Agenda item

(To receive a report by Steve Batchelor, Senior Manager – Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership, which seeks to provide the Committee with an update on fatal, and killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualty figures for Lincolnshire)

Consideration was given to the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership (LRSP) Annual Report which sought to provide committee members with an update on fatal, and killed and serious injury (KSI) casualty figures for Lincolnshire.  It also provided data on trends, comparisons and areas of priority.

Members also received a presentation which provided an opportunity to consider information in relation to killed and seriously injured (KSI) statistics for Lincolnshire.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and the presentation and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·          One member commented that they had 34 parishes in their division, and at every meeting they attended there would be questions about road safety, requests for variations in speed limits etc.  It was noted that a lot of these requests were received by the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership directly.

·         It was noted that the LRSP was predominantly a vehicle for partners to undertake work together, share best practice and identify priorities.  It was noted that there were two main strategies, the overarching 2015-2025 strategy which set out the priorities and a yearly strategy which sets out the work which would be carried out that year in relation to each of the priorities.

·         In terms of work with parishes, there was a speed limit policy in place at the council, and a number of initiatives in relation to speed enforcement including neighbourhood policing teams undertaking enforcement activities.

·         It was commented that there were always locally known accident black spots and queried why it seemed like residents had to wait until there was a serious accident before anything was done.  Councillors' frustration with this situation was recognised, and members were advised that data from every single injury collision was utilised and where clusters were identified action could be taken which may include local engineering schemes, improvements to signs and lines, junction improvements as a speed reduction for a road was not always the solution. 

·         Collisions which did not include injury were also recorded.  Officers were aware of a lot of locations where collisions but no injuries were recorded, but there was a need to prioritise those locations where fatalities or serious injury were occurring.

·         In relation to comparisons with other counties, it was queried whether they were doing the same things as Lincolnshire.  Members were advised that there was a wide variety, but Lincolnshire was doing more in terms of the way that activities were undertaken and resources were shared.  The LRSP was there to bring together resources and co-ordinate activities.  Nationally there was a lot of consistency in the activities and a lot of best practice being shared.

·         It was queried whether if funding was directed to those areas with accidents, was the service receiving enough funding.  Members were advised that road safety was one of those areas where it could use as funding as it was given.  However, compared to other service areas it had managed to maintain its level of service, with only slightly less enforcement, education and engineering work taking place.

·         It was noted that whilst Lincolnshire had seen a considerable reduction in fatalities on the roads, so had other authorities, but there was now a slight increase being seen.

·         It was queried whether a reduction in speed limits of all roads which came off 'A' class roads had been looked into, as this had been implemented in Norfolk.

·         It was commented that in the time since data had started being collated, the number of vehicles using the roads would have increased, and so it would be expected that the number of accidents and collisions would also increase.  However, it was also noted that the safety features in vehicles had also increased and so it was difficult to compare like with like.

·         It was reported that since the inception of the LRSP the number of people killed on Lincolnshire's roads had halved, but no matter what activities the Partnership carried out – enforcement, education or engineering, there would still be accidents, as it only took one lapse in concentration to cause an accident.  There had been a huge reduction in the number of KSI over the years and it was reported that the Partnership would try to identify vulnerable user groups and target campaigns towards them e.g. motorcycle riders.

·         In terms of data collation and usage for the targeting of schemes, it was queried what weight was given to accidents which did not involve an injury.  Members were advised that there was a wide range of classifications for accidents which were defined by the Department for Transport (DfT), and it was noted that an accident involving a broken bone (including a digit) would be classed as a serious casualty.

·         Members were advised that data from all collisions would be used when considering education, enforcement or engineering activity.

·         It was queried how it was detected whether an area was susceptible to damage only accidents.  It was reported that the LRSP was required to reduce death and injury on the road.  However, it was acknowledged that there were exemptions and if an area was identified where it was thought there could be an emerging problem the Partnership was able to access police data.

·         It was clarified that the vast majority of collisions in Lincolnshire involved cars.

·         It was also reported that the vast majority of collisions also involved some level of user error.

·         It was highlighted that Lincolnshire had higher numbers of older drivers when compared to other areas, which could explain why there were a higher number of collisions in the county involving older drivers.

·         There was a need to tailor resources to those user groups who were over represented in terms of fatalities.

·         Members were offered the opportunity to visit the Road Safety Partnership at any time to view the data and ask any questions they may have.

·         If there was a collision which involved an injury then all the details of the incident would be recorded on the LRSP's database.

·         It was noted that most collisions happened in fine weather, and there was also no specific time of day when accidents were more likely.

·         It was queried whether if data was grouped into four hour intervals, for example, would peaks then be seen.  It was acknowledged that if this was done, then peaks would more likely to be seen either just before or just after peak traffic times.

·         In relation to average speed cameras, it was queried how effective they were at reducing accidents and how many people were caught by them on the A1.  Officers advised that they could bring back specific data on this, but advised that a reduction in accidents had been seen, and more people had been caught.  It was also noted that equipment was being replaced with new smaller cameras, which could be attached to existing street furniture and more signing was being installed.  However, it was thought that not many people actually understood what average speed cameras did.

·         In terms of the reasons why accidents occurred, it was noted speeding was one specific element, but other factors such as aggressive driving or swerving around other vehicles would also involve an element of speed. 

·         In relation to the corporate scheme which was being carried out in relation to safer driving, it was commented that for a lot of people employed as drivers, the delivery scheduled which were given by the employers were quite tight and so drivers felt that they had to drive faster than normal to meet their schedules.  Members were advised that there was a package of initiatives that could be offered to employers.  It was noted that work had been done nationally with large companies who had found that they could save significant amounts of money by ensuring their drivers travelled at a more realistic speed.  These savings were found through fuel consumption and reduced insurance liabilities.

·         One member queried why signs were put up warning people about speed cameras and suggested that they should not be sign posted so that people were caught when they were speeding.  It was reported that speed cameras were located in places where there was a clear and demonstrable history of collisions.  By warning people of the presence of speed cameras it gives people the opportunity to look at their speed and modify their behaviour.

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the report be noted