Island Road Safety Review – December 2021

Island Road Safety Review

December 2021

R.185/2021

Contents

1  Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2  Jersey's Road Safety Challenge ............................................................................................... 2 3  The Safe System Approach to Road Safety .............................................................................. 7

1. Vision Zero .............................................................................................................................. 7
2. The Safe System Approach to Road Safety ............................................................................. 8

1. The Principles of the Safe System Approach. ................................................................. 9
2. The Five Pillars of The Safe System Approach ................................................................ 9

3. Vision Zero and The Safe System in Practice ........................................................................ 11

4. Casualty Reduction Targets................................................................................................... 12
5. Safety Performance Indicators.............................................................................................. 13

4  The Current Situation on Jersey .............................................................................................14

1. Jersey Factors ........................................................................................................................ 14
2. Key Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................................... 15
3. Engagement Summary .......................................................................................................... 16
4. Road Safety Functions and the Five Pillars of the Safe System Approach ............................ 19

4.4.1  Existing Structure .......................................................................................................... 21

5  The Way Forward ..................................................................................................................22

1. Defined Base for Change ....................................................................................................... 22
2. Vision Zero ............................................................................................................................ 22
3. Applying the Safe System Approach in Jersey ...................................................................... 23
4. Casualty Reduction Targets................................................................................................... 24
5. Safety Performance Indicators (SPI) ..................................................................................... 27
6. The Road Safety Strategy ...................................................................................................... 27
7. Road Safety Roles .................................................................................................................. 28
8. Road Safety Structure ........................................................................................................... 30
9. Road Safety Functions ........................................................................................................... 33
10. Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 35

5.10.1  Cost Benefit Analysis ..................................................................................................... 36

6  Summary ...............................................................................................................................38 7  Recommendations ................................................................................................................39

1  Introduction

This report reviews the existing approach to road safety in Jersey and proposes a new structure and new method of delivery. The decision to undertake the review followed a State Member's Private Proposition in January 2021 (with a subsequent amendment by the Minister for Infrastructure), and the passing of the following proposition P5.2021, by the States Assembly in March 2021:

1. to request the Minister for Infrastructure to undertake a structural review of Road Safety in the Island in order to identify ways of improving road safety, with a focus on the needs of vulnerable road users, and to publish its initial findings with strategic policy recommendations by the end of 2021; and,
2. to request the Minister for Infrastructure to review existing legislation and the Island's Highway Code to identify the benefits of introducing a hierarchy of responsibility for road users, based on the level of risk presented to road users in the event of a collision.

This report covers part (a)' above, a structural review of road safety. Part b' has been picked up within an existing work stream to update road legislation, but will to an extent dependent on the outcome of this review and the subsequent development of a Road Safety Strategy in 2022.

A more specific remit for this report was set down by the Infrastructure, Housing and Environment's (IHE's) Transport Section as follows:

• In producing the report, existing and possible stakeholders will be met and informally interviewed regarding past practices and possible future ones, their views and ideas will be considered as part of any proposed changes.

• The report shall consider adoption and implementation of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety.

• The report shall identify the resourcing, manpower, and governance required to ensure a sustained improvement in road safety.

• Following the Road Safety Review, a Road Safety Strategy will be developed in 2022.

The following report has been produced, incorporating the above four requirements.

2  Jersey's Road Safety Challenge

In 2019 there were 256 recorded injury collisions in Jersey, resulting in 283 casualties. One person was killed, 42 were seriously injured and 240 sustained slight injuries. This was a reduction of 18% from the previous year's total of 304 and included a 16% reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured (KSI). There were on average 1.1 casualties per collision, compared to 1.3 in Great Britain.

In the last ten years for which information is available (to 2019), there has been an overall downward trend in casualty numbers with a 26% reduction in casualties when comparing figures from 2019 with those from 2010.

Table 1 and Figure 1 show overall casualty numbers over this period, and the number of KSI casualties. Figures for individual years are shown along with figures for three year rolling averages. Rolling averages are used to demonstrate a more even long term trend in situations where in statistical terms numbers are comparatively low, as they iron out' year to year random fluctuations.

Table 1 - Overall and Killed and Seriously Injured Casualty Numbers, Jersey 2010 to 2019

Figure 1 - Overall and Killed and Seriously Injured Casualty Numbers, Jersey 2010 to 2019

Casualty Trends

450 400 350 300 250

200 150 100 50 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

KSI KSI 3 year rolling average All All 3 year rolling average

*2020 data has not been used due to the COVID 19 pandemic significantly reducing the number and duration of journeys and consequently injuries.

The data shows a significant reduction in casualties from 2018 to 2019 with more research needed to determine why. There are, however, a number of initial suggestions as to why this may be the case:

• Statistically  numbers  are  small  and  susceptible  to  greater  year  by  year  random  differences. Random fluctuation, however, is very unlikely to account for all of this reduction.

• The number of cyclists injured has dropped significantly at a time that cycling and cycling safety has been actively promoted and targeted through education and infrastructure provision.

• The number of motorcycle and moped casualties dropped at a time that the Police and Driver and Vehicle Standards (DVS) undertook secondary school based education and publicity on the subject of motorcycle and moped safety.

• IHE's Transport Section took a more data led approach to road safety, with one traffic engineer's role encompassing the road safety function to a greater degree than before.

Whilst  there  were  significant  drops  in  both  killed  and  seriously  injured  casualties,  and  overall casualties in 2019, rolling averages suggest that there has been no notable long term reduction. However, if the recent reduction can be attributed to some of the reasons above, it provides greater optimism that moving to a pro-active Safe System Approach will further reduce casualty reduction.

A comparison has been made with other Islands and Great Britain to determine the magnitude of the casualty problem. Table 2 and Figure 2 show casualty rates per head of population for Jersey, other small islands  within  the  British Isles,  and  Great Britain. It  enables  useful  (but not  like  for  like) comparison of the road safety challenge in neighbouring jurisdictions. Because of the relatively small sample sizes for the islands, three year averages have been used to minimise random fluctuation.

Table 2 - Casualty Rates per 100,000 Population per Year, Various Jurisdictions (2017 to 2019 averaged).

Figure 2 - Casualty Rates per 100,000 Population per Year, Various Jurisdictions (2017 to 2019 averaged).

Casualty Rates

350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0

100.0 50.0 0.0

Jersey Isle of Wight Isle of Man Great Britain

KSI/100000 All/100000

Both the KSI and overall casualty rates in Jersey are higher than Great Britain but compare favourably with other islands. The Isle of Man of course does have the influence of two motorcycle racing festivals each year, during which visiting (non-competing) motorcyclists add significantly to the Island's KSI numbers.

Table 3 and Figure 3 again makes comparison, this time comparing casualty rates per kilometre of public  highway.  It  enables  further  comparison  with  the  extent  of  the  road  safety  challenge  in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Table 3 – Casualty Rates per Kilometre of Public Highway per Year, Various Jurisdictions (2017 to 2019 averaged).

Figure 3 – Casualty Rates per Kilometre of Public Highway per Year, Various Jurisdictions (2017 to 2019 averaged).

Casualty Rates

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Jersey Isle of Wight Isle of Man Great Britain

KSI per kilometre All per kilometre

Jersey compares reasonably with all other jurisdictions in this respect both in terms of KSI casualties and all casualties. More meaningful results could be obtained by production of casualty rates per jurisdiction compared to the number of vehicle kilometres travelled. However, this is beyond the scope of this initial comparison.

Vulnerable Road Users

Vulnerable road users are those who have less collision protection than occupants of motor vehicles and  therefore  have  a  higher  risk  of  being  injured  or  killed  in  a  road  collision,  predominantly pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, and moped and motorcycle riders and passengers. Table 4 shows the numbers of all casualties, and KSI casualties, for each of the major road user groups on the Island, and Figure 4 shows this graphically.

Table 4 – Casualties by Road User Type – Jersey (2017 to 2019 averaged).

*Includes bus/coach, unknowns', and others'

Figure 4 – Casualties by Road User Type – Jersey (2017 to 2019 averaged).

All Casualties KSI Casualties

Powered 2 Wheeler Pedal Cycle Powered 2 Wheeler Pedal Cycle Pedestrian Car/Van/Lorry Pedestrian Car/Van/Lorry

Vulnerable road users form 64% of all casualties, and 82% of all killed and seriously injured casualties. Powered two wheelers form just over a third of all killed and seriously injured casualties, and pedal cycles form just under a third. These proportions are significantly higher than those in Great Britain where vulnerable road users comprise 57% of overall casualties with powered two wheelers and pedal cycles both comprising about a fifth of all killed and seriously injured casualties. Further research will be needed to determine the reasons for the differences.

Further in-depth analysis of the data is beyond the scope of this review, but will be an interim step before the development of the Road Safety Strategy. This is to ensure an accurate data led picture of existing circumstances which can drive focus and key actions within the Strategy.

Analysis of data should also be undertaken as part of regular ongoing monitoring and research into the collision and casualty numbers and rates.

3  The Safe System Approach to Road Safety

The Safe System Approach to Road Safety was developed as a means and approach to achieving Vision Zero.

 Vision Zero

Vision Zero was conceived in Sweden, and was adopted as a long term goal by their parliament in October 1997. It has been variously adopted in different countries or smaller jurisdictions throughout the World, although its description and application varies significantly.  

Vision Zero is a vision in which there is a road network with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. It is based on an underlying principle that "it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road network." As an ethics-based approach, Vision Zero functions to guide strategy selection. In most road systems, users bear most responsibility for safety. Vision Zero changes this relationship by emphasizing that responsibility is shared by transportation system designers, maintainers and road users.

One of the arguments of Vision Zero is that no death or serious injury is acceptable, no monetary value should be placed on life and death, and that the practice of determining benefits against cost when considering highway related expenditure should stop.

However, some form of cost benefit analysis, in which a monetary figure is put against the saving of preventing fatal, serious or slight casualties for comparison purposes is a useful tool to enable schemes to be prioritised against actual budget. To be clear the cost' of human life or injury used is not the actual cost (no one can measure that), but an estimate of the monetary saving to society. To not use this tool in any assessments or any thinking is concerning. There will always be a budget constraint, and a need to prioritise those schemes with the greatest potential casualty savings per £ spent.

A further argument is that many people's interpretation of Vision Zero recognises that human error is no longer the primary cause of collisions. Rather, the failure of the road system is the cause of many collisions  that  result  in  death  or  serious  injury.  This  can  be  interpreted  to  place  the  onus  of responsibility on the highway authority. That the highway authority should be making roads more forgiving is correct. But some interpretations of Vision Zero take an absolute approach to this and accept all responsibility for collisions, including for example those involving unqualified drivers using stolen cars at speed or under the influence of drugs, etc. So, there are strong arguments for aligning with the Dutch approach of saying humans are to blame' in many instances, yet the roads should be designed to be self-explaining', thus reducing the likelihood of collisions.

 The Safe System Approach to Road Safety

The Safe System Approach to Road Safety takes a holistic view of the road system, and the interactions between roads, vehicles, speeds and road users. It recognises that people will make mistakes and have collisions, but the system should be forgiving and those collisions should not result in death or serious injury. It is an inclusive approach that caters for all groups using the network, including drivers, motorcyclists,  passengers,  pedestrians,  cyclists,  horse  riders,  and  commercial and  heavy  vehicle drivers.

The Safe System Approach views human life and health as paramount to all else and should be the principal consideration when designing a road system. The key objective for those managing the roads is that when collisions do occur, high severity outcomes such as serious injuries and death should not. Therefore, roads need to be equipped with a forgiving' infrastructure that takes into account the vulnerability of human beings.

The Safe System Approach to Road Safety challenges the traditional thinking and understanding of how to address road trauma, looking at how the individual elements of the road system can work together to protect people from being killed or seriously injured. By inference, it is therefore a pro- active approach, looking at road safety as part of everyday professional life and putting it at the core of everything we do, rather than reacting to collision and injury events.

The key differences between the traditional and Safe System approaches have been summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 – Traditional Approach to Road Safety vs. Safe System Approach to Road Safety

1. The Principles of the Safe System Approach.

The Safe System is based on four main principles, each of which is listed and explained below: People make mistakes

People make mistakes which can lead to collisions; however, no one should die or be seriously injured on the road as a result of these mistakes. As people are fallible, collisions cannot be eradicated by just improving road user behaviour, so the safe road system must be able to accommodate people making mistakes and be as forgiving as possible.

The human body is vulnerable

The human body has a limited physical ability to tolerate collision forces – any impact greater than 30km/h  increases the  risk of  dying significantly. Vulnerable  road users  (who have less  collision protection than occupants of motor vehicles, etc.) are particularly at risk of sustaining injury in the event of a collision. So the safe road system must use the human body's tolerance to impact forces as a guiding design tool.

Road safety is a shared responsibility

Road safety is a shared responsibility amongst everyone, including those that design, build, operate and use the road system. Traditionally, the responsibility for staying safe on the road fell on individual road users. However, under the Safe System Approach, everyone has a part to play in keeping themselves and each other safe.

All parts of the road system must be strengthened in combination

To help build a safe road system that is forgiving of mistakes, investment needs to be made in the creation of Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles, Safe People and Post Collision Response to put layers of protection around people to keep them safe from death and serious injuries on the road.

2. The Five Pillars of The Safe System Approach

There are five essential elements of the Safe System approach, which reflect its holistic view of road safety, as per Figure 5:

Figure 5 – The Safe System Approach to Road Safety – Tranches and Actions

Safe Roads and Roadsides

Roads are designed to reduce the risk of collisions occurring and the severity of injury, should a collision occur. One way in which this can be achieved is to segregate different kinds of road users and to segregate traffic moving in different directions or at a different speed. Alternatively, a road can be made more forgiving', with wider verges, greater visibility and/or clearer signing and lining. If this is not possible, a speed limit to protect the most vulnerable road users can be implemented.

Safe Speeds

Speed limits are based on aiding collision avoidance and reducing the speed at which impacts occur, to ensure that the body's limit for physical trauma is not reached. The Safe System aims to establish appropriate speed limits according to the features of the road, the function it serves and the physical tolerance of road users present. The setting of speed limits should also be determined by the protective quality of the road sections and vehicles in use rather than the behaviour of road users. The Safe System also works to enforce existing speed limits and to educate road users to ensure that they comply with speed limits.

Safe Vehicles

Vehicles are designed and regulated to minimise the occurrence and consequences of collisions. Making vehicles safer can involve installing active' safety measures, which can prevent collisions occurring, such as autonomous emergency braking or passive' safety measures, which protect occupants if a collision does occur, such as seatbelts and airbags. It is also vital to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy, that is, regulated to the highest standards. Increasingly, roads and vehicles will be managed within an intelligent transport system relying on ever more autonomous vehicles and smart infrastructure. As safety becomes hardwired into vehicle technology and road design, there is potential to further reduce casualties and deaths.

Safe Road Use

Both those who design or manage roads and those who use them are recognised as being responsible for eradicating serious injuries and fatalities. Road users are expected to use the roads safely and comply with the rules, adapting to the conditions of the road (travelling at an appropriate speed) and not undertaking known risky behaviours (e.g. use of mobile phones, etc.). Education interventions are therefore important, to ensure that road users are risk aware and act appropriately to keep themselves safe on the road. Enforcement can aid compliance, but new countermeasures to extreme road user behaviour, such as excessive speeding, etc. may be needed to influence behaviour.

Measures to encourage more sustainable travel to reduce traffic, by motivating people to use active travel modes such as walking, cycling or use public transport are also relevant.

Post-Collision Response

Under the Safe System Approach, it is vital to work with the emergency services and the Health System to ensure that road collisions are effectively responded to and investigated. Health outcomes for victims of collisions rely on the ability of the emergency medical care system to quickly locate and provide emergency first responder care to stabilise the victim and transport them to hospital for appropriate care and treatment.

 Vision Zero and The Safe System in Practice

Some Countries and practitioners appear to confuse Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach. Vision Zero is the ultimate target, the Safe System Approach is the methodology utilised to get there.

Some countries and highway authorities have adopted variations to Vision Zero, perhaps recognising it as an ultimate aspiration, in a world where a few more factors have to change before it becomes a definitive target with a timescale. Variations include Towards Vision Zero', and Road to Vision Zero'.

Some proponents and some documentation on the subject, portray the Safe System Approach as moving all responsibility from the road user to the highway authority. This is not the case. Whilst the highway authority has a responsibility to provide forgiving roads, the road user has a responsibility to use them appropriately. This being so death and serious injury should be avoided, but reckless and deliberately risk taking behaviour resulting in injury should not become the responsibility of the highway authority.

Not all countries apply all aspects of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety. It has been noted that the more developed countries have been making outstanding progress in reducing traffic deaths while less developed nations tend to see an increase in traffic fatalities due to increased motorization, older cars and less sophisticated technology.

Sweden

In Sweden, the birthplace of Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach, the original target set in 1997 was to achieve zero fatalities by 2020. Ten years later this was no longer seen as achievable and was revised to a target of a 50% reduction in fatalities by 2020, with the ultimate target of zero fatalities reset to 2050. Sweden has made extremely good progress, both in the reductions in fatalities and reductions in overall injuries on their roads, with fatalities numbering 221 in 2019, a 63% reduction since 2000. However, in recent years there has been a levelling of the reduction in overall injuries, with levels being similar to 2014. Fatalities have also largely levelled off from 2013, but in 2019 there was a further overall reduction. Nevertheless, there are concerns in Sweden that progress has stalled.

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, another forerunner in applying the Safe System Approach, the sustainable safety approach differs from Vision Zero in that it acknowledges that in the majority of collisions humans are to blame, and that roads should be designed to be "self-explaining" thus reducing the likelihood of collisions. Self-explaining roads are easy to use and navigate, it being self-evident to road users where they should be and how they should behave. More recently the Dutch have introduced the idea that roads should also be "forgiving", i.e. designed to lessen the outcome of a traffic collision when the inevitable does occur, principles which are at the core of both the Dutch and Swedish policies. The Netherlands has also seen previous strong progress against casualty reduction targets stall in recent years.

Europe

The European Commission has adopted Vision Zero, but in its Road Safety Policy Framework for 2021 to 2030, acknowledges that the mindset of Vision Zero has not yet taken hold as much as it should. The framework also sets out its decision to base the framework on the Safe System Approach (for the first time). The Framework sets out some varied key performance indicators around the five pillars of the Safe System Approach, and also acknowledges that urgent Europe wide action is needed to succeed to meet their target of no deaths and serious injuries on European roads by 2050.

New Zealand

The New Zealand Transport Authority has adopted the Safe System Approach to Road Safety, and the Road to Zero' which acknowledges an ultimate aim of no fatal or serious injuries on New Zealand's roads, but with no timescale attached. A stringent target of a 40% reduction in fatal and serious injuries by 2030 has been set. Some individual authorities in New Zealand have gone further. Auckland aims to achieve Vision Zero by 2050.

United Kingdom

Whilst some countries apply and embrace the Vision Zero philosophy and ultimate goal, others do not but do embrace the Safe System Approach (and vice versa). The United Kingdom's Department for Transport (DfT) acknowledges the Safe System Approach, attributes actions to four of the five pillars of the approach, yet does not embrace Vision Zero or fully align itself to the approach.  

However, Scotland, with devolved powers for many aspects of road traffic, including road safety, embeds the Safe System Approach to Road Safety delivery in its framework for road safety, and embraces Vision Zero as an ultimate aspiration, albeit further back in its document and without a set date for achieving it. At the forefront are further sets of ambitious interim casualty reduction targets and these highlight and form the focal point of their strategy. It should be remembered that Scotland has had more than one set of pre-Vision Zero casualty targets, met them, and then moved towards further stringent targets, but still do not set a date for Vision Zero.

In London the Mayor's Transport Strategy published in 2018 adopted Vision Zero and achieving the goal of no fatal or serious injuries by 2041, which is an earlier timescale than Sweden, whom it could be argued are further along the journey to Vision Zero than anywhere else.

 Casualty Reduction Targets

Most  western  countries,  prior  to  adoption  of  Vision  Zero  and  the  Safe  System  Approach  had concerted, data led casualty reduction targets. The United Kingdom had the Accident Reduction 2000 and  2010'  initiatives  as  pre-cursors,  with  both  ten  year  targets  resulting  in  significant  casualty reduction  by  directing  road  safety  resources  towards  issues  identified  in  the  data  (rather  than perceived problems).

In its purest form, Vision Zero does not set collision or casualty reduction targets (aside from the ultimate goal of zero), yet many proponents of its use, and many jurisdictions continue to set casualty reduction targets (and focus resources towards these targets), either as their set goals or as interim goals towards Vision Zero.

Purists argue that with Vision Zero, there is only one ultimate target, zero fatal and serious casualties, and that the focus should be on adherence to the five pillars of the Safe System Approach, rather than the numbers of casualties. Nevertheless, many of the organisations that have adopted Vision Zero, and/or the Safe System Approach have seen the value of casualty reduction targets either as an interim milestone, or in some cases, as a target with no further timescale towards an ultimate vision of zero.

Targets have been a key success and motivator to individual highway authorities and countries and are regarded by road safety practitioners as one of the key aspects that contributed towards a reduction in road casualty levels. This is because they measure success, give a common goal for all to aim for, act as an incentive, and force rethinking and realignment of strategies and policies when the desired level and direction of progress has not been reached. Targets can be overall (all casualties), or can be for specific severities (e.g. KSI's), or can be for specific road user groups, (e.g. vulnerable road users).

Currently worldwide there are casualty reduction targets set by the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, European wide targets set by the European Commission, and there are targets set by individual Countries, including Sweden.

The UK is one of the few nations whose DfT has not set targets. This is despite their own previous success with them, their own Parliamentary Committee for Transport Safety advocating them, and as previously mentioned one constituent Country, Scotland putting in their own stringent targets for the foreseeable future. National targets were abolished in 2011, funding was hit hard, and the previous prolonged  and  significant  reduction  in  road  traffic  casualty  levels  noticeably  trailed  off  soon afterwards.

 Safety Performance Indicators

A Safety Performance Indicator (SPI) is a data-based parameter, used for monitoring and assessing safety performance.

SPI can be highly effective in determining road safety policies and interventions. They constitute an essential tool for diagnosing problematic areas, for understanding the processes leading to road collisions, and for helping stakeholders to understand how they can contribute to improved road safety.

An example of a SPI would be the percentage of vehicle-kilometres driven by passenger cars of the highest European vehicle safety rating. This figure would give an indication of the general standard of vehicle  using  the  road  and  enables  comparison,  for  example,  with  the  percentages  considered necessary for a significant change in casualty numbers and/or severity.

It is important to note that SPI do not need to focus on the numbers of people killed and seriously injured (like casualty reduction targets). In the example above as the percentage of high standard vehicles increases, the indicator is the proportion of people using such cars not the number or proportion of casualties within them.

Casualty reduction targets and SPI complement each other. The latter in some ways are more indicative of a pure Safe System Approach, especially if they are carefully selected to cover each of the five pillars of The Safe System.

4  The Current Situation on Jersey

To determine where Jersey currently sits in terms of delivering a road safety function and services the following actions have been taken:

• An examination of historic collision and casualty data. Also demographic and geographical data.

• A review of Jersey's specific context that may influence any future approach to road safety and casualty reduction on the Island.

• Discussions with those involved in road safety in Jersey and potential stakeholders in any new road safety approach.

• An examination of current legislation, policies and practices.

This section summarises the findings.

 Jersey Factors

Challenges

Each jurisdiction needs to adapt their approach to the Safe System Approach to make it work best for them. Before Jersey can decide if it wishes to introduce the Safe System Approach, some consideration needs to be given to those factors, and specific island features particular to Jersey, (or at least factors that will raise challenges).

As previously seen, Jersey has a slightly higher casualty rate per 100,000 population when compared to Great Britain (and also when compared to much of mainland Europe). However, that rate is now closer to that of Great Britain than previously, and also on a par with other British Islands. Whilst further research is needed as to exactly why rates are higher than the British mainland, one clear factor is the standard of roads. Many rural roads in mainland Britain and Europe are built of a width and design standard to carry large volumes of traffic whereas the Island's roads cater for lower volumes in a rural setting, with many physical constraints (narrow widths, stone walls, buildings) preventing improvement and upgrading. These present significant challenges for any improvements, or for redesigning them to reduce the risk of collisions or serious injury.

One of the biggest challenges Jersey faces is the very high proportion of collisions involving vulnerable road users. The Safe System Approach to Road Safety puts people first, and whilst further research is necessary as to who, where and why vulnerable road users are in collisions, the Safe System Approach in Jersey may need to find some radical solutions to overcome the problem including the reallocation of road space. Jersey needs to undertake research into this issue as a priority.

The highway layout in Jersey is almost exclusively one of single carriageway roads, many of which in rural areas are narrow, and without footpaths. Only 30% of Government roads have footpaths, and this presents serious obstacles to walking on an island where so many journeys would otherwise be achievable on foot. Some urban roads are narrow for the purpose they exist for, and many of the footpaths on urban roads are also narrow, a further impediment to encouraging walking journeys. A combination of narrow roads and footpaths precludes many attempts to introduce segregated cycle provision on the highway. The majority of the narrow roads and footpaths are bounded by (very often high sided) private land which prevents widening as a means of enhancing provision without great cost. However, some mitigation has been provided by the introduction of Green Lanes, and some segregated cycle lanes in some areas.

Positive Aspects

As well as the above obstacles and challenges Jersey has factors in its favour when considering the way forward on road safety.

The national speed limit of 40mph, and the increased utilisation of 20mph speed limits are a good starting point for speed reduction. These are already in keeping with the philosophy of the Safe System Approach in governing speeds in accordance with the nature of the roads (rather than established and historical vehicle speeds). However, these can only succeed if the lower limits are suitably selected (so as to appear reasonable), and all limits are enforced.

The introduction of Green Lanes, the utilisation of old railway tracks and the continued development of off-road segregated cycle and walking tracks already contribute to casualty reduction and represent good practice, and appropriate investment, especially if applying the Safe System Approach.

Applying change in an environment not bounded by adjacent physical land areas, police forces, health authorities and governance all aid a uniform approach to Road Safety.

There is a strong interest amongst the public and politicians in road safety and an apparent appetite for further improvement. Moreover, there is a noticeable element of courtesy between road users, especially towards pedestrians.

Lastly but perhaps most significantly there is the opportunity to learn from those countries further ahead on the journey of adopting the Safe System Approach to Road Safety, and the chance to accelerate progress as a result.

 Key Stakeholder Engagement

Many people have an interest in road safety either as professionals, politicians, or members of the public. However, the review's initial focus was the key stakeholders currently (or who have very recently been) involved in road safety on the Island. Also to an extent those who could potentially become directly involved under any new approach. These were:

• Jersey Police Authority

• States of Jersey Police

• Road Safety Officer (Retired)

• Parish Comité des Chefs de Police

• IHE – Transport Section

• Driver and Vehicle Standards

• Road Safety Panel (Chair)

• Fire & Ambulance Services

• CYPES - Schools

Development of a full road safety strategy will require a more in depth engagement with these stakeholders, along with a wider engagement with other Government functions such as HCS, the Judicial Greffe, Probation Service, etc.

 Engagement Summary

Jersey Police Authority

The Jersey Police Authority (JPA) is an independent body established under law to ensure that the States of Jersey Police Force are an efficient and effective police force that delivers the key aims and objectives set by the Minister, and acts in accordance with any management policies set by the Minister of Home Affairs. They are also responsible for seeking, from the Minister, any additional resources required to enable the States of Jersey Police to deliver its key aims and objectives.

The JPA acknowledge that whilst casualty reduction was not within the present strategic policing priorities, it is a priority and should be included in future. In addition, in view of the States Proposition that prompted this review, there should be reference to and direction for road safety within the next Government Plan.

The JPA acknowledge and support the concept of road safety becoming a cross government function and beyond, and the need to recruit for a co-ordinator role that oversees collaborative Government and Parish working.

The JPA also recognise the need to see more robust data collected at road traffic collisions (that resulted in injury), and the reasons why, and that the States Police support this move.

States Police

Many aspects of road traffic law enforcement are undertaken by the States of Jersey Police.

States Police attend, and where necessary investigate 95% or more of all road  traffic collisions involving injury on the Island, the Parish Police the remainder. The data from those collisions is processed using the iLog incident reporting system (which is used for recording all Police incidents), and then Masterfile.

The Police do not complete the Stats19' form used as the standard injury collision reporting form in the United Kingdom, but have their own less detailed form that collects less information. However, the States Police support the principal of and reasons for using the more extensive Stats 19 form, namely more extensive and comprehensive data, that will enable more detailed and accurate analysis of collision and casualty patterns.

Road Safety Officer (Retired)

The road safety education, training and publicity function historically rested with the Police. This is slightly unusual in that in the vast majority of cases in the United Kingdom the function sits within the highway department of the local authority, given the close relationship between education, training and publicity, and road safety engineering.

At present there is no Road Safety Officer, the previous postholder retired in 2021. As well as undertaking the many and varied educational campaigns and training, they chaired the Island's Road Safety Panel, acted as an interface with the public, and set up and maintained the Jersey Roads Safety' website. Since retirement, the function has been under the management of the Inspector for Roads Policing. Elements of the function in the form of Bikeability cycle training have been passed on to Jersey Sport an arms-length organisation supported by the Government of Jersey. School Crossing patrols, normally another Road Safety Officer function, currently sit within individual schools which is unusual.

There are strong indications from the data in this report that cycling and motorcycle education initiatives in Schools undertaken by the last Road Safety Officer contributed to the reductions in casualty levels in those road user groups in 2019.

The extent of road safety education training and publicity duties warrant a full time Road Safety Officer and road safety budget.

Parish Chefs de Police

The Chefs de Police works with the Connétable to identify and deliver policing priorities for each individual parish. The Comité des Chefs de Police nevertheless work to  provide a co-ordinated approach when relevant.

The  Comité  des  Chefs  de Police  collectively  raised a  number  of  concerns  from a  local  Policing perspective, for example, speeding, and the possibility of introducing speed cameras were cited. Concerns were raised as to the behaviour of some cyclists, and the emergence of e-scooters and the behaviour of riders. The lack of collision data for cycling collisions in non-highway situations was also cited.

The Chefs de Police felt there were many practical difficulties in introducing a forgiving road environment that reduced the effects of collisions, given the general nature of Jerseys roads and the practical site constraints of them.

IHE – Transport Section

The highway authority function for government roads sits within IHE's Transport Section.

Legally, within Jersey's existing road legislation there is no duty of care with regards to road safety. Nevertheless, officers have aligned themselves to the good practice, standards, advice and methodology followed by their United Kingdom counterparts and therefore undertake their duties in a very similar manner, with the same objectives in mind.

There is a traffic engineer post which embraces collision cluster site investigation, road safety audit, management and analysis of Island wide collision and casualty data. This role also supports other engineers in the Section on road safety issues. Collision cluster site identification and investigation is undertaken, and a road safety audit policy was developed in 2015 and updated in 2021. Road safety audits are undertaken for all significant permanent or long term interventions on the highway. Headline annual collision and casualty numbers and trends have been published, and whilst there has been some in depth analysis of overall collision patterns and trends it has not formed part of any standalone documents, and has only been published as part of the 2017 to 2019 Road Safety Action Plan.

There is a collision database within the IHE Transport Section. It is not an off the shelf' database such as KeyACCIDENT, iMaap or AccsMap, but was produced from scratch by existing IHE staff members and has been refined in recent years, thus providing more and more accurate and cleansed' data. It is detailed and thorough in the extent and format to which it provides the information that road safety practitioners need to be data led and can be regarded as a very successful innovation. However, it is restricted by the extent of data collated by the Police, and the inability when compared to off the shelf' databases to undertake complex enquiries quickly. It is also only updated when batches of data are received from the Police, rather than on a regular basis, which can lead to lengthy intervals between collisions occurring, and the data being there for road safety practitioners. This is a disadvantage as quality and timely data is crucial to determining the magnitude of the road safety problem and setting casualty reduction targets.

There are some early indications that the more data led approach to problem identification and solutions undertaken by IHE has contributed to casualty reduction in recent years.

There has not to date been a Road Safety Strategy for the Island or any Annual Road Safety Plans. However, a brief Road Safety Action Plan for the period 2017 to 2019 was produced in 2017 which set out the principal practices taking place at that time or proposed for the period up to the end of 2019. It also set out a number of key actions, not all of which were achieved.

Whilst there is a policy and framework regarding speed limits, there is no overall speed management strategy which should be provided in conjunction with the Police, and should cover the criteria for speed limits, traffic calming, and an approach to speed limit enforcement. Whilst there is an Active Travel Strategy, there should be separate but linked strategies for walking and cycling, drawing on best practice and guidance. A policy is also required for pedestrian crossing provision with associated criteria.

The highway maintenance, general traffic engineering and active travel functions undertaken by the Transport Section also hold road safety elements; part of the work of the Road Safety Strategy will be to co-ordinate and integrate these and establish how they can further contribute towards casualty reduction.

Driver and Vehicle Standards

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Department is responsible for ensuring driving competency and vehicle roadworthiness on Island in line with international standards. Their functions include both driver and vehicle testing.

The office has aligned itself to many UK and EU practices and standards in vehicle testing with a view to achieving very close alignment by early 2024. One important aspect of this will be the introduction of periodic roadworthiness inspections for all motor vehicles over a certain age, which is an extension of the existing requirements put in place for heavy goods vehicles. With safer vehicles being one of the five pillars of the Safe System Approach, this initiative will tie in seamlessly with any new direction. The role of DVS will become more pronounced given their involvement with both safer vehicles and safer drivers, two of the Safe System pillars. They will be lodging a new vehicle operating license law for consideration by the States Assembly, with the purpose of ensuring a level playing field of uniform minimum standards of fleet management across the Island. Going forward they will play an even more fundamental role in raising awareness of vehicle compliance across the Island.

The DVS also participate in road safety education in schools in line with the 1968 Vienna Convention for Road Traffic, as well the regular training of States of Jersey Police officers and members of the Honorary Police in vehicle and road safety matters.

The DVS have welcomed the Road Safety Review as an opportunity to co-ordinate and introduce legislation, policies and practices with a significant and measurable road safety benefit. They are comfortable with a cross Government co-ordinated approach, and welcome increased involvement as a key stakeholder.

Road Safety Panel

The road safety panel is a voluntary body comprising of representatives from the motor trade, cycling groups, bus operator, motorsport, motorcycling groups, the Police and highways staff from IHE's Transport Section. It meets quarterly and contributes to some official decisions and thinking. Whilst having no official function and being comprised of mainly non- professionals, it is seen as a valuable and influencing body, and a conduit to Government from the public, advocacy groups and businesses, etc. The future role of the panel has been the subject of some debate with views ranging from incorporating it within a new road safety structure, to it sitting alongside it with a link to external bodies. All parties interviewed saw the Road Safety Panel as remaining relevant to the future of road safety on island.

Legal Context

A recent IHE Transport Section review of current road and traffic legislation found it to be fragmented, administratively burdensome, increasingly not suited to the rapid change occurring in transport technology, the need to support sustainable goals, road safety, health and wellbeing. Fundamental updating will be undertaken to bring legislation into line with other jurisdictions world-wide.

The following specific road safety concerns arise from current legislation:

• There are insufficient options to utilise automated speed enforcement technology.

• Statutory powers to make roads safe are limited, including inadequate powers to counter or prevent unsafe actions by other landowners affecting or impinging on the highway

• There are no statutory asset management, or network management duties

• There is no statutory duty to undertake studies into road traffic collision patterns, or to introduce remedial measures, and no requirement to undertake the promotion of road safety

The last two of these in particular form the basis of most road safety work undertaken by government in European Countries.

 Road Safety Functions and the Five Pillars of the Safe System Approach

Figure 6 shows which road safety functions are currently been undertaken by individual authorities and which of the five pillars of the Safe System Approach are being covered. As can be seen, each of the pillars are being covered to some degree though with some duplication of function, sometimes from a different perspective or required outcomes.

IHE Transport Section, IHE Driver and Vehicle Standards and the States of Jersey Police are each involved in activities covering four of the five pillars and could be regarded as core' key stakeholders.

Table 6 – Summary of local authorities within the Five Pillars of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety

4.4.1  Existing Structure

Figure 6 is a simplified representation of how road safety currently operates on the Island with Government Departments and Parishes in the middle row below, providing inputs but little interaction with each other. The voluntary Road Safety Panel interacts with all Government Departments and the politicians, predominantly in an influencing role. Ministers guide and instruct Officers of different Departments,  request  guidance  or  assistance  and  the  public  approach  politicians,  Government Departments, and the Road Safety Panel for advice and assistance etc.

Figure 6 – Simplified Diagram of Existing Road Safety Structure on Jersey

Politicians

Highways  Driver &  Education

Police  and  Vehicle

Enforcement  Parishes  Standards  Health

Fire  Ambulance  Collision  Driver  organSchoisoel d  Public Post collision  Post collision  analysis/inv licensing  Treatment  crossing

Education

estigation

Post  response  response  Vehicle  Care  patrols

Collision  Road safety  testing

response  audit

Defects

Road Safety Panel

Whilst there is some interaction between Departments, it is for the most part not strategic, and most functions  operate  in  a  silo  arrangement.  There  are  notable  exceptions  including  post  collision response  which  sees  clear  alignment  amongst  the  Emergency  Services,  and  historically  a  close relationship between Transport Officers within IHE and the Police, but overall, there is no Island wide or Government wide management of road safety.

5  The Way Forward

 Defined Base for Change

Section 2 of this report measured the road safety problem in Jersey in terms of numbers. In 2019 there were 256 recorded injury collisions, resulting in 283 casualties:

• 1 fatal

• 42 serious

• 240 slight

82% of the killed and seriously injured casualties were vulnerable road users.

Whilst there is some optimism in the form of a downward trend in overall casualty numbers, those numbers are still relatively high and there is no indication that they will continue to drop of their own accord, without further data led interventions and actions. Indeed, they show that there is an established road safety problem that needs to be addressed. The proportion of vulnerable road user casualties is a major area of concern.

What  these  figures  also  do  is  enable  the  Government  to  define  baseline  figures  to  measure improvement, and prompt road safety practitioners to investigate further to determine where to direct resources and effort to maximise casualty reduction. However, given the element of random fluctuation that naturally occurs between yearly figures, baseline figures need to comprise an average of at least three years data, and that the concept of rolling averages (over three years of data) is adopted when measuring progress against these base averages. This is especially important when looking at subsets of data (e.g. KSI numbers), as the sample sizes are smaller and even more prone to fluctuation.

2020 cannot be regarded as a typical year given the influence of the COVID 19 pandemic. 2021 will not be typical for the same reason. Therefore, the baseline years from which casualty reduction should be measured will be averages from 2017 to 2019. Averages of those three years gives us figures of 53 killed and seriously injured casualties, and 313 overall casualties per year.

Vision Zero

As previously discussed in Section 3.1, jurisdictions and organisations have either embraced Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach, as a means to achieving it, or have just embraced the Safe System Approach, or just elements.

In many people's minds Vision Zero remains a very laudable ultimate aspiration, that all should push to attain, but as long as human nature and the propensity for risk taking remains part of the equation, and vehicle technology cannot override this, it remains just that, an aspiration. Even those jurisdictions that have set a clear target of zero killed and seriously injured casualties together with a deadline, are currently reconsidering their approach because of a tailing off in casualty reduction (Sweden and London). As a result there are variants in use, with Towards Vision Zero', and The Road to Zero' being used in some jurisdictions.

In practice, many countries and authorities including some of the leading exponents of road safety embrace Vision Zero or towards it, but without Vision Zero being at the front of their strategies and without a clear and committed date to achieving it. In view of the fact that those who have done so have seen progress stall in recent years, (and in the case of Sweden acknowledge this is a problem), it would not be prudent for Jersey, with no previous casualty reduction targets, to align themselves to Vision Zero with a rigid date set to achieve it.

Jersey's approach should acknowledge the ultimate vision, but being further back in the progress on casualty reduction than those that are driving Vision Zero, most definitely should not put a timescale on it, and should not put it at the forefront of its approach. Casualty reduction targets and the associated direction of resources have been extremely successful as initial steps elsewhere, and should be a very suitable and achievable first step for Jersey, and there is no reason why this cannot be aligned to Vision Zero (or Towards Vision Zero) and the Safe System Approach.

For now, it is suggested that the concept of moving towards Vision Zero is sufficient. It does not represent overt caution, rather an acknowledgement that we need to do a bit of catching up' before aligning ourselves with those at the forefront.

 Applying the Safe System Approach in Jersey

The World Health Organisation (WHO) sets out a five point process for implementing a Safe System Approach:

1. Know where you are at:

Establish  the  size  of  your  road  safety  problem,  know  the  key  risk  factors,  determine  the effectiveness  of  intervention  measures,  determine  the  efficiency  of  the  organisations  for implementing road safety policy, and determine the availability of road traffic collision and casualty data.

2. Establish where you want to be in the next five years and beyond

Clearly define your problems, have a well-formulated vision, with clear objectives, realistic targets over a realistic timescale, provide adequate and sustainable resources, introduce performance indicators and have a good monitoring and evaluation system.

3. Establish how you will reach your target

Discuss and agree activities needed to reach your target, and then consider each in detail in order to identify the steps and actions required.

4. Take practical steps to get where you want to be

Ensure the actions arising from road safety strategies are implemented in a timely manner and sustain the impetus.

5. Monitor and evaluate

Ensure that monitoring and evaluation are included in road safety strategies, plan for this from the  outset,  utilise  existing  data,  plan  for  obtaining  new  data,  and  undertake  things  with  a consistent approach. Learn from the monitoring and evaluation and improve it.

The Safe System Approach to Road Safety represents a radical change in the way of thinking for highway authorities, emergency services, and other key stakeholders, but is acknowledged globally as the future long term approach, and has been adopted worldwide with strong support from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). There is absolutely no reason for it not to be adopted in Jersey, and now is a suitable time to do so, but there will need to be an acceptance of the limited scope for re-designing roads to be more forgiving and partly replaced with a strong speed management strategy. A revised governance structure, data led direction, and public interaction involvement and support are also crucial to the success.

Speed Management

Speed management is a particular concern as it is likely to be controversial.  A speed limit has historically been set having regard for the nature of the road, existing vehicle speeds and the collision record and the type of collisions. One factor that is key to this, is the principle that most drivers, drive at an appropriate speed having regard for their environment, and to significantly reduce the speed at which they are legally permitted to travel will lead to non-compliance, and a lack of respect for speed limits in general.

Under the Safe System Approach, the key factor is the ability of the driver or pedestrian or other road user to be able to emerge from a collision without fatal or serious injury. Therefore, a rural road with no footpaths, individual entrances, and side roads emerging onto it with limited visibility, would need to have a lower speed limit than would previously have been justified under the old criteria'.

Jersey has to some extent already embraced this with a national speed limit of 40mph, but under the Safe System Approach many of these limits may now qualify' as 30mph, depending on the degree of interpretation and alignment to the Safe System Approach. Speed limit reviews currently being undertaken jointly by Parishes and Government support this approach.

There will be implications for existing policies, enforcement levels and legislation. Publicly there may be a backlash to a draconian' approach. An initial alternative first step may be to resource and enable more widespread enforcement of existing limits. Either approach will result in casualty reduction.

Vulnerable Road Users

All aspects of the Safe System Approach will need to address the very significant level of vulnerable road user casualties on the Island, and priority must be given to these road users from the start of the process onwards.

Flexibility

Previously  in this report  it has  been  mentioned that some jurisdictions  or  authorities  embrace elements of the Safe System Approach or partially aligned themselves to it, at least for now. There is no reason why Jersey should not embrace it, whilst accepting specific Island road environment limitations.

Finally, it must be remembered that The Safe System Approach to Road Safety is a long term approach. The change in mindset will take time to filter through, and there will be challenges. At each key milestone in the development and implementation of the new approach, it is suggested reference is made back to the WHO's five point process, to ensure a structured and focussed approach along established guidelines.

 Casualty Reduction Targets

Jersey has not previously adopted casualty reduction targets. All of the successful European Countries embracing Vision Zero had a couple of decades of specific casualty reduction targets set and achieved prior to doing so. They achieved a great deal of success with these targets.

One key factor is that whilst Jersey's casualty rates (per head of population) are close to those of Great Britain, the Island has not previously taken the concerted data led approach to casualty reduction aligned to specific initiatives and targets, which have proved very successful elsewhere (the AR2000 and A2010 targets being such examples in Great Britain). This means that Jersey's potential to embrace targets, align to them and succeed, is that much greater.

When it comes to selecting targets, the focus should be on killed and seriously injured casualties, as those are the priority when using the Safe System Approach. Jersey could also add a target for slight injuries, and one for vulnerable road users since vulnerable road users form 82% of the killed and seriously  injured.  However,  there  are  strong  arguments  for  sticking  with  one  target,  namely  a reduction in killed and seriously injured casualties, because:

• It enables Politicians, officers and the public to concentrate on one objective and commit to working towards it.

• There are two aims in targeting killed and seriously injured casualties, firstly to reduce their numbers and secondly to reduce their severity. One consequence of the latter is that some of the serious casualties will become slight. This does not mean that slight casualty numbers will rise, because measures and initiatives introduced will reduce all casualty numbers, but it does mean they may not reduce to the same extent as the more serious ones. (There is no reason why a later focus cannot be put on these slight casualties).

• With a very high proportion of vulnerable road users within the main target, there is little merit in producing a separate target for them. Resources will be prioritised towards addressing road traffic collisions containing these user groups within the main target, thus rendering a separate one obsolete.

• In statistical terms the sample is small, so with random fluctuation, it will be difficult to measure success in any smaller sample (e.g. a sample of one particular road user group).

Successful casualty reduction targets should be challenging but attainable with the right resources, expertise and direction. They should be of a timescale long enough to align the organisation and resources to achieve them, introduce measures and to monitor or adjust, or even change the direction of resources and funding if necessary.

Target time period

Ten years is the most common target duration, but as previously stated for statistical reasons Jersey should use rolling averages so as to eliminate random fluctuation, and that means each of the final three years figures within a target period, count towards the final target. This puts pressure on the first seven years.

A potential solution is a scenario where the year 2022 is a year of consolidation and realignment with Government bodies being realigned to new processes, a breakout of those processes, launching of the Road Safety Strategy (mid 2022), a focus thereafter towards it, and the creation and bedding in of new relationships. Then with everything in place and running from the beginning of 2023, there is a 10 year target that lasts until the end of 2032.

Target reduction

The question remains as to what percentage the reduction should be. It should be a strong reduction to be challenging enough, and to capture the interest and support of the general public, yet reasonable enough so that it can be achieved. Also, the greater the reduction put forward, the more stringent the measures needed to achieve it. Table 7 gives some ideas of the sorts of actions required for different levels of casualty reduction. These are examples, not specific pre-requisites, and more detail will be developed as part of the upcoming Road Safety Strategy.

Table 7 – Typical Actions Required to Support Different Levels of Casualty Reduction Target.

The target level of reduction can only be the level that has the buy in and support of the public. However, it is thought that the achievable but very challenging concept of halving killed and seriously injured casualties over a ten year period will be supported. Other countries have done it, Jersey can learn from those who have, starting from a relatively blank canvas.

The casualty reduction target should remain the main focus of the Road Safety Strategy, and reference to Vision Zero, should be made as an aspiration, rather than a clear cut target.  

 Safety Performance Indicators (SPI)

The casualty reduction target should be accompanied by SPI that measure progress and standards of specific practices to help achieve the targets. It is good monitoring practice, and in line with OECD recommendations to introduce such indicators. They can be highly effective in determining priorities and interventions.

The indicators cannot be determined until the key actions for the road safety strategy are determined, but they will be done at that time. They should be measurable and achievable and spread amongst actions aligned to the five pillars of the Safe System Approach.

The Road Safety Strategy

The Road Safety Strategy (to be developed following the review) will adhere to the WHO's five point process. It will enable Jersey to demonstrate the change that can be achieved through focused action programmes.

In order to fully establish objectives, priorities, and actions, further in-depth analysis of collision and casualty data patterns and trends will be needed, including a focussed analysis of vulnerable road user collisions and casualties.

The Road Safety Strategy should be considered an initial strategy, breaking new ground, and giving new direction. There is an argument for focussing it on a five year period (Strategies are usually five to ten years in length), with one or more interim updates. The shorter time period suits the new process, as it is setting foundations. The disadvantage, compared to a ten year timescale is that it does not allow meaningful time to accomplish any targets that are set, especially bearing in mind the significantly changing approach to road safety. One thing is clear, the strategy should not in any way set out to achieve Vision Zero over a timescale, and any reference to it (if it is adopted) should be as an ultimate ambition. Vision Zero is a long term ultimate goal, and needs to be portrayed as such.

Should a ten year timescale for the casualty reduction target (2023 to 2032) be accepted then the duration of the Road Safety Strategy should also be until 2032. As such, an interim strategy update should be published halfway through the life of the Strategy in 2027, giving the opportunity to demonstrate performance, monitoring and accountability. This will also form part of any opportunity to realign or refocus depending on results from the first few years. This is established good practice.

Adapting to the Safe System Approach

Adopting the Safe System Approach to Road Safety means that the spread' of responsibility extends beyond the usual two (i.e. the Police and highway authority). Firstly, the inclusion of the Post Collision Response' pillar raises the profile of all three of the emergency services, and the Safe Vehicles' pillar raises the prominence of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Office. Others that contribute significantly and necessarily to the process, are the public as road users, and both motor vehicle and highway product manufacturers who between them have made some of the most significant contributions to road safety with improved products, and improved technology.

Table 6 in Section 4.4 shows where current road safety functions sit within each of the five pillars of the Safe System Approach. For the most part those functions lie within the appropriate Department, but there is scope to move some functions.

Section 4.3 of this report highlights the absence of a Road Safety Officer, and road safety education training and publicity work. The School Crossing Patrol work would normally sit with this role.

There are other elements of work where there is duplication of work streams (often with different outcomes needed) that may benefit from amalgamation, e.g. maintaining, analysing and interpreting collision and casualty data.

 Road Safety Roles

Road Safety Partnerships

Road Safety Partnerships are the most common current method of delivering a road safety service. They are seen as the best way of accommodating and promoting the multi-agency approach required to deliver the Safe System Approach to Road Safety. The very concept of the Safe System Approach relies on all parties to contribute in a coherent and aligned way.

There has  always  been an alignment  between  the  Police and  highway  authorities,  and  a  close relationship between the various emergency services. Further alignment with Health and Education Departments are key inputs to the future, more collaborative process.

When looking at the various inputs into the five pillars of the Safe System Approach, more and more jurisdictions see the road safety function as a partnership one with an increased number of parties involved, and a need for cross boundary working, since the approach covers areas of government work from roads, health, education, policing, emergency response, and policy.

Road Safety Partnerships vary in their structure. They all involve key stakeholders with a direct interest in road safety or the outcomes of road safety. A typical list of key stakeholders is:

• Highway Authority

• Police Service

• Fire Service

• Ambulance Service

• Health Department

• Driver and Vehicle Standard Office

• Education Department

• Road Safety Panel

The list is not fixed, and attendance need not be limited to one representative per Department (but that should be the norm). Some partnerships (Lancashire for example) do not include Health or Education Departments, but as previously stated, they clearly have a role and an interest. The Partnerships are typically chaired by a Senior Officer.

Some partnerships operate at more than one level. For example, the Isle of Man has a Road Safety Partnership led by a senior Police Officer which comprises specialists in road safety education, road safety engineering, traffic policing, the ambulance service, fire service and education and health. Decisions from that meeting are ratified or other direction is given by a Strategic Road Safety Group comprising of Chief Officers who in turn report to the Island's Council of Ministers. The number of people and management levels moves away from being one forum with one voice. The result is often a dilution of proposals first put forward by the Road Safety Partnership and an absence of clear direction. Governments will always be multi layered, but it is suggested that the road safety function within them does not need to be, especially in a small jurisdiction.

Road Safety Panel

The Road Safety Panel is a valuable influencing body, historically with no official Government function, but recognised as an interface between the public, road user and trade groups and the Government. It is a valuable contributor to road safety on the Island. There is no doubt that the Panel should continue and also be represented within the Road Safety Partnership, for a number of reasons:

• The historical contribution and value is accepted and appreciated, and should be given every encouragement to continue, and flourish.

• Being on the Partnership provides a further interface between various public and trade groups and officers.

• The Panel can act as a scrutiny body for a Government driven partnership. The last of these functions should be encouraged with a variation to its terms of reference.

Road Safety Co-ordinator

A Road Safety Co-ordinator should be appointed to lead and manage the Government's road safety function. Whilst detail as to exact role, seniority and location is needed, it will be a professional role.

Clearly the role must be aligned to the Safe System Approach to Road Safety, and for that reason the role must be located in such a position and at such a level so as to be able to manage functions across a number of different Government departments, and be able to interface with Politicians and public on strategic issues. This being so, the role should not be seen as simply a Departmental role. The Road Safety Co-ordinator must be suitably empowered and sit at a level within Government to be able to co-ordinate the whole Safe System Approach.

The role also needs to be sufficiently senior and experienced to be able to manage the road safety function without undue influence from middle managers of all spheres (road safety being an area of work that many consider themselves to be an expert on), yet with the necessary accountability to a senior manager. For that reason, it will be important to recruit a person with a professional road safety background and qualifications, who is experienced in the field. As well as coming from a road safety background, any candidate would need to come with experience of people and project management, having previously operated at a senior level.

The Road Safety Co-ordinator should ideally report to one Chief Officer. This is not an indication of rank, nor is it assigning the road safety remit or function to one Department, but a need for accountability and to fit within an organisational structure at an appropriate level.

There is a case for the Road Safety Co-ordinator role to be located in either the States Police, highway authority (i.e. IHE's Transport Section), DVS, Health or Education. However, the three strongest candidates are IHE, DVS or the States Police, because those Departments each cover at least four of the five pillars of the Safer System approach, within their functions, and are the core key stakeholders.

The principal functions of the Road Safety Co-ordinator will be as follows:

• To be the principal source of strategic knowledge and advice on road safety for the Government of Jersey.

• To develop new strategies, policies, practices and targets.

• To ensure and direct a co-ordinated approach to road safety in keeping with the Safe System Approach.

• To eliminate silo and independent working.

• To monitor progress against road safety targets and actions (as set out in the Road Safety Strategy).

• To co-ordinate and drive initiatives and practices aligned to the Safe System Approach and to any aligned road safety targets.

• To negotiate with stakeholders at a senior level to facilitate delivery of the works of the Road Safety Partnership.

• To manage and direct the Road Safety Partnership.

• To act as the interface between the Road Safety Partnership, Chief Officers and Politicians

• To manage / upgrade data standards, processes, quality, volume obtained and utilised.

Road Safety Officer

The second appointment that will need to be made is a Road Safety Officer. Whilst the Road Safety Co-ordinator role is there to ensure a Government wide initiative becomes exactly that, the Road Safety Officer will manage and undertake road safety duties, as follows:

• To be the principal source of knowledge and advice on road safety education, training and publicity matters for the Government of Jersey.

• To ensure a co-ordinated approach to road safety on the Island in keeping with the Safe System Approach to Road Safety.

• To initiate, develop and deliver initiatives and practices aligned to the Safe System Approach to Road Safety.

• To deliver key actions pertaining to education, training and publicity as set out in the Road Safety Strategy.

• To contribute to further Road Safety Strategies, Plans and documents.

• To support the Road Safety Co-ordinator and to deputise when necessary.

• To help manage the Road Safety Partnership.

• To  provide  technical  support  to  Road  Safety  Partnership  members,  Chief  Officers  and Politicians.

• To assist in managing data quality and processes, in particular road traffic collision data and the road traffic collision database.

It is envisaged the Road Safety Officer will report to the Road Safety Co-ordinator.

 Road Safety Structure

In the United Kingdom core road safety functions such as education, training and publicity have in recent decades been situated within the highway authority. This ensured a close working relationship between road safety officers (who cover education, training and publicity) and road safety engineers (who investigate collision cluster sites and undertake road safety audits). Both parties have a close working relationship with the Police (who also have an education role along with enforcement).

Figure 7 shows a variation to the highway authority centred road safety structure, but taking on board the concept of a Road Safety Partnership. In this scenario the Road Safety Co-ordinator would work directly with engineering based staff, with liaison to other parties though the Road Safety Partnership. Nevertheless, greater emphasis would need to be placed on all elements of road safety, including post collision response and vehicle safety. This is in effect how many Road Safety Partnerships operate, with the potential variation that the head of the Partnership can come from any Department in the Partnership.

Figure 7 - Traditional UK Highway Department Based Structure Incorporating a Road Safety Partnership

Political Interface Head of Highways Principal Engineer

Road Safety Engineer Active TravelOfficer  CRoad Safo-ordinatorety  Road Safety Officer

Traffic Engineer

Road Safety  

Partnership  Road Safety Panel

DVS  Trade Bodies Police  Road User Groups

Fire & Ambulance  Other Interested Education  Parties

Health

Public

The above structure can work but has the disadvantage of over influence from one Government function, albeit that the highway authority has historically driven road safety. it also does not allow the Road Safety Co-ordinator to easily work across Government and may limit their independence, being under layers of highway minded' management. While they could sit at a higher organisational level, a key advantage to not following this line is to make a complete split' from the traditional approach. Therefore, placing the Road Safety Co-ordinator in another Department, with a strong role in the five pillars of the Safe System Approach (i.e. The Police or DVS) could be advantageous. Figure 8 shows a road safety structure that places the Road Safety Co-ordinator in an unnamed department at a higher (almost non-departmental) level with only the Chief Officer of the department sitting above the role, which would bolsters both the profile and independence of the role.

Figure 8 - Government Wide Structure Incorporating a Road Safety Partnership

Political Interface

Chief Officer

Road Safety  Road Safety Co-ordinator  Officer

Road Safety  

Partnership  Road Safety Panel

DVS  Trade Bodies Police  Road User Groups

Fire & Ambulance  Other Interested Education  Parties

Health

Public

A further variation would be to position the Road Safety Officer away from the Road Safety Co- ordinator within the highway authority to encourage closer working with the Road Safety Engineer. But would move the Road Safety Officer away from some strategic functions and make deputising for the Road Safety Co-ordinator difficult.

 Road Safety Functions

Most road safety functions will be analysed in detail as part of the development of the Road Safety Strategy, but some core functions should be considered now, because of their overall impact on the future direction of road safety and changes to them will need to be accepted now for the Safe System Approach to Road Safety to operate.

Collision Reporting

It is accepted that the extent of data currently collected at the scene of (or soon after) an injury collision in Jersey is not as comprehensive as that of most European counterparts. It is further accepted that one of the key requirements of establishing the magnitude and nature of the collision and casualty problem, and measuring progress against it, is to ensure consistent and detailed data collection. This is in line with WHO guidance and established best practice. The Jersey States Police have said they would support a move towards using the United Kingdom Stats19 form for collision data reporting.

There are tremendous benefits to increasing the extent and quality of data collected at the scene of an injury collision:

• The more detailed the data that is available the greater the ability to establish patterns, causes, contributory factors, and insights into behaviour, which in turn gives the ability to identify problems (and more quickly) emerging trends, which in turn identifies those locations, road user groups etc. that warrant focus to improve road safety.

• It enables officers to measure success (or otherwise) in collision and casualty reduction.

• It enables Jersey to benchmark its success against European counterparts.

It does not necessarily follow that data collection should be aligned to the United Kingdom Stats19 form, but there are strong reasons to do so, or to introduce a close variant of it:

• It is comprehensive in the data that it collects. That information is not just for the use of the Police, but also for road safety practitioners, and statisticians, and it fulfils most practitioners needs.

• It provides such information as is necessary for the identification of problems and patterns, and significant trends and enables stakeholders to engage in the pro-active Safe System Approach.

• The form has recently been reviewed (over a two year period) and is to be amended to align some  information  (contributory  factors)  towards  the  Safe  System  Approach,  and  to accommodate new modes of transport (electric scooters etc).

• Its use on Island will enable more like by like comparison and benchmarking with other jurisdictions, and to learn and realign any focus or approach arising from that.

There will be a need to integrate use of the form with existing processes and tools within the States Police (i.e. iLog and Masterfile) and there may be some duplication of processes initially. Officer training will also be necessary. The Isle of Man undertook this transformation in 2019 from a similar base point and there were significant challenges in aligning processes and changing behaviours, but these were overcome.

Road Traffic Collision Database

The existing road traffic collision database within IHE's Transport Section is a valuable tool developed by staff, capable of producing details from each and every injury collision record by the Police. However, it lacks the ability of many off the shelf' databases to produce and undertake more complex numerical  and statistical  analysis,  and  to  store  those  standard  and  custom  built  regularly  used enquiries that are useful to practitioners.

The introduction of an off the shelf' database such as KeyACCIDENT, iMaap or AccsMap would enable the much simpler collation of statistics and analysis. It would be able to automatically produce the standard tables that the current database cannot automatically provide.

Previous sections of this report have identified the need for accurate data, a measured baseline on which to measure progress and the need for accurate evaluation and monitoring. An off the shelf specialised database is essential to all this.

It will also enable a pool of uniform data available to all approved parties. Regular data input will enable access of more up to date information, rather than waiting for data to arrive in batches and then uploaded to spreadsheets as the existing database requires.

Annual Summary of Collisions Casualties and Trends

The ability to measure and monitor progress against the casualty reduction target and the objectives of the Road Safety Strategy is essential. So too is the need to determine whether there are emerging trends or concerns that need addressing. An annual summary of collisions and casualties fulfils these functions and acts as a source of information for road safety and highway professionals to defend and justify the direction and extent of expenditure. Also for the public and other interested parties.

Most European Countries produce such books at national and local level. They will also produce specialist reports, where trends emerging from information in the annual summary warrant further investigation (e.g. young drivers, motorcyclists).

With automated collision databases, once standard enquiries' have been set up, the production of such books can be undertaken relatively quickly and efficiently (provided the data is up to date). For a data led Safe System Approach to succeed, the annual summary book is essential, which in turn makes a high performing collision database essential.

Legal Issues

An IHE Transport Section project to fundamentally update current road and traffic legislation is occurring in parallel to the Road Safety Review (albeit with a significantly longer timescale) and brings opportunity for legislation to be brought in line with much of Europe (including the UK) by introducing legal requirements around road safety. The opportunity should be taken to align this work to the Safe System Approach.

The following are specific road safety issues that are expected to arise in the immediate future, and which will need to be addressed by forthcoming policies and legislation.

• Automated camera enforcement

• Electric scooters

• Electric bicycles/cargo bicycles/trailers

• Self-driving cars

As technology advances, this list will be extended. There are potential road safety benefits from some of these technological changes, unfortunately others may initially increase road traffic casualties as regulation, training and awareness catch up. Electric scooters are a case in point, being capable of high speeds in urban areas, made available with no training and can add significantly to the traffic in existing cycle lanes or shared spaces with pedestrians (if permitted).

Automated camera enforcement is widely utilized throughout the World, principally to aid compliance to speed limits and traffic signals. It should be used with care, so it is perceived as reasonable by the travelling public, but if used intelligently, and as part of overall speed or traffic signal management strategies, will result in a reduction in casualties.  

The Road Safety Strategy will need to address existing legislative shortcomings and future challenges. The Road Safety Co-ordinator and the Road Safety Partnership will need to identify future emerging challenges at an early stage, and promptly address them.

Costs

Before development of the Road Safety Strategy, only certain costs can be identified, with others being the subject of identification within the Road Safety Strategy.

The proposed 50% reduction in killed and seriously injured casualties is an ambitious target that will need resourcing.  Some  initiatives  and  schemes  can  be funded  from existing budgets,  either  as realignment of budgets, or as competing on a value for money basis with other projects. Others will require specific funding.

The following are costs directly attributable to the Road Safety Review, and already identified with estimated costs beside them where these are available:

Table 8 – Costs Directly Attributable to the Road Safety Review.

  *assumes this function is now organized in house within government rather than on a voluntary basis, school by school.

5.10.1 Cost Benefit Analysis

As previously stated, some of the initiatives being put forward will not result in additional cost if there is a commitment towards realignment of existing funding to those initiatives and schemes with a casualty reduction element within them. However, given the quite stringent target of a 50% reduction in killed and seriously injured casualties, some additional funding will be necessary. Rather than prematurely attempting to quantify that funding, the question is asked, What level of funding would be justified to achieve the casualty reduction target?'

The Government of the United Kingdom produces figures annually that estimate the monetary saving of preventing each road traffic casualty. These figures are likely to be similar in Jersey. The figures are £1,930,329 for a fatality, and £216,915 for a seriously injured casualty. These are not the costs of someone being killed or hurt (no one can/should attempt to put a true cost on that), rather they are the monetary saving of preventing each casualty. The figures take into account lost output, medical and ambulance costs, police, insurance, administration costs and damage to property. These figures can be used to determine likely financial savings to the Island, and to determine what a justified level of funding could be.

If we assume that the target of a 50% reduction in fatal and serious casualties is met by 2032, as a result of a ten year plan starting in 2023, and assuming the reduction evenly spaced over both fatal and serious categories, (and assuming any increase in slight casualties as a result of reducing the severity of collisions is offset by an equivalent reduction in slight injuries as well), then we can expect a 25% average reduction in killed and seriously injured casualties over the ten year period of the target, although it will be tapered as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 - Required rate of Casualty Reduction to Meet 2032 Target

Required Casualty Reduction to Reach Target

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Base 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032

Required Casualty Reduction to Reach Target

A 25% reduction in fatal and serious casualties represents a saving of £3,602,000 per year to the community over the duration of the Strategy this equates to a total of £36,020,000.

To achieve this reduction, money will need to be spent, including the costs detailed in the table above. But more funding will be needed for individual initiatives whether they be education,  training, enforcement or infrastructure costs. These as yet have not been quantified because they have not been measured, but will be quite significant.

Research indicates that with schemes or initiatives with a casualty reduction element, if the cost of the scheme or initiative achieves casualty savings costs of 2.4 times the cost of the scheme/initiative or greater, then very good value of money has been achieved. This is quite a high level to set the bar since less than 2.4, but greater than 1 is still a good result.

This would mean that an annual spend of up to £1,500,000 could be justified to achieve the casualty reduction target. However, there are a number of reasons why any additional overall annual spend should be set lower than that. Firstly soft' measures such as education campaigns, do not require significant capital outlay like engineering schemes, and a well thought, well structured and well targeted (data led) campaign can achieve measurable results with comparatively little outlay on top of the road safety officer's time. Secondly there is an element of actual casualty reduction already taking place as shown in the figures for more recent years for which data is available (pre-Covid), and thirdly funding to that level is just not necessary, year on year.

There will be a need for investment, principally in engineering led schemes, (including targeted maintenance schemes). For example, there is a strong argument for a robust speed management strategy including recruiting additional officers, adopting automated enforcement technology (safety cameras). Establishing and maintaining this will be high cost (somewhat offset by income from penalties) but a crucial win' in reducing speeds, and this is extra critical in a road environment not conducive to making many of those roads more forgiving'.

A significant additional cost will also be needed for increased segregation where it can be achieved for vulnerable road users within physical schemes.

Each of these will need to be quantified and the anticipated benefits against the costs but they will increase the already established costs. Once the Road Safety Strategy is developed, individual initiatives can be developed in more detail and estimated costs and benefits ascribed to them

Finally, this is a good reason to continue to weigh benefits against costs when prioritising schemes, which goes against the grain of the purist version of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety. Of course, there will be a time when collision and casualty levels are significantly lower, and this will no longer be necessary. But for now, in order to prioritise schemes and deliver the most cost-effective casualty reduction initiatives and value for money for the public purse, Jersey should continue to make the comparison between likely casualty saving benefits and the cost of delivering casualty reduction benefits.

6  Summary

This review has quantified the magnitude of the road traffic collision and casualty problem in Jersey, and established that casualty rates are slightly higher than Great Britain, with the high proportion of vulnerable road users a magnitude higher.

The review has examined current best practice, noticeably the Vision Zero aspiration and the associated Safe System Approach to road safety, also looked at the different interpretations and approaches worldwide towards both. It has also looked at current and historical use of casualty reduction targets and concluded that these have been successful and that Jersey (which has not set a long-term target to date) would benefit from introducing a stringent target of a 50% reduction in the number of killed and seriously injured casualties over a ten-year period. It assumes in doing so that Jersey will learn from those jurisdictions who have been successful previously. It also identified a need to concentrate on targeting vulnerable road user casualties. Safety performance indicators will need to be identified and implemented to measure the progress of specific key actions geared towards reaching the target.

Being data led is crucial to succeeding, with a need for data collected at the scene of collisions to be more comprehensive and the need for a versatile collision and casualty database. There will also be a need for Island wide collision and casualty figures to be analysed and published annually to identify trends and to monitor progress. An initial specialist report (or sub-section of the annual collision and casualty book) has also been identified as an immediate need.

There is encouraging evidence of a more data led approach to road safety in recent years, and indications that data led schemes and initiatives have contributed to the overall reduction in casualties in 2019. This approach should be built on, formalized, and enabled as a result of this review, and set out further in the upcoming Road Safety Strategy.

It has identified those areas of Government that undertake road safety functions, their extent and nature, and the interactions between departments, also to some extent with external groups and with the general public.

The review identified the need for a Road Safety Partnership as a suitable vehicle to enable cross departmental working within Government and road user groups. It also identified the need for a Road Safety Strategy to set out the Island's approach to road safety and its aspirations and targets, and the means of reaching them.

The review also states the need to appoint both a Road Safety Co-ordinator and a Road Safety Officer. The Co-ordinator will oversee the Road Safety Partnership and act as the interface between Politicians and Officers on strategic road safety matters, and to be the driving force behind actions towards achieving the casualty reduction target. The Road Safety Officer will manage and undertake day to day road safety functions. Both posts are crucial to the successful introduction and embedment of a Safe System Approach and to ultimately achieving future casualty reduction targets.

There is a need to introduce new legislation to cover new forms of transport, to facilitate enforcement and to give clearer powers. The enforcement legislation is especially key to introducing some necessary behavioral changes.

As a result of the main suggestions arising from the review, a number of specific recommendations have been made which are detailed in the following Section 7.

Discussion and consultation following this report will develop into more specific objectives, targets and timescales. These will be further developed as part of the Road Safety Strategy, which will also set out how Jersey will reach its target, the steps taken to get there, and how monitoring and evaluation will be incorporated into the process.

7  Recommendations

As a result of the analysis in part four of this report the following are specific recommendations: A – Casualty Reduction Targets and Indicators

1. Introduce the stringent target of a 50% reduction in fatal and serious casualties over the ten year period 2033 to 2032 from a baseline figure of 53 (the average yearly figure for the period 2017 to 2019).
2. Introduce monitoring of targets and safety performance indicators and be prepared to realign structure, objectives, and resourcing to meet the targets.
3. Undertake a review of performance as part of the interim Road Safety Strategy in 2027.

B – Vision Zero and The Safe System Approach to Road Safety

4. Embrace the concept of working towards vision zero as an ultimate aspiration, but recognise that the actual concept of zero fatalities and serious injuries remains just that, an aspiration with current levels of technology.
5. Adopt the Safe System Approach to Road Safety, and the five pillars of the Safe System Approach to Road Safety.
6. Learn from the experience of others who are already delivering a Safe System Approach.

C – Road Safety Strategy

7. Produce a Road Safety Strategy for the period 2022 to 2032.
8. Align key actions and target within the Road Safety Strategy to those which will maximise collision and casualty reduction.
9. Undertake an interim review of the Road Safety Strategy in 2027 and realign focus, and resources as necessary (to include the performance review cited in 10).
10. Set out a path and timescale for delivering specific strategies arising from the Road Safety Strategy e.g. speed management strategy, cycling strategy, walking strategy.

D – Structure and Resourcing

11. Appoint a Road Safety Co-ordinator, and a Road Safety Officer.
12. Introduce a Road Safety Partnership to manage the direction and delivery of the road safety service, consisting of representatives from IHE Transport Section, Police, Fire, Ambulance, Highways, DVS, Education, Health and the Road Safety Panel, and to be managed by the Road Safety Co-ordinator.
13. Review existing legislation and the Island's Highway Code to identify the benefits of introducing a hierarchy of responsibility for road users, based on the level of risk presented to road users in the event of a collision.
14. Clarify and update the terms of reference for the Road Safety Panel, to reflect its role within the new structure, and to include for the role of scrutineer to the Government.
15. Introduce the structure for the delivery of road safety as detailed in Figure 8 of this report.

E – Costs

16. Accept and apply the principle of delivering value for money to the public of Jersey.
17. Continue to undertake cost benefit analysis of physical schemes to compare benefits for outlay, but put this in a framework of other social benefits where appropriate, in order to prioritise schemes.
18. Monitor success of schemes and initiatives, including benefits achieved against costs where appropriate to build future knowledge of likely successes, i.e. learn from experience.

F – Data

19. Commit to being data led in determining our priorities and justifications, and continue to convey the message that doing so will maximise the potential for casualty reduction.
20. Align police collision casualty collation in line with data needed under Great Britain's Stats 20 requirements (Stats 19 form).
21. Introduce a specialist road traffic collision and casualty database to contain road traffic collision and casualty data.
22. Produce an annual book of road traffic collisions and casualties, the first of these prior to the development of the initial Road Safety Strategy.
23. Undertake specific in-depth analysis of vulnerable road user collision and casualty trends prior to the development of the Road Safety Strategy.

Principal Sources of Background Information

Publications

• Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries Leading to a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2016

• Road Safety Data, Netherlands - International Transport Forum OECD 2021

• Road Safety Data, Sweden - International Transport Forum OECD 2021

• Road Safety Data, United Kingdom - International Transport Forum OECD 2021

• Road Safety Data, New Zealand - International Transport Forum OECD 2021

• Road Safety Strategy for The United Nations and its Personnel – United Nations 2018

• Save Lives – A Road Safety Technical Package – World Health Organisation 2017

• EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021 to 2030 – European Commission 2019

• Roads Law: Case for Change – Government of Jersey 2020

• Road Safety Strategy 2013 to 2020 – Road Safety Authority, Eire 2012

• Go Safe on Scotland's Roads Its Everyone's Responsibility – The Scott ish Government 2009

• Scotland's Road Safety Framework to 2030 – Transport Scotland 2021

• Working Together to Build a Safer Road System – British Road Safety Statement – Department for Transport, Great Britain 2015

• Cycling and walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review - Department for Transport, Great

Britain 2018.

• The Road Safety Statement 2019 A Lifetime of Road Safety – Department for Transport, Great Britain 2019.

• Road Casualties Great Britain 2019 – Department for Transport Great Britain 2020

• Stats19 Review: Final Recommendations - Department for Transport Great Britain 2021

• Our Approach to Improving Road Safety – Highways England 2016

• The Strategic Road Network Star Rating Report – Highways England 2019

• Vision Zero Action Plan Taking Forward the Mayor's Transport Strategy - Transport for London 2018

• A Safe System Approach to Road Safety in Bristol – Bristol City Council 2014

Websites

www.rospa.com www.roadsafety.piarc.org www.towardszerofoundation.org www.brake.org.uk www.pacts.org