Tackling the road safety implications of disadvantage

Purpose of this Guidance

1. This guidance advises local highway authorities of the need to address the particular road safety problems within their disadvantaged areas. This follows on from the revision to the Department for Transports road safety Public Service Agreement including the need to tackle the significantly higher incidence in disadvantaged communities. The Government recognises that local highway authorities are key partners in delivering the casualty reduction targets for 2010 and, as almost all casualties in deprived areas are on locally managed roads, delivery will be focussed through local authorities, producing local solutions which will include liaison with a range of local stakeholders, such as local strategic partnerships, primary care trusts and through community involvement.

2. In England, outside London, authorities not judged to be excellent under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment are required to submit a statement outlining how they intend to tackle this problem in their Annual Progress Reports (APRs)^[1].

The Underlying Principles

3. There is strong evidence that members of poorer communities are more likely to become road accident casualties than their better-off peers:

• Children from Social Class V are five times more likely to die as pedestrians in a road accident than children from Social Class I. Recent research published in IPPRs publication Streets Ahead safe and liveable streets for children and the Social Exclusion Units interim report Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion highlighted the relationship between child pedestrian casualty rates and areas of social deprivation.
• It has been estimated that there would be 600 fewer road deaths amongst men aged 20-64 if all had the same accident probabilities as Social Class I.
• Road traffic danger and accidents can contribute to social isolation, particularly amongst the elderly who have less access to cars.

These examples show the importance of addressing the issues and improving the road casualty rates of all of those within disadvantaged communities.

Aims and Objectives

4. Local authorities should aim to reduce the number of casualties in their most deprived areas at a greater rate than across the council area as a whole. By deprived areas, in general we mean the 10% most deprived wards as ranked in the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2000). However, authorities may also wish to consider wards outside the 10% most deprived if they believe that there is a significant road accident problem related to deprivation. In the APR statement on road safety and disadvantage, we would expect authorities to demonstrate:

• how they have taken account of the issue of road safety and disadvantage;
• authorities eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund should outline how they plan to tackle their road safety problem in disadvantaged areas in 2003/04 and 2004/05.

There will be an opportunity for authorities to describe what they have implemented in the following years APR.

5. We recognise that different authorities will have varying degrees of disadvantage within their area but we do consider that it is important for all local authorities to investigate whether they have a road safety problem relating to disadvantage. It may be appropriate in some instances for an authority to report that they have looked into the issue but that there are no areas of significant disadvantage within their council area. If the authority can support this stance, then we would not expect a more detailed statement. We also recognise that not all causes of, or solutions to, the casualty problem in deprived areas are the direct responsibility of the local highway authority. The local highway authority is, however, responsible for co-ordinating any solutions that are likely to have an impact on reducing casualties in their deprived areas. As discussed below, this will involve co-ordination with other departments within the council and with partner organisations.

Method

Quantifying the Problem

6. Authorities need to investigate their casualty problem in disadvantaged areas. Casualty data at ward level will provide the local authority with information on the number and type of casualties, their severity and their location. Authorities could also investigate the age and gender of casualties and the time for example, the time of day and year; whether or not it was during a school term.

Identifying the Underlying Factors

7. It is important that authorities carefully consider the underlying factors for high road casualty rates in their deprived areas. There will be many associated causes, which may include: a poor environment dominated by roads; lack of play facilities; truancy; lack of understanding or appreciation of road safety issues; lack of community facilities easily accessible on foot; excess levels of through traffic. Authorities may wish to engage the local community to identify their views on the causes of accidents.

Outlining a Strategy

8. When outlining a strategy for delivering solutions in the APR, authorities should not focus on traffic calming solutions in isolation. Targeted intervention will seek to break road accident causal chains at any number of points, so a variety of solutions including a mix of engineering, education, enforcement and health promotion activities will be appropriate. For example, slowing motor vehicles by traffic calming will reduce the likelihood and severity of any collision; improved road safety skills and awareness training may equip people better to cope with a hostile environment; better social and play facilities and access to other facilities would reduce exposure to traffic.

Monitoring

9. Future APRs should report on the relative rate of casualty reduction in deprived areas compared to the rest of the council's area.

The Benefits of Partnership Working

10. We place much emphasis on partnership working between authorities, across agencies and between local and central government in order to identify the issues, outline effective strategies and establish sources of funding. Some examples are provided below:

• Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP): funding may be secured in collaboration with the LSP to implement schemes aimed at improving the local area. Authorities eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Fund will be able to use these funds to support some of the less roads oriented work in deprived wards. The LSP will also have an interest in the public health issues involved: by improving casualty rates in disadvantaged areas, life expectancy will increase.
• New Deal for Communities (NDC): authorities involved in NDC may find that this is an opportunity for linkage with the Neighbourhood Renewal Action Plan. Community safety issues are a focus for NDCs and it may be possible through joint working to implement programmes that are likely to improve road safety in these areas. An example of this could be improved street lighting, which would benefit general community safety in addition to the road safety advantages.
• Primary Care Trusts: to support achievement of health goals, especially around narrowing inequalities, Primary Care Trusts are encouraged (in line with Treasury rules) to contribute mainstream resources to preventative programmes like accident reduction, with potential long-term benefits to the community. Authorities within Health Action Zones will find linkage in approaches to programmes connecting health, regeneration, employment, education, housing and anti-poverty initiatives. At a regional level, the issue of road safety and disadvantage feeds into Local Delivery Plans for Health, which focus on delivery of health outcomes and can include issues such as transport, safety and accessibility.
• Housing Market Renewal Fund: Sustainable Communities: Building for the future announced the creation of a £500 million Market Renewal Fund over the next three years to go to 9 pathfinder areas to tackle low demand and abandonment. Authorities involved in the 9 sub-regional pathfinder partnerships may find these useful for issues concerning neighbourhood quality.
• Sure Start programmes: aimed at tackling child poverty and social exclusion, they may be a useful reference.

For further information on this guidance, please contact Louisa Daniels (louisa.daniels@dft.gsi.gov.uk) or Ian Drummond (ian.drummond@dft.gsi.gov.uk)

1. The third Annual Progress Report should be submitted by 31 July 2003. Guidance on LTP Annual Progress Reports (Third Edition) was published in March 2003 and is available on the Local Transport area of this website.