To find out more about the report visit the Research Section of the website where a summary report as well as the full research by Tanya Fosdick can be accessed.

The report uses analysis derived from MAST and looks at those most at risk of being involved as a pedestrian casualty.  It also reviews recent trends in pedestrian casualties and reviews the slow down in casualty reductions.

To download a copy of the report click here.

Cloud computing represents a radical change in the way organisations use and pay for ICT. Instead of hosting applications and data on an individual desktop computer, everything is hosted in the “cloud” – a collection of computers and servers accessed securely via the internet or a private network. With the UK Government committed to expanding the use of cloud technologies in the public sector, authorities are increasingly planning a future free from the constraints of local IT infrastructures, and are considering how this new way of working provides opportunities for collaboration with partners.

MAAPcloud has been designed to allow flexible deployment – police forces, local authorities and other road safety stakeholders can share a system and so reduce costs.  This creates opportunities for cross-border and regional collaboration, further reducing costs to individual authorities and enabling data sharing. Moving the entire system to an online environment enables authorised users to access powerful analytical tools from any PC, not just those with desktop software pre-installed. Data are made available to all members of the relevant road safety partnership, including the latest collision and casualty figures as soon as they are released in the system.

Free Road Safety Seminar -

Innovations in Collision Mapping and Analysis

In order to showcase the potential for cost saving and collaboration as well as the extensive features of MAAPcloud, TRL will be hosting an event on Tuesday 19^th March 2013 at its global headquarters in Berkshire.  The event entitled, Innovations in Collision Mapping and Analysis is open to road safety professionals who want to learn about national and international developments in spatial analysis techniques including route analysis, residency analysis and the potential offered by open data sources.  Attendance is free and places will be allocated on a strictly first-come-first-served basis.  To register for the event and to learn more about MAAPcloud, visit the website www.maapcloud.co.uk

About TRL, Road Safety Analysis and MAAPcloud

MAAPcloud is a TRL product, designed and developed by its team of experts and hosted on secure servers. TRL is pleased to announce that Road Safety Analysis (RSA) will be collaborating on MAAPcloud, with responsibility for UK distribution. RSA is a market leader in supplying innovative, creative and competitive services to the road safety sector including the award winning MAST Online, a web-based road risk analysis tool which is used by a majority of highway authorities in Great Britain.

Talking at his first post-election press conference on Wednesday night, the newly re-elected President Obama promised ‘progressivity in taxation’ – whilst this communicates with all the clarity of the political elite on the capitol; it seemed to resonate with my immediate reflections on the RSGB conference.

Not a word, I confess, for which I commonly find the right social situation for appropriate use, but progressivity seems to address a fundamental issue for the road safety profession right now.

It expresses the ‘quality or degree of being progressive’, and whilst this can be encumbered with all sorts of notions about where you are on the political spectrum, I’d like to emancipate the term from such limitations and offer up some reflections on the theme of the conference: The Next Five Years

We look ahead into a future which could be marshalled by a Government with a different constitutional basis, mandate and flavour in two years time.  Nevertheless the fragile state of the economy since 2008 indicates that the financial freedoms we enjoy in 2017 will vary little from the present day. After four years of being embattled by budgetary pressure, the hall packed full of 250 representatives bears testimony to the resilience of the profession, but resilience must not lead to belligerence.

At times the conference reflected views that are extremely encouraging as practitioners and researchers  promoted the need for evidence,  the application of behaviour change theory and a breadth of perspective that is willing to embrace expertise and experience outwith the normal community.  Paradoxically, in that environment, there remain those who seem to have little reserve about vocalising archaic views on the validity of evaluation or a dismissive attitude to new approaches.

The 2010 conference session by strategic social marketer Jeff French drew our attention to the quote by father of nuclear physics Ernest Rutherford who once stated: “Gentleman, we didn’t have the money, so we had to think”. This year, I was greatly encouraged by some of the conversations I enjoyed with practitioners who are clearly thinking more and spending less. That thinking must continue to shape a future in which the evidence is incontrovertible and the resource demands indisputable, where the political and monetary arguments are won in tandem without ruining ourselves along the way.

Among the risks that we face in the current climate is that we stretch ourselves increasingly thin doing more of the same to justify our presence. Influential business thinker Gary Hamel describes this risk as: “Despite all the pro innovation rhetoric, most still hold the view that innovation is a rather dangerous diversion from the real work of wringing the last ounce of efficiency out of core business processes.”

So I find myself asking what is the quality or degree of being progressive that is the mark of the road safety community at present? I suppose there are 3 types of professional, the conservers, the controllers and the creators.

• The Conservers – like things the way they were, preferring to do the job in the manner in which it has always been done. They are sceptical of new approaches and aim to avoid innovation, preferring instead to reminisce about the good old days.
• The Controllers – are sufficiently agile to adapt in times of change and sharp enough to reorganise around the challenge of an emerging landscape. They are cautiously accepting of evidence that demands a rethink and assured enough to allow latitude for these ideas to be explored within a carefully managed environment.
• The Creators – are dissatisfied with the current rate of progress as they visualise the strategies and structures that would define a quite different future. They can be reckless about the pursuit of change and feel frustrated when others are unable to apprehend their vision, though it is their agitation that will most likely bring about innovative new practice.

I’ll let you judge for yourself where you think you fit, though I expect if you have made it this far through the article you aren’t a conserver! And the reality of the current situation is that we need a healthy mix of the Creators and the Controllers. Those with imagination vivid enough to capture a vision of redesigned services and redistributed finance, alongside those with the acumen sufficient to wrap it up in good governance, accountability and evaluation.

Who’s up for a little more progressivity in Road Safety?

Dan Campsall is Communications Director at Road Safety Analysis, to discuss these views, please get in touch.

The performance measures, known as ‘Key Outcome Indicators’ were first published by the Department for Transport in 2011, as part of the Strategic Framework for Road Safety. Road safety experts raised concerns at the time of publication that these were not sufficiently reliable measures to show how performance was changing at a local level and the Transport Select Committee received submissions later in the year detailing how the measures could be improved upon.

Now, an independent national report on road safety performance has highlighted just how the indicators ignore the vast majority of road casualties and mask really important details about how local areas are managing to improve safety for residents.

The report from Road Safety Analysis, entitled “National Road Safety; Performance & Progress” looks at the level of risk experienced by road users around the country and importantly measures the level of risk experienced by residents in every local authority nationwide. The report reveals that many authorities who appear to be doing well according to the official measures are performing poorly when the figures are examined in greater detail.

Most notably, when you examine recent progress made in reducing risk to the resident population, 14 London Boroughs feature in a list of the 20 poorest performing local authority districts in the country when compared to the national average. Conversely, the districts that are witnessing the best improvement nationwide are spread across Scotland, Wales, the North West and the Midlands. A similar picture can also be seen when progress on reducing the number of traffic crashes relative to traffic flow is examined; in this case 15 out of the 20 worst performing areas are London boroughs.

To assist those interested in seeing where a particular area of the country is performing, Road Safety Analysis has also published a set of interactive charts showing comparative performance by local authority on their website www.roadsafetyanalysis.org

Richard Owen, a Director of Road Safety Analysis and co-author of the report said,

“At a time when the Department for Transport is relying on public pressure or local politics to be the driving force for improvement in Road Safety, it is remarkable that almost 90 percent of those injured on the roads are ignored in the official local performance figures. Furthermore, the primary measure used by the DfT to assess risk rates does not appear to allow true, meaningful comparisons to be made on a nationwide basis.”

He continued, “In order to avoid this pitfall, road safety professionals, service managers and council members (both in office and opposition) need to make reliable judgements on local performance. Therefore, high quality comparative performance data is the key requirement for policy makers and practitioners if they are to place local priorities in context.”

The report is published on the same day the DfT releases its latest road safety progress figures for 2012, and less than a week after the Chair of the Transport Select Committee, published her comments on the government’s response to its recent report into Road Safety.  In her comments Louise Ellman MP said,

“Generalised talk about everyone playing their part to bring road casualties down should not be allowed to hide central government’s responsibilities to keep local authorities, the police, other agencies and the public fully focused on delivering significant and sustained improvements in road safety”

A full copy of the report and the interactive charts are available for download from: http://www.roadsafetyanalysis.org/researc/national-signposts-2012/

This national report is complemented by a suite of no less than five hundred and eighty-four local reports, which provide detailed analysis into the risks experienced on the roads in every highway authority area and by the residents of every local authority district. Samples can be seen here: http://www.roadsafetyanalysis.co.uk/services/signpost-series/

The analysis covers all of the major road safety topics and a list of some of the analyses is included at the bottom of this post.

Remember, access to MAST Mapping is free of charge to all MAST members – just click on the Mapping link on the navigation abr

Road Safety Analysis also offers pre-analysed reports for local authorities – if you would like to find out more visit the Signpost Series page on our website.

Stats19 Changes

The following dimensions or elements have been removed from MAST after changes made to the Stats19 form by the Department for Transport. These are:

• The dimension ‘Casualty School Pupil’, and the corresponding ‘Crash Involved…’ dimension
• The dimension ‘Casualty Working in Carriageway’, and the corresponding ‘Crash Involved…’ dimension
• The element which distinguished motorised and non-motorised vehicles, which was the top level of the ‘Vehicle Type’ hierarchy (also used in ‘Casualty Type of Related Vehicle’)

Your Existing Reports

Due to the DfT changes to Stats19 and the abolition of the distinction between motorised and non motorised vehicles, you may experience some initial difficulties when accessing saved reports which contain the ‘Vehicle Type’ dimension. This is because the hierarchy changed at the top level.

This isn’t a bug but an avoidable consequence of these Stats19 changes. The best way to rectify any issues with saved reports containing this dimension is to recreate them from scratch.

If you have any issues when doing this, please post them on the forum

It is likely that you will experience problems with reports which contain either of the two deleted dimensions. As your existing reports will not be able to be recreated with these dimensions in, we are afraid the best thing to do would be to delete these reports.

Provisional Tabs

The provisional tabs are still in place and contain provisional data up to June 2011. Please work in the main tabs for complete 2011 data. In December, the provisional tabs will be updated to June 2012.

The highlight of the MAST annual user conference, held at Dunchurch Park in Warwickshire, was the presentation of the first MAST user award.  The winner was Steven Cross of Leicestershire County Council, for his evaluation of the Bare Bones scheme using the online analysis tool.

The conference seeks to draw together road safety practitioners from across the country with a focus on developing evidence based practice and the particular role that high quality analysis and customer insight provides for intervention design.

Conference was launched by a keynote presentation from Chairman of the CIHT road safety panel, Kate Carpenter, who immediately stretched delegates’ thinking on the place of road safety in the broader policy picture.  Asking some provocative questions, Kate challenged the conference to examine our practice carefully and to be willing to let the evidence persuade us to strive for continuous improvement.

From a global perspective on road safety presented by Mike Pittman of TRL, to a ‘Quickfire’ tour of the use of MAST in local schemes around the country, you couldn’t fail to be impressed by the breadth of analytical work underpinning the national road safety effort.

The outstanding work of Leicestershire County Council, which was recognised with the MAST award, was an evaluative process which used MAST to assess how effective they are in reaching the most appropriate audience through the most efficient communications channels.  Steven Cross was presented with the award by Kate Carpenter.

A link to the agenda, copies of the presentations and the 2012 User Survey can all be found at the Conference Page

• All casualties (Killed, KSI, All)
• Motorcycle Users
• Car Users
• Pedal Cycle Users
• Young Drivers
• Pedestrians
• Child Casualties

There is also the option to explore residency-based trends and also view the total number of crashes by authority area.

For more information, visit the Mapping section of the website.

Young drivers throughout the country are already more likely to be involved in a crash with 30% of all motor vehicle drivers involved in collisions[1] aged between 16 and 29 years old, yet this age group only made up 18% of the population[2].  This report calculates that young rural drivers are two-thirds more likely to be involved in an injury collision than their older neighbours.

One of the biggest factors in the elevated risk profile is the much higher average annual mileages driven by rural drivers with 31% more miles driver per person than their urban counterparts.  This increased exposure combined with their relative inexperience compared to older drivers is a signal to rural local authorities and police forces that special attention needs paying to this subject.

The report also considers the level of deprivation and whether this is a factor in young driver crashes.  This was not found to be the case in Rural areas, although it is something seen in large town and cities.  Other analysis within the report compares vehicle types involved in crashes, road type, and speed limits.

One further piece of analysis carried out was to rank young driver risk bases on residency in each of the 379 local authority areas in Great Britain.  This was then used to create a map showing regional hotspots and is included at the end of this release along with the best and worst performing areas.

Dan Campsall, director of Road Safety Analysis says, “This is the first time that we have had a thorough examination of the risks to young drivers based on where they live; and the results are stark. Younger drivers from rural areas are much more likely to be involved in a crash where someone is injured, and we need to see a package of measures developed that can bring about a change.  This may require investment in transport infrastructure, community bus schemes and further driver training to affect the inequality that these drivers are experiencing.”

With the help of this sort of information, Local Authorities can develop a much better understanding of the risks experienced by their residents and road users, helping them to address the inequalities that many people are experiencing.”

For a copy of the full results including a breakdown of casualty rates for all 206 highway authorities, visit Young Drivers Road Risk and Rurality