This annual report has been produced by the North East Regional Road Safety Resource to provide guidance for the twelve North East local authorities on their performance compared to that of other local authorities in England in 2013 for the purpose of appropriate target setting, identification of education, training and publicity needs, and to encourage the sharing of best practice. This report sets out how each of the twelve North East local authorities has performed against several key measures of road user casualties. The overall total casualty figures have been combined with additional information to provide a more rounded picture of the situation in each authority by taking into account factors such as the amount of vehicle miles travelled and the size of the population. This is important because the characteristics of the authorities vary and have an impact on the number of casualties. Using these other factors helps us to understand the wider picture and explain apparent imbalances in the number of casualties. Effective benchmarking must take into account all of these factors. The report focuses on areas where there is notable good or poor performance that would benefit from further investigation and work by local authorities, rather than a complete documentation of all performance. This enables individual local authorities to assess where they would like their performance to sit for each of the measures, as it may not be possible for local authorities to achieve performance in the top quartile for all of the measures. To further assist authorities in determining how they have performed in 2013, each figure includes a data table giving information on variations in their performance compared to the three year average number or rate of casualties in the authority between 2010 and 2012. There are also measures included that indicate the relative rank compared to the other English authorities as well as their quartile position, with traffic lighting to show improved or worsening performance. Finally, the figures intentionally contain information for each of the 151 English local authorities included on the Department for Transport’s reports so that local authority members can see how authorities similar to theirs perform against the measures, giving them the opportunity to compare performance and share best practice. However, it can also be used to set individual authorities performance into context. It is intended that individual authorities use this report to help develop targets to plan and evaluate road safety delivery, as well as a means of sharing good ideas for reducing road user casualties. Summary of Key Findings: * In 2013, the twelve North East local authorities generally had low numbers of road user casualties when compared with the other English local authorities, with only Durham having casualty numbers above the England average. Low numbers mean that the North East generally performed better than most other regions in England. * All North East authorities also had better than average casualty levels given the number of miles travelled on their road networks, and all but Gateshead given the relative sizes of their populations, showing that the North East can be said to have a very safe road network when compared to the rest of England. * Most North East local authorities have low numbers of people who were killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road traffic collisions. Where authorities have higher numbers these are usually offset by high levels of vehicle traffic on their roads. * The levels of car occupant casualties in the North East are generally similar to those for total casualties in the region. This shows how much of an impact car occupant casualties have on the overall casualty figures in the region. If we wish to reduce the overall number of casualties on the North East’s roads, then car occupants are the obvious group to target. * The numbers of child casualties in the North East is an area for improvement for some of the region’s authorities, especially when looking at child casualties by the size of the respective child populations. * The North East as a whole was generally safer than much of England for both pedestrians and child pedestrians in 2013, although there have been increases in total pedestrian casualty numbers in half of the North East authorities from the 2010 to 2012 average to 2013. * Similar change is seen with pedal cyclist casualties, with half of the region’s councils seeing increases in casualty levels and rates, but half reducing. * The number of child pedal cyclist casualties is generally low across much of the North East. However, when looking at the number of casualties by the size of the child population, the North East performs fairly poorly. * All North East local authorities had fewer motorcyclist casualties than the England average. In addition, casualty rates per million motorcycle miles and per thousand licenced motorcycles were also lower than average in most of the region, and rates by population size were below the England average in all authorities. * Overall, the North East has comparatively high levels of bus, minibus and coach casualties. Furthermore, when looking at the casualty levels by population size and distance travelled using buses and coaches, these rates remain high but are improving. * For the North East in general there are higher numbers of casualties on urban rather than rural roads, and this is generally the same when looking at casualty rates per mile of urban and rural road in the region. (Author/publisher)
Abstract