Road Danger Reduction Forum
Briefing Paper 8 -October 2000
|
Road Danger Reduction ForumBriefing Paper 8 -October 2000 |
|
Preparing Local Transport Plans |
||
| Introduction | |
| The DETR’s new road safety strategy “Tomorrows Roads - Safer For Everyone”, poses real challenges for authorities wishing to seriously promote sustainable, danger reduction strategies within their road safety policy. Whilst disappointingly visionless in its grasp of how road safety can contribute to broader integrated transport objectives, forward thinking authorities should still find enough within it to compliment their own policies. This position paper sets out to show how this can be done and more importantly incorporated within Local Transport Plan submissions. The starting point is inevitably the new casualty reduction targets. | |
| Casualty Targets | |
| The Forum has never been supportive of setting
targets based on crude casualty totals. The data is both inaccurate and
incomplete. Casualties for vulnerable road users have also fallen because
of the increase in danger from more motor traffic scaring the vulnerable
from our roads.
Whilst the new targets appear challenging, they are likely to be achieved by simply carrying on in the same manner as the last twelve years. In 1997 reported fatal and serious casualties were 42.5% lower than the 1981-85 base. The new target is thus to have a 40% reduction in KSI’s in 2010, the same length of time after the new 1994-98 base. Looking at the graph in paragraph 1.2 of the strategy and continuing the trends shown in it, it is fair to assume that traffic growth up to 2010 will ensure the 10% slight casulaty rate (per 100 million vehicle kilometres) reduction will also happen with no new interventions. Traffic growth will probably continue to reduce casualty severity through greater congestion and consequent slower speeds. It will also continue to prevent increases in the use of vulnerable modes. And what will happen to children if there is more traffic about? Even more will be excluded from the road environment, probably bringing around a 50% reduction in KSI casualties. This means that if we are to see a real and sustainable improvement in our road environment we must set more radical targets than those given us by the DETR. The DETR targets effectively mean little or no change in the total number of reported casualties. A more radical approach would be to accept the targets for KSI’s but to go further. A target of reducing total casualties by 10% linked to motor traffic reduction would promote danger reduction. This should be linked to existing targets in health and cycling strategies to increase levels of walking and cycling. Meeting such targets would require a real improvement in the safety of the road environment, particularly for vulnerable road users. The Strategy does give enough ammunition for authorities wishing to see such an outcome. These are set out below. |
|
| Child Safety Audits | |
Child Safety Audits are a central part of Government
road safety policy. However, there has as yet been no advice from the DETR
on how these are to be carried out. This provides yet another opportunity
for progressive authorities to once again set the agenda. Clearly the intention
of those thinking up the idea of these audits was not just a counting of
the number of children injured but a more fundamental analysis of children’s
experience of the road environment. The Forum would suggest that child safety
audits should also put as much emphasis on each of the following:
Each authority should prepare an authority-wide child safety audit including these ideas. This could set targets and timescales for reviewing progress. If not already the case, child safety audit guided by the same principles should be incorporated within all standard highway safety audit practice. |
|
| Engineering | |
| The means by which we achieve overall targets
and those we set ourselves as a result of our child safety audits, are contained
in the road safety strategy. They will also be very familiar to many, having
been borrowed from the practice of progressive local authorities. That said,
it is moderately refreshing to see acknowledment of many of these ideas
for the first time in a “road safety division” document.
The key points are: Safer for Children (Chapter 2)
Safer Infrastructure (Chapter 5)
Safer for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Horseriders (Chapter 9) A welcome recognition of the need to improve conditions for pedestrians
and cyclists to encourage more walking and cycling and less car use |
|
| Education, Training and Publicity | |
| Unfortunately there is little new or enlightened on offer to those who deliver E,T & P. However, in the few paragraphs on cyclist training there is mention of best practice (paragraph 2.25) and also adult training (paragraph 9.8). These contributions are dwarfed by references to cycle helmets and other secondary safety measures. Relying on “voluntary bodies” to improve training for cyclists (paragraph 9.7) seems to ignore that local authorities provide 90% or more of current training. However, Ministers have said that local authorities can bid for cyclist training within their LTPs as long as this is linked to capital spend on safe routes schemes. | |
| Enforcement | |
| Clearly the introduction of speed cameras and better enforcement are areas where local authorities and the police need to co-operate closely. Local authorities should use their influence to encourage and assist the police in the rapid introduction of hypothecation for speed enforcement and other measures | |
| Conclusion | |
| For authorities who have already adopted a danger reduction approach to road safety, the strategy poses few if any new demands. These and other authorities should continue to push ahead with radical new measures in the knowledge that DETR strategy will follow. As much of the strategy is open to interpretation this provides the opportunity for forward thinking authorities to determine what the eventual meaning will be. | |