Twenty years ago, there was enthusiasm for creating safer physical environments through the planning process. We now appear to be at a stage where road safety objectives are denied and the empirical foundations for technical requirements are forgotten. The paper notes the origins and basis of ideas, guidelines and rules for safer physical environments, including a summary of key sources. The central elements involve physical planning to reduce vehicle use, to control the road/land interface on arterials, to locate and layout activity centres, and to create traffic-safe local environments. Many issues can be identified from conflicts between contemporary planning thinking and safety-conscious planning, arising from current interpretations of integrated planning and 'new urbanism'. These centre on the apparent conflict between integration and segregation in the activity environment; the low status given to road safety as a planning objective; the discounting of the relevance of experience and past research; and the almost dogmatic insistence on certain physical forms, some of which may tend to lower rather than improve safety. A comparison of contemporary planning thinking and safety-conscious planning highlights the many contradictions. An example - local planning - is discussed in more detail, highlighting the safety consequences of the 'new urban' core value of 'permeability' (connectivity) in the network. Concerns are noted about the rejection of cul-de-sac and the likely increase of minor-major junctions in the current philosophies. Moving to a common set of outcomes and strategic objectives, a focus on ends rather than means, and an acceptance that traffic-related safety is an important planning criterion are essential first steps before safety conscious planning and the "popular" interpretation of new urbanism can find common ground. (Author/publisher) For the covering entry of this conference, please see ITRD abstract no. E205861.
Abstract