The Purpose of the Partnership is to : Reduce death and ...The Purpose of the Partnership is to : Reduce death and injury on Cumbrian Roads (Improving the quality of life in Cumbria)

Page 1 of 60

The Purpose of the Partnership is to : Reduce death and injury on Cumbrian Roads (Improving the quality of life in Cumbria) APPENDIX I

We will 1 Provide synergy and leadership 2 Work together to achieve an integrated action plan 3 Encourage the public to take responsibility for their own safety

4 Ensure that the Safer Roads in Cumbria brand is developed

Activity Area Aims and

Objectives

By Whom Action Target Outcome Performance

Indicators

Progress as at 14/4/05 How provided and

funded

Meet Regularly Monthly meeting

Agree common targets LPSA KSI

Targets

Results of ARSS Final Draft completed Cumbria CC

Monitor activities ARSS 2004 Final Draft completed Cumbria CC

1 Overall Purpose Reduce death

and injury on

Cumbrian Roads

(Improving the

quality of life in

Cumbria

Cumbria Road Safety

Partnership

Report to and from respective

organisations

____ Questionnaires,

meetings, ARSS

Data collated for 2004

from partners

All Partners

Police Input all data to CARS

system promptly and

accurately

Process as

required

Collisions

Information is

timely and accurate

Completed analysis to

inform ARSS

In force and wholly

funded by the Police

authority

Safety Camera Partnership Monitor safety camera site

information

Gather supporting TDU

information

5% reduction year

on year in KSI

casualties

Safety Camera

casualty data is

produced as

required by Dept.

for Transport

DRAFT complete for

CSCRP meeting

23.11.04 (NOTE Safety

Camera data supply to

DfT is a separate issue)

Wholly funded

through Safety

Camera Partnership

Gathering

Primary Care Trusts Support the work of local

partners in addressing the

PSA target

No local road

safety targets for

Primary Care

Trusts

N?A N/A Government funded

Police - Road Stats now

Automatically validated at

initial Input.

No action other than

monitoring of accuracy of

inputting is required

100% accuracy of

data

Feedback to police

from data users cc

accuracy

Ongoing activity In force and wholly

funded by the Police

authority

AmeyMouchel Trunk Road Data “cleaned” ____ ____ ____ Government funded

Validation

CE&E Receive date from Cumbria

Police and distribute to

Partners

Monthly update Feedback to CE&E

from data users cc

accuracy

Initial data set sent

November 2004.

Proposed new system

will allow CS to receive

raw data from CE&E

Cumbria CC

Management

Overview

Capita Symonds (CS) Prepare Annual Safety

Statement

Report for the

Partnership

Final draft required

by end of March

Final Draft delivered to

partners

CCC Revenue

Funding

Capita Symonds (CS) Prepare prioritised Accident

Site, Route and Area Lists

KPI, LTP &

LPSA Targets

N/A Sites have been ranked

for inclusion in ARSS

Historically part

CCC Revenue &

Capital Funding,

now only Capital

2 Data

Medium to

Long term

Pooling

Resources and

intelligence

AmeyMouchel Develop safety scheme

programme to address issues

identified

Implement 14

Road Safety

Schemes in

2004/05

Number of

schemes

implemented

4 schemes already

implemented from

2004/05 programme

Government funded

Page 2 of 60


Objectives


Indicators


funded

Police Prepare with S/Cameras

template for District

Councils/Policing Areas &

County

Have monthly

available data for

all partners and

for publication

through the media

Ongoing

Wholly funded by

the Police authority

Camera Partnership

Prepare with Police template

for District Councils/Policing

Areas & County

Have monthly

available data for

all partners and

for publication

through the media

Ongoing

Wholly funded

through Safety

Camera Partnership

Capita Symonds (CS) Responding to public requests

and concerns

Provide information to 3rd

parties

KPI, LTP &

LPSA Targets

Client satisfaction

feedback

Continuing

responsibilities listed,

previous year’s

performance in ARSS

Final Draft

Historically part

CCC Revenue &

Capital Funding,

now only Capital

3rd parties fee

income

Micro-analysis

Prepare “Base Line” data

Actual accident & casualty

picture in Cumbria

Joint working

group to prepare

detail for

presentation to

partnership

Report prepared by

February meeting

to inform 2004/5

budgets

Final draft ARSS

delivered on 15/4/05

Partnership Team

Public perception of safety on

Cumbria’s roads

Undertake public

perception

questionnaire

By mid 2005 Not actioned yet Could be linked to

Your Cumbria

magazine and

requirement for

information to be

gathered on public

perception of

congestion

CCC/CS Annual Safety Statement to

include results of after studies

CCC to use their management

information system

CRSP to be kept

informed on a

monthly basis

Monthly meetings

attended

Results included as part

of ARSS

CCC

Police Data passed to CCC & CS Received

3 Monitoring

&

Evaluation

Page 3 of 60


Objectives


Indicators


funded

CS RSO’s Contact all schools annually;

respond to all requests for

road safety education training

and publicity.

To organise and administer a

child cycle training scheme,

including voluntary

instructors and examiners.

To provide specialist training

for running wheelchair

proficiency tests and testing

of equestrians.

Mainly delivery

targets

Numbers of

volunteers

available, pupils

trained and level

understanding

Bi-Annual report to Chris

Wallace (CE&E)

RSO Revenue

funding

Police Cycle Proficiency supporting

RSO’s

Fire Service Schools safety training:

Delivery of pre-driver

education programme

including Cut & Rescue

Delivery to 33%

of secondary

schools yr11/12

students by July

2005

Expected to be

100% of

schools/colleges

by July 2006

50% Delivery

expected to be

achieved in 2004/5

End of course test

to assess

understanding

Overall evaluation of the

programme is being

undertaken

Provided by

Cumbria Fire

Service as part of

BWTS Programme.

Budget £15k over 2

years.

4 Education &

Training

Schools &

Young people

Encouraging

the public to

take

responsibility

for their own

safety

Primary Care Trusts 12 month capacity building

project promoting the uptake

of cycle training in schools

Focus upon

recruiting,

training and

supporting a

group of

volunteers to

work with road

safety officers to

develop cycle

training

programme in

local schools

LPSA targets Public Health

Development Specialist

appointed to specifically

participate in road safety

work

Cumbria Childrens’

Fund

Page 4 of 60


Objectives


Indicators


funded

CS & Police Respect Programme

Bike Safe Campaign

Educate residents

on aspects of road

safety and the

encouragement of

lower speeds

through posters,

courses for new

drivers, speed

commitment for

identified areas

and the & SIDS.

Educate riders of

all ages on how to

improve their

skills

100% reduction in

KSIs

Number of

participants and

resultant accidents

Respect ongoing in West

Cumbria

Courses programmed for

2005

LPSA

Cumbria Chamber of

Commerce & Industry

Business Driver Training Non specified ____ ____ ____

CCC Client Services –

Education H&S

School transport ____ ____ ____ ____

Training/adult

Behaviours

Camera Partnership Don’t Crunch After Lunch

campaign

Warning to

motorcyclists on

road safety issues

Ongoing campaign ____

Primary Care Trusts ____ ___ ____ ____ ____

Partnership Team Prepare Communications

Strategy

Undertake public consultation

(see above)

Run a conference/seminar to

highlight activities of group

____ ____

No event has been

organised to date

LPSA

Could link with

professional

organisations in

region and/or link to

specific events being

organised by

partners i.e.

Motorcycle event

CS Media Develop and monitor

programme of activities

Fortnightly Page

in News & Star

Feedback and

reaction

Launched 22 November

and still ongoing

____

5 Publicity Branding

Campaigning

Ensure that the

Safer Roads in

Cumbria brand

is developed

Developing a

communication

strategy

Avoiding

duplication of

activities

CCC Took over responsibility in

January 2005 from CS media

Road safety posters, safety

campaigns with RSO

Satisfy Brief &

schedule

Monthly reporting FEB & MAR schedule

completed. 'Don't say it

with flowers' message

taken to Barrow, Carlisle,

Kendal, Whitehaven.

____

Page 5 of 60


Objectives


Indicators


funded

CCC, Capita Symonds Studies, implementation &

monitoring

Accident &

casualty reduction

Rate of return Now complete for

2004/05. 2005/06

schedule included in

ARSS

LTP Capital Funds

LPSA

supplementary funds

Engineering

Safety Schemes

Reduce numbers

and severity of

casualties

AmeyMouchel/HA Deliver safety schemes on

trunk roads

Accident

reduction

Review after 12 &

36 months

____ Government

Funding

Danger

Reduction

Schemes

Reduce risk &

perception of

danger

Capita Symonds Implement schemes &

monitor

Spin-off accident

& casualty

reduction

Improved

perception of safety

04/05 programme

subtlety different due to

rebadging of locally

determined APM

activities

LTP Capital Funds

Better Ways To

School

Minimise

negative effects

of modal shift

Capita Symonds BWTS modal shift initiatives,

implementing route safety

improvements & monitoring

Safer routes Increased walking

& cycling

____ LTP Capital funds

Highway

Maintenance

Provide best

possible

highway

facilities.

CCC, Capita Symonds

Highways Agency

Safety Inspections

Developed programme of

structural and safety related

maintenance

Responding to public requests

and concerns

____ ____ ____ ____

Safety Audits Ensuring

consistency of

approach to

safety issues

Capita Symonds /

Highways Agency / Police

Undertaking stages audits on

most highway improvement

and maintenance schemes

Accident *

Casualty

reduction

Increased

consistency

____ Agreement as to which

schemes in 2004/5

programme were to be

included - audits on

going

LTP Capita funds

and other highway

related funding

____ Police

Traffic Management Officer

will be the liaison officers

with the Highways agencies

and will:-

1 Collate and report road

defects

2 Report developing

collisions hotspots for

analysis

3 Assist with AIP studies

4 Assist and observe at Safety

Audits

Record all defect

reports and the

result of remedial

activity.

Respond to AIP

studies and Safety

audits requests

within 14 days.

analyse collision

trends and report

hotspots

development

____ ____ Wholly funded by


6 Engineering

Other

____ Safety Camera Unit

Deploy VMS equipment at

core safety camera sites to

reduce speed at the sites.

All VMS will be

equipped with

TDU equipment,

speed reduction

will be monitored.

Recorded incidents

of speeding

____ ____

Page 6 of 60


Objectives


Indicators


funded

Target those

areas identified

by collision

analysis as the

cause of injury

on the highway

Carry out targeted

enforcement from

intelligence provided by the

Traffic management officers

and TDU supporting

information

20% Reduction in

road casualties by

end of 2005

compared to

1994-98 totals.

Measurable

reduction in

casualties

Annual ongoing activity

reported to Police Area

CRASH meetings with

information made

available to CRCRP

Wholly funded by


Traffic

Police

Tackling uninsured drivers Reducing the

number of un

roadworthy

vehicles and

potential reckless

drivers

Measurable

number of drivers

apprehended and

cars taken out of

circulation

____

Wholly funded by


7 Enforcement

Cameras Targeted

enforcement at

all identified

safety camera

sites

Identify new

sites for future

targeting

Carry out

enforcement at

sites as a result

of speed

complaints

Safety Camera Continue to deploy safety

camera personnel at all

approved sites taking into

account the specifics of each

location

Carry out TDU analysis at

existing and newly identified

sites

Assist police in targeting

collisions hotspots where

speed is an identified issue

Reduction in road

casualties

Conduct annual

assessments of all

safety camera

sites

Reduction in

casualties

Measurable

reduction in

casualties

Measurable

reduction in

casualties

Annual ongoing activity

reported to the Safety

Camera Partnership and

information made

available to CRCRP

Wholly funded

through Safety

Camera Partnership

Provision of Cycle lights ____ ____ ____ ____ Crime & Disorder Act

County Partnership Liaison and sponsorship of

local community initiatives ____ ____ ____ ____

Prepared by

Page 7 of 60

Appendix 1I - Education and Training Programme 2005/06

Target Group Aims and Objectives Action By Whom

1a Car Occupants Teenage Pre-driver

education

To raise awareness of road risks and to modify

attitude and behaviour.

Delivery of pre-driver education programme including

Cut & Rescue.

Review of provision of training is now being

undertaken as part of Education Sub Group of CRSP.

RSO and other professional providers as per devised

programme.

1b Teenage newly

qualified drivers

Reduce KSIs within this age group. Delivery of newly qualified driver programme in

Barrow 2004/5.

In West Cumbria 2005/6

RSO and relevant professional practitioners

2a

Child pedestrians Child pedestrian skills

training

Yr 4/5

Reduction in accidents.

Preparation of a formalised training

programme.

Delivery of child pedestrian skills training programme.

Availability of starter packs

2005/6 Increasing use of Green Cross Code approach to

training.

RSO’s continues to deliver hazard awareness as

present utilising Green Cross Code as a standard

approach.

2b Walking

Buses

Investigation of the potential for walking bus schemes

CCC to resolve insurance issues

(based on STP’s)

Walking Route Assessments

Ongoing Support for Walking Buses

RSO Team

3 Cycle Training

General

3a Under 18 cyclists Cycling training for 7

– 9 year olds [Off-

road]

Yr 3/4

Provide cycling training in a secure

environment for children too young for on-

road courses.

Delivery of off road cycling training programme. Short / Medium term through professional provider.

Long term RSO and trained volunteers

3b On-road cycling

training for 10 – 11

Provide on-road cycling training courses for

children before they go on to secondary school.

Delivery of on-road child cycling proficiency training

courses.

RSO and volunteer instructors and examiners.

Page 8 of 60


year olds

Yr 5/6

Review Indicators

Pupil to trainer ratio of 1:8

Target Ratio of Instructors/School

3c cycling training for

teenagers [Off-road]

Yr 7/8

Provide off-road cycling training courses for

Yr7/8 students.

Delivery of off-road cycling training courses Fully trained outdoor pursuit instructors with pupil to

trainer ration of 15:1


3d On-road cycling

training for teenagers

Yr 7/8

Provide on-road cycling training courses for

students having undertaken off-road course

Delivery of on-road cycling training courses Fully trained outdoor pursuit instructors requiring

pupil to trainer ratio of 2:1

4a Vulnerable road

users

Horse Riders Equestrian Attend national BHS Safety Advisory Committee and

local committee.

Senior RSO

4b Teenage powered

two-wheelers

Pre-driving

Reduce KSI within this age group Delivery of pre-driver education programme for car

drivers will include information for powered two-

wheelers

2005/06 support to Rural Job Seekers Programme.

Support to Cumbria Police Bike Safe Project.

See 1a/b above

4c Mobility Impaired To be investigated with a view to consideration in

2005/6

Review casualties with Health Authorities

Resume Whizz Kid proposals.

Take proposals to Cumbria Disabled Forum.

4d Elderly motorists/

pedestrians

To be investigated with a view to consideration in

2005/6

Casualty analysis with Cumbria Police of KSI’s within

this age group.

Link with health groups

Page 9 of 60


5 Co-ordination

activity

Improve the co-ordination of the access to

schools by various organisations on road safety

issues.

To review with property and client services and the

members of the RSWG co-ordinated access to and by

schools.

Senior RSO

6 Information

activity

Improve the embedding of road safety

awareness within the curriculum through

effective resource material.

To review the information packages and material

currently and potentially available and their format to

support elements of the curriculum.

Senior RSO

Education Sub Group of CRSP will pick up this issue

in Spring 2005.

7

7a

Promotional

Activity

Institutions and

Community Groups

Media activity

Pre – school children

Promote increased understanding of road

safety.

Introduce road safety

Prepare and present appropriate material.

Respond to requests from media

Improve working with other agencies on CRSP re Joint

Campaigns.

Present appropriate material

RSOs in liaison with Kate Sark

RSOs

8 Materials and

Resources

To ensure appropriate equipment is available to

support ETP activities.

Prepare budgeted list of expected expenditure.

RSO’s & BWTS Co-ordinator

Cumbria County Council Road Safety CPIA July 2004

N:\Scrutiny\Overview & Scrutiny\Committees\Safe and Secure Comunities\Job Numbers\135 Road Safety - select Comittee\final report\Appendices\Appendices.doc

APPENDIX 111(a)

Education Service

Melbreak House

Main Street

Hensingham

Whitehaven,

Cumbria

Tel: 01946 595338

A pilot project to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Cumbria’s

roads by addressing “Attitude Towards Risk” in young drivers.

BACKGROUND

Cumbria County Council established a Select Committee to improve Road Safety in

Cumbria. I was asked if I could provide a perspective from my position as a psychologist

working for the Education Department.

Educational Psychologist’s are qualified in research psychology and have a background in

education that includes attitude development and behaviour. Personality variables, emotional

disposition and attitudes towards such factors as risk are cited in research papers on driver

behaviour, as contributing causes in accidents. The Education Department’s team of

psychologists are therefore well placed to make a contribution to the Select Committee’s area

of concern.

The pilot project described here is a small time focussed study involving four schools.

Approximately 400 children aged 17+ took part. The purpose of the project was to measure

young people’s attitude towards risk in the context of driver behaviour and then to see if the

individual’s attitude to risk could be changed in the direction of safer practises.



LITERATURE SEARCH

It is good practise in a study of this kind to review the relevant scientific literature. The time

and resources available in this small study meant that the search had to be limited to a few

short sessions on the Internet.

A few quotes and leads are given below should any other officers wish to take this study

further.

www.drdriving.org - Useful in the construction of the questionnaire used in this study. Focus

on aggression. Also good for international studies and statistics on causes, ages, gender etc.

www.drivers.com - This site has a number of useful articles including research on young

driver education and the use of simulators.

The department of transport (www.dft.gov.uk) is a good starting point for research findings

and seminar proceedings.

Quote “17-21 year olds hold 10% of licenses but account for 20% of all accidents. Males

are twice as likely to be involved in an accident than females.”

www.driverzed.org - Is a site which amongst other things reviews a potentially useful

educational package called Driver-zed. According to this site 17 year olds have a crash

involvement rate twenty times the average for all drivers. It states “Young teens are poor

risk managers.”

www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au - Is a comprehensive site focussing on research and government

action in the state of Queensland. The site details specific activities for teachers and has a

section called “Attitude is everything”.

www.rospa.com - This site includes specific research and advice on the subject of young

drivers. Some quotes :

“Young male drivers are particularly likely to choose to drive in deliberately risky ways,

and are also more likely to have accidents.”

“If courses enable young drivers to pass their test more quickly but fail to have an impact

on driving attitudes and behaviour they may do more harm than good.”

www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/roadsafety - This site provides a review of a speed

awareness course.

www.drstrahley.com - and www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury - are additional sites containing

useful research articles.

THE CUMBRIA PICTURE



Subjective evidence gathered from personal accounts and newspaper headlines suggests

that the problem of young driver deaths from road accidents is a tragedy that must be

addressed.

I spend my working day in schools in Cumbria. As a father of teenage children and a

reader of local newspapers I am very aware of the waste of young lives. Fatal accidents

are more likely to involve males, a fact supported by the Cumbria data (supplied by

Cumbria Constabulary) which reflects the two to one gender bias reported in national

studies.

The age bias also reflects the national picture. The 16-25 age bracket has the highest

number of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) 403 but surprisingly, only by a small

margin. The next highest age category is 36-45 with 396 incidents.

This might suggest that whatever intervention we choose for our school age drivers we

also direct at the general population. Further research would be necessary to determine

if “attitude towards risk” is an important factor for all age groups.

PROJECT DESIGN

Accepting the research finding that “attitude towards risk” is a major contributing

factor in road traffic accidents this small study had one primary question:

• Can young people’s risky attitudes be changed in the direction of greater safety.

PARTICIPANTS

Four schools in the Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport and Wigton were selected.

A questionnaire consisting of 20 risk sensitive questions was given to nearly 150

teenagers who held at least a provisional license. One to two weeks later a presentation

was given to each group of students. The presentation was designed to change risky

attitudes. The same questionnaire was administered for a second time after the

presentation.

Whilst the questionnaire was only given to license holders, the presentation was given to

all sixth form students.

RESULTS

Each student’s pre-presentation questionnaire was compared with their post-

presentation questionnaire.

The number of items showing a change in attitude were recorded for each youngster.

Some youngsters showed a change in as many as 10 to 12 of the 20 items.



Example of items:-

Q. 6 - Pre-presentation

• In an overtaking situation where there is a slight risk to safety, are you the sort of

person who would:-

never take a risk and over take

sometimes take a risk

only take a risk if you were late for something important

Q. 6 – Post presentation

• In an overtaking situation where there is a slight risk to safety, are you the sort of

person who would:-

never take a risk and over take

sometimes take a risk

only take a risk if you were late for something important.

Most items consisted of a simple choice of two alternatives. Some items like the one

above contained an additional choice that provided a teaching opportunity at the end of

the second administration.

(answering “only take a risk if you were late for something important” is of course just

as risky as answering “sometimes take a risk”)

Other items for which many youngsters showed a shift in their risky attitude were:-

• It would be O.K. to drive with someone who had consumed 2 pints of beer

• I often feel competitive or race when with friends

• If I feel sleepy when driving I sing to myself or play some music.

School Number of matched

respondents

Average change in

risk score (out of 20)

Biggest change in

risk score for one

person

1 40 3.2 10

2 24 2.1 6

3 10 6.9 12

4 10 2.5 5

Points of interest from these results

• 89% of respondents changed their attitude towards risk in the direction of greater

safety

x



• 38% of respondents changed their attitude towards risk on 4 or more of the items on

the 20 item questionnaire

• the biggest change in any one individual was 12 points. That means that in 20 areas

of driver behaviour, this person became less risky. Two other people changed in 10

separate areas of driver behaviour.

• The question “are these changes statistically significant?” needs to be considered.

This simple data has not been treated statistically and the more challenging question

“was this study worth doing?” cannot be answered in the way that an academic

study would require. However, the 75 youngsters out of the 84 who completed both

questionnaires and showed a positive change are now less likely to take risks on

Cumbrian roads. The other 300+ youngsters who witnessed the presentation but are

not yet license holders are likely to have changed in similar ways. This for most

Cumbria residents, parents and road users will be sufficient to answer the question

“was it worth it?”

• Each of the four schools had different presenters for the middle phase.

School 1 – A talk from an officer from Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service. Limited

access to a photographic display of road traffic accidents.

School 2 – A talk from myself as psychologist. No photographic aids. No input from

Fire and Rescue Personnel.

School 3 – A talk from a mother whose young son had died in a road traffic accident.

School 4 – A talk from an officer from Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service. Individual

access to photographic material similar to that in school 1 above.

In comparing the results from the four schools the most striking difference is that the

average “change in risk” score is over twice as high in school 3, where the more

personal and intimate presentation was given.

90% of respondents in this school changed in 4 or more of the 20 areas measured.

CONCLUSION AND POINTS FRO FURTHER CONSIDERATION

• Young people’s attitudes towards risk in driving situations is thought to contribute

to their higher accident rate.

• This higher accident rate is twice as high in males compared to females

• This study has shown that attitudes to risk can be changed.

• Different types of intervention produce different degrees of change. In this study the

more personal presentation had the most effect.



• In Cumbria a number of agencies e.g. Fire, Police, Capita, Education and others are

seeking to improve road safety. Co-ordination and the avoidance of duplication is

obviously desirable. The existence of a high quality database could inform future

practise. In this study I have been grateful for the data provided by Cumbria

Constabulary.

• The question of what kind of intervention (speed cameras, road layout, education

programmes etc.) needs to be addressed.

• Targeting the risky attitudes of young drivers is a specialised area of intervention.

Even within this area, how we attempt to change attitudes should be based on

research evidence. Traditionally, interventions have improved showing youngsters

the effects of high-speed collisions. Teaching about the nature of risk and making

presentations highly personal and relevant are two further ways of educating our

young drivers.

Peter Crompton

Educational Psychologist

cps/jd/pc



APPENDIX IIIb

COUNTY PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE Please answer these questions honestly, according to the way you drive now. (not the way you think you should drive) In all of these questions please tick just one box.

1. Would you consider advice from your parents or other more experienced drivers, concerning your driving behaviour e.g. the speed you should drive at etc. or do you think you are the best judge of this.

Would consider advice Would not consider advice

2. Do you ever use rolling stops at Stop signs?

Never Sometimes

3. If one of your friends criticised your driving, on safety grounds, would you

reflect upon and consider what they had to say, or do you think you’re the best person to judge each situation on its merits?

Consider friends’ opinion

Self best judge

4. Do you drive very close as a habit?

Very rarely Sometimes

5. If the road ahead is clear and there are no hazards, is it acceptable to exceed the speed limit?

No

Yes by a small degree Yes

6. In an overtaking situation, where there is a slight risk to safety, are you the

sort of person who would:



Never take a risk and overtake Sometimes take a calculated risk Only take a risk if you were late for something important

7. When you are out with your friends what level of alcohol do you think is safe for

you if you are to drive home?

None One pint Two pints More than this if I am careful

8. If you wanted a lift home after a night out, at what point would you refuse a lift from a friend who had had an alcoholic drink?

If s/he had had half a pint If s/he had had more than a pint If s/he showed signs of intoxication

9. Would you increase your speed beyond a level you were happy with:

Never Only in special circumstances If the driver behind was putting pressure on you

10. If you were having fun driving and your boyfriend/girlfriend asked you to slow down, would you:

Slow down Take no notice, after all, you’re the driver Drive faster

11. You are driving home. You already have a full car. You see a friend who flags

you down and asks for a lift, it’s only a mile to his house. Do you:

Come back for him later Give him a lift on the back seat even though the car is full Just for a joke, squeeze him into the foot

12. Your phone rings while you are driving, do you:



Pull in, then answer it Answer it and look for a place to pull in Keep driving and answer it

13. Do you brake to punish a tailgater?

Never Very rarely, only if they are really annoying me

Sometimes

14. Do you feel competitive or race with other drivers?

No Only when pulling away, just for fun

Fairly often 15. If the driving conditions are bad e.g. poor visibility, do you:

Slow down or stop Concentrate and drive carefully Trust to your luck 16. If you are feeling sleepy, do you:

Stop and take a break Sing to yourself or put music on Drive faster to shorten the journey 17. You are following a vehicle on a wet road. You should leave a time gap of:

Four seconds Three Seconds Two Seconds

18. When approaching a green light, that has been green for some time, you should:

Be ready to slow down Accelerate

19. In which of these situations would it be acceptable to overtake. In a one way street



Approaching a small dip in the road Approaching a blind corner

20. The driver behind you is driving too close, do you: Slow down Speed up Touch the brakes to make the brake lights come on



APPENDIX IV(a)

Contents

Cumbria County Council

Road Safety Current Performance and Improvement Assessment (CPIA)

Executive Summary

1. Introduction 2. Current Road Safety Arrangements in Cumbria 3. Assessment Methodology 4. Cumbria’s Performance Against the National Casualty

Reduction Targets

5. Cumbria’s Performance Against the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs)

6. Casualty Reduction Performance on Urban County Roads and Rural County Roads 7. Casualty Reduction Performance on County Roads and Motorway and Trunk Roads 8. Cumbria’s Performance in Comparison with the Department for Transport’s

Research Project ‘Assessing the Casualty Reduction Performance of Local Highway Authorities’

9. CPIA Findings 10. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix A - References



Graphs Graph 1 - Performance Against the National Casualty Reduction Targets

Fatal and Serious Casualties

Graph 2 - Performance Against the National Casualty Reduction Targets Child Fatal and Serious Casualties Graph 3 - Performance Against the National Casualty Reduction Targets Slight Casualty Rate Graph 4 - Comparison of Urban County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Rural County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Fatal and Serious Casualties Graph 5 - Comparison of Urban County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Rural County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Child Fatal and Serious Casualties Graph 6 - Comparison of Urban County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Rural County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Slight Casualty Numbers Graph 7- Comparison of County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Motorway and Trunk Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Fatal and Serious Casualties Graph 8 - Comparison of County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Motorway and Trunk Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Child Fatal and Serious Casualties Graph 9 - Comparison of County Roads Casualty Reduction Performance and Motorway and Trunk Roads Casualty Reduction Performance (Cumbria Only) Slight Casualty Numbers Tables

Table 1 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of other North West Authorities. Fatal and Serious Casualties Table 2 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of other North West Authorities Child Fatal and Serious Casualties



Table 3 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of other North West Authorities Slight Casualty Rate Table 4 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of Comparable Authorities. Fatal and Serious Casualties Table 5 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of Comparable Authorities Child Fatal and Serious Casualties Table 6 – Performance Against National Casualty Reduction Targets. Performance of Comparable Authorities Slight Casualty Rate Table 7 – Performance Against Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) – 2002/2003 Performance of other North West Authorities Table 8 – Performance Against Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) – 2002/2003 Performance of Comparable Authorities


N:\Scrutiny\Overview & Scrutiny\Committees\Safe and Secure Comunities\Job Numbers\135 Road Safety - select Comittee\final report\Appendices\Appendices.doc 1

Executive Summary

This report relates to the Current Performance and Improvement Assessment (CPIA) undertaken in respect of the road safety arrangements in Cumbria.

The Assessment was commissioned by the Chief Executive Officer of Cumbria County Council and was undertaken with the support of all professional organisations involved in road safety within Cumbria. The Assessment process included a desktop review of strategic policies and practices, studies of the casualty reduction performance to date, comparisons with a recent research project and face-to-face discussions with a number of key persons. All the persons involved in the Assessment cooperated fully in the discussions and provided invaluable evidence. They and the support staff who arranged meetings etc are consequently thanked wholeheartedly for their cooperation. Studies of the casualty reduction performance for Cumbria to date indicate that progress has been made in reducing the numbers of child fatal and seriously injured casualties and slightly injured casualties. However, little progress has been made in reducing the numbers of all fatal and seriously injured casualties. There are particular concerns about the number of casualties of all types occurring on the Motorway and Trunk Road network in Cumbria. There is undoubtedly much good work being undertaken in Cumbria, by a number of agencies, all of who have a greater or lesser responsibility for Road Safety. However, the Assessment process highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed if casualties are to be reduced and the targets achieved. These issues are:

• Partnership arrangements between Cumbria County Council and Capita Symonds.

• Coordination of Road Safety activities.

• Motorway and Trunk Road casualty reduction performance

• Road Safety Officer staffing levels

• Fatal and serious casualty reduction performance

• Evaluation of engineering safety schemes

• Road Safety Audit practice

• Fatal collision reporting and study procedures.

The top two issues are considered to be points of fundamental concern, with the other items of somewhat lesser concern

Following a detailed study of the above issues, the recommendations detailed below are made with the intention of improving Road Safety practices in Cumbria:



1. A workshop is held to focus on the Cumbria County Council/Capita Symonds Partnership issues of concern and rebuild the arrangements to the mutual benefit of both parties.

2. Either a new Road Safety Partnership Forum is established dedicated to the coordination and strategic management of Road Safety or the work of the existing Cumbria Road Safety Target (LPSA1) Steering Group is re-focussed.

3. A single member of the County Council staff (or a member of staff from one of the other partners) is given responsibility for all road safety issues, including support for the new Forum or re-focussed Steering Group.

4. Capita Symonds is asked to re-consider its current operational arrangements with a view to establishing either a single Road Safety group or at least the two Road Safety specialist teams reporting to and through the same management structure.

5. The County Council seek to influence the Highways Agency and AmeyMouchel casualty reduction practices to assist in achieving Cumbria’s casualty reduction targets.

6. The number of Road Safety Officers is increased in line with LARSOA guidance.

7. The fatal and seriously injured casualty performance is monitored on a quarterly basis and changes to processes and activities are carried out whenever necessary to ensure that the target is achieved.

8. Statistical evaluation of engineering safety schemes is undertaken in addition to the current monitoring regime.

9. All Highway Improvement Schemes and modifications to the highway are subjected to Stage 3 Road Safety Audits.

10. The new Road Safety Audit Standard is fully adopted as the basis for all Road Safety Audits within Cumbria.

11. The Council’s fatal collision reporting system is clarified, developed and implemented.

12. The new CSS Fatal Accident Survey and Advice Note is adopted as the basis for investigating fatal collisions.



1.0 Introduction

A Road Safety Current Performance and Improvement Assessment (CPIA) was commissioned by John Harwood, Chief Executive, Cumbria County Council in an e-mail dated 23 June 2004.

The commission involved an assessment of the strategic performance of the

Road Safety service in Cumbria, including recommendations for improvement. The basis of this Assessment was set out in a letter to the Chief Executive dated 28 May 2004 and consisted of:

• A desktop study of the Council’s organisational structures and Strategic documents as published on the internet, along with documents provided by the County Council and others.

• Face-to-face discussions with lead players in Road Safety in the Council (Councillors and Officers) to establish how Road Safety fits into the overall Council arrangements and its specific highways and planning services.

• Similar discussions with representatives of area offices and committees, the local Safety Camera Partnership, Cumbria Police and any other similar bodies to establish their role.

• Discussions with the Council’s Road Safety Officers and Road Safety Engineering staff (whether directly employed by the Council or Capita Symonds) to see how they see their role.

• Preparation of a report detailing the findings and recommendations for improvement.

This report details the Assessment undertaken, the issues highlighted and the

conclusions reached, along with recommended courses of action for improvement.



2.0 Current Road Safety Arrangements in Cumbria

In common with all Local Highway Authorities (LHAs), there are a number of professional and voluntary organisations involved in the delivery of Road Safety in Cumbria. The main professional organisations are:

• Cumbria County Council

• Capita Symonds

• Cumbria Constabulary

• Cumbria Safety Cameras

• Cumbria Magistrates Courts Service

• Highways Agency. The voluntary sector includes groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the

Institute of Advanced Motorists and other road user interest groups. In addition, the public, as road users, have a clear interest in Road Safety and have major responsibilities in their own right.

Cumbria County Council is the Highway Authority for all roads in the County

except Motorways and Trunk Roads, although Carlisle City Council has ‘claimed highway rights’.

The Councillor with responsibility for highway matters, along with a range of

other issues, is a member of the Council’s Cabinet. Local Committees, with substantial powers and autonomy, are responsible for many highway and other issues and are advised by Area Transport Action Groups (ATAGS). In addition, each Councillor has a Neighbourhood Forum, where local issues can be raised by members of the public.

From a day-to-day point of view, the County Council’s highway duties,

including Road Safety, are managed by its Community, Economy and Environment Directorate. The Council also has related public protection, trading standards and Fire Service responsibilities, with these aspects being managed by its Public Protection and Fire Service Directorate.

In an effort to take full advantage of the LPSA funding arrangements, the

County Council has established a Cumbria Road Safety Target (LPSA1) Steering Group. Membership of the Group consists of officer representatives from the County Council, Capita Symonds, Cumbria Constabulary, Cumbria Safety Cameras, the Highways Agency, Freight Transport Association, Road Haulage Association, Cumbria Chamber of Commerce, North Cumbria PCT and Morecombe Bay PCT. A change of name to the Cumbria Road Safety Partnership is currently envisaged with a modified brief.

The County Council and Capita Symonds have a 7 year partnership

agreement in respect of the delivery of the Council’s highways and other duties, including Road Safety. Capita’s Local Practices, Civil Engineering



North and Media groups are involved in Road Safety, as are their Local Practice Offices.

The geographical boundaries of the Cumbria Constabulary are consistent with

the boundaries of the County Council. The Police, however, have accident investigation and enforcement responsibilities for the whole of the highway network in the County, including Motorways and Trunk Roads. In addition, the Police maintain a collision database, which is made available to the other agencies involved in Road Safety.

In recent years the Police have established a number of Road Safety/casualty

reduction groups known as Casualty Reduction and Safer Highways (CRASH) groups. Each of these groups are set specific targets and work in partnership with the County Council.

Cumbria Safety Cameras has only been operational since April 2003 and to

date its operations and effects have consequently been limited in nature. The Partnership consists of Cumbria County Council, Cumbria Constabulary, Cumbria Magistrates Courts Service and the Highways Agency. Their operational area again covers all roads in Cumbria.

Cumbria Magistrates Courts Service provides legal support to Cumbria Safety

Cameras and ‘court’ action in respect of all traffic offences. They have a number of courts throughout Cumbria and work closely with both the Police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Motorways and Trunk Roads throughout England are managed by the

Highways Agency using a network of Areas. Day-to-day management of each Area is provided by Managing Agent Contractors (MACs). Cumbria is within Area 13, although the boundaries of the Area extend well beyond the County limits, and the MAC is AmeyMouchel. Both the Highways Agency and AmeyMouchel advise that they have a good working relationship with Cumbria Constabulary and the County Council, although the Council have no direct influence on matters on the Motorway and Trunk Road network.



3.0 Assessment Methodology

The Assessment was undertaken by Alan J. Rookes IEng, AMICE, MIHT, FIHIE. Alan is the Associate with responsibility for Road Safety and, along with others, operational matters at the Capita Symonds office in Cwmbran, South Wales.

The structure of the Assessment followed the originally proposed

arrangements, as detailed in the Introduction to this report. The desktop study involved a review of the documents and websites listed in

Appendix A. Particular attention was paid to policy statements, targets and links with other agencies involved in Road Safety in Cumbria.

In addition, the casualty reduction performance was monitored in comparison

with both the national casualty reduction targets and the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs), including references to the performance of other North Western and similar local authorities across England.

Following initial analysis of the overall County casualty data, specific studies

of the casualty reduction performance of County urban roads and County rural roads and County roads and Motorway and Trunk Roads were undertaken. Again the performances on these roads was compared with the national casualty reduction targets.

Face-to-face discussions were held with the following persons on the 6th to

9th July 2004 inclusive and on the 22nd and 23rd July 2004: Cumbria County Council Councillor Kevan Wilkinson – Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure Ralph Howard – Corporate Director Community, Economy and Environment Mick Elliott – Corporate Director Public Protection and Chief Fire Officer Bob Allen – Head of Highways and Transport Chris Wallace – Highways Network Manager Rob Terwey – Strategic Planning Manager Steve Solsby – Programme Manager Tony Richardson – Senior Transport Policy Officer Capita Symonds

Kevin Walsh – Associate Carole Hastings – Associate David Kerry – Senior Road Safety Officer Kevin Nicholson – Principal Consultant Cumbria Constabulary



Superintendent Steve Turnbull – Uniform Operations Cumbria Safety Cameras Steve Callaghan – Project Manager Cumbria Magistrates Courts Service Simon Evans – Chief Executive Officer Highways Agency Peter Hamer – Highways Agency Patrick Hall – AmeyMouchel All of the above persons cooperated fully in the discussions and provided

invaluable evidence for this Assessment. They and the support staff who arranged meetings etc are consequently thanked wholeheartedly for their cooperation.

Many issues related to Road Safety provision in Cumbria were discussed

during these meetings ranging from current operational and management arrangements to the activities, schemes and campaigns being implemented.

All the issues and points made during the above meetings and highlighted

during the desktop studies were carefully considered. Consistent messages and those issues relevant to a Current Performance and Improvement Assessment have been developed and form the basis of this report and its recommendations.

6

4.0 Cumbria’s Performance Against the National Casualty Reduction

Targets

In 2000 the Government published its Road Safety Strategy ‘Tomorrow’s Roads -

Safer for Everyone’. This Strategy included the following three new Casualty Reduction

Targets:

• A 40% reduction in fatal and serious road accident casualties by the year 2010 compared with a baseline of the average number of fatal and serious casualties over the period 1994 – 1998.

• A 50% reduction in child fatal and serious road accident casualties by the year 2010 compared with a baseline of the average number of child fatal and serious casualties over the period 1994 – 1998.

• A 10% reduction in slight road accident casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres by the year 2010 compared with a baseline of the average number of slight casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres over the period 1994 – 1998.

If achieved, the effect of the above targets will be to:

• Reduce fatal and serious casualties in Cumbria from 555 to 333 per annum by 2010

• Reduce child fatal and serious casualties in Cumbria from 69 to 35 per annum by 2010

• Reduce the slight casualty rate in Cumbria from 44.3 to 39.9 per annum by 2010.

The Council’s Corporate Strategy: 2004 Update sets out 6 Corporate Policies,

including Policy E – ‘Improving the Safety of People’s Lives’. The Council have

acknowledged the national casualty reduction targets by including the fatal and serious

casualty target as its Top Priority in Corporate Policy E and a slightly varied version of the

child casualty reduction target, as a further Top Priority. The Council and its partners have

acknowledged these Priorities by changing its approach to the delivery of certain key Road

Safety initiatives and agreeing a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) with the

Government. There are 12 Targets within the LPSA, the first of which is to ‘Reduce the

annual number of people killed and seriously injured in road traffic accidents on all roads

in Cumbria from 555 during 1994 – 1998 to 413 or fewer during 2003 – 2005’.

The national slight casualty reduction target is not acknowledged in the Corporate

Strategy, the LPSA or in the Authority’s Local Transport Plan (LTP). It is, however,

acknowledged in Annual Progress Reports (APRs) 2 and 3 and in the draft version of APR

4. In APRs 2 and 3 the slight casualty reduction target is expressed in the same terms as

the national target, but in the draft version APR 4 it is expressed as a reduction in pure

numbers of slight casualties.

7

Details of Cumbria’s casualty reduction performance against the three national

casualty reduction targets is set out in Graphs 1 to 3 inclusive. In addition, for comparison

purposes, the performance of the North West Region and England as a whole are also set

out in these Graphs.

It should be noted at this time that the casualty figures for Cumbria used in the

preparation of the Graphs and Tables, referred to here and elsewhere in this report, are

based on the information contained within the Draft Annual Road Safety Statement 2003.

It is generally acknowledged that this Draft Statement contains a number of errors, but at

this time the Statement is the only readily available source of casualty data. Final casualty

numbers may consequently vary somewhat and where found, clearly erroneous figures,

e.g. the number of rural county road casualties in 2003, have been omitted from the

relevant Graphs and Tables.

Cumbria, Regional and England Comparisons

Bearing in mind the above proviso, an assessment of Cumbria’s position against each

of the targets and against both the North West Region and England performance, as

detailed in Graphs 1 to 3 inclusive, indicates that:

• Fatal and serious casualty target – there has been no real change in the numbers of persons killed or seriously injured in Cumbria since 2000 and at this rate it is unlikely that the national and local target will be achieved. Cumbria’s performance compares unfavourably with the Region generally, although there was a sharp increase in casualty numbers in the North West in 2003, and the steady decline in fatal and serious casualty numbers in England as a whole.

• Child fatal and serious casualty target – distinct progress in reducing casualty numbers has been made in Cumbria and the performance is broadly in line with the North West Region and England figures.

• Slight casualty rate – in common with many other areas the Cumbria and North West Region performance to date has been very volatile, but the general trend is downwards. In comparison, the England-wide performance shows a fairly dramatic downward trend and at the end of 2003, the national 2010 target has already been exceeded.

Comparisons with Other North West Authorities

The casualty reduction performance against the three national targets for each of the

Authorities in the North West Region are detailed in Tables 1 to 3 inclusive. Analysis of

the information contained in these Tables indicates the following:

• Fatal and serious casualty target – Cumbria’s performance lags

distinctly behind Cheshire’s and Lancashire’s performance and is poorer than Merseyside’s and Greater Manchester’s performance

• Child fatal and serious casualty target – from a poorer starting position, Cumbria is now performing better than Lancashire,

8

Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Cheshire’s performance is somewhat better than Cumbria’s.

• Slight casualty rate target – Cumbria’s performance is distinctly poorer than any of the other authorities in the North West.

Comparisons with ‘Family’ of Authorities

The Audit Commission have established a ‘family’ of fifteen other local highway

authorities who are considered to be mutually comparable with Cumbria for Road Safety

purposes. The comparative performance of each of these authorities against the three

national targets are detailed in Tables 4 to 6 inclusive. Analysis of this information

indicates the following:

• Fatal and serious casualty target – in 2000 Cumbria were performing

broadly in line with most of the ‘family’, but by 2003 the majority are now out-performing Cumbria.

• Child fatal and serious casualty target – most of the ‘family’ have performed well against this target and in 2000 and 2001 Cumbria were in the upper half of the table. However, a number of the authorities out-performed Cumbria in 2003.

• Slight casualty rate target – nearly all the ‘family’ are out-performing Cumbria, although Cumbria’s good performance should be noted.

The conclusion from the above assessment is that although there is a

generally downward trend in casualty numbers in Cumbria, when measured in accordance with the national targets, there are a number of neighbouring and comparable authorities who are out-performing Cumbria. This particularly applies to the fatal and serious casualty target, which is Cumbria’s Top Priority as set out in the Authority’s relevant policy area.

9

5.0 Cumbria’s Performance Against the Best Value Performance

Indicators (BVPIs)

The ten national Road Safety Best Practice Performance Indicators (BVPIs) are:

• BV 99 a(i) – Pedestrians killed and seriously injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 a(ii) – Pedestrians slightly injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 b(i) – Pedal cyclists killed and seriously injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 b(ii) – Pedal cyclists slightly injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 c(i) – Two wheeled motor vehicle users killed and seriously injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 c(ii) – Two wheeled motor vehicle users slightly injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 d(i) – Car users killed and seriously injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 d(ii) – Car users slightly injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 e(i) – Other vehicle users killed and seriously injured per 100,000 population

• BV 99 e (ii) – Other vehicle users slightly injured per 100,000 population.

For the 2002/2003 financial year, Cumbria has better than the BVPI national average

scores in respect of a(i), a(ii), b(ii), c(ii), d(ii) and e(ii). It is worthy of note that five of

these scores cover slight casualty performance and only one relates to a killed and

seriously injured measurement, which is in conflict with Cumbria’s headline target.

BVPI scores for Cumbria and the other North West Region local authorities

are set out in Table 7. These figures again show that Cumbria out-performs most of these other Councils in respect of the slightly injured ratings, with BVPI a(i) being the only killed and seriously injured category where Cumbria has a better score than the other Authorities in the Region.

Cumbria’s performance in comparison with the ‘family’ of authorities referred

to earlier is less pleasing. The performance figures are detailed in Table 8 and show that Cumbria only out-scores most of the ‘family’ in respect of b(ii) and c(ii), although Cumbria shares a mid-point position on c(i) and e(ii). Again the tendency towards slight casualty performance is apparent.

In a locational or geographical sense, comparisons with Derbyshire,

Northumberland and North Yorkshire could be a good guide. In the first two cases, Cumbria tends to perform worse than these two authorities, but performs better than North Yorkshire.

The figures used in the section were obtained from the website of the Office of

the Deputy Prime Minister. Care should be taken when using or quoting these

10

figures as they cover one financial year only. For true comparison work, several years of data should be used.

The conclusion from the above assessment is that Cumbria are performing

reasonably well against the slight casualty BVPIs, but the killed and seriously injured performance is poor, especially as a reduction in this group of casualties is Cumbria’s Top Priority in this Policy area.

11

6.0 Casualty Reduction Performance on Urban County Roads and

Rural County Roads

Cumbria is largely a rural County, with urbanised pockets frequently quite small in size. Collision types and casualty severities on the rural and urban roads can vary appreciably, with a tendency for higher levels of severity particularly apparent on the rural network. In addition, in recent years Cumbria County Council and others have introduced a number of initiatives aimed at regenerating rural areas, e.g. Rural Action Zones.

The need for a safe rural County road network, in addition to a safe County

urban road network, is particularly important to these regeneration initiatives as well as being an essential element in achieving the national casualty reduction targets for the County as a whole. The casualty reduction performance of the County rural and urban road networks has consequently been analysed and is detailed in Graphs 4 to 6 inclusive.

It should again be noted that the casualty figures used in the preparation of

these Graphs, in common with the other local statistical data quoted in the report, are based on the information contained within the Draft Annual Road Safety Statement 2003. As stated earlier, it is generally acknowledged that this Draft Statement contains a number of errors, but at this time the Statement is the only readily available source of casualty data. Final casualty numbers may consequently vary somewhat and where found, clearly erroneous figures, e.g. the number of rural County road casualties in 2003, have been omitted from these Graphs.

The all killed and seriously injured and child killed and seriously injured

casualty performance, as shown on Graphs 4 and 5 respectively, for both the County urban and rural road networks, show a healthy downward trend, although the lack of 2003 rural road figures does not help assessment.

The vehicle kilometre data normally used to assess the slight casualty rate is

not suitable for use in this instance. Simple numbers have consequently been used to assess the slight casualty reduction performance of these road networks, as detailed in Graph 6. On this basis, it would appear that whilst urban road casualties are following an upward trend, the slight casualty numbers on the County rural road network have fallen sharply between the years 2000 and 2002.

There maybe a number of reasons for this apparent disparity in performance,

including the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak, concentration on treating killed and seriously injured casualties which tend to be more pronounced on the rural network or simply the nature of urban activity.

12

7.0 Casualty Reduction Performance on County Roads and Motorway

and Trunk Roads

As described in the section entitled ‘Current Road Safety Arrangements in Cumbria’, the County Council has no direct involvement in the operation of the Motorway and Trunk Road network through the County. However, the casualty numbers on this network of strategic roads are included in the assessment of Cumbria’s performance against both the national casualty reduction targets and Best Value Performance Indicators.

Comparison of the casualty reduction performance of the County road and the

Motorway and Trunk Road networks is, therefore, a valid way of determining how casualties on the latter network is affecting Cumbria’s overall performance. This assessment is shown on Graphs 7 to 9 inclusive.

It should again be noted that the casualty figures used in the preparation of

these Graphs, in common with the other local statistical data quoted in the report, are based on the information contained within the Draft Annual Road Safety Statement 2003. As stated earlier, it is generally acknowledged that this Draft Statement contains a number of errors, but at this time the Statement is the only readily available source of casualty data. Final casualty numbers may consequently vary somewhat and where found, clearly erroneous figures have been omitted from these Graphs.

Graph 7 clearly shows that the killed and seriously injured casualty reduction

performance on the County road network is much better than the Motorway and Trunk Road situation. The performance on the County roads follows a downward trend below both the baseline and the target line, whilst the Motorway and Trunk Road figures are hovering around the baseline figure with, if anything, an increasing trend.

Similar performance is demonstrated on the child killed and seriously injured

figures shown on Graph 8. However, great care needs to be taken when considering or quoting this information in view of the small number of child casualties on the Motorway and Trunk Road network in particular and the limited numbers on the Country road network.

The slight casualty reduction figures shown in Graph 9 again use pure

numbers rather than casualty rates, as the vehicle kilometre data normally used in this exercise is not appropriate in this instance. On this basis, the slight casualty numbers for the County road network shows a download trend below the baseline, whilst the equivalent Motorway and Trunk Road figures show an upward trend well above the baseline.

The Motorway and Trunk Road figures are undoubtedly adversely affecting

the overall Cumbria performance and this problem is discussed in greater detail in the section entitled ‘CPIA Findings’.

13

14

8.0 Cumbria’s Performance in Comparison with the Department of

Transport’s Research Project ‘Assessing the Casualty Reduction

Performance of Local Highway Authorities’

This as yet unpublished Research Project was undertaken on behalf of the Department for Transport by Capita Infrastructure Consultancy (now Capita Symonds) in 2003 and early 2004. The Project was undertaken in association with sixteen English Local Highway Authorities (LHAs), including four County Councils. The primary objective of the Project was to provide Council’s with best practice advice on what the better performing authorities are doing in their efforts to achieve the national casualty reduction targets.

Although the Research Report has still to be published, the main findings of

the study are being made known openly in advance of publication. The Project highlighted six themes. These themes, the theme’s conclusions

and an assessment of Cumbria’s performance against each of the themes are set out below:

Theme: Position of casualty reduction in a Council’s strategy. Themes Conclusion: In general, those LHAs whose strategic documents

made clear reference to Road Safety were the better performers. Cumbria’s Performance: There are a number of references to Road Safety

in the Council’s Corporate Strategy 2004 Update, including a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured as the Top Priority in Corporate Policy E – ‘Improving the safety of people’s lives’. There are two relevant targets within this Priority – a reduction in all killed and seriously injured casualties and a reduction children killed and seriously injured on school journeys.

The former target is ‘SMART’ and links with Target 1 in the LPSA. The child

target, however, is not ‘SMART’ as a means of measuring performance against the target has not been set out in the Corporate Strategy. Subsequent APRs have, however, corrected this situation.

Theme: Translation of strategy into schemes and campaigns.

Themes Conclusion: The better performers had a culture of casualty reduction: the poorer ones did not.

Cumbria’s Performance: The Council and its partners have introduced a

large number of initiatives across the whole range of Road Safety with the intention of achieving the priorities and targets set out in its strategy documents. In particular acceptance of a stretched target, the change of emphasis to seeking to reduce killed and seriously injured casualties rather

15

than simply accidents and the innovative work, e.g. ‘shock boards’, the RESPECT work and the developing publicity activity, are worthy of note.

In respect of the Authority’s Road Safety Education and Training function, the limited

number of Road Safety Officers employed, as compared with the Local Authority Road

Safety Officers Association (LARSOA) guidelines restricts the scale and nature of the

campaigns and activities that can be undertaken. This matter is explored further in the

section entitled ‘ CPIA Findings’.

With regards to a culture of casualty reduction, there is a general recognition

of the need and status of Road Safety within highways management and provision. However, the spread of Road Safety responsibility across a number of individuals within the County Council and the structure of Road Safety provision within Capita Symonds probably does not help delivery. These arrangements and coordination of Road Safety work across all agencies is explored further in the section entitled ‘CPIA Findings’.

Theme: Added value and casualty reduction. Themes Conclusion: The better performing LHAs coordinate all work on the

highway, in particular safety and maintenance schemes. The officers also actively seek sponsorship to enhance low cost initiatives, usually associated with ETP.

Cumbria’s Performance: Coordinating safety work with maintenance and

other similar activities is regularly undertaken and would appear to be the norm.

Only very limited sponsorship in support of ETP initiatives has been obtained

to date. Sponsorship can help stretch budgets and consequently allow the Road Safety message to be extended to a wider audience. This is an area that may be worthy of further consideration and development.

Theme: Resourcing, empowerment, people and relationships

Themes Conclusion: In the better performing LHAs, all Road Safety

practitioners work closely together and deliver casualty reduction on an objective basis.

Cumbria’s Performance: The Audit Commission’s Corporate Assessment

(December 2002) commented that the ’corporate centre has been inadequately resourced for some time…’ and this statement can be applied to the highways client organisation within the Community, Economy and Environment Directorate. The client organisation is thinly resourced and the number of vacancies within the staffing structure further stretches resources. Staff are consequently forced to address a wide range of activities and Road Safety is only a minor issue within several individuals much wider brief.

This Research Project noted that the better performing authorities either had

dedicated Road Safety groups incorporating both Road Safety specialisms

16

(education and engineering) or two separate teams working closely together in a co-located environment and linked through the same management structure. The local office of Capita Symonds effectively provides the County Council’s Road Safety group, however, within the Consultancy this function is split between two different operational areas.

Over and above the above issues, there are also strains in the partnering

arrangements between the County Council and Capita Symonds and concerns about coordination of efforts with all the partners involved in road safety provision in Cumbria. These issues are explored further in the section entitled ‘CPIA Findings’.

Theme: Management and use of collision data. Themes Conclusion: The better performers use their collision databases in

an appropriate way to make an objective judgement of where casualty reduction funding can be spent most effectively.

Cumbria’s Performance: Good use is made of the collision data available

and many of the Road Safety treatments implemented are data-led. The accuracy of the collision database is, however, of major concern and, although these issues have been acknowledged and addressed, will be further explored in the section entitled ‘CPIA Findings’.

A point worthy of recognition is that since mid 2003 hazardous sites and routes have

been highlighted using a weighting loaded towards killed and seriously injured casualties.

This realignment of the more traditional approach to highlighting sites should assist the

authority to achieve their Top Priority as set out in Corporate Policy E ‘Improving the

safety of people’s lives’, the LPSA target and address the poor killed and seriously injured

performance to date when measured against both the national casualty reduction targets

and the BVPIs. In view of the short timescale since modification of the highlighting

process, it is not possible at this stage to assess its benefits.

Theme: Monitoring and evaluation of casualty reduction schemes and

campaigns. Theme Conclusion: The better performers carry out monitoring on an overall

and project-by-project basis. Monitoring enables them to assess and evaluate projects to give a beneficial input into new projects.

Cumbria’s Performance: Road Safety initiatives, both engineering schemes

and education and training activities, are monitored in a manner that measures the success or otherwise of the action. Monitoring of education and training activities (and the publicity initiatives recently developed) is particularly difficult. Measurement of the effects of education, training and publicity activities by pure casualty numbers is not generally realistic and consequently other performance indicators have to be used. The Senior Road Safety Officers annual report details a number of agreed indicators, clearly setting out the work that has been undertaken.

17

Monitored results, in respect of both engineering and education and training activities,

are used to inform future actions and enhance future proposals.

Engineering safety scheme monitoring is generally undertaken by simple

analysis of before and after casualty number data only. Very little use is made of statistical evaluation of these schemes, although such action would better inform the feedback process. This issue is further explored in the section entitled ‘CPIA Findings’.

18

9.0 CPIA Findings

During the course of the Assessment many issues were raised and discussed in face-to-face meetings ranging from management and operational arrangements to the activities, schemes and campaigns being implemented. Some of these issues were highlighted by the desktop studies, whilst others were raised during the discussions themselves.

All issues raised have been carefully considered with particular attention being given to consistent messages.

Two fundamental performance and improvement issues have been highlighted, as follows:

• Partnership arrangements between Cumbria County Council and Capita Symonds.

• Coordination of Road Safety activities.

A further potentially fundamental issue in respect of the quality of the casualty database and the data itself was initially highlighted, but action in recent weeks has reduced the importance of this issue.

In addition, a further six slightly less important performance and improvement issues have been highlighted, as follow:

• Motorway and Trunk Road casualty reduction performance

• Road Safety Officer staffing levels

• Fatal and serious casualty reduction performance

• Evaluation of engineering safety schemes

• Road Safety Audit practice

• Fatal collision reporting and study procedures

Each of the above issues is explored in greater depth below.

Partnership Arrangements between Cumbria County Council and Capita Symonds

To operate effectively the partners in any form of partnering arrangement need to work within a framework of cooperation, with mutual respect for each other and a recognition of both parties needs and aspirations. At all times the partners need to work together in a constructive manner, including constructive criticism, to achieve their common goals and aims.

Partnerships break down when cooperation and respect for each other is lost and partners start to adopt positions which maybe contrary to the mutual benefits of both parties. In these circumstances, unrealistic expectations on

19

the part of one partner or dissatisfaction about an issue which is not resolved by constructive discussion can lead to negative attitudes, with the development of a blame culture and disputes.

Regrettably there is evidence that the partnership arrangement between Cumbria County Council and Capita Symonds is demonstrating at least some of the behaviours associated with a break down in partnering best practice. This certainly applies to the Road Safety function. Concerns and comments about the operation of the partnership were expressed by representatives of both partners, during the face-to-face discussions, and consequently a culture of blame, back-biting and unreasonable expectations has evolved.

The following lists of issues raised could be read to imply that one or the other side within the Partnership has more responsibility for the problems. In the spirit of working together in Partnership, these lists should not be read in this way and are merely reproduced in this format to provide an idea of some of the issues of concern to both parties. In addition, it should be noted that whilst the following lists are somewhat lengthy, evidence of good cooperation was also apparent, although this was often clouded by the concerns expressed.

Representatives of the County Council said that:

• The quality of work produced by Capita Symonds can be poor and can include relatively simple errors, e.g. the statistics in the Draft Annual Road Safety Statement 2003.

• Capita Symonds’ collision and casualty database contains errors and the changes made have not been fed back to the County Council or the Police.

• Capita Symonds do not demonstrate flair, commonsense or professional integrity, e.g. in the design of inappropriate traffic calming schemes.

• Cumbria County Council are the client and should, therefore, lead rather than be led by Capita Symonds.

• Capita Symonds’ new operational structure does not help delivery of Road Safety and other functions.

• Staffing arrangements between the traditional Road Safety Education, Training and Publicity service and the Better Ways to School project has become blurred and the County Council are paying twice for these services.

• The resources provided by Capita Symonds are at times spread thinly and consequently the County Council are not receiving the service they are entitled to or can reasonably expect.

Representatives of Capita Symonds said that:

• The County Council provide insufficient financial resources to enable the Road Safety Education and Training service to operate effectively.

• Some of the briefs issued by the County Council have been poor in the past, but this issue is improving.

• The County Council is expecting a high quality service, but there is not enough money in the contract to pay for this level of service.

20

The Partnership is important to both Cumbria County Council and Capita Symonds. If the Partnership is going to continue to provide a valuable service to both parties and the residents of Cumbria, efforts need to be made to address the concerns and rebuild confidence and respect between the partners. Open and honest discussions between the parties is consequently desirable to clear the air and start on the rebuilding process.

These discussions would probably be best held in a workshop type format, facilitated by an independent party, and limited to a fairly small number (approximately 15) of key senior management and delivery personnel. The workshop should be charged with:

• Reviewing what works well

• Establishing what works poorly

• How both the good and poor performing issues can be improved upon

• Preparation of an action plan to take matters forward

• Agreeing local indicators based on service improvements or comparisons with other similarly organised authorities, to monitor and measure the Partnerships performance.

It is consequently recommended that a workshop is held, on the above basis, to focus on the Partnership issues of concern and rebuild the arrangements to the mutual benefit of both parties.

Coordination of Road Safety activities

There is undoubtedly much good work being undertaken in Cumbria, by a number of agencies all of who have a greater or lesser responsibility for Road Safety.

Coordination of all these efforts is essential if progress is to be made towards achieving the casualty reduction targets and the stretched LPSA target, improving the Counties BVPI performance and reducing casualties on the roads of Cumbria. Without coordination, much of the work will be unfocussed, could well conflict with another bodies work and may not achieve the primary purpose of making the roads of Cumbria safer.

The staffing structures within both the County Council and Capita Symonds are probably not assisting the coordination of efforts. In the County Council there are a number of persons with a small element of responsibility for Road Safety within a job role with a much greater brief. Consequently no one individual is probably fully aware of the issues and activities being undertaken by the County Council, let alone the other parties involved in Road Safety across Cumbria.

As noted earlier in this report, the Research Project recently undertaken by Capita Symonds, on behalf of the Department for Transport, noted that that the better performing authorities either had dedicated Road Safety groups incorporating both Road Safety specialisms (education and engineering) or

21

two separate teams working closely together in a co-located environment and linked through the same management structure. The local office of Capita Symonds effectively provides the County Councils Road Safety group, however, within the Consultancy this function is split between two different operational areas. Again this split probably does not help coordination of efforts either within the Consultancy itself or more generally across Cumbria.

During the face-to-face meetings, coordination of Road Safety activities, schemes and campaigns was raised by many individuals. There was a general consensus that this was an area for improvement and a number of possible courses of action were suggested. These suggestions primarily consisted of some form of group clearly focussed on and charged with coordinating all Road Safety work, probably with a full time member of staff dedicated to Road Safety work, including servicing the strategy group.

The Cumbria Road Safety Target (LPSA1) Steering Group, which is shortly to be re-named as the Cumbria Road Safety Partnership, would appear to be an appropriate forum to coordinate all Road Safety activities in the County. However, the current group has multiple membership from all the Road Safety agencies (with responsibility levels varying greatly) and, from the minutes of their meetings, is largely concerned with ‘hands-on’ delivery issues rather than coordination and strategic management matters.

If the new Partnership forum is to act as the coordinating body, then it would clearly need to be re-constituted and its brief would need to be re-focussed. Membership of the Partnership forum should preferably be at a high level with delegates having the authority to agree actions on behalf of their own organisation. The new forum’s brief would need to be focussed on coordination, management and evaluation of road safety performance only. It would be preferable if delegates were to receive management information and brief reports from all partners prior to the meeting and the agenda of the meeting be clearly focussed on the forum’s brief.

As indicated earlier, there are a number of County Council staff who have an element of Road Safety responsibility, but no one individual has a clear overview. An individual member of staff dedicated to Road Safety would undoubtedly assist in coordinating activities, across all the different agencies, and could also service the Partnership forum. There are good arguments for this person to be a member of the Council’s staff, although there are probably no major reasons why this individual could not work for one of the other partners.

One further suggestion received was that a Road Safety unit similar to that operating in Lincolnshire should be set up. In Lincolnshire a dedicated unit consisting of Road Safety staff from all agencies works under one roof in a partnership arrangement. This idea has not been developed further, largely on the basis of the only slightly better casualty reduction and BVPI performance figures in Lincolnshire, as detailed in Tables 4 to 6 inclusive and Table 8.

22

The following courses of action are consequently recommended:


2. A single member of the County Council staff (or a member of staff from one of the other partners) is given responsibility for all Road Safety issues, including support for the new Forum or re-focussed Steering Group.


Casualty Database and the Data

There have been to date a number of different casualty databases in use in Cumbria. Each database has contained slightly different data and as a result, there has often been confusion and conflict as to the actual numbers of collisions and casualties. Indeed the casualty statistics referred to in earlier sections of this report and in the Graphs and Tables are merely taken from one of these potentially flawed databases and it would not be unreasonable for other partners to challenge these figures.

During the early stages of this Assessment, this issue was considered to be fundamental to the whole of the Road Safety service in Cumbria and would have been a major issue in this report. These problems have, however, already been recognised and it is pleasing that a new single centrally controlled database is to come into place on the 6 August 2004. All partners will obtain data from this source and will also feedback comments and suggested amendments to this single source.

This should greatly enhance the base information forming the background to all casualty reduction work and other highway initiatives.

Motorway and Trunk Road Casualty Reduction Performance

The County Council has no responsibilities for any highway issues on these roads, including Road Safety. Responsibility for these roads rests with the Highways Agency and its Managing Agent Contractors, AmeyMouchel, and the boundaries of its operational Area extends well beyond the borders of Cumbria.

The Highways Agency has adopted the following modified casualty reduction targets:

• Reduction in the number of people killed/seriously injured on trunk roads of 30% compared with the 1994/1998 average.

23

• Reduction in the slight casualty rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres of 10% compared with the 1994/1998 average.

It should be noted that the above killed and seriously injured target is less than the target set by the Government and that there is no child killed and seriously injured target.

AmeyMouchel operate a robust accident and casualty reduction operation in accordance with Highways Agency requirements. These arrangements are, however, based on individual routes within the trunk road network and do not focus on County layouts. In addition, it tends to be based on accident numbers, rather than casualties, and there is no weighting towards killed and seriously injured casualties.

It should be noted, however, that the casualty numbers on the Motorways and Trunk Roads are included in the figures used nationally to measure the performance of Cumbria County Council. Analysis of the casualty rates on these roads within Cumbria, as discussed earlier and as detailed on Graphs 7 to 9 inclusive, has shown that their casualty reduction performance is at best poor and is adversely affecting Cumbria’s attempts to achieve both the national casualty reduction targets and improve performance against the BVPIs.

It should be further noted that many of the hazardous rural locations in Cumbria with the greatest casualty numbers are located on the Motorway and Trunk Road network.

Whilst the County Council have no direct influence on the Motorway and Trunk Road network, the numbers of casualties on these routes clearly adversely influence the County’s overall performance and it consequently would be worthwhile to attempt to influence Highways Agency and AmeyMouchel practices.

It is consequently recommended that the County Council seek to influence Highways Agency and AmeyMouchel casualty reduction practices to assist in achieving Cumbria’s casualty reduction targets.

Road Safety Officer Staffing Levels

Currently there are five Road Safety Officers funded by Cumbria County Council, but provided by Capita Symonds. These Officers cover a range of education and training issues and it is hoped to expand the scope of this

24

service in the short term to cover new initiatives, including child pedestrian and off-road cycle training.

The number of Road Safety Officers currently employed is limited and is well below the levels recommended by the Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association (LARSOA). LARSOA recommend that one Road Safety Officer per 50,000 head of population be employed. On this basis there should be approximately ten Road Safety Officers in Cumbria.

The Research Project referred to earlier in this report notes that frequently local highway authorities are under-resourced in respect of Road Safety Officers. It also notes that there are a large number of education and training initiatives, which are being held back due to resourcing constraints.

It is generally recognised that it is much more difficult to quantify the benefits of the Road Safety Education and Training service, due to the nature of the activity. It does, however, play an integral part in the Road Safety and casualty reduction service, albeit that its effects are probably immeasurable until sometime in the future. Road Safety is a ‘life-skill’ and training received as a youngster can act as a basis for more adult training issues at a later date, e.g. car driving.

There are consequently good arguments for increasing the number of Road Safety Officers in line with the LARSOA guidance.

It is consequently recommended that the number of Road Safety Officers is increased in line with LARSOA guidance.

Fatal and Serious Casualty Reduction Performance

As noted earlier in this report and demonstrated in Graph 1 and Tables 1 and 4, Cumbria’s performance in reducing fatal and serious casualties has not been good to date. Reduction in the numbers of these casualties is the Top Priority casualty reduction target for Cumbria, is a LPSA target and is one of the three national casualty reduction targets.

Performance against this target is consequently essential. A number of steps have been taken to address this target, including the acceptance of stetched targets, the establishment of the LPSA Steering Group, a change to the hazardous sites and routes selection process by weighting casualties in favour of fatal and seriously injured numbers and innovative measures such as ‘shock boards’.

Action to target fatal and seriously injured casualties specifically is a relatively new change of emphasis, e.g. the change to the hazardous sites and routes process was only introduced in mid 2003 and the ‘shock boards’ are not in

25

place as yet. It is consequently probably too early to determine if these actions will have any meaningful effect on the fatal and seriously injured casualty record. In addition, other recommendations in this report could have beneficial effects on the casualty reduction performance for all forms of casualty severity.

It is consequently recommended that the fatal and seriously injured casualty performance is monitored on a quarterly basis and changes to processes and activities are carried out whenever necessary to ensure that the target is achieved.

Evaluation of engineering safety schemes

Whilst there is a system of monitoring the casualty reduction performance of engineering safety schemes and reporting the outcomes of this form of assessment, this activity is undertaken using pure casualty numbers only. Use of pure numbers, however, does not take into account general fluctuations and local trends and consequently the results of the simple monitoring exercise currently being undertaken is not statistical robust.

Evaluation of the casualty reduction performance of engineering safety schemes using statistical techniques, in addition to the current monitoring regime, would overcome these concerns, better informing all parties of the ‘true’ performance of engineering safety treatments.

It is consequently recommended that statistical evaluation of engineering safety schemes is undertaken in addition to the current monitoring regime.

Road Safety Audit Practices

Road Safety Audit is a casualty prevention tool intended to ensure that Road Safety problems are not inadvertently built into new schemes or modifications to the highway layout. Capita Symonds undertakes a number of Road Safety Audits, on behalf of the County Council, using both central and local practice office resources. However, Stage 3 Road Safety Audits (at the end of the construction period) are only occasionally undertaken. Stage 3 Audits, however, are probably the most important Audit Stage as it is the last chance to influence the design before the public start to use the new or modified road layout.

Stage 3 Audits should, therefore, be the norm, not the exception.

In November 2003 the Highways Agency and others issued a new Design Standard HD 19/03 ‘Road Safety Audit’. This new Standard modifies a number of procedures, introduces Stage 4 and Interim Audits and establishes guidance on Auditor training and experience.

26

The new Standard is mandatory in respect of Motorway and Trunk Road highway schemes, but is merely commended for use by local highway authorities. This Standard is, however, likely to be used as best practice advice in any form of legal challenge and consequently it maybe in the best interests of the County Council to adopt the processes, guidance and procedures set out in the Standard.

It is likely that a number of those persons undertaking Audits in the local practice offices do not meet the commended Auditor training and experience guidance. This may leave the County Council and Capita Symonds open to legal challenge and in any case, may mean that the Audits are undertaken by ‘unqualified or inexperienced’ Auditors who do not meet the commended standards. (It should be noted that these concerns do not apply to the Capita Symonds’ centrally based Audit team).

There are ways of minimising the risks to both parties by the establishment of and adherence to a Road Safety Audit Policy, but this may not overcome concerns about the quality of Audits. However, the best means of addressing these concerns would be to only use Auditors who conform to the training and experience guidance in HD 19/03.

Over and above training and experience guidance, there are a number of other changes to Audit practice, which should be adopted to make full use of this casualty prevention tool.


1. All highway improvement schemes and modifications to the highway are subjected to Stage 3 Road Safety Audits.


Fatal Collision Reporting and Study Procedures

There is an agreed procedure between the Police, Capita Symonds and Cumbria County Council for the provision of fatal collision information immediately following these particularly unfortunately incidents. This procedure appears to be followed in principle, but the information is being forwarded to a range of persons within the County Council, rather than to a specific individual. Consequently no one person in the Council is aware of the circumstances of all fatal collisions and often key persons only find out about these collisions via the press.

A clarified process of informing the County Council of the circumstances of fatal collisions consequently needs to be developed and implemented.

In addition, there is only investigation of the specific circumstances of fatal collisions to establish if there maybe highway issues associated with the

27

incident on occasions. The CSS have recently issued a Survey and Advice Note on fatal collision investigation and it is suggested that this guidance be adopted as the County Standard.



2. The CSS Fatal Accident Survey and Advice Note is adopted as the basis for investigating fatal collisions.

28

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

Road Safety in general and casualty reduction in particular is an important issue for a number of organisations in Cumbria. These organisations seek to work together in various forms of partnerships to achieve their targets, but at times these actions are poorly coordinated.

Much good work is being undertaken by all these organisations and some progress has been made towards reducing child fatal and seriously injured casualty numbers and the slight casualty rate. Little progress has, however, been made towards reducing the fatal and seriously injured casualty numbers and hence the national casualty reduction and the LPSA targets and enhancing Cumbria’s rating on the BVPIs.

This Current Performance and Improvement Assessment (CPIA) has highlighted a number of issues of concern in respect of the existing Road Safety arrangements in Cumbria and has sought to highlight recommendations, which will enhance the service.

The recommended conclusions from this Assessment are:

1. A workshop is held to focus on the Cumbria County Council/Capita Symonds Partnership issues of concern and rebuild the arrangements to the mutual benefit of both parties.


3. A single member of the County Council staff (or a member of staff from one of the other partners) is given responsibility for all Road Safety issues, including support for the new Forum or re-focussed Steering Group.


5. The County Council seek to influence Highways Agency and AmeyMouchel casualty reduction practices to assist in achieving Cumbria’s casualty reduction targets.

29

6. The number of Road Safety Officers is increased in line with LARSOA guidance.

7. The fatal and seriously injured casualty performance is monitored on a quarterly basis and changes to processes and activities are carried out whenever necessary to ensure that the target is achieved.

8. Statistical evaluation of engineering safety schemes is undertaken in addition to the current monitoring regime.

9. All Highway Improvement Schemes and modifications to the highway are subjected to Stage 3 Road Safety Audits.



12. The new CSS Fatal Accident Survey and Advice Note is adopted as the basis for investigating fatal collisions.

Project Title Date


Appendix A

References

During the course of this Assessment, the following documents have been referred to and are acknowledged accordingly:

Cumbria County Council

Corporate Strategy: 2004 Update

Performance Plan 2003 to 2006

Local Transport Plan (2nd Edition)

Local Transport Plan 2001/02 – 2005/06 Annual Progress Report 2

Local Transport Plan 2001 – 06 Annual Progress Report 3 (July 2003)

Local Transport Plan 2001 – 06 Annual Progress Report 3 Annexes (July 2003)

Local Transport Plan 2001/2 – 2005/6 Annual Progress Report 4 (July 2004) DRAFT

Annual Road Safety Statement 2003 DRAFT

A Local Public Service Agreement (PSA) for Cumbria

Health and Safety Policy

Cumbria Fire Authority – Integrated Risk Management Plan

Cumbria Road Safety Target (LPSA1) Steering Group – Minutes of meetings of 10 February 2004, 10 March 2004, 8 April 2004 and 10 June 2004.

Safer Roads for Cumbria: It Wouldn’t Kill You Campaign. Progress Report June 9th 2004.

Audit Commission

Corporate Assessment (December 2002)

Cumbria Constabulary

Cumbria Police Authority and Cumbria Constabulary Strategy Plan 1st April 2003 – 31st March 2005 Update April 2004

Capita Symonds

BWTS Quarterly Report 2004/05 – first quarter (April – June)

RESPECT Awareness Project – Report on Start Up in Barrow & Proposed 2004/05 Programme for Barrow and West Cumbria

Road Safety Training and Publicity Report Full Year April 2003 to March 2004

Other

A Guide to Cumbria Summer 2004 (Cumbrian Press)

Transport Statistics Bulletin. Road Casualties in Great Britain Main Results: 2003 (Department for Transport)

In addition, the following websites were accessed and information was gleaned from these sources:

Cumbria County Council (www.cumbria.gov.uk)

31

Audit Commission (www.audit-commission.gov.uk)

Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk)

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (www.bvpi.gov.uk)

Cumbria Constabulary (www.cumbria.police.uk)

Cumbria Safety Cameras (www.cumbriasafetycameras.org

Cumbria Magistrates Courts Service (www.cumbriamcc.gov.uk)

Magistrates Association (www.magistrates-association.org.uk)

32

APPENDIX V(a)

Young Cumbria is a voluntary organisation based throughout Cumbria working with young people to develop their personal and

social skills through a range of activities. These can be youth club based, project based, detached work or projects linked to other

organisations. For more information regarding the work of Young Cumbria go online to www.youngcumbria.org.uk

Momentum is a project-based provision that is currently available in the South Lakes and Copeland area delivered on a part-time

basis.

What does the Project Involve

The project covers 3 specific areas outlined below;

In the Mind- This section covers subjects such as young people’s attitudes, rights and responsibilities towards driving and is based on

providing information that will enable young people to make a positive choice regarding their driving choices.

This section is carried out through discussion, using videos, guest speakers

Under the Bonnet- This section covers the basics of car care and provides young people with a practical experience at a local

garage to look at how to change a wheel and what to look for when buying a second hand car. The session also encourages

young people to get involved in looking at oil/water levels which is now part of the test.

Behind the Wheel- This is a practical session involving young people participating in a driving lesson with an Approved Driving

Instructor to learn basic vehicle manoeuvres.

Outline Proposal for Momentum Project

Background to the project

• The project has been developed due to the high number of road incidents involving young drivers in Cumbria, particularly in the

South Lakes area.

• It is widely documented and recognised that young people receive inadequate learning experience before engaging with

motor vehicles. This inexperience is also putting other road users at risk as well as themselves.

• Young people are rurally isolated and undertake driving lessons at the earliest opportunity to become more independent. Some

young people feel confident in their ability to handle a vehicle due to previous experiences e.g driving farm vehicles. So there is

a clear need to provide a stepping stone between becoming old enough to drive and taking your driving lessons.

• By learning the skills involved in driving and all the other aspects it enables young people to make a positive choice about their

attitude to driving and other road users-.

• Young people who display risk-taking behaviour around vehicle use and their misuse regularly access this project.

The Proposal 2005-2008

By delivering the Momentum project across the districts of Cumbria, the following structure will go some way towards reaching the

targets outlined in Tomorrow’s Roads Safer for Everyone Strategy 2010.

Staff structure

4 part-time workers- 15 hours per week per worker

2 Full time workers – 37 hours per week per worker

Finance

To employ a qualified Youth Worker to deliver the programme the cost will be on average £11 per hour including on costs.

2 x Full time staff = 74 hours

4x Part time staff= 60 hours

Total hours per week = 124 hours x £11 = £ 1364 (per week)

Total cost per year = £ 70,928

Operational budget (including travel, programme materials) 10,000

Management Fees 8,928

(inc insurance, health and safety, line management,training)

TOTAL £89,856

33

What can be delivered

Number of courses Total per year 8 Young people

attending totals

10 Young people

attending

6 full courses per

district per year

=36

36 288 360

6 short/targeted

courses

36 288 360

12 Taster sessions

72 15 young people

attending

3 year Action Plan

Year 1 – 6 months to recruit and train new staff. Find providers and partners to support and joint work on the project. Assess local

need within each district and develop action plan for next 3 years.

6 months deliver 3 full courses and 3 short/targeted courses/6 taster sessions

Year 2- Create opportunities for young people to develop, evaluate and monitor the project, with a view to peer led learning.

Meet full course targets set and strengthen networks

Year 3 – Deliver full programme of courses as outlined in table above. Seek further funding and evaluate whole project and the

impact that it has had on Tomorrrow’s roads: safer for everyone.

Young Cumbria

34

APPENDIX V(b)

Momentum Project- Outcomes for the period 04/05

1 b)

Please refer to the grant offer letter and report on target outputs achieved to date

Name of output

Number of projects generated-

Number of jobs created – 0.67

Run awareness raising sessions in 12 youth clubs

Run Road runners x 2

Number of training place created/community participants-plus volunteers

Number of people trained and obtaining qualifications

Target number

6

12 clubs

250

170participants/

10volunteers

20

Number achieved

9 -Cartmel, Coniston Egremont, Kirkby Lonsdale(1 in town)/(1 in rural area), Kendal, Windermere, Ambleside and Millom

4 short course- Millom/Kirkby Lonsdale and surrounding area

0.67 in Copeland

11- Windermere x 2, Dent, Kirkby Lonsdale, Burton, Kendal, Egremont, Whitehaven x 2 , Parton

120 young people Cartmel/ Queen Elizabeth school

162 young people.

1 course recently cancelled.

12 volunteers

64 have received internal certification

6 young people working towards Bronze Youth Achievement Award

18 young people completing portfolios Level 1 OCN

20 young people have received a First Aid qualification (1 or 2 day) related to course.

1 c) Please provide additional information about the above outputs.

(For instance - more details about the types of qualifications achieved, the location of new services, which specific jobs have been safeguarded, etcetera.)

The number of young people attending Momentum courses over the last year is as follows:

162 young people are currently attending or have completed the Momentum course with approximately 53 being classed as ‘at risk’. A number of the ‘at risk’ young people have a low attendance at school but are motivated to attend the Momentum course and are working towards an accredited or internal outcome. The young people enjoy attending the course, as it is a voluntary commitment and because the course encourages an informal education approach e.g. through group discussion/practical tasks.

32 of these young people are from Underley Hall/Cedar House and Underley Gardens school and have completed a short targeted course. The schools are residential and provide educational support for those who are emotionally and behaviourally difficult. A short course was designed to specifically reach the needs of this particular group of young people who display ‘risk taking’ behaviour. The young people attended all sessions and were able to discuss the consequences of being involved in stealing or joy riding cars. One section also discusses the role of the Law and this enabled young people to understand aspects of vehicle crime from another perspective.

The project has developed significantly with links made in schools and is being run alongside the alternative curriculum groups in Coniston and Millom. This has provided young people with the opportunity to gain a qualification that is more focused towards their practical rather than their

35

academic skills.

6 young people working towards their Youth Achievement Awards Bronze level. Momentum is now accredited through the open college network to Level 1, with young people providing a portfolio of their work to gain a credit. 18 young people working towards OCN level 1, which is an extra credit on top of their GCSEs. The qualification is also supporting young people who have chosen Car Maintenance as there college vocation.

The young people are aware that the course certificate can be inserted into their Progress files in school and some young people are including an addition A4 sheet to explain what they have learnt from the course.

20 young people have completed and received a First Aid qualification, which is an addition to the full momentum programme and encourages young people to take responsibility for themselves and other road users. By completing the course it also enriches young people’s skills/knowledge and also enhances their C.V.

A young person has used ‘Momentum’ as the skill section to their Duke of Edinburgh Award and is hoping to complete it in the next few months.

A young person, who completed Momentum, has been working at the Garage used for the course over the summer on work placement. This has enabled the young person to gain confidence/ skills in a garage environment and hopefully to be accepted on to a college course focusing on Mechanics for Formula 1.

83 sessions delivered over the last year, with most face to face work taking place during the school term. During school holidays the time is used for the development of project, in terms of reviewing resources, development of action plan, booking venues/instructors.

Awareness sessions have taken place in youth clubs, which was initially difficult to achieve, as the actual age groups for a number of youth clubs

particularly in South Lakes were very young. The youth clubs that have received an awareness session are all keen for the full momentum project

to take place when the young people reach the target age group.

Momentum Development Worker jobs have been safeguarded and enabled networks to be maintained with local schools and associated organisations.

There have been a number of volunteers on the project from a number of backgrounds including professionally related organisations and community members. Young people who have attended the course have also volunteered to help deliver on other course .g. Millom.

Professional links have been made with the following organisations: Police, Local Driving schools, East Road Garage (Egremont), John Wilding Garage (Kendal), Capita, Fire Service, Driving Standards Association, Road Safety Officers, Cumbria Safety Cameras and Cumbria Road Safety Partnership.

Local councillors have also supported the project and have continued to promote it at council meetings and Neighbourhood forum meetings.

The project has progressed as originally anticipated and in many cases exceeded expectations.

Alongside the 30-hour training programme specific short courses have been developed through discussion with Residential schools which target young people who are in Year 11. This has enabled the course to target young people who are committing car crime or who may be vulnerable due to joy riding or TWOC cars. This has had an extremely positive effect on the individuals concerned as they are able to think about the risks they are taking and what choices they have.

Some young people who are their Youth Achievement Awards have also completed a First Aid Course as a challenge and can now use this if they are ever the first on the scene of an accident or to help other people in their community.

Local schools/organisations/parents are also now aware of the programme and are encouraging young people to attend the courses. Schools and other organisations are now ringing up wanting to know when the next course runs and demand will soon be exceeding supply.

Joint working has taken place with E2E (training provider) with the organisation supporting delivery, providing a room and resources. Joint working is also being further developed with Wheels2work co-ordinator in the Copeland area. The worker is shadowing the first course with the view to joint delivery with the Copeland Momentum worker.

A number of links have been made with other Momentum providers in the country, which is encouraging the sharing of practice and skills. It also means that resources can be shared and a support network for Momentum workers.

The project has run in South Lakes and Copeland districts but there has been a great demand for the course to be delivered in other areas particularly Eden. The contacts have been from the Connexions service, Voluntary Youth Sector, Secondary School and the local police force.

36

Cumbria Road Safety Partnership

Agreement

In order to reduce death and injury on Cumbrian roads

(Improving the quality of life in Cumbria)

We will ………

• Provide direction and leadership

• Work together to achieve an integrated action plan

• Encourage the public to take responsibility for their own safety

• Ensure that the Safer Roads for Cumbria brand is developed

By …….

• Developing a communication strategy

• Pooling resources and information

• Developing a better level of understanding of road traffic casualties

• Agree common targets

• Carrying out Performance Management

• Avoiding duplication of activities

………………………………………………………..Capita Symonds

……………………………………………………….. Cumbria County Council

………………………………………………………..Cumbria Constabulary

………………………………………………………..Cumbria Chamber of Commerce and Industry

………………………………………………………..Cumbria Safety Cameras

………………………………………………………..Freight Transport Association

……………………………………………………….. Highways Agency

……………………………………………………….. Morecambe Bay PCT

………………………………………………………..North Cumbria PCTs

………………………………………………………..Road Haulage Association

November 2004

The Purpose of the Partnership is to : Reduce death and ...The Purpose of the Partnership is to : Reduce death and injury on Cumbrian Roads (Improving the quality of life in Cumbria)

Documents