Casualty reduction targets have focused attention on the effectiveness with which local authorities provide road safety services. This has led to questioning whether they offer a good indicator of performance in the delivery of road safety services. This paper draws on two strands of work; first, a research project carried out for the Scottish Office into the measurement of road safety (see IRRD nos 839467 and 839487) in which the questions of how can the safety of local authorities, different types of road or different road user groups be compared were asked, and the implications that such measurements have for the evaluation of performance discussed. General principles are outlined and case studies are described. The second strand is current work for UK local authorities, evaluating their delivery of road safety services and developing frameworks for the production of road safety plans. In addition to AIP (accidents involving pedestrians) work virtually all authorities devote substantial time and resources to dealing with enquiries from the public, councillors and so on. This can be categorised as 'anxiety' over road safety issues. 'Anxiety money' spent in dealing with such enquiries is largely ineffective in reducing casualties, but represents a legitimate expenditure for a public authority concerned about providing a service. Expenditure on road safety education is even more substantial, yet it is only rarely - if ever - possible to link efforts in this field directly to casualty reductions. The paper describes methods developed to evaluate the effectiveness with which local authorities deliver a wide range of road safety services, within the context of casualty reduction targets and Road Safety Plans and presents an improved method for the design, monitoring and evaluation of local Road Safety Plans.
Abstract