official’ change of course of the ‘tanker’ which is transport policy. These may include the Royal Commission on Environment and Pollution’s 18th report in 1994, the publication of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 in the same year, the findings of SACTRA on ‘induced’ traffic, and so on. From a health perspective, one surely must be the change between the DETR’s consultation paper on transport issued in 1997 and the subsequent White Paper launched in July 1998? In the latter (DETR, 1998) we can read a section ‘better health’, which begins with the sentence ‘The way we travel is making us a less healthy nation’. It goes on to note that heart disease and stroke, and air and noise pollution, can be linked with road transport. And also that these impacts are distributed unequally across society. This may seem relatively tame to some, but look back to the consultation paper and you won’t find the word health mentioned once. So, something has changed.

Until the late 1980s the relationship between transport and health, as recognised by Government, was focused almost solely on readily quantifiable effects. The landmark Buchanan report (Ministry of Transport 1963) discussed three links. Most prominent was road traffic fatalities and injuries because of the many thousands of lives lost or lives permanently impaired. Secondly, noise pollution partly because it is measurable but also because some effects are tangible e.g. lost sleep.
Thirdly, air pollution which, although the report noted that “engine fumes do not yet rank as a major form of air pollution”, did refer to the carcinogenic properties of ‘fumes’ and also smog causing ‘eye and throat irritants’. The contribution of road traffic to air and noise pollution has become an increasing focus in the past two decades or so.

Acknowledging the wider health impacts of road transport
Prior to the 1998 Transport White Paper, any concern that there are other health outcomes which have accompanied rising motorisation , such as damage to social support networks, inequality of access including to affordable and healthy diets, were largely ignored in public policy. A barrier to their recognition was that such impacts are frequently chronic, difficult to quantify, and mediated by other factors (British Medical Association, 1997). We can think of this as akin to what is above and below the water-line of an iceberg. My encyclopaedia informs me that only one ninth of the mass of an iceberg projects above the surface, and that the sea-fog which usually surrounds it, means that it is a great hazard to shipping (including transport policy tankers).

It terms of health, as opposed to ill health, and with the wealth of evidence in recent years of the physiological and psychological benefits that increased physical activity brings (Morris, 1994), of the importance too of improved social support networks and local access to affordable healthy diets, and to health services, independent mobility, and so on... we can also look at the benefits to public health from an increased use of alternatives to the private car. These benefits shift the balance in debates about life years lost from road crashes in favour of greater promotion of physically active transport. The World Health Organisation predicts that on current trends heart disease will rise from 5th place in 1990 to 1st place in the world listing of top ten diseases by 2020 (Murray, and Lopez, 1996). Consequently there is a great and urgent need to increase physical activity in the population in order to counter the prediction as well as to slow down the deterioration of physical function with ageing among the increasing elderly UK population.

It is in this context that road danger needs to be evaluated. What intervention role does perceived road danger play in determining travel behaviour and so in determining the loss of health benefits which accrue to particular modes of travel. As has been noted (Tight et al. 1994), the recent changes in transport policy mean that road safety practitioners might now be expected to become more involved at

‘all levels of detail of developing transport policy, talking with transport planners and traffic engineers to ensure that road safety is considered consistently and in its widest sense at every stage’. (P. 190)

Yet to promote public health and minimise road danger, it will be important for collaboration to extend beyond the transport and environment sectors. Collaboration and policy co-ordination is also needed on a much broader level.

Our Healthier Nation and opportunities for intersectoral collaboration
As with changes in transport, there have also been some important changes in the health sector. The appointment of a Public Health Minister by the in-coming Labour administration signalled important changes of direction in health policy. The publication of the Public Health White Paper is currently awaited. .It’s consultation paper, Our Healthier Nation suggests that the Department of Health is thinking more strategically than hitherto. Some of the policies to be formally endorsed by the White Paper are already with us. They offer significant opportunities for those promoting danger reduction. I mention three to note.

Primary Care Groups
Primary care groups (PCGs) are to be established in all parts of England by April 1999. They will cover ‘natural communities’ of approximately 100,000 people. As well as being responsible for commissioning virtually all health care, PCGs will also have a role to play in promoting health in local communities through reflecting the perspective of the community. PCGs will be co-ordinated locally by representatives from primary health care teams and other health professionals as well as local authorities and so working in alliances will be normal practice for PCGs. The identification of physically active transport could be an important role of PCGs.

Health Improvement Programmes and Health Action Zones
Health improvement programmes will be run by health authorities in partnership with local authorities. Indeed, there will be a statutory duty placed on the health sector for collaboration. The Department of Health has stated that they

‘will be effective vehicles for making a major and sustainable impact on health problems of every locality in the country. As well as looking at the overall health of the local population, they will also focus action on people who are socially excluded and need the most support in getting back on their feet’ (P. 40)

Health Action Zones
Health Action Zones provide opportunities for communities working with statutory authorities to target health inequalities. This could provide opportunities for promoting walking and cycling along with low speed zones to reduce road danger. There are already 26 Health Action Zone’s in operation. A number of these have identified traffic issues as priorities.

Discussion
Recent development in both the transport and health sectors pose a challenge to a large number of potential ‘players’, including all of us here today. I identify two notable pitfalls, however. The first is the danger that pressured with time, financial and staffing restraints, both local and health authorities will opt for the traditional links, including accident reduction programmes, in any collaborative programmes. Lines of communication already exist and shared goals have been identified. Therefore strong efforts will be required to counter myopic tendencies which run counter to reducing danger at source.

Secondly, the voice of public health within the health sector is relatively weak. Public health is a most natural ally to the danger reduction agenda but little new thinking in transport policy has reached Directors of Public Health to whom transport issues are largely marginal. Where links are weak they will need strengthening and elsewhere developed from scratch. One opportunity on the horizon, however, is the forthcoming 3rd ministerial Conference on Environment and Health to be held in London in June.* This provide an excellent focus and resource for use by danger reduction advocates in developing and strengthening links with public health practitioners.

References
British Medical Association, 1997 Road Transport and Health, London: BMA DETR, 1998 A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, London: TSO Department of Health, 1998 Our Healthier Nation: A Contract for health, a consultation paper, London: TSO
Delaney, F. 1994 Muddling through the middle ground: theoretical concerns in intersectoral collaboration and health promotion, Health promotion international, 9(3), pp. 217-225
Morris, J. 1994 Exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease: today’s best buy in public health, Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 26, pp. 807-814
Murray, C. and Lopez, A. 1996 Global burden of disease and injury series, Vol 1, Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Tight, M., Page, M., Wolinski, A. and Dixie, R. 1998 Casualty reduction or danger reduction: conflicting approaches or means to achieve the same ends? Transport policy, 5, pp. 185-192

* Internet site is http://www.who.dk/london99/index.htm

Synopsis of report: 'Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions:
Assessment of the evidence',
by Cairns, Hass Klau and Goodwin 1998, available from Landor Publishing, London.
In 1994, a government committee report showed that building roads can generate traffic. Since then, there has been a lot of interest in whether the opposite is true-can reducing road space for cars cut traffic ? This could be particularly important when introducing policies like bus lanes, which could provide a cheap and effective way to improve the attractiveness of public transport, but which would be untenable if displaced traffic brought neighbouring roads to a standstill.
The same issue is often raised during plans to introduce street running light rail systems, cycle lanes, wider footpaths or pedestrianisation schemes. Therefore London Transport and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) commissioned research to investigate the question, and employed a team at University College London (UCL) to look at the evidence (as reported here), and the consultancy MVA to look at the modelling implications (as reported elsewhere). Consequently the UCL team examined nearly 60 locations where road space had been taken away from cars and put to other use. Examples were studied from the UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, the USA, Canada, Tasmania and Japan.
In some cases, road space for cars had been reduced because of deliberate policies like bus lanes or pedestrianisation, in others it was because of problems like roadworks. Irrespective of the cause, in such circumstances, there are often predictions of major traffic chaos.
Examination of the evidence suggested that these predictions rarely, if ever, prove accurate. Prolonged, long term gridlock is simply not reported, although there can be short term disruption, and some increase in problems on particular local roads. In many cases, there were actually significant reductions in the total amount of traffic on the networks studied. On average, 14 - 25% of the traffic that used to use the affected route could not be found on the neighbouring streets. However, the results varied substantially, depending on the context. For example, where schemes made public transport more attractive, they were more likely to encourage people to change mode than those which did not.
In explaining what was happening to the traffic, the following model of behavioural response emerged. Initially, when road space for cars is reduced, drivers simply change their driving styles in ways which pack more vehicles in, for example, by driving closer together. As conditions deteriorate, they then take the next easiest options swapping to neighbouring streets, or changing their time of travel, leaving a bit earlier or later to avoid the worst of the traffic. As such adjustments also become problematic, a whole variety of responses is triggered, ranging from people altering how they travel, or where they carry out activities, through to people moving house or moving job, where the change in travelling conditions tips the balance in a decision that was being made for other reasons anyway. Taken together, this third set of responses accounts for the measurable disappearance of a proportion of traffic from the networks studied.
The project also highlighted the amount of variability which underlies apparently stable traffic flows, and which enables people to change their travel habits. Specifically, individuals make adjustments to their travel behaviour on a fairly regular basis anyway, either because of minor factors (like the occasional decision to work from home, or to carry out one activity on the way to another), or because of more important decisions (like changes in car ownership or job location or house location), or because of longer term, life cycle events (like changes in household composition). Hence, when road space is reduced, some people are forced to alter a repeated, habitual pattern of behaviour, but other people are spontaneously reconsidering their travel options anyway, and can take account of changes in the network conditions as part of this process. It is this flexibility which enables surprisingly large changes in traffic flows to result from a particular change to road conditions.
The findings from the project were welcomed by Gavin Strang, Minister for Transport, and the DETR aims to commission a good practice guide, to enable local authorities to take account of the results.

Note from Road Danger Reduction Forum conference, Leicester, 16th February 1999.

The impacts of reallocating roadspace on accident* rates:
some initial evidence.
As requested, this note reports on evidence about the impacts of reallocating roadspace on accident rates, which has been drawn from a major project about reallocating road space. The main project was focused on the impacts of reallocating road space on traffic volumes, although some data were collected about the safety implications. This note provides an initial analysis of that data.
Logically, the relationship between reallocating road space and accidents could be complex. On the one hand, traffic reduction and greater priority for other modes suggests that buses, cyclists and walkers should benefit from less conflict with other modes of transport. However, there could be various offsetting problems. For example, there could be additional accidents on diversion routes; more pulling in and out of bus and cycle lanes might lead to problems etc.. These hypothetical arguments can be addressed by looking at the evidence.
In the majority of cases of planned road space reallocation, improvements to safety are often one of the objectives, or even the prime reason for putting in the scheme. For example, private traffic was originally excluded from Oxford Street in 1972 because it was the worst accident blackspot in London, and probably the whole of Britain, with 265 personal injury accidents per annum. Similarly, prior to closure, Princes Street in Edinburgh was witness to 108 personal injury accidents p.a..
Once schemes had been implemented, there were often references to a difficult adjustment period. For example, there were initially problems with the Sheffield Supertram, where one cyclist died after getting his wheel stuck in the tracks, and many car drivers experienced problems because the tracks were slippery to drive along.
We were sent 8 case studies with results of proper accident evaluation. These can be summed up as follows:

* Throughout, the term accident is used, since this is still widely accepted, and was the term used in the original sources of information that we were sent. However,we recognise that this may not be the most appropriate way to refer to collisions between different road users.

* Reference for full report from the project: Cairns S, Hass Klau C & Goodwin PB (1998)
Traffic impact of highway capacity reduction: Assessment of the Evidence London: Landor
Publishing. ISBN 1 899650 10 5

Figure 1: Change in accident rates after roadspace reallocation

There are various problems with interpreting the data. For example, the last two percentages relate to only small changes in absolute numbers of accidents (about 10 p.a. pre closure for Partingdale lane, and about 7 p.a. pre closure for Orpington High Street).
Local authorities also often highlighted that they had, say, three years of before data but only a short period of after data. For example, the Oxford Street results only refer to 5 months after entry for private traffic was restricted, and the authors commented that it was too early to say definitely what the impacts were, particularly as the results reflected teething problems at one junction where there had been 14 accidents in three months. The junction was reconfigured as a result, and a reduction of 26 accidents a year was expected in the long term. Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain any later reports, to check whether this had happened.
In terms of impacts over time, Gothenburg is perhaps the most informative. In Gothenburg, a series of traffic cells has been developed. Traffic has been rerouted to roads around the edges of each cell. Meanwhile, within the cells, priority has been given to modes other than the car. This has been done in two phases, with cells created first in the central business district and second, in the surrounding central urban area (CUA). Hence, the reduction of 40% per annum from the CBD results from 12 years of having the cells, whereas the 14% per annum reduction was observed after only two years, and the authors comment that greater reductions are expected from the CUA zones in the future. Gothenburg also has a policy of changing the land use of the roads which go around cells, which should further enhance safety.
In terms of the other case studies the Ring of Steel in the City of London is a similar case to Gothenburg, where the spatial separation of vehicles and people has helped to reduce casualties. With Princes St and Orpington High St., the savings have come from traffic reductions on those main shopping streets due to entry restrictions for private vehicles, whilst in Hamm, Partingdale Lane and the Street Enhancement Programme in Norway, most of the savings have come from reductions in the speed of the motorised vehicles.
In brief, the initial impression from the evidence is that there are a number of cases where there have been significant reductions in accidents as a result of well implemented schemes to reallocate road space. There is further scope for obtaining information on these (and other) case studies, and presumably, data are also available from more specific projects to assess the safety implications of implementing light rail schemes, bus lanes, cycle lanes and pedestrian areas. We would welcome any contributions of evidence from those who are working on the topic.

Sally Cairns
16/2/99

ESRC Transport Studies Unit, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT.
Tel: 0171 391 1582 Fax: 0171 391 1586 e-mail: sally@transport.ucl.ac.uk

Speakers biographies

10.05-11.30 : The new perspective
Chair of session 1 - Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley is chairman of the Rail Freight Group, the representative body of the rail freight industry in th UK, He is also chairman of the Piggyback consortium and an advisor to Adtranz.

In the House of Lords, he is a member of the select committee on European Legislation and was Labour Transport spokesperson from 1996/97. He speaks regularly on transport matters, as well as on tourism.

He is a civil engineer and was Public Affairs Manager for Eurotunnel from the early 1980s until its completion in 1994.

10.10-10.30 : Opportunities for Change - Putting the Road Safety Strategy into Perspective
Lord Whitty of Camberwell
Parliamentary under secretary of state

Larry Whitty (Lord Whitty of Camberwell), was appointed under secretary of state at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 28th July 1998. He is responsible for roads and road safety issues.

Before joining DETR Larry Whitty was a lord in waiting (Government Whip) covering education and foreign affairs, a post he held from 5th May 1997.

Born in 1943, Lord Whitty ws educated at Latymer Upper School and graduated from St John’s College Cambridge with a BA (Hons) degree in economics.

He worked for Hawker Siddeley Aviation from 1960 1962 and at the ministry of aviation technology from 1965 - 1970.

He was employed by the Trades Union Congress from 1970 - 1973 and the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union from 1973 - 1985.

He became General Secretary of the Labour Party in 1985, a post he held until 1994. He was the European Co-ordinator for the labour Party from 1994 - 1997.

He was created a Life Peer in 1996.

He is married with two sons. His hobbies include theatre, cinema and swimming.

10.30-10.50 : Integrating Road Safety with the Environment - Improving the Quality of Life for All
Lynn Sloman
Lynn Sloman is Assistant Director of the environmental lobby group Transport 2000. Her main work is on non-motorised transport, transport and health, road safety issues, local authority best practice and community involvement in transport decisions.

Lynn is a trustee of the Environmental Transport Association and a former board member of the European Federation for Transport and the Environment. She has set up a network of the most innovative local authorities in the transport field, “Streets Ahead”, and is a member of the National Cycling Forum and the National Walking Steering Group. She has helped establish a range of transport groups including the Pedestrians Policy Group and the Road Danger Reduction Forum.

10.50-11.10 : Planning for Safety - Danger reduction through Local Transport Plans and Targets
Graham Read
Graham Douglas Read works for the department of Highways and Transportation, Leeds City Council.He has over twenty years experience in transport planning within local government. He currently leads a multi-disciplinary team, whose responsibilities include preparation of bids for government funding. preparing and managing programmes of capital investment, evaluating road and public transport proposals, developing and implementing the Leeds Transport Strategy, the road safety plan, development of company travel plans, campaigns to influence travel behaviour, development of policies for pedestrians and the development and running of computer based transport models. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Transport.

Derek Quinn
Derek Quinn has been engaged in transport planning for 20 years working in consultancy, universities and local government in the UK and overseas. He is currently Chief Transport Planner for Leeds City Council, and is a member of the committee for the recently formed Transport planning Society.

11.50-1300 : Building Alliances
Chair of session 2 -
Dr Robert Davis BSc, MSc, Cert Ed, PhD
Robert Davis is a founder member of the Road Danger Reduction Forum. He is author of ‘Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety’ (1993) and the RDRF’s ‘Is It Safe?: A Guide to road danger reduction.. He is a transport planning and policy consultant.

A local authority perspective-
Callum Findley Bsc, Msc, Ceng, FICE (in place of Dr Richard Shaw)
Callum Findley is currently Head of Engineering at Surrey County Council where he has overall responsibility for all transportation and engineering matters. Callum qualified as a Civil Engineer and subsequently took a masters Degree in transportation planning. He is the secretary to the STEP committee of CSS (previously the County Surveyors Society). He has 30 years experience in the field of transport ranging from working in the private sector, the World Bank, United Nations and a number of local authorities in the UK. He has particular interests in mathematical modelling of travel behaviour, the development of transportation strategies and the development and implemantation of innovative measures to reduce road casualties.

A police perspective -
Paul Andrew Manning QPM Msc
Assistant Commissioner Metropolitan Police

Paul Manning has had a long and distinguished career in the police force begining in 1966 when he joined Staffordshire police. In 1994 Mr Manning joined the Metropolitan Police Service as an Assistant Commissioner. H was also given special portfolio responsibilities for formulating Metropolitan Police Policy on 24 response and traffic. In 1995 he was elected Honarary secretary of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Traffic Committee. Mr Manning was awarded the Queens Police Medal in the Queens Birthday Honours list 1996.

A Health perspective
Adrian Davis, Adrian Davis Associates

A social science graduate (BA Hons) From 1086-89 he worked for the Town and Country Planning Association in Manchester on a local authority funded ‘Safe Routes to School’ project, promoting traffic calming concepts and engineering solutions. During this time he made a number of studies of continental approaches to urban traffic calming and traffic restraint. from 1989 to 1994 he was Urban Traffic Reseach Officer at Friend of the Earth. In 1991 he worked with Keith Mans MP via the Private Members Ballot, to get a Traffic Calming Act enacted. Adrian Davis associates was established in 1994 and specialises in health impacts of road transport. Clients include the BMA, DETR, Dept. of Health, HEA, TRL and WHO. Adrian was a transort adviser to Sir Donald Achison’s independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health published last November. He is Cheif Adviser to the Sustrans Safe Routes to Schools Project.

Until recently Adrian also held a part-time research post with the School of Health and Social Welfare at the Open University, where he was a researcher for a project on the impact of transport on childrens health and wellbeing. This month he joined the University of Westminster’s Transport Studies Grtoup as a part-time Research Fellow.

top