AREA PROFILE For Suffolk 2016 By Road Safety Analysis
AREA PROFILE For Suffolk 2016
By Road Safety Analysis
Executive Summary
The analysis in this report is summarised in an interactive online dashboard, providing access to the trends,
comparisons and maps included in this document. The following is a very brief summary of the main findings.
The annual average rate of casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 7% below the national rate.
In 2015, there has been a 32% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident casualties since 2006 and a 15%
reduction since 2014.
In 2015, there has been a 41% reduction in the number of Suffolk residents killed or seriously injured in
road collisions since 2006 and a 20% reduction since 2014.
The annual average rate of pedal cycle casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 17% below the national rate.
The number of Suffolk child resident pedal cycle casualties has continued to decrease and has fallen by 65%
in 2015 since 2006.
The number of Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle casualties increased from 2006 to 2015 by 19%. However,
there was a reduction of 27% from 2014 to 2015.
The annual average rate of senior casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 10% below the national rate.
There has been fluctuation in the trend in of Suffolk resident senior casualties since 2006, although there
has been a 3% reduction since 2006 and a 15% since 2014.
Suffolk’s resident senior casualties are most likely to be injured as car drivers (58%).
The annual average rate of Suffolk residents who were involved in collisions as drivers is 9% lower than the
national rate.
There has been a 30% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident motor vehicle drivers since 2006 and a
14% reduction since 2014.
Suffolk’s motorcycle rate is 1% higher than the national rate but there has been a downward trend since
2009 and the number of Suffolk’s resident riders involved in injury collisions was 25% lower in 2015 than in
2006.
The rate for Suffolk’s young driver involvement in collisions is 30% above the national rate, however, there
has been a significant reduction of 48% fewer young drivers involved in collisions in 2015 than in 2006.
The rate of collisions per KM on Suffolk’s roads is 33% lower than the national rate. There has been a
downward trend in the numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s roads, with a 29% reduction from 2006 (and KSI
collisions down by 40%).
Suffolk’s rate per KM of urban road is 19% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of
32% since 2006.
Suffolk’s rate per KM of rural road is 13% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of
26% since 2006.
A forecasting function was used to determine confidence levels for the resident casualty trends for 2014 and 2015
to check if the reductions experienced by Suffolk’s residents were as expected. Forecasting was based on 2005 to
2013 data, as 2014 figures were close to or above the upper confidence bound and it appears to be an unusual year,
compared to the general trend. 2015, in contrast, appears to be back on the general trend with all road user groups
close to the forecast, apart from resident adult pedal cycle casualties (which are below the lower confidence bound).
It could be that there were fewer adult pedal cyclists from Suffolk riding in 2015 and this reduced crash involvement.
Given that the trends were based on Suffolk residents who could have been injured anywhere in the country, the
reductions in casualties are unlikely to be due to under-reporting (as this would involve more than one reporting
police force) and instead look to be a continued general downward trend. Given the forecasting, aside from adult
pedal cyclists, the reductions in 2015 are as expected.
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.2 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1.3 Analytical Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 PROFILE CONFIGURATION .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
2 RESIDENT RISK ................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 RESIDENT CASUALTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 All Resident Casualties .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Resident Pedal Cyclist Casualties ........................................................................................................ 13
2.1.3 Senior Resident Casualties .................................................................................................................. 18
2.2 RESIDENT MOTOR VEHICLE USERS ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.1 All Resident Drivers and Riders involved in Collisions ......................................................................... 25
2.2.2 Resident Motorcyclists involved in Collisions ...................................................................................... 30
2.2.3 Young adult resident drivers involved in collisions .............................................................................. 34
3 ROAD NETWORK RISK .................................................................................................................................. 41
3.1 COLLISIONS ON ALL ROADS ................................................................................................................................. 41
3.1.1 Rates ................................................................................................................................................... 41
3.1.2 Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 42
3.1.3 Trends ................................................................................................................................................. 42
3.1.4 Casualty trends on all roads ................................................................................................................ 44
3.1.5 Contributory Factors ........................................................................................................................... 46
3.2 COLLISIONS ON ROADS BY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 54
3.2.1 Urban Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 54
3.2.2 Rural Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 58
4 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 64
4.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................................. 64
4.2 MOSAIC PUBLIC SECTOR ................................................................................................................................... 68
4.2.1 Complete list of Mosaic Types ............................................................................................................. 68
4.2.2 Profile and distribution for selected Mosaic Types ............................................................................. 70
4.3 DATA TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. 72
4.4 CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR GROUPINGS ................................................................................................................... 78
4.5 SUFFOLK MAP ................................................................................................................................................. 79
4.6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... 80
AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 5
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
1.1.1 Background
Area Profiles from Road Safety Analysis (RSA) provide overviews of road safety performance within specific local
areas. This profile delivers detailed analysis and insight on all injury collisions reported to the police in Suffolk, as
well as casualties and drivers involved in collisions anywhere in Britain who reside in the Suffolk area.
Area Profile formats are modular, which affords the flexibility to select topics for inclusion to reflect local needs, and
allows each section of the report to be used independently if required. Profile design allows authorities to
understand general casualty and collision trends affecting their residents and roads, as well as selecting particular
topics based on local issues. Experts from RSA work with commissioning authorities to ensure that selected topics
provide an accurate and relevant assessment. After production of a first Area Profile, updates can be produced in
future years covering the entire document or selected existing sections, whilst new topics can also be introduced in
response to latest trends and concerns.
1.1.2 Aims and Objectives
The aim of this document is to provide a comprehensive profile of road safety issues affecting both Suffolk’s road
network and Suffolk’s residents, primarily using STATS19 collision data 1 and Mosaic socio-demographic
classification. Annual trends are presented and analysed for key road user groups, predominantly based on data
from the last five full years of available statistics but referring to older figures where appropriate.
RSA’s analysis tool MAST Online has also been used to investigate trends for Suffolk’s residents involved in road
collisions anywhere in the country, including socio-demographic profiling of casualties and drivers. MAST has been
used to allow comparison of Suffolk’s key road safety issues with those of comparator regions and national figures.
The aim is to allow Suffolk to assess its progress alongside other areas, and work together with neighbours to address
common issues.
1.1.3 Analytical Techniques
The analytical techniques employed throughout this Area Profile are detailed in the Analytical Techniques section
on page 64. Please refer to this section for information on the terminology and data sources used as well to
understand methodologies utilised and the structure and scope of the report.
1 For further information go to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-accidents-and-safety-statistics-guidance
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 6
INTR
OD
UC
TION
1.2 Profile Configuration
1.2.1 Structure
The Area Profile has been divided into separate analysis of key road user groups. The aim is to allow each section to
be used independently if required. This will also allow Suffolk County Council to update selected sections when
appropriate, without a requirement to update the entire document.
Section 2, starting on page 7, explores Resident Risk. Resident risk analysis includes examining all Suffolk’s resident
casualties and resident motor vehicle users in terms of rates, comparisons with other relevant authorities; residency
by small area; trends and socio-demographic analysis. Specific road user groups will also be analysed against these
measures. The focus of this section is on how the people of Suffolk are involved in collisions, rather than what
happens on local roads.
Section 3, starting on page 41, provides analysis of Road Network Risk. It also examines rates; comparisons; location
by small area; and trends on Suffolk’s roads. Breakdowns by type of road are also included in this section.
Section 4, starting on page 64, includes Appendices detailing all Mosaic Types and the profile and distribution of
specific Mosaic Types relevant to Suffolk. It also contains data tables for all analysis referred to in this Area Profile.
1.2.2 Scope
All figures included in this report are based on STATS 19 collision data. The residents section covers casualties and
motor vehicle users involved in collisions who are residents of Suffolk, regardless of where in Britain the collision
occurred. Resident analysis in this profile is based on the national STATS19 dataset as provided to RSA by the
Department for Transport for publication in MAST Online over the five year period between 2011 and 2015 inclusive.
For a more complete explanation, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on methodology for calculating resident risk.
In contrast, the road network section covers collisions which occurred on Suffolk’s roads, regardless of where those
involved reside. Network analysis is also based on the national STATS19 dataset over the five year period between
2011 and 2015 inclusive. For a more complete explanation, please refer to 4.1.1.2 on methodology for calculating
network collision risk.
AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 7
2 Resident Risk
For information about the provenance and scope of data included in this section, please refer to Scope on page 6.
For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
2.1 Resident Casualties
This section refers to all casualties who were residents of Suffolk at time of injury. For information about all casualties
on Suffolk’s roads, please refer to 3.1.4 on page 44.
2.1.1 All Resident Casualties
2.1.1.1 Rates
Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 shows Suffolk’s resident
casualty rate compared to the national rate and to comparator authority rates. Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per
100,000 population – Suffolk and districts
Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure
6 shows the resident casualty rate for Suffolk and its districts. The resident casualty rate for Suffolk is 288.1 per
100,000 population.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
Res
iden
t C
asu
alty
Rat
e
Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 - Annual average resident
casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 8
2.1.1.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s resident casualty rate is 7% below the national rate. It has a higher rate than all comparator authorities
apart from Kent, although Dorset has a similar rate.
Internal
Within Suffolk, Ipswich has the highest rate (316.7) and St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate of 251.2. All other
district authorities have similar rates to the overall Suffolk rate.
Residency by Small Area
Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)
Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 shows the home location of Suffolk’s resident
casualties by LSOA. The thematic map is coloured by resident casualties per year per population of LSOA. Higher
resident casualty rates are scattered throughout Suffolk including parts of Ipswich, Iken, Blaxhall, South Cove,
Rushmere, Hulver, Bedfield, Iketshall, Stansfield, Wetheringsett and Finningham.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
Res
iden
t C
asu
alty
Rat
e
Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts
Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure 6 - Annual average
resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 9
2.1.1.3 Trends
Figure 10 shows annual Suffolk resident casualty numbers by severity. This includes Suffolk residents injured
anywhere in the country. Also shown is a 3 year moving average trend line. Suffolk’s resident casualty numbers have
steadily reduced over the past decade. Although the rate of reduction has slowed in more recent years, in 2015
there has been a 15% reduction from 2014 and a 32% reduction from 2006. In 2015 there were 1,859 resident
casualties (28 fatal, 170 serious and 1,661 slight) compared to 2,192 in 2014. There has been a 20% reduction in KSI
from 2014 and a 41% reduction in KSI from 2006. Over the past five years, 13% of Suffolk’s resident casualties were
either killed or seriously injured.
Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)
Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per
100,000 population (2011-2015)
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 10
Figure 10 - Suffolk resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Resident casualties occurring in other areas
Eighty-two percent of Suffolk’s resident casualties between 2011 and 2015 were injured in Suffolk. This is above the
national average of 65% of residents involved in collisions in their home highway authority. Of the remaining 18% of
Suffolk resident casualties, the majority are involved in collisions in nearby highway authorities including Norfolk
(5%), Cambridgeshire (4%), Essex (4%) and Hertfordshire (1%).
2.1.1.4 Socio Demographic Analysis
Age
Figure 11 shows the numbers of resident casualties by age group. The age group with most resident casualties is the
16-24 group. Casualty numbers reduce as the resident age increases. The fewest resident casualties are aged 65 and
over, and aged under 16. Figure 12 shows resident casualty numbers by age group indexed by the population of
those age groups in Suffolk. There is also a national index value for comparison. The chart shows that 16-24 year
olds are over-represented as casualties when indexing based on population. It also shows that Suffolk’s 16-24 year
olds are over-represented compared to 16-24 year olds nationally. Residents in the 25-34 and 35-44 age groups are
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 11
also over-represented when taking population in to account but are similarly over-represented compared to the
country as a whole. Residents aged under 16 and aged 55 and over are at a lower risk of being casualties.
Figure 12 - Resident casualties by age group, indexed by population (2011-2015)
Segmentation
Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident casualties live provides an insight into those injured
in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please refer to
4.1.1.1 on page 64.
41
264
156
121100
76
4548
201
152
121100
7251
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
<16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Ind
ex
Age Group
Suffolk GB
Figure 11 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
<5 5-15 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
Age Group
Slight KSI
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 12
Figure 13 - Suffolk resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)
Figure 13 shows Suffolk’s resident casualties by the Mosaic Type of the postcode they live in. The red bars show the
index value based on the population of those Types living in Suffolk. The highest numbers of resident casualties
come from Local Focus (Type G28). This Type is also over-represented based on population.
Outlying Seniors (Type G27), Village Retirement (Type A04) and Satellite Settlers (Type G29) all have high numbers
of casualties but are not over-represented, based on the population of these Types living in Suffolk.
Rural Vogue (Type A01) and Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) contain a large number of resident casualties and are also
over-represented when population is taken into account. Whilst there are smaller numbers of Families with Needs
(Type M55), Renting a Room (Type L50) and Budget Generations (Type M53) injured on the roads, they are all over-
represented, given the number of people living in these communities in Suffolk.
Further information on the characteristics of some of these Mosaic Types and a thematic map showing areas where
these communities live can be found in 4.2.2 on page 70.
Deprivation
Figure 14 shows resident casualties by the IMD of the LSOA in which they reside. The chart shows that the largest
numbers of resident casualties live in some of the least deprived communities of Suffolk, (the less deprived 50%
decile) however, residents from these communities feature in collisions as expected, given the number of people
living in these communities (as shown by an index of 102). Residents of communities in the most deprived
communities are over-represented but there are fewer overall resident casualties from these areas.
133
104
8494
130119
75
96 99
104
122
138 135
92
106
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
G28 G27 A04 G29 A01 L52 F24 H34 H30 A02 M55 L50 M53 D15 H35
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
Mosaic Type
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 13
Rurality
Using the DfT’s rurality classification, 61% of Suffolk’s population live in urban LSOAs. In England and Wales, 82% of
the population live in urban LSOAs, so Suffolk has a significantly higher proportion of its population living in rural
areas. Sixty percent of Suffolk resident casualties live in urban LSOAs, a slight under-representation for urban
residents and consequently slight over-representation of rural residents. However, this does not take in to account
the annual distance travelled.
2.1.2 Resident Pedal Cyclist Casualties
This section refers to all pedal cyclist casualties who are residents of Suffolk. For information about all pedal cycle
casualties on Suffolk’s roads, please refer to 3.1.4.2 on page 45. For an explanation of the methodologies employed
throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
2.1.2.1 Rates
Figure 15 shows resident pedal cycle user casualty rates for Suffolk compared to the national rate and to comparator
authorities. Figure 16 shows rates for Suffolk and its district authorities.
120 119
109101
106102
96 9387
83
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
MostDeprived
10%
MoreDeprived
20%
MoreDeprived
30%
MoreDeprived
40%
MoreDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
40%
LessDeprived
30%
LessDeprived
20%
LeastDeprived
10%
Ind
ex b
y P
op
ula
tio
n
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
IMD Decile
Figure 14 - Resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 14
Figure 15 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 16 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and its districts
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Res
iden
t P
edal
Cyc
le U
ser
Cas
ual
ty R
ate
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Res
iden
t P
edal
Cyc
le U
ser
Cas
ual
ty R
ate
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 15
2.1.2.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle user casualty rate of 26.0 per 100,000 population is 17% lower than the national rate.
Suffolk has a higher rate than its seven comparator authorities with Warwickshire the nearest with a rate of 25.0.
Northamptonshire and Essex have the lowest rates.
Internal
Ipswich has the highest pedal cycle user casualty rate within Suffolk with a rate of 41.3 per 100,000 population.
Waveney also has a much higher rate than the overall Suffolk rate. Mid Suffolk and Babergh have the lowest rates
of 13.9 and 16.5 respectively.
Residency by Small Area
Figure 17 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle user casualties by home MSOA. The map is colour coded by the rate
of casualties from that MSOA per year per 100,000 population. The highest rates are found to the south of Ipswich,
in central Bury St Edmunds and in the outskirts of Lowestoft. There are also high rates to the north of Felixstowe,
south of Beccles, north Ipswich, the outskirts of Bury St Edmunds, in Nacton, Beccles and in Newmarket.
Figure 17 - Resident pedal cycle user casualties by MSOA. Annual average casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 16
2.1.2.3 Trends
Figure 18 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle casualty numbers since 2006, by severity. Casualty numbers have
increased over the past decade, but they decreased considerably in 2015. Nationally, pedal cycle user casualty
numbers were also increasing by 2014 but they decreased in 2015. In 2015 there were a total of 165 pedal cycle user
casualties from Suffolk, which is an 10% decrease from 2006 and a 26% decrease from 2014. In the period 2011-
2015, 15% of pedal cycle user casualties were either killed or seriously injured.
Figure 18 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)
2.1.2.4 Socio Demographic Analysis
Age
Figure 19 shows the trends for child pedal cycle user casualties from Suffolk whilst Figure 20 shows the same
information for adult pedal cycle user casualties. Child pedal cycle user casualty numbers are decreasing. In 2015
there were 22 child resident pedal cycle user casualties, a reduction of 65% from 2006. Adult resident pedal cycle
casualties have increased over the previous four years, but they have decreased in 2015 by 27% from 2014. Since
2006 the number of adult resident pedal cycle user casualties has increased by 19%.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Res
iden
t P
edal
Cyc
le U
ser
Cas
ual
ties
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 17
Figure 19 - Suffolk child resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Figure 20 - Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ch
ild R
esid
ent
Ped
al C
ycle
Use
r C
asu
alti
es
KSI Slight Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t P
edal
Cyc
le U
ser
Cas
ual
ties
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 18
Segmentation
Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident pedal cyclist casualties live provides an insight into
those injured in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart,
please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
Figure 21 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)
Figure 21 shows Suffolk’s resident pedal cycle casualties by the Mosaic Group of the postcode they live in. The red
bars show the index value based on the population of those Groups living in Suffolk. The highest numbers of resident
casualties come from Aspiring Homemakers (Group H). This Type is also over-represented based on population.
Transient Renters (Group L) also contain a high number of casualties and are significantly over-represented when
population is taken in to account.
Family Basics (Group M) contain a slightly lower number of resident casualties but this Group is over-represented
when population is taken in to account.
There are high numbers of casualties from Rural Reality (Group G) but these numbers are lower than expected based
on the population of this Group living in Suffolk.
2.1.3 Senior Resident Casualties
This section refers to all senior casualties who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the methodologies
employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
114
161
148
59
106
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
H L M G F
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
Mosaic Group
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 19
2.1.3.1 Rates
Figure 22 shows senior resident casualty rates for Suffolk, compared to the national rate and comparator
authorities. Figure 23 shows the rate for Suffolk and its district authorities. The rate is the annual average number
of senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population aged 65 and over.
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
Sen
ior
Res
iden
t C
asu
alty
Rat
e
Figure 22 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
Sen
ior
Res
iden
t C
asu
alty
Rat
e
Figure 23 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and its districts
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 20
2.1.3.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s senior resident casualty rate of 139.1 per 100,000 population aged 65 and over is 10% lower than the
national rate. Suffolk has a higher senior casualty rate than six of its comparator authorities. It has a lower rate than
Kent. Dorset and Warwickshire have similar rates with Suffolk with 138.4 and 134.8 respectively per 100,000
population aged 65 and over.
Internal
Within Suffolk, four of the district authorities have a higher rate than Suffolk (Babergh, Forest Heath, Ipswich and
Mid Suffolk). St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate (109.6) with Suffolk Coastal and Waveney also having a lower rate
than Suffolk.
Residency by Small Area
Figure 24 shows Suffolk’s senior resident casualties by MSOA. The thematic map is colour coded by the rate of senior
resident casualties per year per 100,000 population of 65 year olds and over. The data are from the period 2011 to
2015. Senior resident casualty rates are higher in parts of Ipswich, east of Sudbury, in and around Debenham and in
Newmarket.
Figure 24 - Senior resident casualties by MSOA (2011-2015). Annual average casualties per 100,000 senior population
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 21
2.1.3.3 Trends
Figure 25 shows senior resident casualty numbers since 2006, by severity. Casualty numbers increased slightly up
to 2008 then slightly reduced to 2013, increased again in 2014 and decreased in 2015. In 2015 there were 217
senior resident casualties, a 3% decrease from 2006 and a 15% decrease from 2014. In the past five year period
(2011-2015) 16% of senior casualties were either killed or seriously injured.
Figure 25 - Suffolk senior resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Senior Resident Casualties occurring in other areas
Eighty-three percent of Suffolk’s senior resident casualties were injured on Suffolk’s roads with the rest injured
mainly in nearby authorities including Norfolk (7%), Essex (3%) and Cambridgeshire (2%).
Senior Resident Casualties by Road User Type
Figure 26 shows the total numbers of Suffolk senior resident casualties over the past five years (2011-2015) by road
user type. Figure 27 shows Suffolk senior casualties by type as a percentage of all senior casualties. Also shown are
all Suffolk adult resident casualties’ and GB senior casualties’ percentages for comparison. More than fifty-eight
percent of Suffolk’s senior resident casualties are injured as car drivers. This is slightly higher than the percentage
for all Suffolk’s adult resident casualties (53.2%) and is significantly higher than the percentage of senior car drivers
nationally (44.2%). Almost thirteen percent of Suffolk’s senior casualties are injured as pedestrians. This is higher
than for all adult casualties (6.4%) but is much lower than the national senior casualty percentage of 18.6%.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Sen
ior
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 22
Figure 26 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by road user type (2011-2015)
Figure 27 - Percentage of Suffolk senior resident casualties by type compared to all adult casualties and GB senior casualties (2011-2015)
2.1.3.4 Socio Demographic Analysis
Segmentation
Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s senior resident casualties live provides an insight into those
injured in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please
refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
Pedestrian: 142
Cyclist: 47
Car Driver: 640
Car Passenger: 198
Other Driver: 60
Other Passenger: 12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Pedestrian Cyclist Car Driver Car Passenger Other Driver Other Passenger
Per
cen
tage
of
Tota
l
Suffolk Senior Casualties Suffolk All Adult Casualties GB Senior Casualties
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 23
Figure 28 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015)
Figure 28 shows Suffolk’s senior resident casualties by the Mosaic Group of the postcode they live in. The red bars
show the index value based on the population of those Groups living in Suffolk.
The highest numbers of resident casualties come from Country Living (Group A). This Type is also over-represented
based on population.
There are high numbers of casualties from Rural Reality (Group G) and this Group is also over-represented based on
the population of these communities living in Suffolk.
Senior Security (Group F) have high numbers of casualties and are significantly over-represented when population is
taken in to account. There are fewer casualties from Vintage Value (Group N) but they are also significantly over-
represented. Aspiring Homemakers (Group H) is underrepresented based on the population of these communities
living in Suffolk.
Deprivation
Figure 29 shows senior resident casualties by the IMD of the LSOA in which they reside. The chart shows that the
largest numbers of senior resident casualties live in some of the least deprived communities of Suffolk, (the less
deprived 50% and 40% deciles). Residents from these communities are over-represented as casualties, given the
number of people in that age group living in these communities (as shown by indices of 107 and 113 respectively).
Residents of communities in the most deprived communities are over-represented but there are fewer overall
resident casualties from these areas.
151
112
194
165
42
117
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
A G F N H B
Sen
ior
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
Mosaic Group
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 24
89
117
105
89 87
107113
105
8794
0
50
100
150
200
250
MostDeprived
10%
MoreDeprived
20%
MoreDeprived
30%
MoreDeprived
40%
MoreDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
40%
LessDeprived
30%
LessDeprived
20%
LeastDeprived
10%
Ind
ex b
y Se
nio
r P
op
ula
tio
n
Res
iden
t C
asu
alti
es
IMD Decile
Figure 29 - Senior resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 25
2.2 Resident Motor Vehicle Users
2.2.1 All Resident Drivers and Riders involved in Collisions
This section refers to all drivers and riders involved in collisions who are residents of Suffolk, regardless of where the
collision took place. For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to
4.1.1.1 on page 64. Only adult drivers (aged 16 and over) of motor vehicles are included in this section.
2.2.1.1 Rates
Figure 30 shows resident driver rates for Suffolk, compared to the national rate and to comparator authorities. Figure
31 shows the rate for Suffolk and the district authorities within Suffolk. The rate is the annual average number of
resident drivers involved in injury collisions per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over).
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
Res
iden
t D
rive
r R
ate
Figure 30 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 26
2.2.1.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s resident driver rate of 438.7 per 100,000 adult population is 9% lower than the national rate. Of the
comparator authorities only Kent has a higher resident driver rate. Gloucestershire and Northamptonshire have the
lowest rates.
Internal
Within Suffolk, the rates for the district authorities vary little from the overall Suffolk rate. Ipswich has the highest
rate (473.2) and St Edmundsbury has the lowest rate (387.7).
Residency by Small Area
Figure 32 shows Suffolk’s resident collision involved drivers’ home location by LSOA. The thematic map is colour
coded by the driver rate, which is the annual average number of resident drivers per 100,000 adult population (aged
16 and over). Data are from the period 2011-2015. Higher rates of resident drivers involved in collisions are scattered
throughout Suffolk with concentrations in parts of Ipswich, the area in between Southwold and Lowestoft around
Wrentham and Kessingland, Orford, Rendlesham, Crowfield, Barking, Nacton, Great Waldingfienld, Barnigham and
Westhorpe.
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
Res
iden
t D
rive
r R
ate
Figure 31 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts
ts
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 27
2.2.1.3 Trends
Figure 33 shows Suffolk’s annual resident motor vehicle driver numbers by severity. There has been a gradual
reduction in numbers over the past decade. In 2015 there were 2,343 drivers from Suffolk involved in an injury
collision. This is a 30% reduction from 2006 and a 14% reduction from 2014. In the most recent five year period
(2011-2015) 15% of Suffolk’s resident drivers were involved in a collision resulting in a killed or seriously injured
casualty.
Figure 32 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population, by LSOA
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 28
Figure 33 - Suffolk resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Resident driver crash involvement in other areas
Seventy-nine percent of Suffolk’s resident drivers are involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Of the other
authorities, 5% of resident drivers are involved in collisions in Norfolk; 5% in Essex; and 4% in Cambridgeshire.
2.2.1.4 Socio Demographic Analysis
Segmentation
Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s resident drivers and riders live provides an insight into those
involved in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please
refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
Figure 34 shows resident drivers by Mosaic Type. The red bars show the index value when resident driver numbers
are indexed by the mileage driven by those Types.
As with the resident casualty Mosaic analysis, the highest driver numbers come from communities of Local Focus
(Type G28). This Type is also over-represented when taking mileage (and population) in to account.
There are higher driver numbers from Satellite Settlers (Type G29) and Outlying Seniors (Type G27) but these
numbers are at an expected level, given the mileage they drive.
Village Retirement (Type A04) also have higher driver collision involvement numbers but these communities are
under-represented when levels of mileage they typically drive is taken in to account.
Rural Vogue (Type A01) and Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) have lower driver collision involvement numbers but are
over-represented when taking mileage in to account.
Renting a Room (Type L50) have lower driver collision involvement numbers but these communities are highly over-
represented when levels of mileage they typically drive is taken in to account.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 29
Figure 34 - Suffolk resident drivers by Mosaic Type (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage
More information on the characteristics of the communities from some of these Mosaic Types and a thematic map
showing the areas where they live can be found in 4.2.2 on page 70.
Deprivation
Figure 35 shows Suffolk’s resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The highest number of drivers are
from some of the least deprived communities (50% and 40% less deprived decile) and from one of the most deprived
communities (50% more deprived decile). The least deprived communities with high numbers feature as expected
when the population of Suffolk is taken into account, as shown by the red bar representing an index value of 99 for
both. As with casualties, drivers from the most deprived deciles are the most over-represented in collisions,
however, most of these resident drivers represent small numbers.
128
98
106
80
117 121
9096
102
9588
84 8779
140
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
G28 G29 G27 A04 A01 L52 F24 H34 H30 A02 A03 D15 E21 D16 L50
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
Mosaic Type
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 30
Figure 35 - Resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)
2.2.2 Resident Motorcyclists involved in Collisions
This section refers to motorcyclists involved in collisions and who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the
methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
2.2.2.1 Rates
Figure 36 shows the resident motorcycle rider collision involvement rate for Great Britain, Suffolk and comparator
authorities. Figure 37 shows the rate for Suffolk and its district authorities. The rate is the annual average number
of motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over).
112108
103 104 107
99 9994
89 92
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
MostDeprived
10%
MoreDeprived
20%
MoreDeprived
30%
MoreDeprived
40%
MoreDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
40%
LessDeprived
30%
LessDeprived
20%
LeastDeprived
10%
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
IMD Decile
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 31
Figure 36 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 37 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Res
iden
t M
oto
rcyc
le R
ider
s R
ate
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Res
iden
t M
oto
rcyc
le R
ider
s R
ate
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 32
2.2.2.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s motorcycle rider rate of 41.1 per 100,000 adult population is 1% higher than the national rate. Suffolk has
a higher rate than five of its comparator authorities. Kent and Essex have higher rates than Suffolk, with 43.4 and
41.4 respectively per 100,000 adult population.
Internal
Ipswich and Waveney have the highest rates within Suffolk with 49.0 and 49.5 respectively. St Edmundsbury, Forest
Heath and Babergh have the lowest rates.
Residency by Small Area
Figure 38 shows Suffolk’s collision involved motorcycle riders by home MSOA. The rate is the annual average number
of riders per 100,000 adult population (aged 16 and over). The rates of resident motorcycle riders involved in
collisions are higher in parts of Lowestoft, south Ipswich and the area in and around Southwold and Wrentham.
2.2.2.3 Trends
Shown in Figure 39 are Suffolk’s annual resident motorcycle rider numbers by severity. There was little change up
to 2009, but since then there has been a steady reduction in the number of motorcycle riders involved in collisions.
Figure 38 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders per 100,000 adult population, by MSOA (2011-2015)
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 33
There were 215 motorcyclists involved in injury collisions in 2015, which is 26% lower than in 2006 and 15% lower
than in 2014.
Over the most recent five year period (2011-2015) 30% of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders were involved in
injury collisions where one or more of the casualties was killed or seriously injured. This represents a high KSI ratio
compared to other road user groups.
Figure 39 - Suffolk resident motorcycle riders, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Resident Motorcyclist crash involvement in other areas
Eighty-four percent of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders were involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Five percent
were involved in collisions in Norfolk; 5% in Essex and 3% in Cambridgeshire.
2.2.2.4 Related Casualties
Passenger and pedestrian casualties
The related casualties of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders have been analysed in Figure 40. Related casualties can
be the motorcycle rider themselves; an injured pillion passenger; or a pedestrian struck by the motorcycle rider. This
means that injured drivers and passengers of other vehicles are not included in the analysis. For Suffolk’s resident
motorcycle riders, 95% of the casualties were the riders themselves. A further 3% were their pillion passengers and
2% were pedestrians who were injured after the motorcyclist hit them. It should be noted that the related casualties
of Suffolk’s resident motorcycle riders could live anywhere in the country and have been injured anywhere.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Res
iden
t M
oto
rcyc
le R
ider
s
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 34
Figure 40 - Suffolk's resident motorcycle riders - related casualties (2011-2015)
2.2.3 Young adult resident drivers involved in collisions
This section refers to young drivers involved in collisions and who are residents of Suffolk. For an explanation of the
methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
2.2.3.1 Rates
Figure 41 shows the rate of young adult resident drivers involved in injury collisions per year per 10,000 16-24 year
old population for Suffolk as well as Great Britain and Suffolk’s comparator authorities. Figure 42 shows the rate for
Suffolk and its district authorities.
Figure 41 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and comparators
1183
20 39
Rider
Pedestrian
Pillion Passenger
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs R
ate
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 35
Figure 42 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and its districts
2.2.3.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s young adult resident driver rate of 597.9 per 100,000 young adult population is 30% higher than the
national rate. Suffolk has a lower rate than Dorset but is higher than the other comparator authorities.
Internal
Suffolk Coastal, Babergh and Mid Suffolk all have higher young adult resident driver rates than Suffolk. Ipswich has
the lowest rate of 446.1 young adult resident drivers per 100,000 16-24 year old population.
Residency by Small Area
Figure 43 shows Suffolk’s young resident collision involved drivers by home MSOA. The thematic map is colour coded
by the rate of young drivers per year per 16-24 year old population. Higher young driver rates are found in mostly
rural areas throughout Suffolk, including along the coast in around the areas of Halesworth, Southwold,
Saxmundham, Leiston and Aldeburgh. There are also higher rates to the south west of the county near to Haverhill,
Stansfield and Lawshall, as well as around Market Weston and Westhorpe.
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs R
ate
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 36
2.2.3.3 Trends
Figure 44 shows Suffolk’s annual young adult resident driver numbers, by severity, over the period 2006-2015. There
has been a significant reduction in young adult driver collision involvement over the past decade, with a 48%
reduction since 2006. In 2015, there was a total of 357 young adults involved in collisions including 6 where a casualty
was killed and 41 where there was a seriously injured casualty. Between 2011 and 2015, 12% of the young adult
resident drivers were involved in collisions which resulted in death or serious injury.
Figure 43 - Annual average young resident motor vehicle drivers per 10,000 population (of 16-24 year olds), by MSOA (2011-2015)
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 37
Figure 44 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Young Adult Resident Driver crash involvement in other areas
Eighty-three percent of Suffolk’s young resident drivers are involved in collisions on Suffolk’s roads. Other authorities
where Suffolk’s young drivers are involved in collisions include Norfolk (5%), Cambridgeshire (4%) and Essex (4%).
2.2.3.4 Socio Demographic Analysis
Segmentation
Analysis of the Mosaic communities in which Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers live provides an insight into those
involved in collisions. For an explanation of Mosaic Public Sector and how to understand the following chart, please
refer to 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
Figure 45 shows Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group. Mosaic Group is used instead of Mosaic
Type as numbers are too low to be significant by Type. The highest number of young drivers are from Rural Reality
(Group G). This Group is over-represented against the mileage they drive and against the number of residents living
in these communities in Suffolk (the index is against the total population and not just 16 to 24 year olds).
Country Living (Group A) have a high number of young drivers involved in injury collisions but feature as expected,
given the mileage this Group drives. However, they are over-represented by population (with an index of 116).
Aspiring Homemakers (Group H) represent lower numbers of collision-involved drivers and they are under-
represented based on the mileage they drive and the population figures for these communities.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 38
Figure 45 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage
Deprivation
Figure 46 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015)
Figure 46 shows young drivers by IMD. The red bars represent the index value showing whether young drivers are
over or under represented based on the population of 16-24 year olds from each community. Higher young driver
numbers come from one most deprived area (50% more deprived) and from three of the least deprived areas (less
deprived 30-50% deciles) and these are all over-represented as drivers in collisions, compared to the young adult
123
101
87
102 106
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
G A H L M
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
tD
rive
rs
Mosaic Group
66 7080
89
119109
114 111
97 99
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
MostDeprived
10%
MoreDeprived
20%
MoreDeprived
30%
MoreDeprived
40%
MoreDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
50%
LessDeprived
40%
LessDeprived
30%
LessDeprived
20%
LeastDeprived
10%
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
IMD Decile
Young Resident Drivers Index
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RESID
ENT R
ISK
PAGE | 39
population of Suffolk. The lowest numbers of young drivers live in the most deprived communities and these are
also under-represented.
2.2.3.5 Related Casualties
Passenger and pedestrian casualties
The related casualties of Suffolk’s young adult resident drivers have been analysed. Related casualties can be the
young driver themselves; an injured passenger; or a pedestrian struck by the young driver’s vehicle. It means that
injured drivers and passengers of other vehicles are not included in the analysis. For Suffolk’s young resident drivers,
67% of the casualties were the drivers themselves. A further 29% were their passengers and 4% were pedestrians
who were injured after the young driver’s vehicle hit them. It should be noted that the related casualties of Suffolk’s
young resident drivers could live anywhere in the country and have been injured anywhere.
Figure 47 - Injured Passengers in Suffolk's young resident drivers’ vehicles compared to all adult drivers (2011-2015)
Figure 47 shows the number of young drivers by the presence and quantity of injured passengers in their vehicle.
The red bars are indices comparing young drivers to the figures for injured passengers for all adult drivers. It shows
that most young drivers (80%) do not have injured passengers in their vehicle, however, the red bars indicate that
they are more likely to have one or more injured passengers than all adult drivers. The indices for Suffolk’s resident
young drivers are similar to the national indices, although there is a slightly bigger index for Suffolk’s resident young
drivers who had one injured passenger than seen nationally (index of 138 compared to a national index of 131) and
a slightly smaller index for Suffolk’s young drivers who had two or more injured passengers than seen nationally
(index of 156 compared to a national index of 163).
93
138
156
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
No Passengers 1 Passenger 2+ Passengers
You
ng
Ad
ult
Res
iden
t D
rive
rs
Injured Passengers
Young Resident Drivers Index
AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 41
3 Road Network Risk
3.1 Collisions on all roads
This section refers to all collisions which occurred on Suffolk’s roads. For information on casualties who live in Suffolk,
please refer to 2.1 on page 7. For analysis involving Suffolk resident motor vehicle users, please refer to 2.2 on page
25. For an explanation of the methodologies employed throughout this section, please refer to Collisions on page
65.
3.1.1 Rates
3.1.1.1 Collisions per km of road
Figure 48 below shows the rate of average annual collisions between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of road for Suffolk,
Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for Transport are not made
available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities have not been made here.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Co
llisi
on
Rat
e
Figure 48 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 42
3.1.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s collisions per km rate of 2.5 is 33% lower than the national rate of 3.7. It has a lower rate than all the
comparator authorities except Gloucestershire and Dorset, although Northamptonshire and Worcestershire have
similar rates with Suffolk.
Collisions by Small Area
The map (Figure 49) shows collisions on all roads in Suffolk, by LSOA. The thematic map is colour coded by the rate
of annual average collisions per 10km of road. Higher collision rates can be found in the more urban areas of Ipswich,
Bury St Edmunds, Newmarket, Stowmarket, Lowestoft and Beccles. As explained in 3.1.1.1, it is not possible to
compare these rates directly with the county-wide rate.
Figure 49 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road, by LSOA
3.1.3 Trends
Figure 50 shows annual collisions on all of Suffolk’s roads, including strategic roads, from 2006 to 2015. Collisions on
Suffolk’s roads have steadily reduced over the past decade with a 29% reduction from 2006. Collisions involving a
KSI have reduced by 40% from 2006 and by 18% from 2014. Over the past five years (2011-2015), 15% of collisions
on Suffolk’s roads involve a KSI casualty, same as 15% nationally.
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 43
Figure 50 - Suffolk collisions, by year and severity (2006-2015)
3.1.3.1 Collisions by hour of day
Collisions by hour of day during the working week
Figure 51 shows collisions on a week day by the hour of the day in which they occurred. There are peaks in the main
commuter times, between 8am and 9am and between 3pm and 6pm.
Figure 51 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekdays (2011-2015)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
All
Co
llisi
on
s
KSI Slight Trend
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Co
llisi
on
s
KSI Slight
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 44
Collisions by hour of day at weekends
Figure 52 shows collisions on a weekend by the hour of the day in which they occurred. Collisions are more spread
throughout the day than they are on weekdays. Most collisions occur between 10am and 7pm.
Figure 52 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekends (2011-2015)
3.1.3.2 Collisions involving drivers who reside in other areas
Residency analysis on drivers and riders involved in collisions in Suffolk makes it possible to distinguish those who
do not reside in the county. Eighty-one percent of drivers with known postcodes involved in collisions in Suffolk, are
from Suffolk. The rest are from nearby highway authorities including Norfolk (7%), Essex (5%) and Cambridgeshire
(2%).
3.1.4 Casualty trends on all roads
3.1.4.1 All casualties
Figure 53 shows annual casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. There has been a downward trend in the number of
people injured on Suffolk’s roads over the past decade. In 2015 there were 1,948 casualties injured on Suffolk’s
roads; a reduction of 33% from 2006 and a reduction of 17% from 2014. KSI casualty numbers have reduced from
242 in 2014 to 207 in 2015.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Co
llisi
on
s
KSI Slight
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 45
Figure 53 - Casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
3.1.4.2 Pedal cyclist casualties
Figure 54 shows annual pedal cycle user casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. Casualty numbers reduced slightly
until to 2010 but have increased in recent years. There were 189 pedal cycle user casualties injured on Suffolk’s
roads in 2015, a decrease of 8% from 2006 and 19% from 2014. Between 2011 and 2015, 16% of pedal cycle user
casualties on Suffolk’s roads were killed or seriously injured, which is lower than the national percentage of 17%.
Figure 54 - Pedal cycle user casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cas
ual
ties
KSI Slight Trend
0
50
100
150
200
250
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ped
al C
ycle
Use
r C
asu
alti
es
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 46
3.1.4.3 Senior casualties
Figure 55 shows annual senior (aged 65 and over) casualty numbers on Suffolk’s roads. The number of senior
casualties on Suffolk’s roads has slightly increased over the past decade. There were 228 senior casualties on
Suffolk’s roads in 2015, an increase of 4% from 2006 but a decrease of 17% from 2014. In the most recent five year
period (2011-2015) 17% of senior casualties were killed or seriously injured, compared to 20% nationally.
Figure 55 - Senior casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year (2006-2015)
3.1.5 Contributory Factors
Each section below examines trends in reported collisions on Suffolk’s roads involving groups of related contributory
factors (CFs). For each group, the total number of collisions in which any CF in the group was recorded has been
determined. The darker shaded trend line shows the three year moving average for collisions where the CF being
analysed was recorded. The lighter shaded dashed trend line shows a three year average for all collisions where an
officer attended and at least one CF was recorded, for comparison.
For more information about CFs and the techniques used to analyse them see Contributory factors on page 67. For
a complete list of all CFs and CF groupings used by RSA, see Contributory Factor Groupings on page 78.
3.1.5.1 Speed Choice
This section examines collisions, by severity, where at least one of the contributory factors 306 Exceeding speed limit
and/or 307 Travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles. This may include some instances
where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.
Speed related CFs by urban and rural built-up and non-built-up roads are detailed in sections 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.2.4.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Sen
ior
Cas
ual
ties
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 47
Trends
Figure 56 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs were recorded.
There has been a general downward trend since 2006. In 2015 there were 150 collisions where a speed choice CF
was recorded, a decrease of 19% from 185 in 2014 and 44% lower than in 2006. Twenty-one percent of the collisions
where a speed choice CF was recorded resulted in death or serious injury compared to 16% for all collisions with a
recorded CF.
Figure 56 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)
Comparisons
Figure 57 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs was recorded, as a
percentage of all officer attended collisions where at any CF was recorded. Also shown are the national and
comparator authorities’ percentages. Figure 58 shows percentages for Suffolk and its district authorities.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spee
d C
ho
ice
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 48
Figure 57 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 58 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts
National
Suffolk has a higher percentage of speed related collisions than the national percentage. Suffolk has a higher
percentage of speed choice CF recorded collisions than the comparator authorities of Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire
and Kent. It has the same percentage as Worcestershire but is lower than Northamptonshire and Warwickshire.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Spee
d C
ho
ice
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Spee
d C
ho
ice
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 49
Internal
Within Suffolk, Mid Suffolk has the highest percentage of speed related collisions at 17.9% followed by Babergh at
16.7%. The district with the lowest percentage of speed related collisions is Ipswich, with 8.6%.
3.1.5.2 Control Errors
This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 408 Sudden braking, 409 Swerved and/or 410 Loss of
control was attributed to one or more drivers. This may include some instances where these factors were applied
more than once in the same collision.
Trends
Figure 59 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the control error CFs were recorded. The
darker shaded trend line shows the three year moving average for control error collisions. The lighter shaded dashed
trend line shows a three year average for all collisions where an officer attended and at least one CF was recorded,
for comparison. The chart shows a general downward trend in control error collisions since 2009. There were 342
control error related collisions in 2015, down from 373 in 2014. This is in line with the overall downward trend and
is 22% lower than in 2006. In the past five year period (2011-2015) 18% of collisions where a control error CF has
been recorded have resulted in a killed or seriously injured casualty.
Figure 59 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were recorded (2006-2015)
Comparisons
Figure 60 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the control errors CFs was recorded as a
percentage of all officer attended collisions where at least one CF was recorded. The national and comparator
authorities’ percentages are also included for comparison. Figure 61 shows the percentages for Suffolk and its district
authorities.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
ntr
ol e
rro
r C
olli
sio
ns
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 50
Figure 60 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 61 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts
National
Suffolk’s percentage of control error collisions is slightly higher than the national percentage. Suffolk has a similar
control error related percentage to most of its comparator authorities although Dorset has a significant lower
percentage and Warwickshire and Worcestershire have far higher percentages.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Co
ntr
ol E
rro
rs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Co
ntr
ol E
rro
rs
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 51
Internal
Within Suffolk, Babergh and Suffolk Coastal have the highest percentages with 32.1% and 29.9% respectively.
Ipswich has the lowest percentage with 13.9% of all attended collisions being attributed one or more of the control
error CFs.
3.1.5.3 Unsafe Behaviour
This section examines collisions, by severity, where at least one of the CFs 601 Aggressive driving and/or 602
Careless, reckless or in a hurry was attributed. This may include some instances where more than one of these factors
were applied in the same collision.
Trends
Figure 62 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs were recorded.
Collisions where unsafe driving were recorded have changed little over the last decade. In 2015, there were 210
collisions where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs was recorded. This is a decrease from the number of unsafe
driving related collisions in 2014 and in 2006 of 28% and 25% respectively.
Figure 62 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2006-2015)
Comparisons
Figure 63 shows collisions on Suffolk’s roads where at least one of the unsafe driving CFs were recorded as a
percentage of all officer attended collisions where at least one CF was recorded. The national and comparator
authority percentages are also shown. Figure 64 shows the percentage of collisions where an unsafe driving CF was
recorded for Suffolk and its district authorities.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Un
safe
Dri
vin
g
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 52
Figure 63 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities
Figure 64 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its district authorities
National
Suffolk’s percentage of unsafe driving related collisions is slightly lower than the national percentage of these
collisions (18% compares to 18.7%). Essex has the highest percentage of the comparator authorities with 28%.
Dorset has the lowest with 8.3%.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
Un
safe
Dri
vin
g
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
Un
safe
Dri
vin
g
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 53
Internal
There is little variation in the percentages of unsafe driving related collisions across Suffolk, with the largest
percentage in Ipswich with 20.1% and the lowest percentage of 16.4% in Mid Suffolk.
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 54
3.2 Collisions on roads by environment
For more information on the methodology used to analyse networks by road environment, see Collisions on page
65.
3.2.1 Urban Roads
This section includes all roads in urban areas of Suffolk, including strategic roads.
3.2.1.1 Rates
Figure 65 shows the rate of average annual collisions on urban roads between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of urban
road for Suffolk, Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for
Transport are not made available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities
have not been made here.
Figure 65 - Annual average collisions on urban roads (2011-2015) per 10km of urban road
3.2.1.2 Comparisons
National
Suffolk’s collisions on urban roads per km rate of 5.3 is 19% lower than the national rate of 6.6. It has a lower rate
than Kent but has a higher rate than all other comparator authorities, although it is not much higher than Essex and
Warwickshire.
3.2.1.3 Trends
Figure 66 shows the annual numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s urban roads, by severity, between 2006 and 2015.
There has been a downward trend in collisions on urban roads over the past decade. There were 622 collisions on
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
llisi
on
s o
n U
rban
Ro
ads
Rat
e
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 55
urban roads in 2015, including 64 where there was a killed or seriously injured casualty. This is a reduction of 32%
from 2006 and 15% from 2014.
Figure 66 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
3.2.1.4 Urban Roads by Speed Limit
The Department for Transport classifies road as ‘built-up’ which are roads with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst
‘non built-up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. This section examines collisions on urban roads, divided
into built-up and non-built-up sections.
Trends on built-up sections of urban roads
Figure 67 shows the number of collisions on urban roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less. There was a steady
reduction up to 2010 but in recent years there has been little change until 2015. There were 609 collisions on
Suffolk’s urban roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, down from 887 in 2006 (31% reduction).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n U
rban
Ro
ads
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 56
Figure 67 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Speed Choice on Urban Built-up Roads
This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 306 Exceeding speed limit and/or 307 Travelling too
fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on urban roads where the speed limit was
40mph or less. This may include some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same
collision.
Trends
Figure 68 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s urban built-up roads where at least one of the speed choice CFs were
recorded. Since 2006, there has been a downward trend. In 2015 there were 40 collisions on urban roads with speed
limits of 40mph or less in Suffolk where a speed CF was recorded. This is similar to the number in 2014 but is a 48%
reduction from 2006. On Suffolk’s urban built-up roads 7.9% of officer attended collisions had speed related CFs
recorded, which is slightly lower than the national percentage of 8.1%.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n U
rban
Bu
ilt-u
p R
oad
s
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 57
Figure 68 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)
Trends on non-built-up sections of urban roads
Figure 69 shows the number of collisions on urban roads in Suffolk where the speed limit is over 40mph. Collision
numbers are generally low and there have been fluctuations over the past decade. There has been an overall
reduction from 2006. In 2015 there were 13 collisions on Suffolk’s urban roads with a speed limit of over 40mph, a
reduction of 54% from 2006 and 32% from 2014. There were no fatalities and there were three collisions with one
or more seriously injured casualties.
Figure 69 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spee
d R
elat
ed o
n U
rban
Bu
ilt-u
p r
oad
s
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n U
rban
No
n B
uilt
-up
Ro
ads
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 58
Speed Choice on Urban Non Built-up Roads
This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 306 Exceeding speed limit and/or 307 Travelling too
fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on urban non built-up roads. This may include
some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.
Trends
Figure 70 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s urban non built-up roads where at least one of the speed related CFs
were recorded. The numbers of collisions on roads in urban areas where the speed limit is over 40mph and where
speed related CFs were recorded are very small and there is scatter in the data. In 2015 there were two collisions on
the urban non built-up roads of Suffolk where a speed related CF was recorded, down from three in 2014. Of the
officer attended collisions on urban non built-up roads, 11.9% had speed related CFs recorded.
Figure 70 - Collisions on Suffolk's Urban Non Built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)
3.2.2 Rural Roads
This section includes all roads in urban areas of Suffolk, including strategic roads.
3.2.2.1 Rates
Figure 71 shows the rate of average annual collisions on rural roads between 2011 and 2015 per 10 km of rural road
for Suffolk, Great Britain and comparator authorities. Official road length data from the Department for Transport
are not made available at the district level, therefore comparisons between Suffolk’s district authorities have not
been made here.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spee
d R
elat
ed o
n U
rban
No
n B
uilt
-up
Ro
ads
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 59
Figure 71 - Annual average collisions on rural roads (2011-2015) per 10km of rural road
3.2.2.2 Comparisons
National
On average over the last five years, there were 1.8 reported injury collisions each year for every 10 km of rural road
in Suffolk. This is 13% lower than the national annual rate, which is around 2 injury collisions per 10 km of rural road.
Suffolk has a lower rate than all comparator authorities apart from Gloucestershire. It has a similar rate to Dorset.
3.2.2.3 Trends
Figure 72 shows the annual numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads, by severity, between 2006 and 2015. There
has been a general downward trend in collisions on rural roads since 2006. In 2015 there were 864 collisions on
Suffolk’s rural roads; a reduction of 26% from 2006 and 16% from 2014. Over the most recent five year period (2011-
2015) 17% of collisions on rural roads resulted in death or serious injury, compared to 13% on Suffolk’s urban roads.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Co
llisi
on
s o
n R
ura
l Ro
ads
Rat
e
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 60
Figure 72 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
3.2.2.4 Rural Roads by Speed Limit
The Department for Transport classifies road as ‘built-up’ which are roads with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst
‘non built-up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. This section examines collisions on rural roads, divided
into built-up and non-built-up sections.
Trends on built-up sections of rural roads
Figure 73 shows the number of collisions on rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less. There has been a
downward trend in the number of collisions on these roads over the past ten years with a 16% reduction from 2006.
There were 276 collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, including 5 collisions where
there was a fatality and 30 where there was at least one seriously injured casualty. In 2015 there has been a
reduction in total number of collisions on rural roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less, of 31% from 2006 and
28% from 2014.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n R
ura
l Ro
ads
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 61
Figure 73 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
Speed Choice on Rural Built-up Roads
This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 306 Exceeding speed limit and/or 307 Travelling too
fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on rural built-up roads. This may include some
instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.
Trends
Figure 74 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s rural roads where the speed limit was 40mph or below and where at
least one of the speed related CFs were recorded. There has been fluctuation in the numbers of speed-related
collisions on these roads since 2006 with a slight reduction over this period. In 2015 there were 36 collisions on the
rural built-up roads of Suffolk where a speed related CF was recorded, a decrease of 12% from 2006 and 29% from
2014. Of all the officer attended collisions on these roads in Suffolk, 15.6% had speed related CFs recorded compared
to 12.8% across Great Britain.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n R
ura
l Bu
ilt-u
p R
oad
s
KSI Slight Trend
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 62
Figure 74 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)
Trends on non-built-up sections of rural roads
Figure 75 shows the number of collisions on rural roads in Suffolk where the speed limit is over 40mph. There has
been a downward trend since 2006. Between 2011 and 2015, 17% of the collisions on rural non built-up roads were
KSI collisions compared to 13% on Suffolk’s rural built-up roads. In 2015, there were 588 (17 fatal, 72 serious and
499 slight) collisions on rural roads with speed limits over 40mph. This has been a 24% reduction from 2006 and a
9% decrease from 2014.
Figure 75 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spee
d R
elat
ed o
n R
ura
l Bu
ilt-u
p R
oad
s
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Co
llisi
on
s o
n R
ura
l No
n B
uilt
-up
Ro
ads
KSI Slight Trend
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
RO
AD
NETW
OR
K R
ISK
PAGE | 63
Speed Choice on Rural Non Built-up Roads
This section examines collisions where at least one of the CFs 306 Exceeding speed limit and/or 307 Travelling too
fast for conditions was attributed to one or more vehicles in collisions on rural non built-up roads. This may include
some instances where these factors were applied more than once in the same collision.
Trends
Figure 76 shows annual collisions on Suffolk’s rural non built-up roads where at least one of the speed related CFs
were recorded. Since 2006, there has been a general downward trend in speed related CFs being recorded on rural
roads with 50, 60 or 70mph speed limits. In 2015 there were 72 collisions on the rural non built-up roads of Suffolk
where a speed related CF was recorded, compared to 146 in 2006, a reduction of 51%.
Figure 76 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Spee
d R
elat
ed o
n R
ura
l No
n B
uilt
-up
ro
ads
Collisions 3 Year Trend All 3 year trend
AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 64
4 Appendices
4.1 Analytical Techniques
4.1.1.1 Resident road users
Casualty and driver postcodes in STATS 19 make it possible to identify where casualties from Suffolk reside. Thematic
maps are used to illustrate the number of casualties per head of population from each small area in Suffolk. Areas
on maps are progressively coloured, indicating annual average rates relative to the population of that area.
The geographical units used for this analysis are based on similar populations, which enables meaningful
comparative analysis within and between authorities. In England and Wales the areas used are super output areas
as defined by the Office of National Statistics. Where appropriate, lower level small areas are employed: for England
and Wales these are lower layer super output areas (LSOAs) of around 1,600 residents on average. In some cases
larger groupings are used, as is the case in MAST Online: for England and Wales these are middle layer super output
areas (MSOAs) with an average of nearly 8,000 residents each.
MAST Online has been used to determine the casualty figures for Suffolk’s residents injured in road collisions
anywhere in Britain. Using national population figures (by age where appropriate), casualty and driver/rider
involvement rates per head of population have been calculated. Charts have been devised which compare the local
rates with the equivalent figures for Great Britain and for selected comparators. Trend analysis examines resident
road user collision involvement over time and by severity, and additional trends are explored depending on road
user type.
Where appropriate, socio-demographic analysis is conducted to provide insight into the backgrounds of people from
Suffolk who are involved in collisions, either as casualties or motor vehicle users. Socio-demographic profiling
examines age breakdowns, and for some road user groups includes analysis using Mosaic Public Sector
segmentation, deprivation and/or rurality. More information on Mosaic is provided later in this section.
Mosaic Public Sector
Insight into the lifestyles of Suffolk resident road casualties and motor vehicle users can be provided through socio
demographic analysis. RSA Mosaic profiling uses Experian’s Mosaic Public Sector cross-channel classification
system2, which is assigned uniquely for each casualty and vehicle user based on individual postcodes in STATS 19
records. Typically nearly 85% of casualty and driver STATS19 records can be matched to Mosaic Types, so residency
analysis is based on about five out of six Suffolk residents involved in reported injury collisions.
Mosaic is intended to provide an accurate and comprehensive view of citizens and their needs by describing them
in terms of demographics, lifestyle, culture and behaviour. The system was devised under the direction of Professor
Richard Webber, a leading authority on consumer segmentation, using data from a wide range of public and private
sources. It is used to inform policy decisions, communications activity and resource strategies across the public
sector.
Mosaic presently classifies the community represented by each UK postcode into one of 15 Groups and 66 Types.
Each Group embraces between 3 and 6 Types. A complete list of Mosaic Types is provided in 4.2.1 on page 68 whilst
2 See Appendix B below, or go to http://www.experian.co.uk/marketing-services/products/mosaic-uk.html
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 65
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
profiles and distribution for the Mosaic Types identified in this Area Profile as providing insight on Suffolk’s residents
are detailed page 70.
This profile displays Mosaic analysis as Area/Column combination charts, to facilitate quick and easy insight into
residents and relative risk. In these charts, the shaded background area denotes the absolute number of Suffolk
resident casualties or drivers in each Mosaic Type, corresponding to the value axis to the left of the chart. The
columns in the foreground provide an index for each Mosaic Type or Group. These indices are 100 based, where a
value of 100 indicates the number of casualties or drivers shown by the corresponding point in the area is exactly in
proportion to the population of communities in Suffolk where that Type or Group predominates. Indices over 100
indicate over representation of that Type among casualties or motor vehicle users relative to the population: for
example, a value of 200 would signify that people resident in communities of that Type were involved in collisions
at twice the expected rate. Conversely, indices below 100 suggest under representation, so an index of 50 would
imply half the expected rate. Inevitably, index values become less significant as numbers of involved residents
decrease, because increased random fluctuations tend to decrease levels of confidence.
Deprivation
Deprivation levels are examined using UK Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) values. IMD is calculated by the Office
of National Statistics (ONS), the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and uses a range of economic,
social and housing data to generate a single deprivation score for each small area in the country. This profile uses
deciles, which are ten groups of equal frequency ranging from the 10% most deprived areas to the 10% least
deprived. It should be remembered that indices of multiple deprivation include income, employment, health,
education, access to services and living environment and are not merely about relative wealth.
In order to interpret deprivation more accurately at local level, this profile includes indexed IMD charts. Indices in
these charts show risk relative to the predominance of each IMD decile in the population of Suffolk, and can be
interpreted in the same way as indices on Mosaic charts as explained in the preceding section.
Rurality
National rurality classification systems have also been developed to define the rurality of small area geographies.
Each of these small areas was defined as either ‘Urban’ (defined as settlements with over 10,000 residents), ‘Rural’,
or ‘Town’ (a sub-class of ‘Rural’ for settlements under 10,000 residents). STATS19 postcodes for resident road users
from Suffolk have been used to determine the rurality of residents.
4.1.1.2 Collisions
MAST Online has been used to determine average annual road injury collision levels for Suffolk and relevant
comparator areas. Dividing this annual rate by road length in each area generates an annual crash rate per kilometre
of road, which allows direct comparisons to be made between authorities. Road length data have been taken from
central government figures, and where required have been calculated separately for different road classes and
environments. Charts have been devised which compare local rates with the equivalent figures for Great Britain and
comparator highway authorities. District authorities cannot be included, as road length data is only available at
highway authority level.
Trend analysis examines numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s roads over time and by severity, with additional trends
explored, sometimes classified by kinds of road network. In order to determine the distribution of collisions within
Suffolk, maps show the number of collisions in each small area, divided by the total road length (in kilometres) within
that small area.
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 66
AP
PEN
DIC
ES Contrasting kinds of road network
Road networks vary considerably across the country. It is often useful to analyse and compare collision rates
between authorities on certain kinds of road. Ideally such comparisons would take traffic flow to account, so
collision rates per vehicle distance travelled could be calculated. However, traffic flow data for different kinds of
road network is not available, so this profile can only calculate collision rates using road length. Road length data by
kind of road network has been taken from DfT figures where possible. As with all collisions, trend charts are provided
in addition to rate comparison charts.
Environment - urban and rural roads
The national urban-rural road classification is only defined in datasets prepared by the Department for Transport,
so it is not possible to define the rurality of individual roads on the basis of collision location data alone. Therefore,
where it is necessary to distinguish between collisions on urban and rural roads, this profile uses data from MAST
Online. Annual average collisions by rurality and total network urban and rural road lengths have been used to
generate annual collision rates per kilometre of road, which facilitates direct comparison between areas.
Environment – built-up and non-built-up
The Department for Transport classifies ‘built-up’ roads as those with speed limits of 40mph or less whilst ‘non built-
up’ roads are those with speed limits over 40mph. In this report, collisions are broken down by both urban and rural
and built-up and non-built-up in combination i.e. urban built-up, urban non-built-up, rural built-up and rural non-
built-up. Road length data is not available by speed limit so rates for comparisons cannot be created.
4.1.1.3 Comparators
In order to put the figures for Suffolk into context, comparisons with other areas have been made. This section
details the types of comparators used in this Area Profile.
Highway Authority Network Classification System (HANCS)
It is not always appropriate to compare an authority solely against its neighbours, especially when the authority has
unique characteristics in terms of socio-demographic composition and/or road network. Suffolk has been compared
to its most similar highway authorities using RSA’s Highway Authority Network Classification System (HANCS).
HANCS groups Highway Authorities together based on the density of their road network in order to facilitate
meaningful comparison of road risk. The selected authorities are listed in the following table. Comparisons with the
national picture have also been made throughout this Area Profile.
Highway Authority
Dorset County
Essex County
Gloucestershire County
Kent County
Northamptonshire County
Warwickshire County
Worcestershire County
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 67
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.1.1.4 Contributory factors
Police officers who attended the scene of an injury collision may choose to record certain contributory factors (CFs)
which in the officer’s view were likely to be related to the incident. Up to six CFs can be recorded for each collision.
CFs reflect the officer's opinion at the time of reporting, but may not be the result of extensive investigation.
Consequently, CFs should be regarded only as a general guide for identifying factors as possible concerns.
In all CF analysis, only collisions which were both attended by a police officer and for which at least one factor was
recorded are included. Since multiple CFs can be recorded for a single collision, the same incidents may be included
in analysis of more than one CF.
For ease of analysis and interpretation RSA often organises CFs into groupings. A complete list of all CFs and their
groupings may be found in section Contributory Factor Groupings.
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 68
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.2 Mosaic Public Sector
This section provides information on all of the Mosaic Types and more detailed analysis of the specific Types
identified as being of interest to Suffolk. More information on what Mosaic is can be found in 4.1.1.1 on page 64.
4.2.1 Complete list of Mosaic Types
Below is a complete list of all the Mosaic Types, with descriptions, shown in the Mosaic Group to which they belong.
Group Description Type Description
A Country Living A01 Rural Vogue
A02 Scattered Homesteads
A03 Wealthy Landowners
A04 Village Retirement
B Prestige Positions B05 Empty-Nest Adventure
B06 Bank of Mum and Dad
B07 Alpha Families
B08 Premium Fortunes
B09 Diamond Days
C City Prosperity C10 World-Class Wealth
C11 Penthouse Chic
C12 Metro High-Flyers
C13 Uptown Elite
D Domestic Success D14 Cafes and Catchments
D15 Modern Parents
D16 Mid-Career Convention
D17 Thriving Independence
E Suburban Stability E18 Dependable Me
E19 Fledgling Free
E20 Boomerang Boarders
E21 Family Ties
F Senior Security F22 Legacy Elders
F23 Solo Retirees
F24 Bungalow Heaven
F25 Classic Grandparents
G Rural Reality G26 Far-Flung Outposts
G27 Outlying Seniors
G28 Local Focus
G29 Satellite Settlers
H Aspiring Homemakers H30 Affordable Fringe
H31 First-Rung Futures
H32 Flying Solo
H33 New Foundations
H34 Contemporary Starts
H35 Primary Ambitions
I Urban Cohesion I36 Cultural Comfort
I37 Community Elders
I38 Asian Heritage
I39 Ageing Access
J Rental Hubs J40 Career Builders
J41 Central Pulse
J42 Learners & Earners
J43 Student Scene
J44 Flexible Workforce
J45 Bus-Route Renters
K Modest Traditions K46 Self Supporters
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 69
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
K47 Offspring Overspill
K48 Down-to-Earth Owners
L Transient Renters L49 Disconnected Youth
L50 Renting a Room
L51 Make Do & Move On
L52 Midlife Stopgap
M Family Basics M53 Budget Generations
M54 Childcare Squeeze
M55 Families with Needs
M56 Solid Economy
N Vintage Value N57 Seasoned Survivors
N58 Aided Elderly
N59 Pocket Pensions
N60 Dependent Greys
N61 Estate Veterans
O Municipal Challenge O62 Low Income Workers
O63 Streetwise Singles
O64 High Rise Residents
O65 Crowded Kaleidoscope
O66 Inner City Stalwarts
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 70
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.2.2 Profile and distribution for selected Mosaic Types
The table below shows Mosaic Types identified by socio-demographic profiling of the resident casualties and
resident drivers sections of the report, with some of the main characteristics of these Types. These can be used to
create a picture of the target audience in terms of economic and educational position; family life; and transport
preferences including mileage and car ownership. This information is invaluable for understanding target audiences
and knowing how to communicate with them.
Figure 77 shows Suffolk’s LSOAs colour coded by dominant Mosaic Type. The four Types from the above table are
shown in the map. Rural Vogue (Type A01) are dominant across a large area of Mid Suffolk including the areas of
Great Ashfield, Gislingham, Palgrave and Stonham Aspal. They are also dominant to the west of Framlingham, the
area to the South of Beccles, the area around Great Wratting and in the villages to the south east of Woodbridge.
Outlying Seniors (Type G27) are dominant throughout Suffolk, such as south west of Brandon, Icklingham, villages
to the south east of Bury St Edmunds, south of Needham Market, Kessingland, Wrentham, Saxmundham and
Halesworth. Local Focus (Type G28) dominate in Bungay, north of Southwold, Leiston, Wickham Market, south east
of Brandon, Exning, Acton and Bildeston. Midlife Stopgap (Type L52) are dominant in parts of more urban areas
such as Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Newmarket, Beccles, Sudbury, Felixstowe and Lowestoft.
A01 Rural Vogue
G27 Outlying Seniors
G28 Local Focus
L52 Midlife Stopgap
These communities consist of country-loving families pursuing a rural idyll in comfortable village homes while commuting some distance to work. These families live in detached housing and have good incomes. As well as commuting, these families use their car to travel to the nearest school.
These communities consist of pensioners in inexpensive housing in out of the way locations. They tend to have low incomes and shop locally. Due to their remote location, they own a car. They feel that there are problems in their area with speeding traffic.
These communities consist of rural families in affordable village homes who are reliant on the local economy for jobs. They tend to work in skilled trades and live a long distance from towns and cities. They often shop locally. Car ownership is high in these communities.
These communities consist of homesharers and singles privately renting affordable homes. Their average age is 45 and they tend to not have children. They are mostly in employment. Car ownership and mileage driven is slightly lower amongst these communities due to their more urban location.
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 71
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
Figure 78 - Visualisations of dominant Mosaic Types
A01 Rural Vogue G27 Outlying Seniors
G28 Local Focus L52 Midlife Stopgap
Figure 77 - Suffolk's dominant Mosaic Types by LSOA.
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 72
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.3 Data Tables
All Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.1)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 30 296 326 2204 2530
2012 24 338 362 2143 2505
2013 25 266 291 1923 2214
2014 30 212 242 2107 2349
2015 33 174 207 1741 1948
Overall Total 142 1286 1428 10118 11546
Senior Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.3)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 5 35 40 199 239
2012 6 42 48 196 244
2013 4 41 45 182 227
2014 6 38 44 231 275
2015 8 22 30 198 228
Overall Total 29 178 207 1006 1213
Pedal Cycle User Casualties – Suffolk Roads (3.1.4.2)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 1 41 42 185 227
2012 2 41 43 181 224
2013 0 39 39 170 209
2014 1 26 27 205 232
2015 1 19 20 169 189
Overall Total 5 166 171 910 1081
All Collisions – Suffolk Roads (3.1.3)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 28 270 298 1553 1851
2012 23 299 322 1497 1819
2013 21 231 252 1415 1667
2014 29 199 228 1533 1761
2015 28 160 188 1298 1486
Overall Total 129 1159 1288 7296 8584
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 73
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
Collisions by hour of the day (Weekdays) 2010-2014 – Suffolk roads (3.1.3.1)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Hour Fatal Serious Slight
Midnight 1 5 6 37 43
1AM 2 7 9 20 29
2AM 0 4 4 18 22
3AM 0 1 1 10 11
4AM 0 7 7 14 21
5AM 0 7 7 36 43
6AM 1 28 29 122 151
7AM 2 46 48 359 407
8AM 2 66 68 601 669
9AM 1 34 35 298 333
10AM 6 41 47 260 307
11AM 5 33 38 314 352
Noon 5 52 57 311 368
1PM 11 36 47 327 374
2PM 9 57 66 313 379
3PM 6 75 81 464 545
4PM 7 80 87 521 608
5PM 7 76 83 569 652
6PM 5 53 58 360 418
7PM 7 45 52 220 272
8PM 5 29 34 136 170
9PM 2 20 22 126 148
10PM 4 29 33 118 151
11PM 4 19 23 70 93
Overall Total 92 850 942 5624 6566
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 74
AP
PEN
DIC
ES Collisions by hour of the day (Weekends) 2010-2014 – Suffolk roads (3.1.3.1)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Hour Fatal Serious Slight
Midnight 2 15 17 39 56
1AM 1 7 8 25 33
2AM 0 4 4 27 31
3AM 2 9 11 22 33
4AM 2 6 8 15 23
5AM 1 2 3 8 11
6AM 0 4 4 20 24
7AM 0 10 10 38 48
8AM 1 6 7 62 69
9AM 0 14 14 90 104
10AM 2 18 20 103 123
11AM 2 21 23 125 148
Noon 1 29 30 143 173
1PM 4 17 21 138 159
2PM 4 28 32 119 151
3PM 0 21 21 125 146
4PM 2 21 23 118 141
5PM 2 20 22 101 123
6PM 4 12 16 98 114
7PM 1 9 10 54 64
8PM 3 10 13 60 73
9PM 3 12 15 55 70
10PM 0 13 13 48 61
11PM 1 12 13 39 52
Overall Total 38 320 358 1672 2030
Collisions on urban roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.3)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 4 103 107 681 788
2012 4 116 120 679 799
2013 7 84 91 637 728
2014 4 75 79 651 730
2015 6 58 64 558 622
Overall Total 25 436 461 3206 3667
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 75
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
Collisions on urban built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 3 100 103 653 756
2012 3 114 117 657 774
2013 5 82 87 614 701
2014 4 74 78 633 711
2015 6 55 61 548 609
Overall Total 21 425 446 3105 3551
Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on urban built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 1 9 10 42 52
2012 0 4 4 43 47
2013 2 9 11 25 36
2014 1 5 6 34 40
2015 0 4 4 36 40
Overall Total 4 31 35 180 215
Collisions on urban non built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.1.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 1 3 4 28 32
2012 1 2 3 22 25
2013 2 2 4 23 27
2014 0 1 1 18 19
2015 0 3 3 10 13
Overall Total 4 11 15 101 116
Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on urban non built-up roads in Suffolk
(3.2.1.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 0 0 0 3 3
2012 0 1 1 0 1
2013 1 0 1 2 3
2014 0 0 0 3 3
2015 0 2 2 0 2
Overall Total 1 3 4 8 12
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 76
AP
PEN
DIC
ES Collisions on rural roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.3)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 24 167 191 872 1063
2012 19 183 202 818 1020
2013 14 147 161 778 939
2014 25 124 149 882 1031
2015 22 102 124 740 864
Overall Total 104 723 827 4090 4917
Collisions on rural built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 6 51 57 304 361
2012 6 68 74 275 349
2013 3 52 55 279 334
2014 8 36 44 338 382
2015 5 30 35 241 276
Overall Total 28 237 265 1437 1702
Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on rural built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 1 11 12 45 57
2012 1 9 10 27 37
2013 1 7 8 33 41
2014 2 9 11 40 51
2015 3 6 9 27 36
Overall Total 8 42 50 172 222
Collisions on rural non built-up roads in Suffolk (3.2.2.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 18 116 134 568 702
2012 13 115 128 543 671
2013 11 95 106 499 605
2014 17 88 105 544 649
2015 17 72 89 499 588
Overall Total 76 486 562 2653 3215
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 77
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed related) on rural non built-up roads in Suffolk
(3.2.2.4)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 4 30 34 102 136
2012 1 24 25 83 108
2013 2 14 16 67 83
2014 4 12 16 75 91
2015 6 13 19 53 72
Overall Total 17 93 110 380 490
Collisions involving factors 408, 409 and/or 410 (control errors) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.2)
Collisions involving factors 306 and/or 307 (speed choice) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.1)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 6 50 56 192 248
2012 2 38 40 153 193
2013 6 30 36 127 163
2014 7 26 33 152 185
2015 9 25 34 116 150
Overall Total 30 169 199 740 939
Collisions involving factors 601 and/or 602 (unsafe behaviour) - Suffolk roads (3.1.5.3)
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 3 56 59 230 289
2012 2 44 46 214 260
2013 12 40 52 202 254
2014 3 37 40 250 290
2015 3 24 27 183 210
Overall Total 23 201 224 1079 1303
KSI KSI Total Overall Total
Year Fatal Serious Slight
2011 9 73 82 321 403
2012 8 67 75 288 363
2013 10 36 46 269 315
2014 12 50 62 311 373
2015 12 41 53 289 342
Overall Total 51 267 318 1478 1796
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 78
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.4 Contributory Factor Groupings
Injudicious Action Driver Errors or
Reactions Driver Impairment or
Distraction Behaviour or Inexperience
Other
Traffic Contraventions Manoeuvre Errors Substance Impairments Nervous Behaviour Vehicle Defects
Disobeyed automatic traffic signal
Poor turn or manoeuvre Impaired by alcohol Nervous, uncertain or panic
Tyres illegal, defective or under-inflated
Disobeyed double white lines
Failed to signal or misleading signal
Impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal)
Learner or inexperienced driver/rider
Defective lights or indicators
Disobeyed ‘Give way’ or ‘Stop’ signs or markings
Passing too close to cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian
Inexperience of driving on the left
Defective brakes
Disobeyed pedestrian crossing facility
Unfamiliar with model of vehicle
Defective steering or suspension
Illegal turn or direction of travel
Defective or missing mirrors
Overloaded or poorly loaded vehicle or trailer
Speed Choices Control Errors Distraction Unsafe Behaviour Road Surface
Exceeding speed limit Sudden braking Driver using mobile phone
Aggressive driving Poor or defective road surface
Travelling too fast for conditions
Swerved Distraction in vehicle Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Deposit on road (e.g. oil, mud, chippings)
Loss of control Distraction outside vehicle
Slippery road (due to weather)
Close Following Observation Error Health Impairments Pedal Cycle Behaviour Affected Vision
Following too close Failed to look properly Uncorrected, defective eyesight
Vehicle travelling along pavement
Stationary or parked vehicle(s)
Failed to judge other person’s path or speed
Illness or disability, mental or physical
Cyclist entering road from pavement
Vegetation
Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility
Road layout (e.g. bend, winding road, hill crest)
Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night
Buildings, road signs, street furniture
Junction Errors Fatigue Impairment Pedestrian Behaviour Dazzling headlights
Junction overshoot Fatigue Crossing road masked by stationary or parked vehicle
Dazzling sun
Junction restart (moving off at junction)
Failed to look properly Rain, sleet, snow or fog
Failed to judge vehicle’s path or speed
Spray from other vehicles
Wrong use of pedestrian crossing facility
Visor or windscreen dirty or scratched
Dangerous action in carriageway (e.g. playing)
Vehicle blind spot
Careless, reckless or in a hurry
Impaired by alcohol Impaired by drugs (illicit
or medicinal)
Pedestrian wearing dark clothing at night
Disability or illness, mental or physical
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 79
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.5 Suffolk Map
Figure 79 is a map of Suffolk and the district authorities within it. It is intended to be used as a reference alongside
the thematic maps within the report.
Figure 79 - Suffolk and its district authorities
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 80
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
4.6 List of figures
Figure 1 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities ........... 7
Figure 2 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districtsFigure 3 - Annual average
resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator authorities...................................................... 7
Figure 4 - Annual average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts .................................... 8
Figure 5 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)Figure 6 - Annual
average resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and districts................................................................. 8
Figure 7 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015)........................... 9
Figure 8 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015)Figure 9 - Resident casualties home location by LSOA. Casualties
per year per 100,000 population (2011-2015) .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 10 - Suffolk resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 11 - Suffolk resident casualties by age group (2011-2015) .................................................................................................. 11
Figure 12 - Resident casualties by age group, indexed by population (2011-2015) ........................................................................ 11
Figure 13 - Suffolk resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .............................................................................................. 12
Figure 14 - Resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) ............................................................................... 13
Figure 15 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and comparator
authorities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 16 - Annual average resident pedal cycle user casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population – Suffolk and its districts . 14
Figure 17 - Resident pedal cycle user casualties by MSOA. Annual average casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 population ....... 15
Figure 18 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................... 16
Figure 19 - Suffolk child resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ................................................... 17
Figure 20 - Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle user casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................. 17
Figure 21 - Suffolk resident pedal cycle user casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .................................................................... 18
Figure 22 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and comparator
authorities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 23 - Annual average senior resident casualties (2011-2015) per 100,000 senior population – Suffolk and its districts ...... 19
Figure 24 - Senior resident casualties by MSOA (2011-2015). Annual average casualties per 100,000 senior population ............ 20
Figure 25 - Suffolk senior resident casualties, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................... 21
Figure 26 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by road user type (2011-2015) ................................................................................ 22
Figure 27 - Percentage of Suffolk senior resident casualties by type compared to all adult casualties and GB senior casualties
(2011-2015) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 28 - Suffolk senior resident casualties by Mosaic Type (2011-2015) .................................................................................... 23
Figure 29 - Senior resident casualties by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) .................................................................... 24
Figure 30 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator authorities ... 25
Figure 31 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts ....................... 26
Figure 32 - Annual average resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population, by LSOA ................................................ 27
Figure 33 - Suffolk resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................................... 28
2016 SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL PAGE | 81
AP
PEN
DIC
ES
Figure 34 - Suffolk resident drivers by Mosaic Type (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage ....................................... 29
Figure 35 - Resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015) .................................................................................. 30
Figure 36 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and comparator
authorities ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 37 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders (2011-2015) per 100,000 adult population – Suffolk and its districts ..... 31
Figure 38 - Annual average resident motorcycle riders per 100,000 adult population, by MSOA (2011-2015) ............................. 32
Figure 39 - Suffolk resident motorcycle riders, by year and severity (2006-2015) ......................................................................... 33
Figure 40 - Suffolk's resident motorcycle riders - related casualties (2011-2015).......................................................................... 34
Figure 41 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and
comparators ................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 42 - Annual average young adult resident drivers (2011-2015) per 100,000 young adult population – Suffolk and its districts
........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 43 - Annual average young resident motor vehicle drivers per 10,000 population (of 16-24 year olds), by MSOA (2011-
2015) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 44 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................................... 37
Figure 45 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Mosaic Group (2011-2015), indexed by annual average mileage .................. 38
Figure 46 - Suffolk young adult resident drivers by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2011-2015).................................................... 38
Figure 47 - Injured Passengers in Suffolk's young resident drivers’ vehicles compared to all adult drivers (2011-2015) .............. 39
Figure 48 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road ............................................................................................ 41
Figure 49 - Annual average collisions (2011-2015) per 10km of road, by LSOA ............................................................................. 42
Figure 50 - Suffolk collisions, by year and severity (2006-2015) ..................................................................................................... 43
Figure 51 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekdays (2011-2015) .......................................................................... 43
Figure 52 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads by hour of day - weekends (2011-2015) .......................................................................... 44
Figure 53 - Casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................................................. 45
Figure 54 - Pedal cycle user casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................ 45
Figure 55 - Senior casualties on Suffolk's roads, by year (2006-2015)............................................................................................ 46
Figure 56 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................................................ 47
Figure 57 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities ................. 48
Figure 58 - Collisions where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts ..................................... 48
Figure 59 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were recorded (2006-2015) .................................... 49
Figure 60 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities .... 50
Figure 61 - Collisions where CF408, CF409 and/or CF410 were attributed (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its districts ........................ 50
Figure 62 - Collisions on Suffolk's roads where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2006-2015) ................................................ 51
Figure 63 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and comparator authorities ................. 52
Figure 64 - Collisions where CF601 and/or CF602 were recorded (2011-2015) – Suffolk and its district authorities .................... 52
Figure 65 - Annual average collisions on urban roads (2011-2015) per 10km of urban road......................................................... 54
Figure 66 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................ 55
© ROAD SAFETY ANALYSIS PAGE | 82
AP
PEN
DIC
ES Figure 67 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................... 56
Figure 68 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ........................ 57
Figure 69 - Collisions on Suffolk's urban non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) .................................................... 57
Figure 70 - Collisions on Suffolk's Urban Non Built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................ 58
Figure 71 - Annual average collisions on rural roads (2011-2015) per 10km of rural road ............................................................. 59
Figure 72 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ........................................................................... 60
Figure 73 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ............................................................. 61
Figure 74 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) .......................... 62
Figure 75 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non-built-up roads, by year and severity (2006-2015) ...................................................... 62
Figure 76 - Collisions on Suffolk's rural non built-up roads where CF306 and/or CF307 were recorded (2006-2015) ................... 63
Figure 77 - Suffolk's dominant Mosaic Types by LSOA. ................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 78 - Visualisations of dominant Mosaic Types ..................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 79 - Suffolk and its district authorities ................................................................................................................................. 79