Docstoc

ToR 1 To clarify and assess the respective roles of Camden

Document Sample
ToR 1 To clarify and assess the respective roles of Camden Powered By Docstoc
					      Report of the
Road Safety Scrutiny Panel




London Borough of Camden
       March 2004
                                                                Index
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 4
Chair’s foreword ..................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 11
   The scrutiny panel ............................................................................................................ 11
   Terms of reference ............................................................................................................ 11
   Co-opted members ........................................................................................................... 11
   Street Policy Team ............................................................................................................ 12
   The panel’s role ................................................................................................................. 12
   Homework .......................................................................................................................... 14
   Site visits, public meeting and other meetings ............................................................. 14
   Oral and written evidence ................................................................................................ 15
2. Road danger: the problems ............................................................................. 16
   The national context ......................................................................................................... 16
   Road danger in Camden ................................................................................................... 16
   Speed.................................................................................................................................. 17
   Casualty statistics and targets ........................................................................................ 18
   Complementary measure of road danger ....................................................................... 21
   Fear and intimidation ........................................................................................................ 22
     Elderly people ................................................................................................................. 22
     Children .......................................................................................................................... 25
   Social surveys ................................................................................................................... 26
   Road crossings ................................................................................................................. 26
     Pedestrian countdown signals ........................................................................................ 27
     Safer routes to schools and leisure centres ................................................................... 27
   Bad cyclist behaviour ....................................................................................................... 28
   Buses and safety ............................................................................................................... 29
3. Legal framework ............................................................................................... 31
   Legislation ......................................................................................................................... 31
   Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. 31
     Department for Transport (DfT) ...................................................................................... 31
     Transport for London (TfL) ............................................................................................. 31
     Metropolitan Police ......................................................................................................... 32
   Some current legal restraints .......................................................................................... 32
   New moving traffic contraventions powers ................................................................... 34
4. Road safety in Camden: tackling the problems .............................................. 37
   Policy context .................................................................................................................... 37
      Camden‘s Community Strategy ...................................................................................... 37
      Road Safety Plan ............................................................................................................ 37
      Camden‘s Walking Plan ................................................................................................. 38
      Camden‘s Cycling Plan .................................................................................................. 38
   Road safety programmes and schemes ......................................................................... 38
   Effectiveness of traffic calming ....................................................................................... 39
      20mph zones .................................................................................................................. 39
      Engineering measures .................................................................................................... 40
      Local safety schemes ..................................................................................................... 41
      Speed humps and cushions ........................................................................................... 42
      Alternatives to road humps ............................................................................................. 45
      Road closures ................................................................................................................. 47
      Voluntary schemes ......................................................................................................... 48
   Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................................... 48
      Signs ............................................................................................................................... 49
      Cameras ......................................................................................................................... 49


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                                                                      2
     Police attitude to driver crime ......................................................................................... 51
   Education, training and publicity .................................................................................... 52
   Multi-disciplinary approach ............................................................................................. 52
5. Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 55
   Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 55
   Motorcycles ....................................................................................................................... 56
   Lorries ................................................................................................................................ 59
   Tourist information ........................................................................................................... 61
   Reporting road crashes (Stats 19 form) ......................................................................... 61
   Insurance ........................................................................................................................... 61
   Limiting speed through vehicle engineering ................................................................. 62
   Illuminated traffic bollards ............................................................................................... 62
6. Some other Council’s experiences .................................................................. 63
       Greater London Assembly (GLA) ................................................................................... 63
       Kingston-upon-Hull City Council ..................................................................................... 63
       Newham Council ............................................................................................................ 65
       Warrington Council ......................................................................................................... 65
       Staffordshire County Council .......................................................................................... 66
       Buckinghamshire County Council .................................................................................. 66
       Bristol City Council ......................................................................................................... 67
7. Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................... 68
Appendices............................................................................................................ 69
   Appendix 1: Recommendations ...................................................................................... 69
   Appendix 2: Written evidence .......................................................................................... 71
   Appendix 3: Oral evidence ............................................................................................... 79
   Appendix 4: Further definitions and glossary of terms ................................................ 81
   Appendix 5: Legal powers available to the Council ...................................................... 84
   Appendix 6: New legal powers ........................................................................................ 87
   Scrutiny in Camden .......................................................................................................... 90




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                                                                      3
Acknowledgements

Panel Chair:

Councillor Brian Cattell (Conservative).

Panel members:

Councillor Maggie Cosin (Labour)
Councillor Julian Fulbrook (Labour)
Councillor Gerry Harrison (Labour)
Councillor Deirdre Krymer (Labour)
Councillor Andrew Mennear (Conservative)
Councillor Flick Rea (Liberal Democrat)
Councillor Jake Sumner (Labour)

Co-opted members:

Mayer Hillman
Stephen Plowden

Scrutiny Policy Officers:

Paul Dean
Vickie Skade

Committee Officer:

Gianni Franchi

Legal Adviser:

Richard Gruet
The panel would like to thank all the organisations, individuals and council
officers who gave evidence, who assisted with site visits and whose
contributions are detailed in appendices 2 and 3.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          4
Chair’s foreword
The Overview and Scrutiny Commission decided in September 2003 to set up
a Road Safety Scrutiny panel despite the fact that the Council is currently
exceeding a number of government and Transport for London casualty
reduction targets. I was personally very interested that there was such
political will from councillors of all parties to examine Camden‘s approach
even though many targets were being met.
This suggested that if our Scrutiny Panel were to effectively evaluate the
Council‘s road safety policies it would have to look well beyond such targets
and try to get to the heart of community concerns.
In order to fulfill our terms of reference, it was clear that the panel‘s work
would consist both in absorbing published research on road safety, but above
all, in finding out the views of as many different local stakeholders and
residents as possible.
It quickly became apparent, however, that there was such a weight of
research on road safety from various bodies, and such an overwhelming
number of possible themes and issues that the panel would have to focus
quite strictly on a small number of these.
Given this type of approach, it is important to be clear that this report does not
intend to be a comprehensive evaluation of road safety policies in Camden.
Such a task would have been impractical. But what the report does offer is a
number of practical recommendations that seek to challenge and improve on
existing policies.
The central premise for the panel‘s work, on which there was general
agreement among members, is the proposition that reducing speed on
Camden‘s roads and ensuring people drive at appropriate speeds could
reduce casualties. Where members of the panel differed, however, was in
their views on what were appropriate and effective strategies to achieve that
end.
One hundred years ago, motor vehicles were forced to drive at no more than
5 miles per hour and had to be preceded by a man waving a red flag. The
result: zero casualties. But at other times, vehicles have faced no restrictions
on their speed and movement with many casualties being the result.
Few reasonable people today would seriously argue the case either for the
complete straitjacket that would guarantee zero casualties, or for the ultra-
libertarian free-for-all, in which pedestrians and other vulnerable road users
simply have to take their chances.
The panel agreed, therefore, that the chief task of policy was to decide where
to draw the reasonable and acceptable line between these two extremes. On
this basis, the issue of community consent for road safety policy emerged as
a crucial consideration for members.
Although the panel was adamant that it wished to avoid a rerun of already
well rehearsed arguments on speed humps and cameras, the evidence that
emerged from many different groups and residents clearly indicated that the
policy line in Camden needs to be somewhat redrawn.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004              5
It is this view that informs the panel‘s central recommendation, that the
Council should look to develop a pilot 20 mph zone with an innovative
approach toward enforcement and traffic calming that would face up to the
problems of consent caused by the perceived excess of humps and signs.
In making such a recommendation the panel is, as is its duty to do, giving a
strong political steer to the Executive, and to officers, to come back with
appropriate, detailed proposals.
I make no apologies for stating so explicitly that this is a political message.
Members of the panel, with the exception of our two distinguished co-optees,
were there to make political judgments. They certainly were not there to play
the role of amateur management consultants or road engineering technicians.
Given the diverse range of views among panel members, however, I am
delighted that this political steer is in no way party political and represents a
hard won consensus among all of us.
I would like to thank our two co-optees, Stephen Plowden and Mayer Hillman,
for their outstanding contribution to the work of the panel. I am particularly
grateful for their innovative philosophical approach to the issues of road
safety, which informs a number of the recommendations, and certainly
allowed me and other members to see some familiar problems in a
completely new light.
Many thanks are also due to my fellow councillors on the panel for all their
hard work and commitment. Their combined expertise and experience on
many of the issues was formidable and proved to be of great value.
On the officer side, many thanks to Scrutiny Policy officer Paul Dean who got
the ball rolling at the early meetings before he departed Camden for a new
professional opportunity. From committee services, Gianni Franchi did an
excellent job and was well assisted by Peter Holdforth.
I would, however, like to pay special tribute to Scrutiny Policy officer Vickie
Skade, who took up the baton following Paul‘s departure. Vickie faced an
extremely challenging task coming into the scrutiny once it was already well
underway and facing an issue where reaching consensus and delivering
workable final recommendations called for great skill. She acquitted herself
fantastically well and the fact that our final report hangs together so effectively
and blends such diverse views into concise propositions is, to a very great
extent, down to her.
I am excited by the opportunity that this panel‘s report presents to Camden to
remould its road safety policies around an approach based on what the
community genuinely wants. I very much look forward to following its
progress.




Cllr Brian Cattell


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004               6
Executive summary
Background
1.      This report explains that the cross party panel was set up to look at
        reducing death and injury on Camden‘s roads by examining the
        Council‘s current strategies along with the approaches being taken by
        the police and other local organisations. The panel was charged with
        examining the effectiveness of the enforcement powers currently
        available to Camden and assessing whether Camden‘s approach is
        adequately co-ordinated and sufficiently resourced, comparing this with
        best practice in other parts of the country.
2.      The panel was aware that it would have a challenging time since road
        safety is an emotive issue - with diverse road users have different
        needs and opinions. The topic was broad and complex and seemingly
        obvious solutions were often not possible due to legal or technological
        restraints.
3.      The panel considered written and oral evidence from pedestrians,
        cyclists, motorcyclists, motorists, local residents‘ groups, amenity
        groups and business associations, disabled people, elderly people and
        children, council officers, police officers and officers from the
        Department of Transport (DfT), Transport for London (TfL) and the
        London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP). Every effort was made to
        get as wide and varied a range of evidence and viewpoints as
        possible.
Road Danger
4.      Section 2 of the report outlines the national picture and specific
        Camden problems in terms of road danger. About 10 people die on
        the roads each day in the UK, amounting to approximately 3,500 a
        year. In addition, there are 500,000 injuries a year, and of these
        40,000 are seriously injured and require serious medical attention.
        The direct cost of road incidents involving deaths or injuries is thought
        to be in the region of £3 billion a year in the UK alone.
5.      The resident population of Camden is exceeded by between 50 and
        100% every day through inflows of tourists, students, and workers, and
        it is important to take this into account when looking at the borough‘s
        road safety record.
Reducing Speed and Casualties
6.      Reducing speed is important in casualty reduction in two ways. Firstly
        driving at faster speeds allows less reaction time and results in more
        crashes. Secondly, when a crash does occur, the injuries, particularly
        to vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, will be far
        more severe:
           90% of pedestrians will be killed or seriously injured at 30mph
           40% of pedestrians will be killed or seriously injured at 20mph
7.      The national, London-wide and local targets for casualty reduction are
        also outlined in section 2 and Camden‘s performance assessed.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004               7
        There is a significant downward trend for pedestrians and children and
        a smaller downward trend for pedal cyclists and car users. The
        exception is motorcycle casualties which, despite a considerable drop
        in 2002 and a further decrease in the first 9 months of 2003, remain
        too high throughout London.
Fear and Intimidation
8.      This section also identifies witnesses‘ concerns about the intimidation
        caused to people by the volume and speed of traffic and how this can
        affect behaviour, lifestyle and quality of life adversely. The panel
        recommends that TfL and the Council look at social surveys to assess
        these fears and at a pilot to measure road danger in a different way i.e.
        not to rely solely on casualty statistics. It also makes some specific
        recommendations on pedestrian countdown signals, reducing cycling
        on pavements and safer routes to leisure centres to complement the
        existing safer routes to schools programme.
Legal Framework and Constraints
9.      Section 3 of the report outlines the legal framework in which the
        Council has to operate, including several of the legal constraints
        discussed by the panel. It outlines the key responsibilities, in terms of
        road safety, of the Department for Transport (DfT), Transport for
        London (TfL), the Metropolitan Police and the Council itself. It
        considers the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
        2003, which passes the enforcement powers of several traffic offences
        from the police to local authorities. It expresses a cautious welcome,
        in light of current gaps in police enforcement, but also highlights some
        concerns and recommends the need for close monitoring.
Achieving Safer Streets
10.     Section 4 looks at the current national, London-wide and local policies
        and practices for tackling the problems of road danger in Camden. In
        Camden, there is a multi disciplinary, holistic approach which includes
        speed limits, local safety schemes, walking schemes, physical traffic
        calming measures and other less obtrusive alternatives, traffic
        enforcement, use of cameras and education, training and publicity.
11.     The panel‘s findings showed that the calibre of the Council‘s Street
        Policy Team was high and its innovative work was acknowledged and
        supported by the panel. The team was exceeding the Government
        and Mayor of London‘s casualty reduction figures in most categories; it
        had received the largest settlement from Transport for London (TfL) of
        all London boroughs and was regarded as a model of good practice by
        many other local authorities.
12.     The panel avoided an acrimonious debate on the use of speed humps,
        acknowledging their effectiveness in reducing speed along with the fact
        they were often unpopular with local residents and some of the
        emergency services. The panel called for closer co-operation with the
        London Ambulance Service, which had historically not engaged well
        with the Council, and panel members were pleased to see this
        forthcoming during the lifetime of the panel.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             8
13.     The panel calls on the government to fund a TRL study - with
        appropriate health, ambulance, police and fire services input - to
        ascertain hard evidence around delays and response times. This study
        should look at the effect of traffic calming but not in isolation to other
        characteristics of London‘s streets such as congestion and obstructive
        parking. The study should consider solutions in terms of road hump
        designs, vehicle design or alternative modes of emergency services
        delivery.
14.     The panel was mindful that its terms of reference required it to
        consider whether road safety work in Camden was adequately
        resourced. While people are being killed on Camden‘s roads, there
        will always be an argument that there is never enough spent on road
        safety. Given the TfL settlement and the fact that significant Council
        resources have been allocated to road safety initiatives, the panel felt
        that, within the restraints set by the government and in the London
        context, the road safety agenda was as well, or better, resourced as in
        other boroughs. Street Policy Team officers will continue to seek more
        capital funding where they can from all sources.
20mph zones – a new approach recommended
15.     The panel heard that the best way to reduce the number of serious
        casualties was through speed reduction generally and 20mph zones in
        particular. Where these have been introduced already in Camden with
        majority support, it has led to approximately a 70% reduction in the
        number of casualties. The panel considered detailed evidence from
        expert witnesses and local residents on various options and it is in this
        section of the report that the panel‘s key recommendations are made.
        Following important evidence from residents at a public meeting in
        Hampstead Town Hall, the panel decided that it wished to recommend
        a slightly different, new approach.
16.     The panel was aware that Camden, as every other authority, is subject
        to the strict national regulations about traffic calming measures used in
        20mph zones and the necessary associated signing. To date,
        government advice had been that 20mph zones should be self-
        enforcing through physical measures and that extreme caution should
        be exercised when considering making 20 mph limits without them.
        There are currently 17 self enforcing 20mph zones in Camden agreed
        with majority support and 4 rejected due to local opposition.
17.     It was felt that to advocate an experimental scheme - with minimal
        engineering and less prescriptive rules about signage - could generate
        goodwill from residents and help to resolve some of the conflicts
        around traffic calming. This will require lobbying the Department for
        Transport and Transport for London to see if the Council could achieve
        the necessary exemptions. Given the Council‘s good reputation in
        traffic management, the panel felt that officers were in a strong position
        to negotiate such a pilot scheme in the borough with TfL and the DfT.
18.     The panel is therefore recommending that the Council should work in
        partnership with Transport for London to introduce a compulsory 20
        mph zone pilot with a new approach to signage and the minimum

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            9
        physical speed reduction features. The pilot scheme should be
        monitored in comparison with a standard zone to determine the
        success of such a scheme. Consideration should be given to
        introducing the pilot in a residential area such as Belsize/Hampstead,
        where evidence seems to show community support – with a view to
        extending this should it prove successful.
19.     The panel is further recommending pilot schemes based on speed
        camera enforcement at 20mph, on one or more of the emergency
        services‘ key routes, to test the technology and monitor effectiveness
        and also a 20mph scheme on a TfL road in a town centre.
Other recommendations
20.     Other recommendations within the report include: a leaflet and rear
        window car sticker educational campaign; working with the police to
        introduce innovative speed enforcement schemes; raising the profile of
        driver crime in the Council‘s Crime and Disorder Audit and on the
        agenda of the Police Consultative Committee; recording insurance
        information on casualty records; and encouraging the use of special 3-
        way mirrors on lorries to aid cyclists‘ safety.
Concluding Remarks
21.     Given the potentially contradictory evidence heard from witnesses, the
        differing needs of road users and the diverse range of views among
        the panel members themselves, a high level of focus, compromise and
        goodwill was needed and this was shown. To reach a consensus on
        29 practical and workable recommendations, which are not too
        prescriptive, and which should enhance road safety and save lives in
        Camden was a real achievement of this panel.
22.     The panel was impressed with the calibre and detail of the many
        submissions received from residents, council officers, experts and
        organisations and is indebted to everyone who helped with the panel‘s
        work.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004        10
1. Introduction
The scrutiny panel
23.       Camden Council‘s Overview and Scrutiny Commission reviews Council
          decisions and policies, makes proposals for change and sets up
          panels to investigate individual issues. The Overview and Scrutiny
          Commission set up the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel in September 2003
          - hereafter called ―the panel‖. The panel was asked to look at ways of
          improving road safety and reducing road casualties in Camden. The
          panel sat from 30 September 2003 until 23 March 2004.
24.       The panel was a cross-party scrutiny body, independent of the
          Council‘s ruling Executive, with a membership of eight councillors plus
          two expert co-optees. The councillor membership of the panel was in
          approximate proportion to the representation of the different political
          groups on the Council with five Labour councillors, two Conservative
          councillors and one Liberal Democrat councillor. The Council is
          committed to the objective of cross-party chairing and a Conservative
          member chaired the panel.

Terms of reference
25.       The panel‘s terms of reference were:
         To examine trends and performance relating to reducing deaths and
          injuries on Camden‘s roads
         To examine Camden‘s strategies and policies together with the
          approaches being taken by the police and other local organisations in
          working together to improve road safety and reduce road casualties in
          the borough
         To assess whether Camden‘s approach, in particular the casualty
          reduction programmes, is adequately co-ordinated and sufficiently
          resourced and to compare Camden‘s approach with best practice in
          other parts of the country
         To examine the enforcement powers currently available to Camden to
          reduce road casualties and the extent to which additional powers may
          be useful
         To make recommendations to improve road safety and reduce road
          casualties in Camden

Co-opted members
26.       The panel appointed two distinguished co-optees and is extremely
          grateful for their expertise, hard work and commitment.
27.       Stephen Plowden worked for fifteen years for a leading consultancy for
          clients ranging from the World Bank to local environmental groups. His
          many writings include Towns Against Traffic (Andre Deutsch, 1972),
          Transport Reform, Changing the Rules (Policy Studies Institute, 1985),
          with Keith Buchan, A New Framework for Freight Transport (Civic

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          11
        Trust, 1995) and Speed Control and Transport Policy with Mayer
        Hillman.
28.     Mayer Hillman is Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute
        and two of his recent projects include carbon budget watching and
        walking and cycling in transport plans. His writings include Time for
        Change (1993), Cycle Helmets: The Case For and Against (1993),
        Children, Transport and the Quality of Life (1993) and Speed Control
        and Transport Policy with Stephen Plowden.
29.     Some criticism was received from the British Motorcycle Federation
        that both co-optees were pro walking and cycling, with a bias towards
        speed reduction as the main measure to achieving road safety.
        Written and oral evidence was sought from motorcyclists and motorists
        and considered by the panel to achieve a balanced picture – although
        a consensus was not to be expected. Indeed, one of the few areas
        where the panel did not reach a consensus was on the issue of
        motorcycles.

Street Policy Team
30.     The panel is also grateful for the excellent co-operation and support
        offered by officers in the Environment Department‘s Street Policy
        Team – in particular Doug Amer, Sam Monck and Cliff Thompson.
        The panel realised at an early stage that it was starting from a high
        base point, and the innovative work already being carried out by the
        Street Policy Team was acknowledged and supported by panel
        members. The team was exceeding the Government and Mayor of
        London‘s casualty reduction figures in most categories and had
        received the largest settlement from Transport for London (TfL) of all
        London boroughs. In addition, Camden officers had been called as
        expert witnesses to other authorities‘ scrutinies including the Greater
        London Assembly‘s.
          " I would like to thank your officers who were highly impressive
          giving evidence at Brent's recent scrutiny. Camden is very much
          seen as a leader of good practice on street policy matters."
          Cllr Gideon Fiegel, London Borough of Brent at the panel
          meeting on 20 January 2004

The panel’s role
31.     The panel was aware that road safety could be an emotive issue and
        that there were many diverse road users having different needs. There
        were many differing, often polarised and directly conflicting, views
        among pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, motorists, lorry drivers, taxi
        drivers, bus drivers and passengers and the emergency services.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             12
          “Everyone seeks road safety but the roads in Camden are used by
          many different people. An honest council has to look after
          everyone‟s interests, not just those who believe that more
          restrictions will be beneficial.”
          Dr Martin Rosendaal, Laurier Road, London NW5
32.     It was clear that the evidence the panel would hear would not point in
        one consistent direction. People tended to hold strong views either for
        or against, for example, road humps, speed cameras (particularly
        inconspicuous ones) and speed limiter devices. People‘s experiences
        affected views – compare a motorist who felt s/he had been unfairly
        fined with a parent whose child has been killed by a speeding motorist.
33.     The panel also realised early on in the process that what seemed like
        obvious solutions were often not possible due to legal, technological,
        parliamentary or procedural limitations. The panel considered its role
        would be to listen to residents‘ views, to seek out areas of agreement
        and to identify practical, workable recommendations, based on
        evidence heard, which would improve road safety in Camden. The
        panel was careful not to be too prescriptive to ensure that innovation
        was not stifled and to allow street policy officers some freedom to
        negotiate with Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for
        Transport (DfT) where the panel‘s recommendations would require
        this.
34.     There was unaninimity that fewer people and particularly children
        should be killed or injured on Camden‘s roads. Also that road danger
        should not intimidate and discourage more vulnerable residents such
        as children, elderly and disabled people from using Camden‘s streets.
        The evidence heard seemed to prove that decreased traffic speed
        meant fewer casualties as well as a range of other benefits - but how
        to achieve this was much more contentious. The panel felt that
        perhaps the balance was not always right; that issues of consent and
        support needed to be addressed; and that some radical ideas needed
        to be developed.
          “We welcome the consideration which Camden is giving to road
          safety issues and the forward looking approach that its scrutiny
          panel is taking in reviewing means of improving road safety.”
          Transport 2000
35.     The complexity and breadth of the topic to be contained within a limited
        timescale called for a slightly different approach to that of previous
        panels. The sheer volume of information and potential myriad of
        possible ideas for recommendations required the panel to focus early
        on a limited number of priority issues, within the terms of reference,
        where a difference could be made and to turn its attention on possible
        outcomes at a much earlier stage.
36.     The Chair asked each panel member to identify a small number of
        possible scenarios or hypotheses to be tested and refined by talking to


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004        13
        a range of witnesses. By December 2003, the panel had agreed to
        focus on the following five priorities on which to seek views from
        members of the public and road user stakeholders; letters were sent
        out to nearly 900 organisations. The panel is grateful to all those who
        responded and in particular to Alix Stredwick of the Women‘s Design
        Service, who surveyed 70 women living and working in Camden on the
        panel‘s issues, and Jean Dollimore of the Camden Cycling Campaign
        who sought views from all CCC members before submitting evidence.
        The five priorities were:
           20 miles per hour zones
           speed cameras and cameras at traffic lights
           road crossings
           consultation
           lorries

Homework
37.     In addition to the above, the following areas were also identified which
        individual members of the panel agreed to research as ―homework‖
        and report back to the panel. These were also consulted on.
           safety on the Transport for London (TfL) Road Network in Camden
           improvements to the form (DfT Stats form) used by the police to
            record details of the circumstances, vehicles and for each person
            injured
           police attitude to driver crime
           safe routes to leisure facilities in Camden for children
           social surveys to ascertain the part that fear of road traffic plays in
            Londoners‘ lives
           a complementary measure of road safety to that of the number and
            severity of road casualties
           bus driver behaviour and related safety matters
           motorcycles
           road safety education
           the balance between improved pedestrian and cycling facilities
           examples of good practice in other areas/countries
           the Greater London Assembly (GLA) scrutiny of the impact of road
            humps.

Site visits, public meeting and other meetings
38.     Members went out on site to see, use and compare zebra, puffin and
        pelican crossings, and also to witness speed and red light cameras
        and local road safety schemes in operation in the borough.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             14
39.     Mailouts and press adverts encouraged a large number of residents to
        attend a public meeting at Hampstead Town Hall where members of
        the panel were able to hear their views directly.
            “The evening seemed to go very well with significant points being
            made.”
            Andrew Smith, Charlotte Street Association
40.     Presentations were made about the work of the panel and views
        sought from members of several bodies including the Walking, Cycling
        and Road Safety Advisory Group and the Mobility Forum.

Oral and written evidence
41.     The panel sought and considered oral and written evidence from
        individuals and organisations representing:
            pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists
            local residents, amenity groups and business associations
            disabled people, elderly people and children
            council officers from Camden and other local authorities
            police officers
            Transport for London (TfL)
            London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP)
42.     The list of oral witnesses heard at panel meetings and site visits is
        attached at appendix 3. The list of written evidence considered is
        attached at appendix 2. A glossary of terms is attached at appendix 4.
        The panel is indebted to everyone gave evidence and who took part in
        the panel‘s work.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           15
2. Road danger: the problems
The national context
43.     About 10 people die on the roads each day in the UK, amounting to
        approximately 3,500 a year. In addition, there are 500,000 injuries a
        year, and of these 40,000 are seriously injured and require serious
        medical attention. Overall, this carnage arises from about 240,000
        'incidents'. (Department of Transport, Tomorrow's roads: safer for
        everyone 2000).
44.     The old terminology was 'accidents' but that usage does not
        adequately describe the collisions on the road which are often the
        result of wilful, reckless or careless behaviour which research shows is
        normally the result of someone's fault and certainly not an 'untoward
        accident'.
45.     The direct cost of road incidents involving deaths or injuries is thought
        to be in the region of £3 billion a year in the UK alone. Road-related
        injuries are the leading cause of death and acquired disability for
        children. A third of all pedestrian casualties involve the elderly.

Road danger in Camden
46.     Doug Amer, Head of the Street Policy Team in the Council‘s
        Environment Department, gave evidence to the panel‘s first meeting.
        He identified the key role for his service as being:
            reducing casualties and danger
           managing the urban environment – a safer environment tends to
            lead more people to walk
           modifying behaviour through enforcement and education.
47.     It was important to recognise that most road casualties don‘t have a
        single cause and a multi-agency and holistic approach was required to
        deal with them.
48.     The panel heard that the resident population of Camden was exceeded
        by between 50 – 100% everyday through inflows of tourists, students,
        and workers, and it was important to take this into account when
        looking at the borough‘s road safety record.
49.     The panel felt that the Council should recognise the importance of local
        knowledge. Local people could provide information on ‗near miss‘,
        dangerous hotspots which will not have been identified by casualty
        statistics but nevertheless could be considered for preventative
        measures before a serious casualty or death occurred.
50.     The panel was equally clear that the fear of road danger as well as
        actual road danger was crucial. Fear of speeding traffic and of getting
        injured was likely to lead to parents restricting their children from
        getting about unaccompanied and to deterring particularly vulnerable



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           16
          groups from using Camden‘s streets. This needed be addressed along
          with casualty reduction.
               “Improving safety and increasing mobility for all must go hand in
              hand. It is not acceptable to reduce casualties by forcing
              vulnerable road users off the road… We all have a role in
              reducing or minimising the risk that we impose on others”.
              Views expressed at a seminar organised by the Parliamentary
              Advisory Committee for Transport Safety (PACTS)

Speed
51.       The panel heard how reducing speed was important in casualty
          reduction in two ways. Firstly driving at faster speeds allows less
          reaction time and results in more crashes. Secondly, when a crash
          does occur, the injuries, particularly to vulnerable road users such as
          pedestrians and cyclists, will be far more severe.
              “Too many people take a cavalier attitude to speed. Yet research
              has shown that speed is a major contributory factor in about one-
              third of all road crashes. This means that each year excessive
              and inappropriate speed helps to kill around 1,200 people and to
              injure 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single
              contributor to casualties on our roads.”
              Tomorrow’s Roads: Safer for Everyone
52.       Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) studies suggest that a 1mph
          reduction in speeds is expected to deliver an approximate 5-6%
          reduction in injury casualties.
53.       Government figures show that:
              90% of pedestrians will be killed or seriously injured at 30mph
              40% of pedestrians will be killed or seriously injured at 20mph
              1mph reduction in speed = 6% reduction in the number of injury
               collisions in urban areas
              25% of urban collisions are related to speed: 4% directly due to
               excessive speed, 21% due to speed-related factors.
          New Directions in Speed Management, Department for Transport,
          Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) 2000
54.       Further government information reveals:
              two out of three accidents where people are killed or injured
               happen on roads where the speed limit is 30mph or less
              seven out of 10 drivers admit to regularly breaking the speed limit
               on built-up roads
              an average family car travelling at 35mph will need an extra 21 feet
               to stop than one travelling at 30mph

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004              17
                  if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian at 35mph rather than 30mph, the
                   force of the impact increases by more than a third.

Casualty statistics and targets
55.             Graph 1 below shows the trends in total (slight, serious and fatal)
                casualties for different road user groups over the past eight years in
                Camden. Compared to 2001, the figures for 2002 show reductions in
                all categories, with an overall total reduction of 17%. Members of the
                panel commented that the Council‘s record of casualty reduction was
                better than they had originally believed before the panel was set up.

                     All Casualties - Trends by road user group
          600




          500




          400
                                                                                                                  Car
   Ca                                                                                                             Pedestrian
   su
   alti 300                                                                                                       Motorcycles
   es                                                                                                             Pedal
                                                                                                                  Cycle
                                                                                                                  Bus or Coach
                                                                                                                  Taxi
          200




          100




           0
                   1995      1996      1997          1998          1999    2000      2001         2002
                                                            Year


                Graph 1
56.             Casualty figures for the first nine months of 2003 are shown in Table 1
                below, with the percentage change over the same period in 2002
                shown in brackets. Killed and serious casualties have fallen by 12%
                overall while the total casualty figure has been reduced by 9%.


                          Killed And Seriously Injured Casualties                      Slight              Total
                                                                                     Casualties          Casualties

                 Total    Pedestrian   Pedalcycle           Motorcycle    Children
                 KSIs


 Jan -           158         70               21                   29       16              793             951
 Sep
 2003           (-12%)      (+3%)             (0%)           (-29%)       (+23%)       (-9%)               (-9%)



                Table 1



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                                              18
57.     It should be noted that all recorded crashes on the highway network
        are attributed to Camden. However 11% of the network comprises the
        Transport for London Road Network (TfLRN) e.g. Euston Road,
        Finchley Road and Camden High Street for which Camden is not the
        highway authority. Casualties on TfL roads account for 35% of the total
        casualties in the borough (figures for 2001). Also each year on
        average, 6 of Camden‘s top 10 worst collisions are on TfL roads.
58.     The government has set ambitious casualty reduction targets for 2010
        in Tomorrow’s Roads: safer for everyone, which have been adopted in
        the Mayor‘s Transport Strategy for London and by all the boroughs.
59.     Progress against the targets is shown in the table below. The average
        yearly casualty figures for the 5-year period 1994-98 are used as the
        baseline from which to monitor progress. The targets are:
                40% reduction in killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties
                 with pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists specified by the
                 Mayor.
                50% reduction in child (under 16 years) KSI casualties
                10% reduction in slight casualties
             Table 2 - Casualties and Targets - Killed and Seriously Injured
             Casualties by Road User Category

                         TARGET = 40% reduction from baseline figure                TARGET
                                                                                      = 50%
                                                                                    reduction

                 Total     Pedestrian   Pedalcyclists   Motorcyclists   Car users   Children
                 KSIs

 Baseline
  1994/8         249          104             31              41           51          25
 average
casualties
  2001
  actual
                 225           71             24              63           45          15
casualties

  2002
  actual
                 232           91             28              49           46          17
casualties


    2002
  interim
                 228           96             28              37           47          22
   target

   2010          150           62             19              25           31          12
  target

60.     The relatively small numbers involved in these categories mean that
        casualty numbers can fluctuate from year to year. However there is a
        significant downward trend, from the baseline towards the year 2010

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                       19
        targets, for pedestrians and children and a smaller downward trend for
        pedal cyclists and car users. The exception is motorcycle casualties,
        which despite a significant drop in 2002 and a further decrease in the
        first nine months of 2003 in Camden, remain considerably above the
        baseline across London. Part of the context for the London increase in
        casualties is the increase in motorcycle usage generally throughout
        London and because of their exemption from the Congestion Charging
        Scheme.
61.     The following table compares the progress made by Camden towards
        the targets in percentage terms, with neighbouring authorities.
        Table 3: Percentage Change in 2002 Casualties Over the Baseline
                                                                           Slight       Total
Borough
                                                                           Casualties   Casualties
               Total    Pedest-   Pedal      Motor      Car     Children
               KSIs     rians     cyclists   cyclists   users

Camden         -7%      -13%      -10%       +20%       -11%    -31%       -18%         -16%

Islington      -6%      -13%      +27%       +26%       -30%    -14%       -3%          -3%

Westminster    -18%     -28%      -27%       +10%       -13%    -3%        -11%         -12%

Haringey       +12%     +18%      +19%       +33%       -4%     +3%        +2%          +4%

Brent          -25%     -30%      -60%       +26%       -25%    -46%       -7%          -9%

62.     The target figures are - 40% and - 50% for children. So a -13% figure
        represents 13% fewer casualties and a +19% figure means a 19%
        increase in casualties. Therefore a high minus figure is good and a
        high plus figure is bad.
63.     Camden‘s Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for total killed and
        seriously injured (KSI) casualties, and child killed and seriously injured
        casualties are 5% tougher than the Mayor‘s targets. Camden has met
        both its 2002/03 targets of 239 and 21 casualties respectively with
        figures of 222 (total KSI casualties) and 17 (child KSI casualties) for
        the year.
64.     The panel asked that to help with analysing risks and fault, more
        emphasis should be placed on vehicle type when publishing casualty
        statistics and, where possible, indicate the relationship between
        casualty data and changes in the extent of walking and cycling and
        degree of use of particular vehicle types.

            Recommendation
        1. That the Council and Transport for London (TfL) should place more
           emphasis on vehicle types involved in collisions when publishing
           casualty statistics; in particular showing in their annual reports the
           types of vehicles involved in crashes in which pedestrians or
           cyclists are killed or injured.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                          20
65.     Crashes and casualties are monitored automatically through the
        statistics kept by the police but this is an imperfect record. Hospital
        checks show that some serious and slight casualties are not reported
        to police and some are misclassified. The panel heard that in the
        Netherlands, a large household survey on road casualties was
        conducted during 1986/7 which showed that 42% of them did not
        appear in either police or hospital records.
66.     The panel felt that TfL should continue to check the statistics from the
        police against hospital records and consider undertaking a household
        survey to achieve more reliable figures of road casualties.

            Recommendation
        2. The Council should request that TfL continue to check the statistics
           from the police against hospital records and consider undertaking a
           household survey to estimate the total number of road casualties.

Complementary measure of road danger
67.     To address the concerns that casualty statistics should not be the only
        factor used when deciding on safety schemes, the panel considered
        the idea of a complementary measure of road danger in a paper
        prepared by Mayer Hillman.
68.     The panel were told that road casualties should be seen as only a
        partial measure of road danger. Child road casualties have fallen
        sharply in the last 30 to 40 years and one major factor is that rather
        than roads being safer, parents now perceive a greater risk of
        exposure of their children to danger and therefore do not allow them
        out on their own until later in childhood. Yet the DfT treats road
        casualties as the only measure of road safety.
69.     The panel felt that Camden could take the initiative on this aspect of
        road safety policy and the Camden Cycling Campaign supported this
        view. The panel noted that Camden was already a step ahead of most
        local authorities through its membership and active involvement in the
        work of the Road Danger Reduction Forum.
          “There is a need for a new measure of road safety other than
          casualty numbers. In particular, a measure of usage by people of
          all ages would be an indicator and a measure of speed would be
          another. The current measures omit any consideration of
          convenience and perception of danger. For example, people will be
          discouraged from crossing a busy road with inadequate crossing
          facilities, yet road casualties may be low because crossing the
          road is inconvenient, or looks more hazardous than it is, so people
          don‟t try.”
          Jean Dollimore, Camden Cycling Campaign.
70.     While it is relatively easy to have a statistical base by which to record
        changes in road casualties, measurement of danger is far more
        difficult. A pilot project was suggested – perhaps whereby the number

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            21
        of vehicles on a sample of roads was multiplied by the average speed
        at which drivers were travelling along a stretch of them. The panel
        accepted that this may be somewhat simplistic but it could provide a
        simple measure which could then be used as a baseline for targeting
        progress on making Camden‘s, or indeed any, roads safer.
            “East Heath Street is like a racetrack. Walking with my dog at
            night, we take our lives into our hands when crossing the road.”
            Local resident at a public meeting organised by the scrutiny
            panel on 10 February 2004

             Recommendation
        3. That the Council look at alternative ways of collecting and analysing
           traffic flow and speed data to pilot a measure of road danger
           complementary to the use of casualty statistics.

Fear and intimidation
71.     There is an urgent need to reduce crashes and casualties, and many
        people think of the problem of road safety only in those terms. This
        seems to be the view of DfT which gives ―to reduce road casualties‖ as
        its sole objective for road safety. But the panel heard evidence that
        danger on the road had other important consequences which policy
        should address.
72.     The Women‘s Design Service survey showed that 46% of respondents
        said that fear of road traffic affected them every day and 62% saw road
        traffic as an important concern. The panel heard that the fear of being
        hurt in a crash distorted travel behaviour and deterred some journeys
        altogether. It also created some unnecessary ones when partners,
        friends and parents felt they needed to accompany someone. Danger
        inhibits children‘s play and other street life. If the travel still takes
        place, there is often an anxiety from the person concerned or on behalf
        of others.

Elderly people
73.     The panel heard evidence from elderly residents that speeding traffic,
        insufficient time at crossing and cyclists on pavements and jumping red
        lights contributed to their fears about going out and their likelihood of
        getting injured. This showed that the intimidation issue remained
        strong for older people.
74.     Evidence considered from the Kilburn Older Voices Exchange
        highlighted the following specific areas of road safety concern among
        its members:
            bus drivers driving off too quickly
            inadequate crossing times
            intimidating drivers at crossings
            cyclists on pavements
            badly maintained pavements


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          22
                                 obstructions on pavements
75.                         Fears and intimidation issues were strongly expressed by older
                            residents, despite the fact there was a downward trend in all casualties
                            involving older people. While this was welcomed, the panel remained
                            aware that casualty figures could go down because people went out
                            less because they were too afraid – and this would not be acceptable.
76.                         Table 4 below shows the number of pedestrian and car/taxi user
                            casualties over the last 5 years. The table also indicates the proportion
                            of casualties that involved older people in relation to the total number
                            of casualties (for pedestrians and car/taxi casualties). The table and
                            graph 2 below indicate a downward trend in the number of pedestrian
                            casualties involving older people. The number of car/taxi casualties
                            involving older people has fluctuated over the last five years. Graph 2
                            also shows that there is an overall downward trend in all casualties
                            involving older people.

                                          Pedestrian Casualties                    Car/Taxi Casualties

Year                             TOTAL 60+ yrs % of total peds 60+       TOTAL 60+ yrs        % of total car/taxi's 60+

                          1998      415         50                 12%      492          24                               5%

                          1999      446         60                 13%      495          38                               8%

                          2000      432         42                 10%      512          35                               7%

                          2001      401         48                 12%      497          23                               5%

                          2002      365         32                 9%       446          30                               7%

Table 4. Casualty figures



                                   Trend in casualties involving older people in Camden

                          140
   Number of casualties




                          120
                          100
                                                                                                       Total 60+
                           80
                                                                                                       Peds 60+
                           60
                                                                                                       Car/Taxi 60+
                           40
                           20
                            0
                                    1998         1999       2000     2001         2002
                                                            Year


Graph 2: Trends



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                                               23
77.                   Graph 3 below indicates where pedestrian casualties occur in relation
                      to pedestrian crossings and compares all casualties with those for
                      older people. The graph indicates that in 2002 there has been an
                      increase in the percentage of casualties involving older people on a
                      pedestrian crossing. This increase is also mirrored in the percentage of
                      total casualties that occur on a pedestrian crossing but to a lesser
                      extent. There is a downward trend in the percentage of casualties
                      involving older people within 50m of a pedestrian crossing.
78.                   The panel noted that Camden had been constructing more zebra
                      crossings in recent years and that this will have an impact on the
                      number of pedestrians hurt on crossings. However, the construction of
                      new crossings should assist in reducing perceptions of danger and
                      may encourage more people to walk.

                                           Location of pedestrian casualties

                              16
      Percentage pedestrian




                              14                                                    On ped crossing
                                                                                    (all casualties)
                              12
          casualties (%)




                              10                                                    Within 50m ped
                               8                                                    crossing (all
                                                                                    casualties)
                               6
                                                                                    On ped crossing
                               4                                                    (60+)
                               2
                               0                                                    Within 50m ped
                                                                                    crossing (60+)
                                    1998    1999    2000    2001     2002
                                                    Year

                      Graph 3: Location
Disabled people
79.                   The panel considered views heard from Camden‘s Mobility Forum and
                      also written evidence from the Royal National Institute for the Blind
                      (RNIB), the Disability Rights Commission and the DfT Mobility and
                      Inclusion Unit.
                               “Most disabled people have had poor experiences of public
                              transport, an exposure to unequal levels of risk and much of which
                              has led to personal injury. This has caused a dramatic reduction in
                              their confidence in using public transport again. Disabled people
                              are known to under-report incidents and injury incurred whilst
                              travelling or raise complaints about their journey experience.”
                              Disability Rights Commission, in their response to the Cabinet
                              Office consultation on transport and social exclusion


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                               24
80.     According to the Disability Rights Commission, the design of the
        national transport system neglects to address the unequal risks to the
        safety of disabled people. For example, in simply crossing the road, a
        disabled person may require one or all of the following:
            visual and audible signals
            to be able to distinguish between audible signals (a reversing lorry
             sounds almost identical to the signal played at road crossings)
            better parking enforcement
            dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces
            level, and well maintained footways and highways
            rotating tactile cones, installed to the underside of controls which
             indicate safe crossing times to deafblind people
            reduction in traffic speed - disabled people often have slower
             walking speeds and are unlikely to be able to avoid vehicular traffic.
             Reduced traffic speed will also reduce traffic noise to allow people
             to hear audible signals.
81.     Where any of these issues are not addressed in the pedestrian
        environment, some disabled people cannot cross the road without
        significant risk. Whilst there has been some very recent change to the
        transport environment, funded through Local Transport Plans, there
        has been little measurable difference in the safety of disabled people.
        There remain large numbers of disabled people who have barely
        travelled in the last ten years due to previous bad experiences.
            “Speeding drivers have a massive impact on other road users.
            Blind and partially sighted pedestrians find it even more difficult
            to avoid speeding motorists. Due to the difficulties experienced
            in the pedestrian environment, almost two-thirds of older blind
            and partially sighted are too frightened to go out alone.”
            Nicholas Russell, Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB)
82.     The panel heard that the Council‘s Streetscape Design Manual was
        being reviewed and reprinted and contained strengthened and detailed
        guidance on these issues in line with the Disability Discrimination Act.

Children
83.     The findings of a survey of children aged 7-14 in city schools carried
        out by road safety charity Brake in September 2003 suggested that
        children are frightened of speeding traffic and want more measures to
        make roads safer. Three-quarters of children questioned said they
        wanted more speed cameras. About 70% thought drivers should go
        slower near their school, with almost as many wanting drivers to slow
        down near their house. Half of the 1,500 children surveyed wanted
        safer places to cross the road.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             25
          "Kids from inner city schools are saying that they're fairly scared
          when they're walking to and from school and home.
          "There's a very strong message coming across from children to
          drivers, which is 'slow down, you might save the life of a child on
          foot‟."
          Cathy Keeler, Brake researcher
84.     Four out of ten children were scared of the roads when they were on
        foot and one in ten said they had been hit by a car themselves.

Social surveys
85.     The panel recognised the importance of social surveys. The Council
        includes questions on intimidation in regular consultations and
        following the concerns raised at an early panel meeting, a question on
        road danger will be included in the forthcoming survey with the new
        Citizens‘ Panel. The purpose will be to gauge whether people have
        negatively changed their behaviour and in what way. The Council will
        be trying to get evidence about whether older people and people with
        mobility problems actually stay indoors more and if children do not play
        outdoors because of traffic danger. It is hoped this will inform the
        Council of the main reasons for their fear, if they are fearful.
        4. The Council request that TfL and/or the Department for Transport
           (DfT) commission social surveys on road danger, fear and
           intimidation.

Road crossings
          “Most mobile adults have a strong preference for zebras, where
          pedestrians can assert their rights over drivers. But we
          appreciate that the elderly and the very young do not feel secure
          on them. Partly this is a matter of education; non-drivers do not
          know about pedestrian rights on a zebra.”
          Regents Park Road and Primrose Hill Association
86.     The panel suggested that perhaps there were areas in the borough
        where there should be more crossings rather than traffic calming. It
        was suggested that priority be given to constructing crossings in the
        vicinity of schools, hospitals and parks. Work programmes should not
        be so rigid and inflexible that the Council could not respond to local
        needs as they arose. Having said that, however, the panel did
        recognise that the restrictions that came with funding streams may
        make this more difficult than it sounded.
87.     Residents suggested that crossings should be located according to
        pedestrian desire lines. The panel recognised that the Council had
        been responsive to specific requests for locating and moving
        crossings, where these were possible and safe, but the Council has
        less influence over TfL roads, for which it is not the highway authority.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           26
88.     Officers did not feel that crossings were really alternatives to traffic
        calming although undoubtedly they were important to road safety. A
        detailed programme was being carried out introducing crossings,
        zebras and signals. In some residential areas with scattered casualty
        patterns, the introduction of crossings and the associated parking loss
        would not be popular.
89.     Elderly people and disabled people raised the issue of inadequate
        traffic light crossing time for some people to manage safely and the
        intimidation caused by drivers revving and hooting. The panel was
        aware that signal timings had to meet national standards and the
        Council only had limited control over these. It was told that signals
        fulfilled other purposes such as ensuring the efficient flow of public
        transport and avoiding gridlock at major junctions. Where appropriate,
        officers discuss this issue with TfL officers on a case-by-case basis.

Pedestrian countdown signals
90.     The panel requested evidence on pedestrian countdown signals, which
        involved having a number display between the red and green men
        traffic light displays. A number counts down in red or green to show
        the pedestrian how many seconds it will take before the signal
        changes. This signal has the potential to reduce the number of
        pedestrians crossing on the red man, assisting casualty reduction on
        crossings.
91.     The panel was told that this system was being tested in Copenhagen
        at a location with high pedestrian flows and the results show
        significantly fewer people are crossing on the red man. The system
        has also been piloted in Dublin which closer matches London in terms
        of traffic/pedestrian behaviour and volumes. The panel felt that it
        would useful to look into this with a view to a pilot of the system at key
        locations in Camden.
92.     The panel was informed that if the Council concluded that a pilot
        project would be feasible, the Council would need to convince
        Transport for London and the Department for Transport to do a trial.
        Liaison with signal manufacturers about the design would also be
        required. It is therefore a medium term project, which could deliver in,
        say, three years.

            Recommendation
        5. The Council should actively investigate the possibility of piloting
           pedestrian countdown signals, recognising that for technical
           reasons, this may take some time to achieve.

Safer routes to schools and leisure centres
93.     Camden‘s successful safer routes to schools programme has been
        instrumental in reducing road casualties on school journeys by
        minimizing danger on the way. The programme has enabled more of
        these journeys to be made on foot or cycle meaning less school run
        traffic. It has also resulted in more children taking regular exercise and


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            27
        thereby improving their health and fitness. The panel learnt that
        nationally, children‘s journeys to and from school account for less than
        40% of all their journeys and, perhaps surprisingly, for less than 20%
        of their fatal and serious road injuries. Therefore it seemed there was
        a case for looking at children‘s travel in their leisure hours.
94.     The panel was told about a safer routes to leisure centres project
        carried out by Ealing Council‘s Leisure Department in 1998. As part of
        the project, three main fears that parents have about allowing their
        children to travel on their own were identified — the risk of road injury
        in a crash, the risk of bullying or mugging by older children, and the
        risk of molestation or worse by an adult stranger. The project in four
        areas of the borough was aimed at making physical improvements to
        the routes to its facilities in order to minimise these risks. The panel
        suggested that Camden officers should discuss the scheme with
        Ealing officers, in particular to ascertain its success in terms of
        casualty reduction and/or increased usage of leisure centres.
95.     If feasible, a pilot project could start with a safer routes to Camden‘s
        swimming baths from the surrounding residential areas in which they
        are located. In this way, its effectiveness in promoting participation can
        be tested. If successful, this could be followed by the development of
        projects on safe routes to Camden‘s parks and libraries and so on.

            Recommendation
        6. The Council should investigate the feasibility and possible funding
           streams for a safer routes to leisure centres scheme, based on the
           experience of Ealing Council’s scheme.

Bad cyclist behaviour
96.     The vast majority of residents groups giving evidence to the panel,
        along with several members of the public at the public meeting, raised
        the problems caused by irresponsible cyclists‘ behaviour - such as
        cycling on pavements, jumping red lights, not stopping at zebra
        crossings and other violations of the Highway Code. The panel heard
        that there have been 3 recorded personal injury collisions involving a
        pedal cycle hitting a pedestrian on the footpath in the last 3 years.
        While this is not high, the panel did not underestimate the amount of
        distress and intimidation caused particularly for elderly, disabled and
        vulnerable people.
          “They should nick „em!” said one older person, angrily referring to
          cyclists who ride on the pavement. Another person said that he
          could understand why small children cycled on the walkways, as it
          was often so unsafe to use the busy roads. However, “They bob
          and weave” he added. This can make people feel very unsafe,
          particularly if they are not too steady themselves.
          Kilburn Older Voices Exchange




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           28
97.     While against the law, the panel heard that this was not a priority for
        the police and it was also difficult to identify offenders, as cycles are
        not registered. There were also issues of personal responsibility and
        the panel discussed what cycling groups and the Council could do. The
        panel heard details of the free cycle training available to any cyclist
        which the Council offered and felt that some more publicity could be
        produced on this.
          “We do not suggest that all cyclists are other than law abiding
          and responsible in their use of vehicles but common observation
          shows that there is a very large number of cyclists who routinely
          flout the law in every respect as it affects them as road users.
          In so doing, they put at risk the bodies and lives of their fellow
          citizens.”
          Norman Godfrey, Belsize Village Resident and Traders
          Association
98.     Residents understood why younger children did not feel safe riding on
        the roads, but wanted more done about teenagers and adults cycling
        on pavements. The panel felt that cycling groups, as well as
        individuals, should take some responsibility for bad cyclist behaviour,
        but also that the Council could consider a publicity campaign. The
        panel felt that there was merit in looking at acceptable behaviour
        agreements - which are preventative measures prior to or negating the
        need for an anti social behaviour order - for identified, persistent
        offenders.
          “No cycles on pavements please: pavements are for pedestrians!”
          Audrey Gandy, Langdon House Tenants and Residents
          Association

            Recommendations
        7. In order to alleviate the distress caused by teenagers and adults
           cycling on pavements:
            a)     The Council should urge TfL to launch a London-wide
                   publicity campaign to draw attention to the consequences of
                   irresponsible cycling, working with the relevant cycling
                   organisations.
            b)     In addition, the Council should, through its Borough Spending
                   Plan, seek funding from TfL to pilot this project, working with
                   the Camden Cycling Campaign.
            c)     The Council should consider pursuing the acceptable
                   behaviour agreement route, as a last resort, for identified,
                   persistent offenders.

Buses and safety
99.     Issues raised included the speed at which buses are driven and
        insufficient time for passengers to get off, causing them to stand while
        the bus is still moving; this particularly affected elderly passengers.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             29
        The Camden Cycling Campaign told the panel that unnecessarily
        aggressive driving by bus drivers could be highly intimidating for
        cyclists in their vicinity. Casualty numbers are fairly small but these
        issues, along with associated bus driver training, are raised with bus
        operators regularly by the Council at the Transport Management
        Liaison Meetings. The panel welcomed TfL‘s introduction of a BTEC
        driving qualification which is compulsory for new drivers.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         30
3. Legal framework
Legislation
100.    The Council has a variety of powers under different pieces of
        legislation that are or could be used to improve road safety in the
        borough. These powers and current policies relating to them are
        detailed in appendix 5.
101.    The powers available to the Council are often limited by the detail of
        the Acts of Parliament in question, related legislation and central
        government guidance. For example, the Council must be aware of the
        Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act in all its
        dealings with the public on these issues. Where consideration is given
        to changing the way in which the Council uses its powers it will, in most
        cases, be necessary to examine the proposal in some detail to ensure
        that the Council does not exceed its powers. Errors in this area can
        prove costly if the Council is challenged in the courts
102.    In the case of traffic management restrictions (other than parking
        restrictions), these are currently enforced by the police. In many cases
        it is difficult to persuade the police that high priority should be given to
        enforcing them, especially at present when the police are giving a
        greater emphasis to issues of terrorism and street crime.
103.    The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
        provides for a range of moving traffic offences to be decriminalised and
        the power of enforcement for these offences to be passed to London
        highway authorities (see paragraph 119).

Responsibilities
Department for Transport (DfT)
104.    The Department for Transport's stated objective is to oversee the
        delivery of a reliable, safe and secure transport system that responds
        efficiently to the needs of individuals and business.
105.    The DfT is responsible for approving all signal equipment and signs
        that are used on the public highway. Where a highway authority, that
        is a council such as Camden, wishes to pilot new equipment, signage
        or methods of controlling traffic in general, this would require the
        approval of DfT.

Transport for London (TfL)
106.    Transport for London (TfL) is the integrated body responsible for the
        capital's transport system. Its role is to implement the Mayor's
        Transport Strategy for London and manage the transport services
        across the capital for which the Mayor has responsibility. TfL is
        accountable for both the planning and delivery of transport facilities.



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             31
107.    TfL manages London's buses, the Underground, the Docklands Light
        Railway (DLR) and London Trams. It also runs London River Services,
        Victoria Coach Station and London's Transport Museum. TfL also
        manages a 580km network of main roads, all of London's 4,600 traffic
        lights and regulates taxis and the private hire trade.
108.    TfL puts a premium on working in partnership with London's key
        transport stakeholders. TfL is working with councils, which implement
        the Mayor's Transport Strategy on local roads, the Strategic Rail
        Authority - overseers of overland/national rail services into London, the
        police and groups representing the needs of different transport users.
109.    The Mayor's Transport Strategy sets out a package of policies and
        proposals designed to significantly improve transport in London, from
        buses, trams, river buses, DLR, taxi hire to cycling and walking.
110.    11% of Camden‘s roads are managed by TfL. The Mayor‘s London‘s
        Road Safety Plan says that TfL will:
           safety audit all modifications to the TfL road network
           monitor collisions and identify hotspots on TfL roads
           implement a system of local safety schemes
           safety audit major developments and associated transport changes

Metropolitan Police
111.    The police are responsible for enforcing driver crime which includes
        speeding and drink driving but not those recently decriminalised
        offences and passed to local authorities, outlined below and in
        appendix 6.
112.    Speed cameras were paid for by the London Safety Camera
        Partnership (LSCP), an organisation made up from the Metropolitan
        Police Service, City of London Police, Association of London
        Government, Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority and TfL.

Some current legal restraints
113.    The panel held an early question and answer session with the Acting
        Head of Law, Richard Gruet, and the Head of Street Policy, Doug
        Amer, to look at the legal possibilities and restraints affecting various
        road safety measures. The following questions were some of those
        posed and which provided a context for discussions on various
        enforcement tools such as speed humps, signs and speed cameras.
114.    What are the rules governing the imposition of 20-mph speed
        limits without humps or other physical enforcement?
       The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Act Order 1999
        removed the requirement for consent to be sought from the Secretary
        of State before 20mph speed limits cold be introduced by a highway
        authority. New road humps and traffic calming regulations came into
        force in 1999.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           32
       The rules governing the use of signs are set out in the Traffic Signs
        and General Directions 2002 and this document is a direction by the
        Secretary of State and must be complied with be a Highway Authority.
        The requirements of these regulations are mandatory. Where an
        authority wished to put up alternative signs or not follow the regulations
        they would require the permission of the Secretary of State.
       If no features providing for physical enforcement are in place then the
        use of the 20mph zone sign (Sign 674) is not permitted. Where the
        Authority establishes a 20 mph zone with traffic calming measures and
        signs it with a 20mph zone sign (without repeater signs) then there is a
        requirement that adequate calming measures are put in place. The
        regulations make clear that the first measure should be within 50
        metres of the sign and thereafter the measures should be no more
        than 100 metres apart.
       Where a speed limit of 20mph is put in place without traffic calming
        measures then there is a requirement for repeater signs to be placed
        at regular intervals. The limit would be signed by a 20mph sign (Sign
        670)
       The Secretary of State provided advice on the use of 20mph limits
        without calming in the Department of Environment, Transport and the
        Regions (DETR) Circular 05/99. This advice states "extreme caution
        should be exercised when considering making 20 mph limits using
        speed limit signs with no supporting speed reducing features".
115.    What are the rules for humps and speed tables? In particular, how
        many casualties of what severity within what time period are
        required on a given road before humps can be considered?
       There are no requirements for there to be a particular level of
        casualties before the Council install road humps.
       Prior to installation the authority is required to consult the emergency
        services and organisations representing people who use the road (this
        would include bus operators). Authorities are also required to advertise
        the proposals. The size of road humps is governed by the 1990 Road
        Hump regulations.
116.    What is the status of the rule that speed cameras can only be
        used to enforce limits of 30mph or more and what would be
        required to change this rule?
       The rules are given by the government and are mandatory for police
        forces in and applying to join the netting off scheme where money from
        fines is invested in more cameras. Any change would require the
        Secretary of State to issue new guidance.
117.    What is the status of the rules governing the number and severity
        of casualties that have to have occurred before a site can be
        considered for a speed camera and what would be required to
        change this rule?
       The criteria followed in the scheme for static cameras are:


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          33
            o 4+ KSI (killed or seriously injured) in 3 years
            o 30% of vehicles above the posted limit.
            o Site surveyed by traffic police officers
       Any change to the criteria would require the Secretary of State to issue
        new guidance.
118.    At present, Camden cannot either install or operate speed
        cameras itself. How could Camden obtain these powers?
       Primary legislation would be required similar to the legislation
        decriminalising moving vehicle offences in the recent London Local
        Authorities and Transport for London Act
       It is possible that the Council already has the power to fund speed
        cameras, should powers to install and operate be devolved.

New moving traffic contraventions powers
119.    The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
        received royal assent on 30 October 2003. This act provides for a
        range of moving traffic offences to be decriminalised and the power of
        enforcement for these offences to be passed to London highway
        authorities. The new powers will enable highway authorities to radically
        improve enforcement action against drivers who ignore traffic
        restrictions and thereby undermine the impact of casualty reduction
        and environmental traffic management schemes.
120.    The panel heard that it will be possible to use cameras to enforce a
        range of decriminalised moving traffic offences such as contraventions
        of banned turns, no - entry and one-way restrictions. A list of the
        restrictions and associated signs that it will be possible to enforce is
        included as appendix 6.
121.    Under the new powers Camden as well as five other local authorities
        have been requested to run pilot schemes in conjunction with the
        Association of London Government (ALG) initiative. If those pilot
        schemes prove to be successful then the enforcement of these
        offences will then be extended to all London local authorities which
        wish to take up this responsibility.
122.    To illustrate the effect that increased enforcement of these offences
        could have on casualty reduction, the panel examined a map and data
        showing around 60 collisions in Camden between 2000 and 2003
        where at least one vehicle has disobeyed a traffic sign. (It should be
        noted however that in some cases there might have been a more
        significant contributory factor to the collision.)
123.    The Council‘s Parking Solutions Team will be responsible for this as an
        extension of their current parking and bus lane enforcement activity.
        The enforcement that is currently being carried out is managed a by a
        team experienced in CCTV (closed circuit television) and parking
        enforcement from both a contractual and local authority background.
        The panel were assured that there are safeguards, procedures and


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         34
        instructions in place throughout the process to ensure quality is the
        highest factor and not quantity. This approach has been in place since
        the CCTV inception in October 2002 and in some areas, CCTV
        enforcement has been reaching an 80/90% compliance rate.
124.    The operators that will initially identify the contraventions are
        contracted staff but whilst in the control room carrying out their duties,
        will be directly managed by Council officers. Council officers
        undertake all CCTV training of new operators including a two-week
        intensive course on the control room procedures, code of practice and
        legal aspects of the enforcement. After completing the two-week
        course the operators are supervised in the practical aspects over a
        minimum period of a month.
125.    It is the intention that the enforcement of the new moving
        contraventions will be carried out by the use of CCTV cameras. This
        type of evidence is normally irrefutable and negates the possibility of
        erroneous penalty charge notices (PCNs) being issued. For Camden
        to ensure continuity of enforcement and to complement fixed cameras,
        it is planned to use two mobile CCTV vehicles throughout the borough
        (one north and one south) primarily in conjunction with a residents
        reporting line and to enable the Council to respond effectively to any
        area in which high levels of non compliance is recognised.
126.    On the PCN that will be issued is a photograph of the contravention
        and a non-sequential number giving the opportunity to access further
        frames of the contravention on Camden‘s own website. Camden
        Council is the only London authority to have made this facility
        available. The Council is also in the process of developing these
        frames into a video clip which allow further flexibility of access. In
        addition, the Council has installed a facility to allow drivers/owners to
        make a personal visit to our offices and view the footage of the
        contravention in our viewing street where they will be accompanied by
        a Council officer who can provide any explanations required.
127.    Under current legislation, the registered keeper has the right to appeal
        any contraventions and procedures will incorporate the new
        contraventions.
128.    Officers have suggested that members of the road safety and/or the
        proposed parking scrutiny panel(s) may like the opportunity to view the
        control room during live enforcement and to put any questions they
        may have to managers at that time.
129.    The panel felt that the police attitude to driver crime and the resources
        allocated to enforcement were inadequate and acknowledged that
        there was an enforcement gap. Given the realities of this, the panel
        and many of the residents who spoke to the panel welcomed the new
        powers for the local authority. Aileen Hammond told the panel that the
        Belsize Residents Association would like to see the new ward based
        community police officers involved in the enforcement of traffic
        offences: they did not see a contradiction in the additional use of
        parking attendants, with suitable training, undertaking enforcement of
        the newly decriminalised offences.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           35
130.    She said that one of the problems of just relying on parking attendants
        to enforce was that they couldn‘t deal with serious traffic offences. It
        would be necessary to be clear how and who were enforcing what. The
        police and parking attendants should not be seen as an alternative to
        each other, rather a holistic approach to enforcement should be
        undertaken so that they complement one another.
131.    There were, however, some strong misgivings expressed by some
        residents at the public meeting about the Council‘s contractor‘s parking
        attendants carrying out this enforcement. Some said that they would
        prefer that the Council directly employed the officers enforcing. Two
        members of the panel had some doubts about the timing of the pilot
        scheme being undertaken immediately when there was a parking
        scrutiny scheduled for November 2004.

            Recommendation
        8. That the Council monitor closely the functioning of the operation of
           the new enforcement powers.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004        36
4. Road safety in Camden: tackling the problems
Policy context
132.    Tomorrow’s Roads: safer for everyone (March 2000, DfT) outlines the
        government‘s statement on how it plans to improve road safety
        nationally in the decade 2000 – 2010.
133.    London’s Road Safety Plan (November 2001, TfL) deals with road
        collisions in London, with details of joint work by TfL and other
        agencies including boroughs, police and health authorities to improve
        road safety in the capital.

Camden’s Community Strategy
134.    Three of the six key aims of the Council‘s Community Strategy are
        directly relevant to road danger and road safety. These aim to make
        Camden:
         a safer place
         a healthier place
         an attractive and environmentally friendly place
135.    Specific targets within the Community Strategy which address road
        danger and road safety include: reducing numbers of people killed and
        seriously injured (target 50), reducing fear of crime (target 30) and
        increasing 20mph zones (target 85).
136.    Various other Council plans and strategies take forward these aims in
        more detail: these include Camden‘s Road Safety, Walking and
        Cycling Plans. These three plans play a central part in the Council‘s
        Green Transport Strategy, an action plan to create a cleaner, safer
        Camden.

Road Safety Plan
137.    Camden's Road Safety Plan explains the Council‘s policies and
        practices to reduce death and injury on the road by 2010, in line with
        Government targets. It includes sections on:
           Education, training and publicity
           Enforcement
           Managing excessive and inappropriate speed
           Partnerships with neighbouring boroughs, the Police, the Health
            Authority and Transport for London
           Safer Routes To Schools
           Traffic Reduction
138.    Consultation on the draft Road Safety Plan was carried out between
        July to September 2002. There were almost 400 responses from
        different groups, including older people, people with disabilities,
        parents of young children, cyclists and ethnic minority groups.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            37
Camden’s Walking Plan
139.    Camden‘s Walking Plan explains how Camden is encouraging walking
        within the borough and sets down a series of targets and performance
        indicators to monitor progress. Reviews of the plan are published
        every year detailing how Camden is progressing in meeting the targets
        to improve conditions for pedestrians and picking up on new initiatives
        and targets.

Camden’s Cycling Plan
140.    The Cycling Plan sets out the Council‘s strategy for encouraging
        cycling within the borough and establishes targets to measure
        progress in meeting the objectives of the strategy.
141.    The Council is committed to a safer street environment and providing
        real improvements for cyclists on the road network. The Cycling Plan
        sets targets that are challenging but achievable and aimed at tackling
        the barriers that prevent people from cycling. A review of the Cycling
        Plan is published every two years detailing Camden's progress in
        meeting the targets to improve conditions for cyclists

Road safety programmes and schemes
142.    The table 5 below sets out the Environment Department‘s spend on its
        various road safety related programmes in recent years.

                     (Figures are in £000‘s)           1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

        Local Safety Schemes (External funding)              237        185   250    237    488

        Safer Routes to Schools (Ext. fundg)                  77        269   130    295    300

        Safer Routes to School (Internal funding)                             300    500         0

        Vulnerable Road Users (Int. fundg)                                    100    500         0

        Walking Schemes (Ext. fundg)                                    150   200      80    30

        20mph Zones (Ext. fundg)                                              120    130    300

        20mph Zones/Traffic Calming (Int. fundg)                              1225   1020   1129

        Streets for People (Ext. fundg)                                              330    227

        Town Centres (Ext. fundg)                                                    425    500



        Totals                                               314        604   2325   3517   2974

        Table 5
143.    The panel was mindful that its terms of reference required it to
        consider whether road safety work in Camden was adequately
        resourced. While people are being killed on Camden‘s roads, there


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                 38
        will always be an argument that there is never enough spent on road
        safety. The panel was aware that Camden had the highest TfL
        settlement of any London borough and also that significant Council
        resources had been allocated to road safety initiatives. Within the
        London context, the panel felt that the road safety agenda was as well,
        or better, resourced as in other boroughs but noted that Street Policy
        Team officers would continue to seek more capital funding where they
        could from all sources.

Effectiveness of traffic calming
20mph zones
144.    The panel heard that the best way to reduce the number of serious
        casualties was through 20mph zones. Where these had been
        introduced, it has led to approx a 70% reduction in the number of
        casualties. If this type of scheme were to be enforced by speed
        cameras, it would require a change to government guidance on the
        way cameras were used and located. In practice such an approach
        would require notices to indicate that drivers would be entering a
        camera area, where mobile cameras were not required to be signed
        and painted yellow.
145.    Traffic calming can be delivered on single streets but these days tends
        to be on an area basis to address a casualty pattern that is more
        dispersed. 20mph zones must have traffic calming to make them self-
        enforcing – hence the impressive casualty reductions. A national study
        showed an average reduction in speeds of around 9mph, and a
        reduction in traffic flows of some 27%. The casualty reductions are
        given in the table 6elow.
        Table 6: Reduction of road crash casualties in 20mph Zones

                                           Annual casualties rate
                                           per scheme

                                           Before           After       % Reduction
                                                                        in casualty
                                                                        rate

         Pedestrian                        1.69             0.62        63

         Pedal Cyclist                     0.42             0.3         29

         Motorcyclist                      0.40             0.11        73

         Other                             0.87             0.29        67

         Child pedestrian                  1.24             0.37        70

         Child cyclist                     0.21             0.11        48



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           39
         All casualties                    1.45             0.48        67

        (Source: Webster & Mackie 1996, Review of traffic calming schemes in
        20mph Zones, Transport Research Laboratory report 215. Looking at
        72 self-enforcing 20mph Zones.)
146.    A recent TfL funded study of 20mph Zones in London, carried out by
        TRL, gave the results in the table below. Camden contributed some
        evidence from early 20mph zones. Traffic speeds were reduced by an
        average of 9mph, and flows reduced by about 5%. There was no
        evidence of ―casualty migration‖ onto other roads.
        Table 7: Before and after casualties in London 20mph Zones

         Rd users                Casualty      reduction KSI                 casualties
                                 per year site           reduction           per year
                                                         per site

         All casualties                      46%                        60%

         Pedestrians                         40%                        50%

         Child                               48%                        61%
         pedestrians

         Pedal Cyclist                       33%                        50%

         Child        pedal                  59%                        60%
         cyclist*

         Powered Two                         41%                        68%
         wheelers
         (motorcycles
         etc)

         Car occupants                       57%                        77%

         Child     car                       51%                        47%
         occupants**



        (Source: London Road Safety Unit Safety Research Report No.2, Sept
        2003:
        *small sample size means KSI data is not statistically significant
        **small sample size means data is not statistically significant)

Engineering measures
147.    The local safety schemes budget is specifically used to address
        casualty problems at locations throughout the borough. Through the

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004               40
        use of cost – effective engineering measures these schemes have
        reduced casualty numbers at treated sites by an average of 34% since
        1994. It is on this basis that they continue to receive funding from
        Transport for London.
148.    The road safety engineering interventions programmes that had been
        developed, especially those dealing with speed, were evidence based
        with the view to maximising the casualty reduction figure. They did not
        tend to be based on people‘s perceptions.
149.    While schemes funded through the other budgets highlighted above
        can also result in a reduction in casualties this is not always their prime
        objective. However, 20 mph Zones have been particularly successful in
        reducing casualties in residential areas where traffic calming is used to
        reduce traffic speeds. A recent study commissioned by the London
        Road Safety Unit looked at the effect on casualties of over one
        hundred 20mph zones across London. On average, all casualties were
        reduced by about 45% with killed and serious casualties (including
        children) being reduced by about 60%.
150.    Camden continues its innovative approach in taking account of the
        Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) as well as casualty statistics in
        prioritising the proposed 20mph Zones programme. This follows a
        report by the Institute of Public Policy Research in 2002 (IPPR. 2002,
        Streets Ahead – safe and liveable streets for children) which confirmed
        earlier studies that suggest that there is a strong correlation between
        child pedestrian casualty rates and area deprivation. Children in the
        10% most deprived wards were more than three times as likely to be
        pedestrian casualties as their counterparts in the 10% least deprived
        wards.

Local safety schemes
151.    Local safety schemes are aimed at identified casualty locations, i.e. at
        sites where there were clusters of casualties tend to have a 30 - 40%
        reduction rate. These use a range of traffic management techniques
        depending upon the location and collision pattern. Overall, in Camden
        the record for average casualty reduction at treated sites since 1995 is
        34%. This table picks out those which have used traffic calming
        (although other measures may also have been used). The average
        reduction for these schemes is 55%.
        Table 8: Casualty reductions in Local Safety Schemes involving traffic
        calming, Camden 1995-2002

                                         Casualty data

       Location               Date       Before         After 36        %          Annual
                                         36             months*         reductio   casualti
                                         months                         n          es
                                                                                   saved

       Frognal                4/95       11             3               -73        2.7


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                    41
       Laystall St area       3/96       2              1               -50    0.3

       Maygrove Rd            5/96       11             1               -91    3.3

       Highgate West          5/97       21             11              -48    3.3
       Hill (phase 2)

       Dartmouth Pk           6/97       25             21              -16    1.3
       Hill (phase 1)

       West                   10/97      40             29              -27    3.6
       Hampstead
       Gdns area

       Regents Pk             12/98      48             26              -46    7.3
       Estate

       Dartmouth Pk           9/01       30             9 (18           -40    4.4
       Hill (2)                                         mths)

       Guilford               3/02       10             0               -100   3.3
       St/Doughty St                                    (12mths)

       Total                             198            101             N/A    29.5

       Average                           22             11.2            -55    3.3

152.    In residential areas the casualty patterns tend to be far more spread
        out across areas. The Council uses 20mph schemes that seek the
        effect of reducing speeds across the whole area, as this was the most
        effective way of reducing casualties. Should lower speed restrictions
        be introduced, then before and after data is kept to see how effective it
        has been. The standard period for such monitoring is 3 years before
        and 3 years after. Many of Camden‘s current 20mph zones have been
        implemented less than 3 years ago, and therefore full analysis of these
        zones is not yet possible, but will be carried out later.

Speed humps and cushions
153.    There were clearly strong views both in favour of and against physical
        traffic calming measures such as road humps and speed cushions. A
        GLA scrutiny on road humps was being carried out while the panel was
        sitting and while panel members kept themselves informed, it was
        agreed that the panel would not duplicate that detailed work. However,
        the panel did hear views across the whole spectrum from Camden
        residents.
          “We are fed up to the back teeth with the problems road humps
          cause.”




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                 42
          Local resident at a public meeting organised by the scrutiny
          panel on 10 February 2004
          “I prefer road humps to dead children.”
          Another resident at the same meeting




          “Our Association very much supports the introduction of a 20mph
          zone, without invasive features such as road humps - proven by
          research to have detrimental noise and vibration consequences -
          and over-intrusive signage.”
          Jo Clough, Downshire Hill Residents Association
          “I would like to place on record that road humps in Laurier Road,
          especially the upper part between York Rise and Dartmouth Park
          Road, have been of great benefit in slowing traffic and making
          the road much safer. The humps have stopped cars from
          travelling at speeds dangerous to other road users. Speed
          restrictions on their own would not be adequate.”
          Kenneth Blyth, Upper Laurier Road Residents Group
          “Often when there is progress in one aspect of the transport
          environment, there is a negative effect for disabled people. For
          example, there have been recent initiatives to reduce traffic
          speed through the installation of traffic calming humps. Positive
          though this is, the uninformed design of the humps can cause pain
          for disabled drivers and passengers as jolting occurs when driving
          over them.”
          Disability Rights Commission
          “There is a strong opposition to the use of road humps; there is
          however support for the provision of raised junctions and speed
          tables.”
          Richard Simpson, Primrose Hill Conservation Area Advisory
          Committee
          “Road humps: see the need, but regret their necessity.”
          Eric Watts, Fordwych Residents Association
154.    The panel wished to look at all the alternatives to road humps -
        including some new ideas which could avoid the use of road humps
        where they were unpopular, but still deliver on speed reduction and
        casualty reduction.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          43
Ambulances
155.    The panel was aware of the controversial Camden and London-wide
        headlines about the London Ambulance Service‘s objections to road
        humps. The most important point was that the London Ambulance
        Service and local authorities were actually on the same side as both
        wished to save lives and minimise injury and suffering.
156.    While accepting that any delay to an ambulance could have a
        detrimental effect on patients, the panel felt that further scientific
        research was needed. This should include various reasons for delay –
        such as illegal and pavement parking, traffic congestions and motorists
        not pulling over – as well as road humps and other physical traffic
        calming measures.
          “In light of all the heat and commotion that has been created
          around this issue, it is important to remind ourselves that we have
          one very important common ground here: we are all about trying
          to reduce avoidable death and injury.
          It is clear, I think, and not very controversial, that decisions
          about traffic calming need to reflect the competition between
          two very important public goods. On the one hand road safety,
          and on the other hand the survival and well-being of seriously ill
          patients. Those two, it is just as well to admit it, are occasionally
          in conflict. Neither can be pursued to the exclusion of the other.
          What we have to do is strike the right balance between them.”
          Sigurd Reinton, Chair of London Ambulance Service, giving
          evidence to GLA Scrutiny 11 December 2003
157.    It was noted that historically, officers had found it difficult to engage the
        London Ambulance Service in a productive dialogue. For example,
        they had not provided the Council with key emergency routes, they
        would not discuss the detail of individual schemes but put up blanket
        objections and they did not attend the regular Traffic Management
        Liaison Meetings.
158.    There had been a recent breakthrough, no doubt partly due to the GLA
        and Camden scrutinies, and the panel was told that the local
        ambulance service has now provided a draft map of key routes. But
        the panel was concerned that the ambulance service and the Council
        needed to work more closely together to ascertain a local agreement
        on how emergency routes should be treated where there is a casualty
        issue.
159.    The ambulance service should be asked to discuss each proposed
        scheme on its own merits and not to give a blanket objection. The
        panel felt that there was a need for a named ambulance officer with the
        responsibility for liaison with the Council, who could attend the Traffic
        Management Liaison Meeting on a regular basis. It was noted that
        London Buses always attended the meetings and several problems
        and issues for both sides had been resolved using this process.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             44
            Recommendations
        9. That the local Head of Camden Ambulance Service be requested to
           appoint a named officer with the responsibility for liaison with the
           Council, who will comment on individual schemes and attend the
           Traffic Management Liaison Meeting.
        10. That the Government be requested to fund a Transport Research
            Laboratory (TRL) study - with appropriate health, ambulance, police
            and fire services input - to ascertain hard evidence around delays
            and response times. This study should look at the effect of traffic
            calming but not in isolation to other characteristics of London’s
            streets such as congestion and obstructive parking. The study
            should consider solutions in terms of road hump designs, vehicle
            design or alternative modes of emergency services delivery.

Alternatives to road humps
160.    In tandem with the GLA scrutiny and not conscious of not duplicating
        work, the panel did consider some limited evidence on the
        effectiveness of road humps. It also looked at other work which had
        been carried out to reduce speed with alternatives to speed humps and
        considered the experiences of council officers and heard about
        industry developments.
161.    The table 9 below shows the effectiveness of various speed reducing
        measures.
        Table 9: Effectiveness of speed reducing measures (national)

         Measure                                                        Effect    on   mean
                                                                        speed

         Traffic calming (humps, bumps etc)                             -9.3mph

         Speed cameras                                                  -6.0mph

         Vehicle activated signs                                        -4.2mph

         Flashing signs (not vehicle activated)                         -3.8mph

         Static signs                                                   -2.2mph

        (Source: Mackie1998, Urban speed management methods, Transport
        Research Laboratory report 363)
Flashing signs
162.    Camden has been one of few authorities to pilot flashing signs with
        detectors so that the signs are activated by vehicles exceeding the
        relevant limit. Results to date are summarised below. Reductions are
        in the order of 2-3mph, which is insufficient to ensure that a 20mph
        Zone would be self-enforcing. The additional signing would also have a
        negative impact in terms of street clutter etc. These measures, and the
        possible use of new noise producing road surfaces, are used on roads
        (such as key routes for emergency services) where vertical deflections,

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                   45
        such as road humps, are inappropriate but cannot deliver dramatic
        reductions in speed and the consequent reductions in casualties.
         Location     Before                  Average              Reduction Reduction
                      speeds                  after speeds         (mph)
                      (mph)                   (mph)                          (%)
         Highgate Rd     35.3                      32.7               2.6        7.3
         Mansfield Rd    31.9                      29.1               2.7        8.6
         Mill Lane       29.9                      29.5               0.4        1.3
         Southampton     32.2                      29.2               3.1        9.5
         /Malden Rd

        Table 10 – speed reductions

Chicanes
163.    Chicanes can be used as speed reducing measures but have some
        drawbacks. The DfT describe results as ―mixed‖.
164.    Anecdotally there is evidence that some drivers treat chicanes as a
        challenge, and therefore may increase speeds. Cyclists object strongly
        to ―pinch points‖ and chicanes since driver behaviour at these points –
        failure to take account of cyclists – can result in increased danger of
        injury to cyclists. DfT suggest that drivers may concentrate overmuch
        on negotiation of chicanes, and therefore not take account of other
        factors such as pedestrians crossing. Chicanes must be relatively tight
        to have an effect – forcing a real deflection in the forward progress of
        traffic. Tight chicanes – with a short length – do prove difficult for larger
        vehicles. Chicanes success can involve obstruction of forward visibility,
        which can involve greater street clutter or installation of ―planters‖ and
        other obstructions. Given the continuing pressures on declining
        revenue funding for management and maintenance, officers do not in
        general propose such measures since the Council may not have the
        ability to adequately maintain them.
165.    Most significantly, chicanes reduce parking space. Very few London
        authorities now consult on such proposals since they are fully aware of
        local feeling on parking space provision and have experience of
        objections to road safety measures on that basis.
166.    In summary, chicanes have their own associated problems and
        officers‘ view is that they are less likely to be effective and almost
        certainly will be unacceptable to local residents.
Buildouts
167.    Buildouts have already been used extensively in the borough, for
        example on Albert St, and speed surveys suggest that they do not
        significantly reduce speeds. They can help visibility between
        pedestrians and drivers, and do have a continuing useful role as one
        tool. However, they would not be sufficient, on their own, to deliver a
        20mph Zone, for example. Build outs can also result in loss of parking
        which may be unacceptable to residents.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004              46
Mini-roundabouts
168.    These often require narrowing of footways and can make crossing
        more difficult for pedestrians. They can erode the residential nature of
        a street and can also be dangerous for cyclists.
Staggered parking
169.    Staggered parking is not feasible on most of the roads in Camden
        because there is already parking on both sides where possible, and
        residents and businesses are likely to object to parking loss. On some
        narrower roads, where parking is only feasible on a single side, this
        has already been designed in a staggered manner.
Rumble strips and “Rippleprint”
170.    Rumble strips are raised strips across the carriageway that aim to
        reduce speeds through creating noise in the vehicle. Although having
        some success with these, there have been problems with the noise
        created causing a nuisance for adjoining properties. Thus they are not
        really suitable for use in Camden. The Council only has such strips at
        one location, in Lamb‘s Conduit St, and has had repeated requests to
        remove them (a consultation on a wider improvement in Lamb‘s
        Conduit St has just been completed including this proposal).
171.    One company has developed a new approach which involves laying a
        textured road surface called ―Rippleprint‖. Initial tests suggest that
        (dependent upon the patterns and extent laid) it can achieve about
        3mph reduction and that most residents do not notice an increase in
        noise (97% have not noticed when indoors, 83% did not notice when
        walking along the footway).
172.    Officers consider that ―Rippleprint‖ may have some merit on roads
        such as emergency service key routes, where there is a problem with
        inappropriate speeds. However, they believe it is prudent to test the
        product in Camden before utilising it on residential roads. Officers have
        currently identified four possible sites where there are no adjacent
        residences, and are commissioning ―before‖ speed surveys. Following
        the selection of a final test site, the Pollution Team in the Environment
        Department will work with the Street Policy Team to test before and
        after levels of noise.

Road closures
173.    The panel discussed the idea of road closures and analysed their
        success in areas of the borough such as Somers Town where they had
        been successfully introduced. Council officers told the panel that while
        road closures were clearly effective, they were very resource intensive
        at the consultation stage and very controversial. Experience showed
        that residents were generally divided, and therefore they were seldom
        proposed by the Council. Officers would however consider street
        closure proposals if they were put forward by residents.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         47
Voluntary schemes
174.    The idea of a local, Camden-wide or London wide voluntary 20mph
        scheme was discussed. Below are some of the pro and cons provided
        by witnesses:
175.    Some of the pros included:
           public support may be in favour: a display sticker could be used to
            promote the campaign
           it would not require a lot of expensive physical environment
           once people see others driving at 20mph then they may be forced
            to follow their good example.
176.    Some of the cons included:
       variations in speeds could make the proposals unsafe
       it would need to be London wide if it is to work and need TfL support
        even if the scheme is just for Camden
       evidence suggests that it would not be followed
       out of borough drivers would not be aware of the Camden scheme, so
        won't drive at the 20mph being followed by Camden's drivers.
177.    There was not agreement from witnesses or within the panel for
        voluntary schemes but the idea of an education and car sticker
        campaign – along the lines of “I observe the speed limit” or a general
        speed reduction/driving safety message was considered worth trying.
        The idea, which was suggested by Mayer Hillman, was that rear
        window car stickers be made available which would inform following
        vehicles that the driver is a law-abiding citizen adhering to the
        prescribed speed limit. These could be issued with all parking permits
        and through community groups and schools.

Traffic enforcement
178.    The panel had heard that the enforcement of moving traffic offences is
        almost entirely the responsibility of the police. The exception is the
        enforcement of bus lanes where the responsibility now rests with local
        authorities. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London
        Act, which contains provision to decriminalise certain moving traffic
        offences, has afforded Camden the opportunity to be a pilot authority
        for this initiative to enforce those offences outlined in appendix 6.
179.    The London Safety Camera Partnership was set up in 2001 and is now
        part of the Government‘s national scheme to reduce speeds and
        casualties through the use of enforcement cameras. Camden is
        included in the Partnership via the Association of London Government
        which represents all the boroughs. Sites with the most serious
        casualties involving either speeding or red light contraventions are
        being addressed across London. Camden currently has 9 enforcement
        cameras in the borough and officers continue to liaise over further
        suitable locations.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         48
Signs
180.    Evidence from residents suggested that slower speeds would be
        warmly supported within their local communities but particularly if this
        entailed less excessive signage and fewer obtrusive road humps.
181.    The panel was aware that Camden, as every other authority, was
        subject to the strict national regulations about traffic calming measures
        used in 20mph zones and the necessary associated signing.
        However, it was felt that to advocate an experimental scheme with less
        prescriptive rules about signage – if the Council could achieve the
        necessary exemptions from TfL and the government - may well
        generate some goodwill from residents. The panel acknowledged
        there might be some cynicism about the effectiveness of such a
        scheme but saw this as an important opportunity to undertake an
        experiment which may help to resolve some of the conflicts around
        traffic calming.
182.    Evidence from the Belsize Residents Association suggested to the
        panel that residents in the Belsize/Hampstead area would be likely to
        be supportive of such a pilot scheme of a compulsory 20mph zone,
        avoiding at this stage TfL roads. This should be piloted with less
        signage and fewer engineering works than previous zones. TfL and the
        DfT will need to be approached for exemptions from some of the
        current legal restrictions and requirements so that this can be carried
        out as a carefully monitored experiment.
          “The Scrutiny Panel is looking at the issues in a systematic and
          informed way and it is exciting to see what you can do. Camden is
          a forward-looking local authority and has the understanding and
          courage to experiment with radical and fresh ideas.”
          Paige Mitchell, Slower Speeds Initiative

Cameras
183.    The panel heard evidence from Tom Duckham of the London Safety
        Camera Partnership (LSCP) who said that the main aim of the LSCP
        was to reduce road casualties and that had the 'knock on effect' of
        reducing speed as well. The LSCP has currently 700 camera sites
        roughly split 50-50 into those dealing with speed and those dealing
        with red lights.
184.    The panel heard that any camera licensed by the Home Office to be
        used to take photos of speeding vehicles took approximately 6 years to
        go through the approval system.
185.    The LSCP had developed a London wide set of criteria that sought to
        have in place 1,000 camera sites across the capital. These sites would
        be located in positions where there had been 4 or more people killed or
        seriously injured in the last 3 years. Previous sites had been where
        there had been 7 or more people killed or seriously injured.
186.    Mobile enforcement vehicles were available to deal with community
        concerns (approximately 15% of their time) rather than dealing with the

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          49
        casualty criteria and it was up to the London boroughs to identify
        where they should be deployed. Though London boroughs could
        purchase extra vans, the problem was staffing them. They could only
        be operated by the police not by civilian officers. The LSCP had an
        agreement with the Metropolitan Police to provide 6 dedicated and 5
        part-time officers to staff the mobile units
187.    Though evidence suggests that covert operations with hidden cameras
        were more effective than openly identifying their role, as shown by a
        study in Australia, the Department for Transport requires them to be
        identifiable to the public.
188.    Tom Duckham told the panel that in his view current camera
        technology could not be used to enforce 20pmh speed zones, as the
        cameras only worked for speeds over 30mph. 20mph zones would
        have to be self-enforcing at the moment. New digital cameras were
        being used in the Limehouse tunnel that would be able to take pictures
        at such slow speeds and the panel felt that the technology must be
        possible for 20mph.
189.    Again, evidence and views from residents and panel members were
        split on the use of cameras, particularly inconspicuous ones. The
        panel felt that the strong objections to speed cameras - voiced albeit
        by a minority of vociferous motorists – needed to be discussed.
          “I am a motorist myself and strongly support the use of hidden
          cameras to enforce speed limits. It is a noisy minority of
          motorists who object."
          Local resident at a public meeting organised by the scrutiny
          panel on 10 February 2004
190.    The panel thought that more needed to be done by the London Safety
        Camera Partnership to address the issues of motorists‘ consent,
        mistrust of speed cameras, lack of transparency and the perception
        that cameras were really about raising revenue rather than road safety.
191.    A study for the Home Office Police Research Group showed that
        speed cameras produced benefit/cost ratios much higher than can be
        obtained from other transport expenditure, even when important
        benefits, including intimidation were not taken into account. The panel
        felt that consideration should be given to widening the criteria for their
        location.

        Recommendation
        11. The Council should ask the Department for Transport to consider
            widening its criteria for the siting of road safety speed cameras.
        12. The Council should ask the London Safety Camera Partnership
            (LSCP) to undertake publicity and educational measures to address
            the issues of consent and the mistrust of road safety speed
            cameras, and explain that the primary purpose is for saving lives
            rather than raising revenue.



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            50
Police attitude to driver crime
192.    The panel noted that while some driving offences as (outlined in
        appendix 6) had been ― decriminalised‖ to allow local authority
        enforcement, driver crime still within police powers included speeding,
        using mobile phones whilst driving, cycling on pavements, drink driving
        and jumping red lights. The panel understood why the police were
        giving a greater emphasis to issues of terrorism and street crime, but
        still felt that the attitude that driver crime was ―not that serious‖
        prevailed and that insufficient police priority was given it.
193.    PC Neil Davies told the panel that he felt that the police consider the
        most serious offences to be those that were actually causing a danger,
        these were speeding, using a mobile phone while driving, causing a
        danger to pedestrians and drink driving. The next offences he
        considered most serious related to where the driver was potentially in
        danger - these were driving without insurance and driving without a
        seat belt.
194.    He said that the police dealt with the most serious issues and would
        not be able to cover all the issues that happen daily. They did though
        undertake specific active patrols to cover some of the less serious
        offences on a regular basis but a lack of resources did hamper this
        ability to be as pro-active as he would like. He informed the panel that
        when he started in his team 13 years ago there were 100 officers in
        post; now there were 66. These officers had to cover 4 boroughs and
        would have to cover 2 shifts: taking account of leave and other factors,
        this only left numbers in the low teens available to patrol each day. He
        was not aware of any prospect of the increase in police numbers
        extending to his team.
195.    Several witnesses said that they felt driver crime was not given
        sufficient priority by the police or local authorities. The panel agreed
        that it was important that driver crime was included and prioritised in
        the crime and disorder strategies of local authorities. Currently only
        three London local authorities had done so. This gives the impression
        that there are two types of crime, 'serious' and 'driver'. The seriousness
        and anti-social nature of driver crime needed to be recognised. The
        panel asked that driver crime be specifically included in the Council‘s
        consultation on its Crime and Disorder Audit and Strategy and also
        took up the suggestion from Belsize Residents Association that a
        regular (perhaps 6 monthly) item on road safety and driver crime
        should be introduced onto the Police Consultative Committee agenda.

        Recommendations
        13. The Council should give a higher profile to driver crime in its Crime
            and Disorder Audit and Strategy consultation leaflet.
        14. The Police Consultative Committee be asked to include a regular
            item on road safety and driver crime onto its agenda.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          51
Education, training and publicity
196.    The panel heard that Camden‘s Public Safety Team have an ongoing
        programme of visits to schools and pedestrian skills and cycle training
        programmes. These include the following:
       a Kerbcraft project in 12 schools teaching road safety skills to 5-6 year
        olds involving parents/volunteers, as part of a national pilot; schools
        were selected on the basis of child pedestrian casualties and
        deprivation indices
       street wardens trained to teach pedestrian skills for pupils at Argyle
        School, Kings Cross
       road safety dramas in schools, including shows to over 500 pupils in
        2002
       road safety training for adults with learning difficulties, a new
        programme in 2003, at Kingsway College
       a new road safety drama is being developed for Camden aimed at over
        60s, with 10 performances planned for 2004
       a publicity campaign around the borough‘s four 20mph limits, including
        explanatory leaflets to local households, and banners in the affected
        streets
       Camden has an extensive cycle training programme, and has just
        been successful in gaining TfL funding for a 3 year pilot of cycle
        training/cycle maintenance training for teenagers, a key group who
        have not taken up the previous training offered. This project involves
        production and distribution of safe cycling booklets as well as the
        training in cycling and cycle maintenance
       public safety officers have been closely involved in the development of
        consultation with children for all Safer Routes to School schemes.
        Before and after monitoring looks at perceived levels of road danger as
        well as traffic speeds and/or casualty information. This also helps
        identify sites where further work is needed.

Multi-disciplinary approach
197.    Camden has long recognised that effectiveness in the area of road
        safety involves a multi-disciplinary approach, and this has been
        strengthened in recent years.
198.    The Metropolitan Police have launched a new Promoting Local
        Partnerships initiative with the boroughs and Transport for London.
        The aim is to build upon existing relationships between the boroughs
        and the local traffic police to reduce casualties in the capital by
        effective enforcement. Council officers continue to meet with the local
        traffic police to identify priority locations across the borough for
        enforcement activity that will reduce casualties.
199.    The police and the Council felt that often people did not understand the
        link between speed management and safety. So, although casualties


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         52
        were reducing, the public was not generally supportive of cameras,
        road humps, or any speed enforcement by the police. As
        organisations with a strong partnership to reduce casualties, the police
        and the Council had recognised that one weakness of their joint road
        safety work was the communications issue. The panel strongly
        supported the partnership work being carried out so far and hoped that
        a joint communications strategy, to strengthen the other work done in
        engineering and enforcement, could be developed.
200.    The Walking, Cycling and Road Safety Advisory Group meets every
        two months. It acts as a useful forum for residents and amenity groups
        in the borough to raise road safety issues and was consulted by the
        panel on its priorities.
201.    One of the members of this Group, Belsize Residents Association
        (BRA), provided the panel with a very detailed and well-informed
        response to the panel's initial consultative questions and the panel
        remains very grateful to BRA for this work. It was therefore agreed to
        hold a whole panel session in dialogue with that association. In
        particular discussions were held around the various ideas for 20 mph
        zones.
202.    As part of her evidence, Aileen Hammond said the BRA supported the
        idea of compulsory 20 mph zones generally in Camden, and would
        support the introduction of a wide-ranging 20mph zone covering much
        of the Belsize and Hampstead areas. Traffic calming measures should
        not be ruled out, where necessary to make enforcement work, but the
        feeling of some of the BRA membership was that any physical
        measures introduced should be as 'light' as possible. Though
        generally supportive of the use of speed cameras to enforce, there
        were concerns from some members, regarding the human rights of
        individuals from the use of with inconspicuous cameras. Overall BRA
        said they would be willing to see piloted in their area any experimental
        scheme surrounding better enforcement of traffic offences.
203.    The panel also heard evidence from Bill Granger of the Finchley Road
        Community Forum urging that 20mph zones should apply to major TfL
        roads through town centres and to the roads providing access to them,
        especially where – as is the case for Finchley Road/Swiss Cottage –
        the town centre itself is a highly residential area. He told the panel that
        a 20mph speed limit should be piloted as a means of shifting the
        priority of highway use from ―through traffic‖ to ―pedestrian customers‖
        of town centres. Studies should be carried out and measures taken to
        provide safe routes to and within town centres.

            Recommendations
        15. The Council should work in partnership with Transport for London
            to introduce a compulsory 20 mph zone pilot, subject to
            consultation, with a new approach to signage and the minimum
            physical speed reduction features:
            a)     This would need negotiations with the Department for
                   Transport to relax current legal restrictions to allow this.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             53
            b)     The pilot scheme should be monitored in comparison with a
                   standard zone to determine the success of such a scheme.
            c)     Consideration should be given to introducing the pilot in a
                   residential area such as Belsize/Hampstead, where evidence
                   seems to show community support – with a view to extending
                   this should it prove successful.
            d)     The scheme should be incorporated within existing
                   programmes and priorities.
        16. The Council should consider a leaflet and rear window car sticker
            educational campaign - based on driving more safely and reducing
            speed - in partnership with one or more appropriate road safety and
            speed reduction organisation. This could be area focused to test
            the impact and replicated borough wide if effective.
        17. The Council should work in partnership with Transport for London
            and the Department for Transport on a pilot scheme(s) based on
            speed camera enforcement at 20mph, on one or more of the
            emergency services’ key routes, to test the technology and monitor
            effectiveness.
        18. The Council should ask TfL to pilot a 20mph scheme on a TfL road
            in a town centre.
        19. The Council should continue to develop working relationships with
            the police to introduce innovative speed enforcement schemes with
            a strong, joint road safety communications strategy.
          “We would be in favour of a Camden-wide 20mph zone but would
          question how effective a voluntary system would be. We would
          like to see Camden campaign to the government to permit a
          borough-wide 20mph zone without the requirement of humps and
          excessive signing, perhaps relying more on better-developed
          speed cameras.”
          Janine Griffis, Chair, Pilgrim’s to Willoughby Residents
          Association




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004          54
5. Other Issues
Consultation
204.    The panel felt there had been some misunderstanding over what is
        ―consultation‖ and what is notification. The panel was told that,
        following the difficulties over the Theobald‘s Road scheme, policy had
        been changed so that the Environment Department consults on the
        detail of local safety schemes - but not on the principle of the council
        reducing casualties at a particular site. Previously it simply informed
        residents had simply been informed of proposed actions regarding
        local safety schemes.
205.    The panel sought and considered views from residents in Camden on
        the Council‘s consultation policies and practices. There were a few
        negative responses but also some positive comments and constructive
        criticisms. Generally, the panel felt the Environment‘s Department‘s
        consultation procedures were robust.
206.    Belsize Residents Association told the panel that it was important to
        undertake good consultation before any schemes were introduced. In
        particular, it was helpful to have an open public meeting as well as
        consultation with groups, before the consultation options were
        finalised. It would be useful for the public to visit road safety schemes
        in place elsewhere to see how they operated in practice.
207.    The panel heard that there should also not be a long delay in installing
        schemes following the consultation process - no longer than a year.
        The panel heard that officers were now looking to approach
        consultation exercises on traffic schemes on an area basis. This
        unfortunately meant that specific schemes arising from the process
        often took longer than a year to implement. Even following a
        successful consultation, funding streams often meant delays.
208.    Evidence from Regents Park Road and Primrose Hill Association,
        highlighted the following points:
       documents need to be distributed reliably and systematically – this was
        not the case in Primrose Hill in June 2003 when, for example, many
        basement flats received nothing
       the Council should engage with groups early in the consultation stage
        and hold public meetings to be sure they have some idea of local
        opinions before they go to the expense of design and formal
        consultation
       responses should be weighted, so that the opinions of those living
        really close to the site in question are given more consideration than
        those from people living further away.
209.    Respondents to the Women‘s Design Service survey suggested some
        other ways of improving consultation such as consulting cycling
        organisations, putting leaflets on bikes and cars, poster and internet

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            55
        campaigns, roadside interviews and surveys targeting young and
        elderly people, surgeries and focus groups.
210.    Since officers believe that there are further issues about when and to
        what extent consultation is appropriate and provides real value, it is
        proposed during 2004/05 to present a proposal for alterations to
        consultation to the Council‘s Consultation Board for consideration.
        The panel welcomed this review.

             Recommendation
        20. As a part of its consultation on area traffic schemes, the Council
            should consider if appropriate and subject to resources, arranging
            a) a public meeting, and/or b) a visit for residents groups, to see
            how a similar scheme operates in practice elsewhere in the borough
            or a neighbouring borough.

Motorcycles
211.    The terms "two-wheeled motor vehicles" (TWMVs) is used in some
        evidence given as a collective term to refer to mopeds, motor scooters
        and motorcycles. In this section the term ―motorcycle‖ generally is
        used to refer to mopeds, motor scooters and motorcycles, although
        TWMV is also used at appropriate times usually as and when used by
        witnesses.
212.    The panel heard that motorcycles were used by a small minority of
        travellers. The number of casualties in crashes involving a motorcycle
        nationally is increasing both absolutely and as a proportion of all road
        casualties – although this is not the case in Camden. In Camden, over
        the period of almost ten years January 1994 to September 2003, 25%
        of all fatal and serious road casualties occurred in crashes involving a
        TWMV. Motorcycle riders and passengers accounted for 75% of these
        casualties (approximately 19% of total casualties) and pedestrians for
        90% of the remainder (approximately 6% of total casualties).
            “The government is concerned about motorcycle safety.
            Motorcyclists are our most vulnerable road users and are some 30
            times more likely to be killed on the road than car users and 4
            times more likely to be killed than cyclists. The government
            recognises that motorcycling is the preferred choice of transport
            for many people and that it has an important role to play within an
            integrated transport policy. Therefore the government wants to
            make motorcycling safer for those who choose this mode.”
            Jason Richardson, Department for Transport
213.    Evidence from the Tony Harms and Catherine Philpotts of the British
        Motorcycle Federation stated that nationally:
            motorcycles are on the increase
            motorcycle traffic rose by 28% between 1993 and 2001



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             56
           Motorcycles licensed for the road increased by 37% in the same
            period
           motorcycle rider KSIs rose by 6% between 1993 and 2001
           the rate for motorcycle rider KSIs per kilometre fell by 16%.
           In London, use within the congestion charging zone has gone up by
            20%
214.    The panel was told that motorcycle riders remained the most
        vulnerable of all roadusers. Although the number of bicycle and
        motorcycle casualties reported was roughly similar, the number of
        motorcycle KSI casualties was double. Alone of all motorised road
        user groups, motorcycle riders are as or more vulnerable than people
        travelling in other motor vehicles they collide with. Road Safety was of
        massive concern to the Federation and its members. Tony Harms and
        Catherine Phillpotts told the panel that they would like to see
        motorcycle users regarded with the same concern as pedestrians and
        cyclists, in the report and asked that local authorities seek the views of
        the Federation and other road user organisations when considering
        road safety and other relevant schemes.
215.    They outlined their safety priorities for motorcyclists:
       if there is money to be spent on roads, then motorcyclists' priorities
        would be:
            o a well maintained road surface with increased areas of
              "Shellgrip" style surface at the approach to hazardous junctions,
              bends, pedestrian crossings
            o proper marking of hazards, especially islands and including road
              humps and cushions
            o improved siting and surfaces for drain and services cover
       the key to accident reduction is the steady analysis of accident black
        spots and the introduction of turning lanes, road markings and traffic
        islands so that vehicle movements can more easily be controlled,
        recognised and predicted.
       the second key is to separate car and motorcycle movement by
        allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes
       the third key is to reduce the area where cars and motorcycles most
        often conflict, at the head of a traffic queue, by allowing motorcycles to
        use advanced stop areas
       the final key is increased driver and rider education.
216.    The panel considered a detailed paper on TWMVs by Stephen
        Plowden which said that, per mile, driven motorcycles kill or seriously
        injure more than five times as many pedestrians as cars do and nearly
        twice as many cyclists as cars do. These are London-wide figures
        derived from an analysis of traffic and casualty statistics for the years
        1999 and 2000.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            57
217.    The paper outlined several radical proposals. One of the two main
        suggestions was that the only powered two-wheelers to be allowed in
        the centre of London should be ones that are no more dangerous to
        pedestrians than cyclists are and no more dangerous to cyclists than
        cyclists are to each other. The panel as a whole did not support this.
        The other was that on roads in London outside the centre, all TWMVs
        which satisfied national construction and use regulations, should be
        allowed, provided that they were fitted with variable speed limiters set
        at 20 mph. The panel did not discuss this.
          “I agree that the high powered machines are quite unsuitable for
          use anywhere on our road systems as also are high powered sports
          cars capable of well over 100mph when our motorways are
          restricted to 70mph. I am 82 years of age and still own and ride
          a lightweight 100cc motorcycle. I have ridden motorcycles since
          1941 and I have no illusions about the risk.”
          Jack Scullard, regular visitor to Camden
218.    Other suggestions included:
       DfT/TfL should give priority within its research programme on variable
        speed limiters for motorcycles
       TfL should drop its plans to experiment with allowing TWMVs in bus
        lanes
       TfL should not increase parking provision for TWMVs
       TfL should remove the exemption of motorcycles from the congestion
        charge.
219.    The panel did not reach any consensus on these proposals. However,
        it suggested that Stephen Plowden's work be forwarded to TfL for their
        officers to consider when drafting their motorcycle policies for London.
220.    The panel was aware that a minority of panel members were
        disappointed that the panel's recommendations in this area were not
        sufficiently radical. Stephen Plowden's concerns were noted: "If we
        are going to reject radical approaches to this problem, I hope we will
        be candid enough to point out that without them the targets of a
        reduction of 40% in TWMV KSIs by 2010 that both TfL and Camden
        have adopted are unattainable."
221.    The panel was very concerned about the motorcycle casualty rates
        and the fact London-wide reduction targets were not being met and
        regretted that it was not in a position to make more progress on these
        difficult issues.
222.    In terms of motorcycle intimidation to pedestrians, the issue of young,
        inadequately trained and inexperienced moped riders - particularly
        those delivering pizzas - were the major annoyance to most residents
        groups who commented. There were also serious concerns about the
        individual safety of the young riders.



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            58
223.    A free reporting line is being set up which will enable members of the
        public to inform the council of any repeated contraventions in their area
        such as illegal behaviour by such riders and these will be will be dealt
        with under the new enforcement powers pilot.
224.    The panel heard from about a TfL experiment to allow motorcycles in
        bus lanes in Finchley Road. The Council has already asked that TfL
        should ensure that sufficient monitoring will be carried out to address
        the following questions:
           Does the use of bus lanes by motorcycles increase or decrease
            casualties for any particular mode?
           Does the use of bus lanes by motorcycles have a deterrent effect
            on cyclists using bus lanes?
        The panel could not reach a consensus on whether or not the trial
        should continue and therefore did not reach a view.

            Recommendations
        21. That TfL should be asked to investigate and report on the various
            issues and suggestions concerning TWMVs (two wheeled motor
            vehicles including mopeds, motor scooters and motorcycles) raised
            in section 5 of the report, when considering its policy on TWMVs.
        22. That TfL should be asked to publish a detailed account of how it
            proposes to achieve its objective of reducing fatal and serious
            injuries to TWMV riders by 40% by the year 2010 as compared with
            the average of the five years 1994 to 1998.

Lorries
225.    The panel considered some detailed evidence on the part played by
        lorries in causing casualties and intimidation. In this data, lorries are
        defined as heavy goods vehicles (which are vehicles over 7.5 tonnes
        maximum gross weight). The panel was told that according to TfL
        figures, crashes involving lorries were more likely to have fatal
        consequences than other crashes. In London as a whole, in the
        period January 1994 to September 2003, 11% of all road casualties
        but 21% of deaths took place in crashes involving a lorry. The
        equivalent figures for Camden were 12% and 32%.
226.    Most of the people hurt in lorry crashes are other road users, rather
        than the lorry occupants themselves. In London over this period, other
        road users comprised 79% of all casualties in crashes involving a lorry
        and 92% of deaths. The equivalent figures for Camden were 85% and
        96%.
227.    Vulnerable road users – pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists – are
        especially at risk of being killed by a lorry. The danger to cyclists is
        particularly acute. In London during this period, 51% of all cyclists
        killed on the road died in crashes with a lorry. Four cyclists were killed
        in Camden, three of them in crashes with a lorry. Systematic social
        surveys on intimidation are lacking, but it seems a fair inference from



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           59
        these figures that lorries are important as a cause of intimidation and a
        deterrent to would-be cyclists.
228.    The panel looked at several options from banning large lorries from
        residential streets to relaxation of the night time lorry ban hours.
        Evidence from Richard Simpson of the Primrose Hill Conservation
        Area Advisory Committee urged that the night time lorry ban should
        remain in force; but he added that consideration could be given to
        phasing restrictions to allow delivery in a pre-morning rush hour period.
        The problems caused by deliveries in bus lanes, especially in rush
        hours needed to be addressed.
229.    Belsize Residents Association told the panel that engineers could
        design sharper corners thus slowing down all vehicles entering
        residential areas. To make this work, even those wishing to gain
        access for loading might have to use smaller vehicles: access of fire
        engines would be a limiting factor. Officers advised the panel that not
        allowing any lorries to deliver in residential areas might rule out
        deliveries to local shops or households. This would make the delivery
        of big items of furniture difficult, as often large lorries were used for this
        purpose. It would also be difficult to enforce as this could only be done
        through identifying the weight of the vehicle. However, the panel felt
        that officers could look further at whether sharper corners were
        possible and whether they could prevent cars and vans cornering at
        dangerous speeds without preventing access by large lorries.
230.    The panel heard about some of the visibility problems for lorry drivers
        and the associated dangers for cyclists and looked at some things that
        may help such as special 3-mirror, wide-vision rearside system on
        lorries.
231.    The panel considered evidence on the continental experience of area
        distribution schemes which minimise both the lorry mileage required to
        deliver goods and simultaneously creates an opportunity to use lorries
        specially designed for the purpose. There appear to be benefits for the
        business operator and towards road safety. The panel heard that over
        the last ten years such systems have been introduced into around 30
        towns in Germany where there has also been some systematic
        evaluations carried out. The panel considered that this was a good
        time to study this idea for London since the proposed introduction of
        distance-based road pricing on top of the congestion charge may
        provide an inducement to shippers to consider a change.

            Recommendations
        23. The Council should ask TfL to look at the continental experience of
            area freight distribution and its feasibility for London.
        24. That the Council lobby DfT on the use of the 3-mirror, wide-vision
            rearside system on vans and lorries as a means of improving the
            safety of cyclists and pedestrians. The Council should ensure that
            all its own vans and lorries use this system and also encourage its
            business partners to do the same.



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004              60
        25. That TfL be asked to undertake a joint publicity campaign with
            cyclist organisations, the Freight Transport Association and the
            Road Hauliers Association to make both aware of the dangers of
            cyclists coming up on the near side of lorries.

Tourist information
232.    Transport for London is undertaking work to remind London‘s 28.4
        million annual visitors to take care when using the capital‘s roads. A
        multi-lingual leaflet forms the first phase of the ‗Eye‘s Right‘ campaign,
        which is promoting road safety to foreign visitors. With many visitors
        unfamiliar with London‘s dense urban network, and the majority not
        used to vehicles driving on the left, foreign visitors are particularly
        vulnerable road users, and now account for a seventh of total
        pedestrian casualties. This campaign will work towards reducing these
        numbers and continuing to highlight London as a tourist friendly city.

Reporting road crashes (Stats 19 form)
233.    The panel heard from PC Neil Davies that at an incident where a
        casualty had occurred, a police officer on the scene would be required
        to fill in a Stats 19 form that would give a certain amount of information
        on the details of what happened. This information would not include
        where the casualty or perpetrator were from, though it would give their
        age. It was thought likely though that more casualties related to
        speed than are recorded as such by the police and the 20mph zone
        evidence on reduced casualties appeared to support this view.
234.    PC Davies told the panel that the Stats 19 form gives a good picture of
        what happened at an incident and gives details of the postcode of
        where the driver lived, along with whether the casualty was a tourist.
        The accuracy of the data depended very much on the data recorded by
        the respective police officer.
235.    When asked about a recent BBC investigation suggesting that 1 in 20
        drivers don't even have third party car insurance, he said that the Stats
        19 form does not record any such information because the form
        records issues around the incident and not having insurance does not
        necessarily cause an accident. The panel felt that this information
        should be recorded and hoped that its views were not too late for the
        current police review of the Stats 19 form.

            Recommendation
        26. The Council should ask the police to include details on the Stats 19
            form, where collisions and casualties are recorded, of whether
            motorcyclists/motorists had a valid licence and insurance.

Insurance
236.    The panel also felt that the Council could have some influence by
        requesting and recording insurance details when issuing parking
        permits.



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004           61
            Recommendation
        27. Council residents’ and tenants’ parking permits should only be
            issued on the production of a valid driving licence and insurance.

Limiting speed through vehicle engineering
237.    Evidence from the road safety charity Brake referred to advantages
        that would be obtained by limiting the speed of vehicles by vehicle
        engineering: ―capping‖ vehicles‘ maximum speeds, and controlling their
        speeds within posted limits by satellite-controlled speed limiters, which
        are now the subject of research. The Panel heard from Paige Mitchell
        of the Slower Speeds Initiative (SSI) that the government expects that
        it will take some twenty years to implement speed control though
        limiters, but that SSI believes that it could be done in a much shorter
        time. If speeds could be controlled through the vehicle, many of the
        problems associated with traffic calming and speed cameras could be
        avoided.
238.    The panel heard evidence from stakeholders who were in favour of
        mandatory and voluntary speed limiters on vehicles and from those
        who were opposed. The panel took a pragmatic view - feeling that
        further investigation into a voluntary scheme, at this stage, was
        warranted. The panel took up the suggestion from Transport 2000 that
        the government should work with insurance companies to design an
        incentive scheme.

            Recommendation
        28. The Council should ask the Department for Transport (DfT) to
            increase and expedite its research on the use of vehicle engineering
            and speed limiters to control speeds, including the idea of a
            voluntary speed limiter scheme with insurance reduction incentives.

Illuminated traffic bollards
239.    The panel heard evidence from the Belsize Village Residents and
        Traders Association that unlit traffic bollards were a serious road
        danger. A random sample during a walkabout showed that a high
        percentage was not lit properly or at all. Panel members also raised
        the more general issue of poor visibility caused by, for example, poor
        street lighting and overhanging trees - and its negative affect on safety.

            Recommendation
        29. The Council should ensure that all illuminated traffic bollards (IGPs
            – illuminated guard posts) for which it is responsible are well
            maintained and this should be monitored in a similar way to other
            public lighting.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            62
6. Some other Council’s experiences
240.    In carrying out its work, the panel was mindful that its terms of
        reference required it to compare Camden‘s approach with best practice
        in other parts of the country. It therefore drew on recent scrutiny and
        other work carried out elsewhere, which provided some comparative
        experiences and interesting insights into tackling road danger. Of all
        the examples studied, that of Kingston-upon-Hull City Council was
        perhaps the nearest comparator to Camden in terms of current
        achievement and aspiration.

Greater London Assembly (GLA)
241.    The GLA established a one meeting scrutiny in December 2003 to look
        at progress on TfL‘s Road Safety Plan and what else needed to be
        done to protect vulnerable road users.
242.    While the panel was sitting, the GLA was running a scrutiny into road
        humps in London. Officers from Camden‘s Street Policy Team were
        among four authorities in the country to give evidence, along with Hull,
        Bromley and Enfield. The findings and final report will no doubt be
        useful to Camden. Transcripts of the proceedings of both scrutinies
        are available on www.london.gov.uk under Transport Committee.

Kingston-upon-Hull City Council
243.    There are currently one hundred and fourteen 20mph zones in Hull,
        covering around 193 km, within over 500 streets, and representing
        over a quarter of all roads in the city. These zones have contributed to
        dramatic reductions in road casualties and cover a large area of the
        city (1340 ha). Since 1994, road crash casualties in Hull have fallen by
        14% (2002 figs) from 1546 to 1329. Nationally there was a reduction of
        1%. All but two of the 20mph zones have traffic calming and those
        were city centre schemes where mean speeds are below 24mph.
244.    The city council works in partnership with the emergency services,
        Community Safety, the local Primary Care Trusts and NHS providers
        to deliver road safety improvements. The partnership has
        representation from Humberside Police, Humberside Fire and Rescue
        Service, Tees and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service (TENYAS), the
        NHS, Community Safety, East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The
        partnership provides another opportunity to discuss issues such as
        traffic calming and to incorporate the views of all the partners.
245.    The use of speed humps is one of the tools available to the partnership
        in the city council‘s attempts to reduce the number and severity of
        crash casualties. The emergency services are consulted on details of
        individual schemes and any concerns dealt with at that stage. It is very
        unlikely that any proposal would proceed without support from
        Ambulance, Fire and Police services. Opportunities are sought to
        improve response times where possible.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004         63
246.    Residents‘ questionnaires show that 80-100% are in favour of 20mph
        zones and 70-95% are in favour of humps/cushions.
247.    The Institute for Public Policy Research and Imperial College have
        established the link between road casualties and deprivation,
        especially child pedestrian casualties. They found that ―children in 10%
        most deprived wards are over 3 times more likely to be a pedestrian
        casualty as their counterparts in 10% least deprived wards‖. Hull was
        used as a case study as part of the research and this enabled the
        council to look further at the effects of the 20mph zones within
        deprived neighbourhoods.
248.    In 1994, the relationship between child pedestrian casualties and the
        deprivation score for Hull‘s wards was as follows:

                                                                 Child Ped Casualties and Deprivation - 1994
                                                                                Hull Wards
                           child cas per 1000 pop




                                                     7.00
                                                     6.00
                                                     5.00
                                                     4.00
                                                     3.00
                                                     2.00
                                                     1.00
                                                     0.00
                                                                 0       10        20           30           40           50            60   70   80
                                                                                        deprivation score (2000 IMD)



        Graph 4
249.    When the exercise was carried out again for child pedestrian
        casualties 2000 when Hull had around 75 20mph zones, the
        relationship was much different:

                                                                 C h ild P e d C a s u a lt ie s a n d D e p r iv a t io n - 2 0 0 0
                                                                                            H u ll W a r d s


                                                    7 .0 0
              c h ild c a s p e r 1 0 0 0 p o p




                                                    6 .0 0

                                                    5 .0 0

                                                    4 .0 0

                                                    3 .0 0

                                                    2 .0 0

                                                    1 .0 0

                                                    0 .0 0

                                                             0         10         20           30           40            50            60   70   80

                                                                                        d e p r iv a t io n s c o r e ( 2 0 0 0 IM D)




        Graph 5
250.    This showed that through the 20mph zones, which have been applied
        throughout Hull‘s most deprived wards, the Council was able to break
        this link.


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                                                                                  64
251.    It seemed that few authorities have been able to achieve what Hull
        have done which they believe amounts to a culture change on a city-
        wide basis. The widespread acceptance of 20mph zones on
        residential streets, with physical traffic calming measure agreed with
        the local ambulance traffic service, has meant that Hull has set local
        casualty reduction targets that are more challenging than the national
        targets.

Newham Council
252.    The panel considered the results of Newham‘s 2003 scrutiny, The
        Effectiveness of Investment in Road Safety, which:
       assessed road safety initiatives in Newham, London wide and
        nationally and evaluated whether the current investment strategy for
        road safety is the most effective in reducing casualties
       recommended a number of proposals to enhance education and
        training for vulnerable groups and encouraged TfL to develop funding
        criteria for education and training schemes in addition to capital
        schemes
       recommended better monitoring of: the effects of speed cameras
        (using the LSCP London Safety Camera Partnership); the impact of
        20mph zones; and introduce a programme of speed reduction publicity
       recommended enhancing enforcement and publicity against illegal
        parking where this is a road safety matter; ensure that road safety
        audits happen for medium and large development projects
       asked the police for data on the scale of drink/drug driving in order to
        develop a targeted joint initiative with the police and other
        organisations to reduce this problem, based on the data obtained
       asked the police for data to establish the scale of unlicensed driving
        and, if a causal basis is established, undertake various measures
       recommended establishing the seatbelt wearing rates in order to
        consider a publicity campaign if the rates are less than the national
        average
       recommended better communications and publicity and the
        development of alternative additional sources of funding.

Warrington Council
253.    The panel looked at the 2002 Road Safety Review of Warrington
        Council which:
       recommended exploiting a variety of learning activities and events on
        road safety to be developed in conjunction with partners
       supported the ―netting off‖ initiative whereby money from speeding
        fines pays for equipment targeted at high casualty locations




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            65
       asked the police to review and provide information on resources
        allocated to road safety and the extent to which other priorities may
        reduce the resources available
       expressed concerns and requested solutions to the problem of poor
        quality data provided by the police to the local authority (for example
        50% of collision data was incorrectly located)
       requested a joining up of police and health service data to provide a
        more accurate picture of road collisions, casualties and hot spots
       requested further exploration of the co-ordination and targeting of
        requests for various kinds of funding opportunities
       other recommendations addressed widening the membership of road
        safety partnerships and establishing pooled budgets that support
        operational priorities.

Staffordshire County Council
254.    The panel looked at written evidence on road safety training measures
        including the training of children as pedestrians at Staffordshire County
        Council in March 2003 which:
       recommended measures to build driver training (for Council
        employees) into health and safety risk assessment and risk
        management strategies
       encouraged road safety training through various measures: in schools,
        web based and a high school citizenship programme
       various recommendations promoting and funding the Kerbcraft
        scheme.

Buckinghamshire County Council
255.    The panel looked at Buckinghamshire County Council ‗s Speed
        Management Strategy which in September 2002 had:
       recommended setting up Member-led speed management strategy
        panels based on discrete geographical areas comprising Members,
        Council officers, police and interested local people
       wanted to see early action to maintain public confidence
       recommended the development of a strategy for speed management
        education to include a multi-media approach to launching the strategy
        and continued initiatives to drive forward changes in behaviour
       insisted on full public consultation for all proposed schemes to
        encourage greater understanding and to promote local ownership.
       concluded, ―the key to a successful strategy is the implementation of a
        package of complementary measures, based on robust data, designed
        to address the specific problems‖.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             66
Bristol City Council
256.    Bristol City Council in January 2002 scrutinised Home Zones and
        residential street improvements and:
       identified the benefits of home zones as improved road safety
        particularly for the very young and old and recommended their
        introduction across the city.
       produced a report which provides a helpful assessment of street
        treatments with costs, advantages and disadvantages.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004     67
7. Concluding Remarks

257.    Given the potentially contradictory evidence heard from witnesses, the
        differing needs of road users and the diverse range of views among
        the panel members themselves, a high level of focus, compromise and
        goodwill was needed and this was shown. To reach a consensus on 29
        recommendations is considered a real achievement of this panel.
258.    The panel‘s detailed recommendations are outlined in the next page
        (appendix 1). It is hoped that the Council‘s Executive, in partnership
        with Transport for London and the Department for Transport, will be
        able to take forward many of these. Implementation of the panel‘s
        recommendations should make a real impact in enhancing road safety
        and saving lives in Camden.
259.    It further hopes that the excellent working relationship between the
        Council and Transport for London will develop further and that co-
        operation and flexibility will enable the Council to pilot some of the
        innovative ideas contained within the recommendations.
260.    The panel was impressed with the calibre and detail of the many
        submissions received from residents, council officers, experts and
        organisations and is indebted to everyone who helped with the panel‘s
        work.


          “The scrutiny panel was very interesting; especially to see how
          despite obvious political differences and opinions, the panel was
          at all times very focused and clear about its objective. It has
          certainly given us some good ideas to bring back and share with
          colleagues in Brent.”
          Councillor Tom Taylor, Chair of Scrutiny Committee, London
          Borough of Brent, following the panel meeting on 20 January
          2004




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            68
Appendices
Appendix 1: Recommendations
1.    That the Council and Transport for London (TfL) should place more emphasis on vehicle
      types involved in collisions when publishing casualty statistics; in particular showing in
      their annual reports the types of vehicles involved in crashes in which pedestrians or
      cyclists are killed or injured. 20
2.    The Council should request that TfL continue to check the statistics from the police
      against hospital records and consider undertaking a household survey to estimate the
      total number of road casualties. 21
3.    That the Council look at alternative ways of collecting and analysing traffic flow and
      speed data to pilot a measure of road danger complementary to the use of casualty
      statistics. 22
4.    The Council request that TfL and/or the Department for Transport (DfT) commission
      social surveys on road danger, fear and intimidation. 26
5.    The Council should actively investigate the possibility of piloting pedestrian countdown
      signals, recognising that for technical reasons, this may take some time to achieve. 27
6.    The Council should investigate the feasibility and possible funding streams for a safer
      routes to leisure centres scheme, based on the experience of Ealing Council‘s scheme.
      28
7.    In order to alleviate the distress caused by teenagers and adults cycling on pavements:
      29
       a) The Council should urge TfL to launch a London-wide publicity campaign to draw
       attention to the consequences of irresponsible cycling, working with the relevant
       cycling organisations. 29
       b) In addition, the Council should, through its Borough Spending Plan, seek funding
       from TfL to pilot this project, working with the Camden Cycling Campaign. 29
       c) The Council should consider pursuing the acceptable behaviour agreement route,
       as a last resort, for identified, persistent offenders. 29
8.    That the Council monitor closely the functioning of the operation of the new enforcement
      powers. 36
9.    That the local Head of Camden Ambulance Service be requested to appoint a named
      officer with the responsibility for liaison with the Council, who will comment on individual
      schemes and attend the Traffic Management Liaison Meeting. 45
10.   That the Government be requested to fund a Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
      study - with appropriate health, ambulance, police and fire services input - to ascertain
      hard evidence around delays and response times. This study should look at the effect of
      traffic calming but not in isolation to other characteristics of London‘s streets such as
      congestion and obstructive parking. The study should consider solutions in terms of
      road hump designs, vehicle design or alternative modes of emergency services delivery.
      45
11.   The Council should ask the Department for Transport to consider widening its criteria for
      the siting of road safety speed cameras. 50
12.   The Council should ask the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP) to undertake
      publicity and educational measures to address the issues of consent and the mistrust of
      road safety speed cameras, and explain that the primary purpose is for saving lives
      rather than raising revenue. 50
13.   The Council should give a higher profile to driver crime in its Crime and Disorder Audit
      and Strategy consultation leaflet. 51
14.   The Police Consultative Committee be asked to include a regular item on road safety
      and driver crime onto its agenda. 51
15.   The Council should work in partnership with Transport for London to introduce a
      compulsory 20 mph zone pilot, subject to consultation, with a new approach to signage
      and the minimum physical speed reduction features: 53


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                          69
       a) This would need negotiations with the Department for Transport to relax current
       legal restrictions to allow this. 53
       b) The pilot scheme should be monitored in comparison with a standard zone to
       determine the success of such a scheme. 54
       c) Consideration should be given to introducing the pilot in a residential area such as
       Belsize/Hampstead, where evidence seems to show community support – with a view
       to extending this should it prove successful. 54
       d) The scheme should be incorporated within existing programmes and priorities. 54
16. The Council should consider a leaflet and rear window car sticker educational campaign
    - based on driving more safely and reducing speed - in partnership with one or more
    appropriate road safety and speed reduction organisation. This could be area focused
    to test the impact and replicated borough wide if effective. 54
17. The Council should work in partnership with Transport for London and the Department
    for Transport on a pilot scheme(s) based on speed camera enforcement at 20mph, on
    one or more of the emergency services‘ key routes, to test the technology and monitor
    effectiveness. 54
18. The Council should ask TfL to pilot a 20mph scheme on a TfL road in a town centre. 54
19. The Council should continue to develop working relationships with the police to
    introduce innovative speed enforcement schemes with a strong, joint road safety
    communications strategy. 54
20. As a part of its consultation on area traffic schemes, the Council should consider if
    appropriate and subject to resources, arranging a) a public meeting, and/or b) a visit for
    residents groups, to see how a similar scheme operates in practice elsewhere in the
    borough or a neighbouring borough. 56
21. That TfL should be asked to investigate and report on the various issues and
    suggestions concerning TWMVs (two wheeled motor vehicles including mopeds, motor
    scooters and motorcycles) raised in section 5 of the report, when considering its policy
    on TWMVs. 59
22. That TfL should be asked to publish a detailed account of how it proposes to achieve its
    objective of reducing fatal and serious injuries to TWMV riders by 40% by the year 2010
    as compared with the average of the five years 1994 to 1998. 59
23. The Council should ask TfL to look at the continental experience of area freight
    distribution and its feasibility for London. 60
24. That the Council lobby DfT on the use of the 3-mirror, wide-vision rearside system on
    vans and lorries as a means of improving the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. The
    Council should ensure that all its own vans and lorries use this system and also
    encourage its business partners to do the same. 60
25. That TfL be asked to undertake a joint publicity campaign with cyclist organisations, the
    Freight Transport Association and the Road Hauliers Association to make both aware of
    the dangers of cyclists coming up on the near side of lorries. 61
26. The Council should ask the police to include details on the Stats 19 form, where
    collisions and casualties are recorded, of whether motorcyclists/motorists had a valid
    licence and insurance. 61
27. Council residents‘ and tenants‘ parking permits should only be issued on the production
    of a valid driving licence and insurance. 62
28. The Council should ask the Department for Transport (DfT) to increase and expedite its
    research on the use of vehicle engineering and speed limiters to control speeds,
    including the idea of a voluntary speed limiter scheme with insurance reduction
    incentives. 62
29. The Council should ensure that all illuminated traffic bollards (IGPs – illuminated guard
    posts) for which it is responsible are well maintained and this should be monitored in a
    similar way to other public lighting. 62




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                       70
Appendix 2: Written evidence
The panel considered the following written evidence:


 Item    Date     Author             Title                        Description
 1       30       Camden             Scoping report               Outlines the scoping process, lists
         Sep      Scrutiny                                        key evidence and other background
         2003                                                     material, meeting plan and initial
                                                                  glossary of terms
 2       30       Camden             Road safety position         A range of figures and indicators
         Sep      Environment        paper                        relating the Camden‘s current
         2003     Department                                      position.
 3       Mar      DfT                Tomorrow‘s Roads: safer      Government statement on how it
         2000                        for everyone.                plans to improve road safety in the
                                                                  decade 2000 – 2010.
 4       Nov      Transport for      London‘s Road Safety         Deals with road collisions in London
         2001     London (TfL)       Plan                         with details of joint work by TfL and
                                                                  other agencies including boroughs,
                                                                  police and health authorities.
 5                Camden             Camden‘s borough
                  Council            spending plan – road
                                     safety
 6       2001     Camden             2002 – 2003 Interim          The road safety element of Camden‘s
                  Council            Road Safety Plan             transport policy and objectives.
 7       1999/    Camden             Camden‘s walking plan        Part of Camden ‗s Green Transport
         2002     Council            and the third annual         Strategy with plans to encourage
                                     review 2002                  walking in the borough with reviews of
                                                                  progress.
 8       2001/    Camden             Camden‘s cycling plan        Part of Camden‘s Green Transport
         2003     Council            and the second annual        Strategy with plans to encourage
                                     review 2003                  cycling in the borough with reviews of
                                                                  progress.
 9       2        DfT                Consultation with            Reminds local authorities of the legal
         Sept                        Emergency Services           requirement to consult with
         2003                                                     emergency services before
                                                                  introducing road humps on their roads
 10      Sept     Stephen            Priorities for road safety   Outlines the possible priorities for the
         2003     Plowden            in Camden and London         scrutiny panel to focus on
                                     generally
 11      25       Lynne              Investigation into the       Requests Camden council‘s views on
         Sept     Featherstone,      impact of speed humps        the impact of speed humps not just on
         2003     Chair, London                                   car speeds but a variety of factors in
                  Assembly                                        Londoners lives
                  Transport
                  Committee
 12      Oct      Paul Dean,         Questions on speed           Questions for Tom Duckham, London
         2003     Scrutiny policy    cameras and police           Safety Camera Partnership and PC
                  Officer            issues; LSCP                 Neil Davies
                                     presentation response to
                                     questions
 13      Oct      Paul Dean,         Programme for the            Outlines the proposed schedule of
         2003     Scrutiny Policy    Scrutiny Panel               work to be undertaken by the scrutiny
                  Officer                                         panel
 14      Oct      Paul Dean,         List of witnesses            Identifies the key witnesses to give
         2003     Scrutiny Policy                                 evidence to the scrutiny panel
                  Officer
 15      Oct      Sam Monck,         NRF 2004-2006                Identifies road safety improvements


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        71
 Item    Date     Author             Title                        Description
         2003     Street Policy,     Expression of interest       that will lead to a reduction in road
                  Environment        form                         traffic casualties through education,
                  Dept                                            engineering and enforcement
 16      16       Councillor John    GLA Investigation into the   Outlines the Council‘s response to the
         Oct      Thane              impact of speed humps        GLA scrutiny into the impact of speed
         2003                                                     humps
 17      Oct      Camden‘s           Speed Management &           Provides a summary of the evidence
         2003     Street Policy      Traffic Calming              regarding the effectiveness of speed
                  Team                                            management and traffic calming
 18      Oct      Stephen            Note to the panel            Questions regarding the evaluation of
         2003     Plowden                                         Road Safety and Traffic rules or
                                                                  advice concerning how much to
                                                                  spend on traffic calming and which
                                                                  methods to use
 19      Oct      Camden‘s           Note to the panel            Response to questions arising from
         2003     Street Policy                                   the Panel Meeting on 30.9.03
                  Team
 20      Oct      Camden‘s           Note to the panel            Identifies information on collision
         2003     Street Policy      regarding STATS 19 form      casualties –Definitions, Costs and
                  Team                                            Under reporting (including a copy of
                                                                  the STATS 19 Form)
 21      Oct      Camden‘s           Road safety legal powers     Identifies current powers available to
         2003     Street Policy                                   Camden and new powers proposed
                  Team                                            under forthcoming legislation.
 22      Oct      Scrutiny           Issues on which the          Key document: outlines the
         2003     officers           panel is to consider and     programme for the remaining
                                     develop                      meetings of the panel – supersedes
                                     recommendations.             previous programmes.
 23      July     TfL                Towards the year 2010:       Analyses progress towards meeting
         2003                        monitoring casualties in     the casualty reduction targets up to
                                     Greater London               the end of 2002. All statistics are
                                                                  based on the stats 19 reporting
                                                                  system.
 24      1998     DfT                The effects of speed         Examines various strategies related
                                     cameras: how drivers         to speed cameras and how different
                                     respond                      types of driver respond and perceive
                                                                  their operation.
 25      Sept     TfL                Review of 20 mph zones       Shows that significant casualty
         2003                        on London boroughs           reductions can be made through the
                                                                  increased use of self-enforcing 20
                                                                  mph zones on London‘s unclassified
                                                                  roads.
 26      Oct      Camden‘s           Casualties involving older   Trends and figures for older (60+)
         2003     Street Policy      people in Camden.            people over previous five years.
                  Team                                            Shows overall downward trend in the
                                                                  number of pedestrian casualties.
 27      Dec      Camden‘s           Response to questions        Outlines the Council officers response
         2003     Street Policy      from panel regarding         to panel questions regarding the legal
                  Team and           legal powers                 powers available to officers and how
                  Legal Services                                  they are applied
 28      Jan      Scrutiny Policy    Progress report              To provide the panel with an update
         2004     Team                                            on the outstanding issues and future
                                                                  work
 29      Dec      Stephen            Lorries and road safety      Outlines his views on night-time lorry
         2003     Plowden                                         ban and an area distribution scheme
 30      Dec      Aileen             Notes on casualty            Provides a view on the definition of
         2003     Hammond            statistics                   casualty types, Assumed values of
                                                                  prevention of casualties and
                                                                  collisions, comparisons of fatalities of


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        72
 Item    Date     Author             Title                         Description
                                                                   different kinds compared to police
                                                                   resources, along with some other
                                                                   facts and figures on road casualties
 31      Oct –    MORI               Camden Environment            The research provides information on
         Nov                         Survey 2002 – Extracts        the attitudes to the local environment,
         2002                                                      which includes pedestrian safety
 32      Dec      Peter Hendy,       Road Safety in London         Gives his views on how speed
         2003     Managing                                         reductions can be achieved
                  Director,
                  Surface
                  Transport (TfL)
 33      Dec      Street Policy      Investigation into the        Comments on the issues raised at the
         2003     Team               impact of speed humps –       GLA Scrutiny Panel meeting and
                                     supplementary                 proposes a way forward
                                     submission to the Greater
                                     London Authority Scrutiny
                                     Panel
 34               Response from      Investigation into the        Gives their views on the impact of
                  Kingston Upon      impact of speed humps         speed humps
                  Hull Road
                  Safety
                  Partnership
 35      Dec      T E Konrad,        Comments on the               Provides their views on the specific
         2003     Director           proposals outlined for        proposals outlined for consultation
                  Elsworthy Court    consultation
                  Members Co
                  Ltd
 36      Dec      Parliamentary      Speed Cameras – 10            Provides a view on 10 criticisms
         2003     Advisory           Criticisms and why they       about speed cameras and examines
                  Council for        are flawed                    the research evidence surrounding
                  Transport                                        them
                  safety and the
                  slower speeds
                  initiative
 37      Dec      Motorists‘         A review of the delivery of   Provides an assessment of factors
         2003     Forum              the road safety strategy:     and constraints influencing delivery of
                                     University College            the road safety strategy, both now
                                     London                        and up to 2010, and outlines key
                                                                   issues requiring further investigation
                                                                   that should be taken by Government,
                                                                   local authorities and others
 38      Jan                         A number of maps
         2004                        involving various collision
                                     data
 39      Jan      Director of the    Decriminalisation of          This report sets out details of moving
         2004     Environment        moving traffic offences       traffic offences which have recently
                                                                   been decriminalised and the
                                                                   responsibility that will fall to the
                                                                   Council‘s parking service. The report
                                                                   also seeks approval to take part in the
                                                                   pilot scheme in conjunction with the
                                                                   Association for London Government –
                                                                   Transport and Environment
                                                                   Committee (ALG-TEC) and approval
                                                                   for the pilot scheme enforcement
                                                                   strategy.

 40      Jan      Belsize            Submission to scrutiny        Identifies the views of the Belsize
 (a)     2004     Residents          panel                         Residents Association regarding their


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                         73
 Item    Date     Author             Title                        Description
                  Association                                     views on roads safety issues
 40      Jan      Belsize            Additional submission to     Adds to the comments already
 (b)     2004     Residents          the scrutiny panel           submitted to the panel by including
                  Association                                     extract from the Belsize area traffic
                                                                  management study, issues of
                                                                  concerns to Belsize residents and
                                                                  revised case study map

 41      Jan      Red Lion           Submission to the            Identifies the views of the red Lion
         2004     Tenants &          scrutiny panel               Tenants and Residents Association
                  Residents                                       Leaseholders Group on road safety
                  Association                                     issues
                  Leaseholders
                  Group
 42      Jan      Langdon House      Submission to the            Identifies the views of the Langdon
         2004     Tenants‘ &         scrutiny panel               House Tenant‘s & Residents
                  Residents                                       Association on road safety issues
                  Association
 43      Jan      British            Submission to the            Identifies the views of the British
         2004     Motorcyclists      scrutiny panel               Motorcyclists Federation on road
                  Federation                                      safety issues
 44      Jan      Stephen            Motorcycles and              Outlines comments on a Department
         2004     Plowden            congestion                   of Transport project on motorcycles

 45      Jan      Transport 2000     Submission to the            Identifies the views of Transport 2000
         2004                        scrutiny panel               regarding road safety issues
 46      Jan      Brake              Submission to the            Identifies the views of Brake on road
         2004                        scrutiny panel               safety issues
 47      Oct      Cllr Theo          London Ambulance             Copy of correspondence with the
         2003     Blackwell          Service – response time      London Ambulance Service regarding
                                                                  what causes delays to their response
                                                                  times
 48      Jan      Finchley Road      Submission to the            Identifies the views of the Finchley
         2004     Community          scrutiny panel               Road Community Forum
                  Forum
 49      Jan      Camden             Submission to the            Identifies the views of the Camden
         2004     Cycling            scrutiny panel               Cycling Campaign
                  Campaign
 50      Jan      Belsize Village    Submission to the            Identifies the views of the Belsize
         2004     Residents &        scrutiny panel               Village Residents and Traders
                  Traders                                         Association
                  Association
 51      Jan      West               Submission to the            Identifies the views of the West
         2004     Hampstead          scrutiny panel               Hampstead Amenities and Transport
                  Amenities and                                   Group
                  Transport
                  Group
 52      Jan      Kilburn Older      Submission to the            Identifies the views of KOVE
         2004     Voices             scrutiny panel
                  Exchange
                  (KOVE)
 53      Jan      LGBT Forum         Submission to the            Identifies the views of the LGBT
         2004                        scrutiny panel               Forum
 54      Jan      Jane Boardman      Submission to the            Identifies the views of Jane Boardman
         2004     & Richard          scrutiny panel               & Richard Fletcher
                  Fletcher
 55      Jan      Cllr Tom           Letter to Cllr Janet         Letter thanking Cllr Guthrie on their
         2004     Taylor, Brent      Guthrie                      views on the work of the scrutiny
                  Council Chair                                   panel.

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        74
 Item    Date     Author              Title                       Description
                  of Scrutiny
                  Committee
 56      Jan      BBC News            Children want more          Details the results of a survey of 7-14
         2004     Article             speed cameras               year olds regarding children and
                                                                  traffic fear

 57      Jan      BBC News            Pupils tackle speeding      Details the example of children
         2004     Article             drivers                     turning into traffic police to stop
                                                                  motorist speeding past their village
                                                                  school

 58      Jan      BBC News            Speed cameras save          Gives information on a speed camera
         2004     Article             £5m                         campaign designed to cut the number
                                                                  of collisions on north Wales roads has
                                                                  saved health trusts millions of pounds

 59      May      United Nations      Global road safety crisis   Draft resolution on global road safety
         2003     General
                  Assembly
 60      Jan      Guardian            Police powers extend in     Identifies a possible way of using the
         2004     unlimited article   yob crackdown               powers under the Anti-Social
                                                                  Behaviour Act to stop cyclists on the
                                                                  pavement
 61      Jan      Parliamentary       Press release on            PACTS comments the proposed
         2004     Advisory            proposed review of          review of speeding penalties
                  Council for         speeding penalties
                  Transport
                  Safety
                  (PACTS)
 62      Jan      Vickie Skade,       Press Cuttings              Provides a number of press cuttings
         2004     Scrutiny Policy                                 on road safety issues
                  Officer
 63      Jan      Alix Sredwick,      Submission to the           Provides the views of the Women‘s
         2004     Women‘s             scrutiny panel              design Service
                  Design Service
 64      Jan      Andrew Smith,       Submission to the           Provides the views of the Charlotte
         2004     Charlotte Street    scrutiny panel              Street Association
                  Association
 65      Jan      Paige Mitchell,     Submission to the           Provides the views of the Slower
         2004     Slower Speeds       scrutiny panel              Speeds Initiative
                  Initiative
 66      Jan      John M Slater       Submission to the           Provides the views of the Swain‘s
         2004     & Michael           scrutiny panel              Lane Residents and neighbourhood
                  Zagor, Co-                                      Watch Association
                  Chairman,
                  Swain‘s Lane
                  Residents and
                  neighbourhood
                  Watch
                  Association
 67      Jan      Michael             Submission to the panel     Provides the views of the Primrose
         2004     Hudspeth,                                       Hill Community Association
                  Centre
                  Manager,
                  Primrose Hill
                  Community
                  Association
 68      Jan      Kenneth Blyth,      Submission to the panel     Gives his views on road humps in the
         2004     Upper Laurier                                   area


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        75
 Item    Date     Author             Title                        Description
                  Road
                  Residents
                  Group
 69      Jan      Nick Harding       Submission to the panel      Gives his views on green man
         2004                                                     crossings
 70      Jan      Jo Clough,         Submission to the panel      Gives views on the introduction of
         2004     Downshire Hill                                  20mph zone
                  Residents‘
                  Association
 71      Jan      Dr Martin          Submission to the panel      Gives his views on the panel‘s
         2004     Rosendaal                                       proposals
 72      Jan      Langdon House      Note to the panel            Gives a response to the questions
         2004     TRA                                             listed in the advert
 73      Jan      Regent‘s Park      Submission to the panel      Provides views of the Regent‘s Park
         2004     Road and                                        Road and Primrose Hill Association
                  Primrose Hill
                  Association
 74      Jan      Janine Griffis,    Submission to the panel      Provides the views of the Pilgrim‘s to
         2004     Chair of the                                    Willoughby Residents Association
                  Pilgrim‘s to
                  Willoughby
                  Residents
                  Association
 75      Jan      Gerard Levitt,     Note to the panel            A note supporting the views
         2004     Greater London                                  expressed by the British Motorcyclists
                  Regional Rep                                    Federation
                  to the
                  Motorcycle
                  Action Group
 76      Jan      Stephen            Two Wheeled Motor            A note on how two wheeled motor
         2004     Plowden, Co-       Vehicles                     vehicles should be dealt with
                  opted panel
                  member
 77      Jan      Cllr Jake          Safety on Transport for      A note on the safety on TfL roads in
         2004     Sumner, Panel      London (TfL) Road            Camden with details of casualty
                  member             Network                      hotspots, studies and remedial
                                                                  schemes and motorcycles using bus
                                                                  lanes

 78      Jan      Mayer Hillman,     Safe routes to leisure       A note on how Camden could
         2004     Co-opted panel     facilities for children, a   consider implementing safe routes to
                  member             complementary measure        leisure facilities for children and how
                                     of road safety and rear      should TfL and central government
                                     window car sticker           devise and introduce a
                                     campaign.                    complementary measure of road
                                                                  safety and rear window car sticker
                                                                  campaign.
 79      Jan      Cllr Deirdre       Walking, cycling and road    A note on possible options
         2004     Krymer, Panel      safety                       surrounding walking, cycling and road
                  member                                          safety
 80      Jan      Cllr Flick Rea,    Bus safety issues            A note on how bus safety issues
         2004     Panel member                                    could be looked at

 81      Jan      Stephen            The importance of road       A note on the importance of road
         2004     Plowden, Co-       safety and issues of         safety and issues of intimidation
                  opted panel        intimidation
                  member
 82      Jan      Stephen            Lorries                      A note on how lorries could now be
         2004     Plowden, Co-                                    considered


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                       76
 Item    Date     Author             Title                        Description
                  opted panel
 83      Feb      Doug Amer,         Experimental use of bus      Submission to the Greater London
         2004     Head of Street     lanes by motorcyclists       Authority regarding the experimental
                  Policy                                          use of bus lanes by motorcyclists
 84      Feb      Mark               Submission to the panel      Gives his views on the panel‘s
         2004     Stonebanks                                      proposals
 85      Feb      John M Slater,     Note to the panel
         2004     Co-Chairman,                                    Brings to the panel‘s attention the
                  Swains Lane                                     report in the Evening Standard
                  Neighbourhood                                   concerning speed cameras
                  Watch and
                  Residents Ass
 86      Feb      Richard            Submission to the panel      Outlines the views of the Primrose Hill
         2004     Simpson, Chair                                  Conservation Area Advisory
                  Primrose Hill                                   Committee
                  Conservation
                  Area Advisory
                  Committee
 87               Mayor for          Look before you cross        Leaflet on how to cross the road for
                  London and         the road                     overseas visitors
                  Transport for
                  London
 88      Oct      Bromley            The objections to Speed      Submission to the Greater London
         2003     Borough Roads      Humps                        Assembly Scrutiny on Road Humps
                  Action Group
 89               City of            Your guide to road safety    A booklet on road safety in the City of
                  Westminster        in the City of Westminster   Westminster

 90      Dec      Department for     Traffic Advisory Leaflet     A guide to best practice on access to
         2002     Transport                                       pedestrian and transport
                                                                  infrastructure for people with mobility
                                                                  difficulties

 91      Feb                         Press Cuttings               Press cuttings on the proposed
         2004                                                     reduction in speed cameras

 92      Feb      Eric Watts         Submission to the panel      Provides the views of the Fordwych
         2004                                                     Residents‘ Association regarding the
                                                                  panel‘s proposal

 93               Philip Connolly    Liveable London              Looks at the need for a walkable
                                                                  neighbourhood. Older and disabled
                                                                  people have their say

 94      Feb      Cllr Gerry         Promoting safe walking       A note on the lessons learnt from
         2004     Harrison           and cycling to improve       Netherlands and Germany regarding
                                     public health: Lessons       promoting walking and cycling to
                                     from the Netherlands and     improve public health
                                     Germany
 95               Disability                                      Response to Cabinet office
                  Rights                                          consultation on transport and social
                  Commission                                      exclusion

Copies available for public inspection from Holborn and Swiss Cottage reference libraries and
the Town Hall




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        77
Individual panel members considered the following written evidence and
reported back to the panel:

 1       Dec      Scrutiny on the impact of               GLA papers including evidence from the
         200      speed humps on Londoner‘s               emergency services, London Buses and
         3        lives: GLA                              the slower speeds initiative.

 2                Effectiveness of Investment in Report of Newham Council Scrutiny
                  Road Safety                    Committee

 3                Crime and Disorder Audit                Camden‘s audit
                  2001

 4                The Number of Motoring and              TRL report summary
                  Non-Motoring Offences

 5                Road safety review                      Warrington Borough Council

 6                Gloucester Safer City: Final
                  Report

 7                Review of Speed                         Buckinghamshire County Council
                  Management Strategy;

 8                Promoting Safe Walking and              Lessons from the Netherlands and
                  Cycling to improve public               Germany
                  health

 9                How many more lives must                Report by Brake, road safety
                  we lose?                                organisation

 10               An examination of road safety           Idea report
                  training measures including
                  the training of children as
                  pedestrians

 12               Adolescent Road User                    TRL report
                  Behaviour

 13               2002 Quality Review of
                  STATS 19 injury data
                  collection system




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                  78
Appendix 3: Oral evidence
Panel      Date              Panel meetings and visits: witnesses providing
                             evidence

1          30                Doug Amer, Head of Street Policy
           September         Sam Monck, Traffic Team Manager Street Policy
           2003
                             Belita Clahar, Team Manager Public Safety
                             Cliff Thompson, Senior Traffic Planner

2          28 October        Tom Duckham, London Safety Camera Partnership
           2003              Police Constable Neil Davies

3          2 December        Richard Gruet, Acting Head of Law
           2003

4          20 January        Aileen Hammond, Belsize Residents Association
           2004              Dudley Miles, Belsize Residents Association
                             Handley Stevens, Belsize Residents Association
                             Councillors Tom Taylor, Janice Long, Carishma
                             Gillani, Gideon Fiegel and Harshadbhai B Patel
                             observing from LB Brent

           4 February        Panel member visits to various road crossings, safety
           2004              schemes and speed and red light camera sites

           4 February        Presentation to and feedback from the Walking
           2004              Cycling and Road Safety Advisory Group

5          10 February       Public meeting at Hampstead Town Hall:
           2004              Tony Harms, British Motorcyclists Federation
                             Catherine Phillpotts, British Motorcyclists Federation
                             Jean Dollimore, Camden Cycling Campaign
                             Alix Stredwick, Women‘s Design Service
                             Bill Granger, Finchley Road Community Forum
                             Andrew Smith, Charlotte Street Association
                             Paige Mitchell, Slower Speeds Initiative
                             John Slater, Co-Chairman, Swain‘s Lane Residents
                             and Neighbourhood Watch Association
                             Helen Mayer, Road Peace
                             Anne Johnson, Rudall Crescent Residents
                             Association


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             79
                             Ellen Emerson, Flask Walk Association
                             Norman Godfrey, Belsize Village Residents and
                             Traders Association
                             Adel Darwish, Constantine and Agincourt Residents
                             Association
                             Miles Seaman, West Hampstead Amenity and
                             Transport
                             Mr J Wober and Eddie Naughton.

           20 February       Presentation to and feedback from the Mobility Forum
           2004

6          9 March           Panel deliberations and consideration of draft report
           2004

           March 2004        Panel officer visit to Hull

7          23 March          Agreement of final report
           2004




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            80
Appendix 4: Further definitions and glossary of terms
20mph zone          Residential areas where traffic calming is used to reduce
                    traffic speeds. Nationally found to reduce child pedestrian
                    casualties by up to 70%.
CINDEX              A searchable on line database containing details of over
                    6000 organisations and services in and around Camden.
DETR                Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions –
                    former government department
DfT                 Department for Transport – current government department.
DTLR                Department for Transport, Local Government and the
                    Regions – former government department
Home zone           A street or group of streets designed primarily to meet the
                    interests of pedestrians and cyclists rather than motorists,
                    opening up the street for social use. Derives from the Dutch
                    woonerf meaning living yard, pioneered in the 1970‘s.
KOVE                Kilburn Older Voices Exchange was formed in 2001 and is
                    an independent community forum for older people in the
                    area and includes: Abbey Community Centre, Abbey Good
                    Neighbour Scheme, African & Caribbean Elders Centre,
                    Kilburn Irish Pensioners Group, Kingsgate Resource Centre,
                    Kingsgate Sheltered Housing, Kilburn Older Voices
                    Exchange, Kilburn & West Hampstead Pensioners Action
                    Association, Philip House Sheltered Housing, Quex Road
                    Carers Group,Somali Elderly Group, St Mary‘s Friendship
                    Group, Sycamore Court Sheltered Housing, Vivian Court
                    Sheltered Housing, West Hampstead Asian Womens Group
KSI                 ―Killed and Seriously Injured‖ figures
Local Safety Scheme
                    A road scheme implemented by a local authority on local
                    roads to address identified road safety problems. It may
                    involve simple improvements such as adding a new sign or
                    road markings, or more complex schemes such as changing
                    the layout or geometry of the road. Local safety schemes
                    can be applied at a specified site, along a route or over an
                    area.

                    The purpose of a scheme is to reduce the number of road
                    collisions and casualties. Although it may have other benefits
                    like improving the road environment.
LSCP                London Safety Camera Partnership comprises the
                    Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police,
                    Association of London Government, Greater London
                    Magistrates' Courts Authority and Transport for London. The

Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004             81
                    Partnership is responsible for implementing a
                    comprehensive safety camera programme to reduce speed
                    and red light running road crash casualties across the whole
                    of the London area.
NRF                 The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) aims to enable the
                    88 most deprived authorities, in collaboration with their Local
                    Strategic Partnership (LSP), to improve services, narrowing
                    the gap between deprived areas and the rest of England.
Pelican crossing An acronym for pedestrian light control; a pedestrian
                 crossing with traffic lights that are controlled by pedestrians.
Puffin crossing A Puffin crossing differs from a Pelican crossing in several
                respects. In particular, the red man / green man indicator is
                positioned above the push button. This means that the
                pedestrian can see the traffic and the red man / green man
                at the same time. When the green man is illuminated, it is
                safe to start to cross the road. There may also be a bleeping
                sound to assist the visually impaired. Some push button
                units are also fitted with a tactile knob under the unit which
                rotates when the green man is illuminated.

                    The Puffin crossing also has detectors which will extend the
                    time available for pedestrians to cross the road and a further
                    set of detectors will cancel the demand for the crossing if the
                    pedestrian moves away from the crossing area.
―Stats 19‖          For each road casualty known to have occurred in their
                    areas, police authorities complete a statistical return (the
                    "Stats 19" return), which provides details of the
                    circumstances, and separate information for each vehicle
                    involved and for each person injured.
TfL                 Transport for London is the integrated body responsible for
                    London‘s transport system. Chaired by the Mayor, its role is
                    to implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy for London and
                    manage the transport services across the capital for which
                    the Mayor has responsibility. TfL is accountable for both the
                    planning and delivery of transport facilities and is directed by
                    a management board whose Members are appointed by the
                    Mayor of London.

                    TfL manages London's buses, the Underground, the
                    Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and London Trams. It also
                    runs London River Services, Victoria Coach Station and
                    London's Transport Museum. TfL also manages a 580km
                    network of main roads, all of London's 4,600 traffic lights and
                    regulates taxis and the private hire trade.

                    TfL is working with London boroughs, which implement the
                    Mayor's Transport Strategy on local roads, the Strategic Rail



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004              82
                    Authority, the Police and groups representing the needs of
                    different transport users.




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004            83
Appendix 5: Legal powers available to the Council
Power                                      Present Policy

Road Traffic Act 1988                      These powers are used in conjunction with powers
                                           relating to parking and powers to improve the
Requires the Council to prepare            highway to implement engineering programmes
and carry out a programme of               which have impacts on road safety, e.g.
measures designed to promote
road safety.                                  Local safety schemes
                                              The Safer Routes to School programme –
                                               targeted at every school in Camden
                                              20 MPH zone programme
                                               Cycling schemes
                                              Walking schemes
                                              Bus priority schemes
                                              Boulevard schemes
                                           In addition road safety education, training and
                                           publicity measures are also carried out.

Road Traffic Regulation Act –              These powers are used in conjunction with parking
Traffic Management Powers                  and highways improvement powers to manage
                                           traffic on the highway network so as to,
The Council has powers to restrict
the way in which particular classes           Reduce road casualties
of vehicle use the highway network.
Examples of restrictions introduced           Reduce traffic speeds
using these powers include,                   Reduce the impact of through traffic on
 Banning turns                                residential roads

 Introducing one way streets                 Improve the efficiency of the public transport
                                               system, particularly buses.
 Pedestrianisation
                                              Reduce the impact of heavy goods vehicles on
 Weight restrictions                          parts of the highway network
 Width restrictions                          Reduce traffic congestion
 Introducing cycle lanes / bus
   lanes
 Introduce speed limits / 20 MPH
   zones
 Introduction of controlled
    pedestrian crossings



Road Traffic Regulation Act and            The Council has introduced controlled parking
Road Traffic Act (91) – Parking            zones in all parts of Camden except the Highgate
Controls                                   and Dartmouth Park area that will be introduced in
                                           the new year.
The Council has the power to
restrict parking and to introduce          The policy is used to make it easier for residents


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                    84
Controlled Parking Zones. The              to park close to their homes, discourage commuter
Council can make traffic orders            parking in Camden and to discourage residents
restricting parking during specific        from making short intra-borough journeys.
hours of the day/days of the week.
                                           Parking controls play a key role in traffic reduction
The Council can exempt classes of
                                           policies.
vehicles from parking restrictions
(i.e. residents vehicles etc.),
allocate areas of the highway to
particular classes of vehicle and
charge for parking.
The Council can enforce the
controls implemented using parking
attendants.
The Council can use the funds
derived from parking charges to
fund the parking service and can
use any surplus to fund a range of
highways related initiatives.

                                           These powers are used in conjunction with the
Highways Act
                                           parking and traffic management powers to
The Council has powers under the           implement a range of improvements and traffic
Highways Act to maintain, improve          management schemes.
and construct public highways.
                                           The powers provided by this act are used to
Improvements can include:
                                           implement the Boulevard project.
   Reallocation of space between
    different classes of road users –
    widening footways, creating
    segregated cycle paths etc.
   Environmental improvements.
    Planting of trees etc.

Road Traffic Reduction Act, 1997           Whilst the Act charges highway authorities to write
                                           reports and set targets, this has not been required
Requires local highway authorities
                                           yet by central government or the Greater London
to prepare a report containing and
                                           Authority.
assessment of existing levels of
traffic on its roads. Authorities
should also set targets for reducing
local road traffic in the area (or
justify not setting them).

Town and Country Planning Act              Camden Unitary Development Plan (UDP),
1990 (as amended) –                        adopted March 2000
Prohibits development without the
consent of a local planning
authority
Requires production of a
development plan to guide
decisions relating to the use and
development of land



Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                    85
Can be accompanied by
Supplementary Planning Guidance

UDP Policy TR19 - Road Safety              Seeks to reduce casualty risks

UDP Policy TR21 – Pedestrians              Seek to improve safety and convenience to
                                           pedestrians

UDP Policy TR22 – Cycling                  Seeks safe, pleasant, comfortable and convenient
                                           cycling




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                  86
Appendix 6: New legal powers

Schedule of Road Traffic Offences that are to be decriminalised as part
of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill

Description of traffic sign                     Diagram                 Sign
                                               number1
Vehicular traffic must proceed in              606
the direction indicated by the arrow




Vehicular traffic must turn ahead in           609
the direction indicated by the arrow.




Vehicular traffic must comply with             610
the requirements prescribed in
regulation 15.




No right turn for vehicular traffic            612




No left turn for vehicular traffic             613                      (reverse of above)
No U turns for vehicular traffic               614




1
 Diagram number for traffic sign in the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002
No. 3113)


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        87
Priority must be given to vehicles             615, 615.1
from the opposite direction




All Vehicles prohibited except non – 617
mechanically propelled vehicles
being pushed by pedestrians




Entry to pedestrian zone restricted            618.2
(Alternative types)
Entry to and waiting in pedestrian             618.3
zone restricted (Alternative types)
Entry to and waiting in pedestrian             618.3
zone restricted (Variable message
sign)
Motor vehicles prohibited                      619




Motor vehicles except solo                     619.1
motorcycles prohibited




Solo motorcycles prohibited                    619.2




Goods vehicles exceeding the                   622.1A
maximum gross weight indicated
on the goods vehicle symbol
prohibited




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004   88
One way traffic                                652




Route for use by buses and pedal               953
cycles only




Route for use by tramcars only                 953.1




Part of the Carriageway outside a              1027.1
school entrance where vehicles
should not stop.
Marking Conveying the                          1043,1044
requirements prescribed in
regulation 29(2) and Part II of
Schedule 19 of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions
2002




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004   89
Scrutiny in Camden
For a large print, audio or Braille version of
this report contact 020 7974 3257
This document is also available in these languages:
Ce document est aussi disponible en français. Tel: 020 7974 5222
Este folleto también esta disponible en Español. Tel: 020 7974 5222
Warqaddaan macluumaadku waxay ku dhigan tahay afafka kala ah Soomaaliga. Tel: 020
7974 5222
Ky dokument është në dispozicion në gjuhën shqipe. Tel: 020 7974 5222


                                                                        Tel: 020 7974 5222


                                                             Tel: 020 7974 5222
Other scrutiny reports produced by Camden Council as at March 2004:
           Choices about Financing of Capital Projects (including Haverstock
            School and Maiden Lane Case studies)
           Regulation of Registered Social Landlords
           Tenancy Support for Vulnerable People
           School Run Traffic
           Development of a Camden and Islington Mental Health & Social
            Care Trust
           Uses of the Council‘s Commercial Property Portfolio
           Tackling the problem of Drugs
           Speech and Language Therapy Services
           Housing Repairs
           Floods in Camden
           Working with Young People
           Working with Refugees
           Planning, Licensing and Noise Enforcement
           Enforcement against Dog Fouling
           University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Foundation Trust
           Post Office Closures
           Reducing Delayed Transfers of Care in Camden
For copies of any of these reports please contact:
Agatha Geteloma - Administrative Officer, Scrutiny Policy Team,
Room 317, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street. Telephone:
020 7974 3257 Fax: 020 7974 3202; Email:
agatha.geteloma@camden.gov.uk
Web: www.camden.gov.uk/scrutiny


Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004                        90
Contacting us about scrutiny:
Scrutiny Team Manager: Tim Young
Room 201 Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Telephone 020 7974 3257.
Email: tim.young@camden.gov.uk




Camden Council: Report of the Road Safety Scrutiny Panel – March 2004        91

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:8/4/2011
language:English
pages:91