Agenda item

The Deputy Chief Fire Officer introduced Road Safety Coordinator, Rhiannon Leeds who presented the report and accompanying presentation to provide Members with an update on the work of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership (LRSP).

The Road Safety Partnership for Lancashire was set up in 2001 initially as the co-ordinating body for all the speed cameras.  Very quickly an education and engagement division of the Partnership was established and there had been a lot of changes since then.

The partnership comprised of: Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service, Lancashire Constabulary, North West Ambulance Service, Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Council, Blackpool Council, Highways England and the Police and Crime Commissioner.  Working together to reduce duplication, the partnership aimed to reduce road casualties through the management of speed, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, driver education and training and through developing collaborative approaches to education, awareness, engagement and other measures. Everything the Partnership did was based on casualty, collision and police data in order to target some of the most vulnerable road user groups.

In 2010 the funding model for partnerships changed and local authorities did not receive government grant for road safety.  Since 2010 there had been a small year on year rise in people killed or seriously injured on Lancashire’s roads.  In 2013/14, Lancashire County Council Scrutiny Panel told the Road Safety Partnership to make improvements to address the lack of a purposeful strategy, meaningful analysis, coordination and duplication of effort.  The Partnership then identified: the right people for the right roles, a clear, long-term strategy alongside short-term tactical needs, issues with realistic and evidence-based options and tactics in order to be effective.

Rhiannon Leeds gave examples where processes had improved that resulted in clear, targeted messages and consistent responses to queries raised in different areas of Lancashire.  Over the last 12-18 months an online tool for members of the public to report concerns had been implemented.  This looked at speed, casualty and collision data to enable a fair and consistent policy to be applied across the county.

All the LRSP partners were committed to working together to reduce casualties on Lancashire’s roads and make people feel safe.  Some of the partnership activities were noted as:

·         Child pedestrian training at reception, year 1 and year 2 at almost every primary school in the county;

·         Cycle training at primary school age;

·         Targeted social media campaigns based on the ‘fatal 5’;

·         Activity in communities at key times of the year in line with the national road safety calendar;

·         Managing and responding to community speed concerns county wide;

·         Delivery of speed awareness courses (and other educational courses as an alternative to prosecution);

·         Coordinated safety engineering and enforcement works such as the installation of average speed cameras;

·         Delivery of RoadSense to Year 6;

·         Delivery of Safe Drive Safe Alive.

A reporting structure was presented which incorporated the 3 local authorities, 14 districts and policing divisions across the county.  The Local Road Safety Partnership was governed by an Executive Board which was chaired by the Assistant Chief Constable.  Reporting to the Executive Board was a joint Operational Group supported by Casualty Reduction Partnerships in Pennine, South Lancashire and North Lancashire to determine local initiatives.

The vision set out in the strategic plan was that “people are safe and feel safe on Lancashire’s roads”.  The plan set out a number of priorities and the work of the Road Safety Partnership fell under priority 1 “co-ordinated and evidence-based response to Road Safety”.  Alongside the strategic plan sat the Action Plan and Areas of Focus documents which identified everything to be delivered by the partnership. 

A graph was presented that demonstrated problem trends by mode of transport and age range which included spike charts to show the previous 5-years data and the number of incidents during the period.  This assisted to identify emerging trends to inform future plans.

A chart was presented that showed the possible effects of the pandemic on road safety by comparing road traffic casualties during 2019 and 2020.  Although the 2020 data had yet to be verified it showed that during March – April there was a huge decrease in the volume of casualties in Lancashire which was not the case in other areas of the country. 

A further chart was presented that demonstrated road traffic collision casualties over the last 12 years which showed a steady continuous decline due in part to Firefighters now being trauma trained enabling injured parties to receive help much quicker and technological improvements had been made to vehicles.  The chart also showed killed or seriously injured casualties to have peaked in 2019.  It was noted that CRASH (Collison Reporting And Sharing Hub) was a national system that digitally supported consistent reporting of road traffic collisions across the country.  In addition, the chart showed the number of fatalities across the county during the period; this had been fairly consistent until 2020 where there was a decline (which was in line with the volume of traffic).  It was noted that the type of casualty had changed to an increased involvement of motor cyclists.

Based on speed, casualty and collision data the Partnerships top 8 issues had been identified as: i) young road users; ii) motorcyclists; iii) A584 between Cifton and Squires Gate; iv) A59 between Clitheroe and the Lancashire / North Yorkshire border; v) A59 between Nrothway and Tarleton; vi) A682 Colne Road between Burnley and J12; vii) M6 between J31a and J33; and viii) Careless Driving.  Over the next few months work would be undertaken with partners and analysts to understand the detail to develop relevant initiatives including: education, engagement, engineering and enforcement.

An example was provided of a campaign that aimed to change driver behaviour which ran during the christmas period in 2019 depicting 59 pairs of shoes; each representing a person killed on Lancashire’s roads in one year.  

It was noted that due to the covid-19 pandemic a lot of work had been undertaken online during the previous 12 months including: i) RoadSense which had been delivered to over 5,000 year 6 pupils since mid-January; ii) Speed Awareness Courses and iii) a TyreSafe campaign had been launched the previous day.

It was also noted that since 2010, the Partnership had been used on national platforms as best practice.

County Councillor Clarke queried what could be done to enforce speeding restrictions in areas where the limit was 20 miles per hour (mph).  The Chairman commented that, although a valid concern enforcement was out of our jurisdiction.  In response, Rhiannon Leeds advised that 20 mph areas nationally fell into 2 categories: areas and zones.  Areas were usually sign only (which applied to most roads in Lancashire) and 20 mph zones had extra street furniture such as speed bumps and chicanes.  One of the reasons there had been no enforcement in 20 mph areas in Lancashire was that according to the national guidance, 20 mph areas should be self-enforcing and in locations where traffic was already low volume and low speed. 

Any concerns about specific roads could be raised with the Partnership via: www.lancsroadsafety.co.uk/submit-concern.  If there was an issue identified, something would be done ie: additional signage, additional community engagement and education.

County Councillor Britcliffe felt that the placing of additional cameras would slow traffic.  In response, Rhiannon Leeds advised that action was based on data.  Currently there were plans to introduce new average speed cameras on 5 roads in the county in addition to the 8 established routes (which would be funded from national government funding).  Similarly, if data identified speeding on a particular road the Partnership had flexibility to change the location of speed camera vans.  It was noted for information that the camera vans which looked for speeding offences also looked for other offences such as occupants not wearing seat belts and drivers not in proper control ie: while using a mobile phone. 

RESOLVED: - That the report be noted and endorsed.