Road Casualty Reduction Partnership Board Date: Tuesday 21 st July 2015 Time: 10:00am Venue: Cranworth Room, County Hall Membership Cllr Jenny Chamberlin Cllr Jonathan Childs To Be Confirmed Sarah Hamlin Tracy Jessop Lucy MacLeod Jenny McKibben Karen Palframan Cllr Judy Leggett Richard Snowden Representing Children Services Committee, Norfolk County Council Communities Committee, Norfolk County Council Health and Well Being Board Norfolk Constabulary Assistant Director Highways and Transport Interim Director of Public Health Norfolk s Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner Norfolk Fire & Rescue EDT Committee, Norfolk County Council Head of School Admissions, Children's Services For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda please contact the Committee Officer: Anne Pickering on 01603 223029 or email committees@norfolk.gov.uk 1
Agenda 1. Election of Chair 2. Election of Vice Chair 3. Apologies for Absence 4. To Agree the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 May 2015. Page 4 5. Declarations of Interest You have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be discussed if it relates to something on your Register of Interests form. You must declare the interest and leave the room while the matter is dealt with. You have a Personal Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects your well being or financial position that of your family or close friends that of a club or society in which you have a management role that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward. You must declare a personal interest but can speak and vote on the matter These declarations apply to all those members present, whether the member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area. 6. To receive any items proposed as matters of urgent business 7. Vulnerable Road Users Sub Group Update Presentation by Nick Clarke, Locality Development Manager. 8. Road Casualty Reduction Progress Update Report by Assistant Director Community and Environmental Services Page 19 9. Enhanced Partnership Media Strategy Page 32 2
Report by Assistant Director Community and Environmental Services 10. Norfolk Road Casualty Reduction Partnership 2015-16 Delivery Plan Report by Assistant Director Community and Environmental Services Page 34 11. Exploring the link between crime and risky behaviour in traffic within Norfolk Presentation by Mrs J McKibben Norfolk s Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner 12. Any Other Business Chris Walton Head of Democratic Service County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH Date Agenda Published : 13 th July 2015 If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or minicom 01603 223833 and we will do our best to help. 3
Road Casualty Reduction Partnership Board Minutes of the Meeting Held on 19 th May 2015 at 10am in the Edwards Room, County Hall Present: Members: Mr J Childs Officers: Mr C Daly Mrs T Jessop Mrs L MacLeod Mrs J McKibben Mrs K Palframan Mr R Snowden Chief Inspector Spinks Communities Services Committee Health and Well Being Board Norfolk County Council Norfolk County Council Norfolk Police & Crime Commissioner s Office Norfolk Fire & Rescue Norfolk County Council Norfolk Constabulary Others present: Mr Iain Temperton - Team Manager, Casualty Reduction Education & Development Mr Dave Stephens - Team Manager Network Management (Analysis & Safety) Mr Nile Pennington - Analyst Road Casualty Reduction Mr Mark Knights Highways England 1. Apologies for absence 1.1 Apologies were received from Mrs J Chamberlin, Mr W Richmond and Assistant Chief Constable S Hamlin (substituted by Chief Inspector C Spinks). 2. Minutes of the meeting held on 2.1 The minutes of the meeting held on the 17th March 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 2.2 In reference to point 7.2 made regarding the sub-groups bringing a business plan to the next meeting, the Board were assured they would be brought to future meetings. 2.3 In reference to points 8.3 and 9.1 in regards to requests for funding from the Safety Camera Surplus the Board were informed that both requests had been agreed on the 7 th May 2015. 2.4 In reference to point 9.1 Chief Inspector Spinks informed the Board that now funding had been agreed for the new road casualty reduction team 4
for targeting motorcyclists, a new motorcyclist team of four had been formed and a similar number were expected in Suffolk. These new teams would specifically target collision hot spots and attempt to engage with motorists to address the issues surrounding motorcyclist accidents. Funding for this new scheme was proposed to be for as long as possible and evaluation over performance and engagement of this group was included in its set up. Any findings would be reported back to this Board. 3 Declarations of Interest 3.1 None 4. To receive any items proposed as matters of urgent business 4.1 None 5 RCRP Media Spend 2014/15 5.1 The Board received the report from the Assistant Director of Community and Environmental Services which gave a detailed breakdown of media spend, supporting the Road Casualty Reduction Partnership. 5.2 The Media spend was dictated by the needs of the four Road Casualty subgroups against the needs of the Fatal 4 strategy. Drink Drive and use of mobile phones were currently being focused on. 5.3 In regards to the Road Casualty Sub groups:- Older driver: The Older drivers were more difficult to target via media as they did not respond to normal media outlets. The team had found that the best way was accessing through free magazines such as Your Norfolk. The Skid Avoidance campaign and Young Drivers had a regular radio advertising slot and as a result they had seen an increase in the number of clients on the TREAD scheme. 5.4 It was difficult to judge how effective, in terms of spend, each media campaign was as it was tangible and the department relied on the communications team to guide the process. 5.5 In response to a question regarding the use of social media the following points were made:- 5
Using social media as an advertising platform can be a cheap and effective method to get messages across to certain demographics. Social media was already being used for certain campaigns, eg. The Hugger Campaign and the TREAD scheme for young people uses social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. It was important to get the tone of the social media right to ensure positive feedback; a lot of government social media is very heavy going and dull. Once the four sub groups were ready the plan was to utilise Facebook s population segmentation to target the relevant audiences. Mrs K Palframan from Norfolk Fire and Rescue offered to help and provide advice in this area as Fire and Rescue had used these forms in quite a powerful fashion and felt they could be a powerful broker. 5.6 The funding that would be allocated to the sub-groups would follow the work and the campaigns that were most workable. Advice would be taken from the communications team and then the suggested approach would be brought to this Board for consideration. 5.7 In regards to the Gold Campaign targeting older drivers the Board were informed that the department worked with Age Concern, Dementia UK and University of the 3 rd Age. Mr C Daly, the representative from the health and Well Being Board agreed that he would look into what engagement with pharmacies could be done. 5.8 The Media campaigns were focussing on the emotional impact of road accidents as this was agreed to be more effective than the shock tactics of other campaigns. 5.9 The Board noted the report. 6 Road Casualty Reduction Progress Update 6.1 The Board received the report from the Assistant Director of Community and Environmental Services which outlined the progress made against Norfolk s local target of 33% reduction in killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties. 6.2 The Board were told how this was an interim update on the current levels and that unfortunately we were currently off track in terms of our target. It was predicted that the level of success achieved would remain at the level hit at the end of 2014. 6.3 The key group that was of concern was the Vulnerable Road Users the numbers for Pedestrians and Cyclists was 27% above the base for this group. 6
However, it was important to test whether due to the steady increase in the number of cyclists on Norfolk s roads if the accident rate was still in line with an as a proportion of overall cyclist numbers. This work was underway through the Bicycle Account (a survey of cyclists). 6.4 The Board received a presentation from Mr N Pennington, Analyst for Road Casualty Reduction in Norfolk. (Appendix A). Following the presentation the below points were discussed by the Board:- The presentation demonstrated how the department were using a new methodology that would create greater granularity and adopt a mosaic approach to researching the figures around KSI levels. The aim was that by using this new approach the department would be able to highlight commonalities and would create a lot of detailed information that would enable the sub-groups to link their aims. An analysis was being developed which would mean that comparisons between Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire could be drawn. The Board were informed that analysing the data was not a perfect science and was more like a web that needed to be carefully unpicked. It was advised that there could be a danger of chasing the numbers but that it would be very interesting to see more detail around the four subgroups. As the data was provided to each of the groups they should produce detailed reports that would outline expenditure, the input and output and would explain how they intended to implement their goals. 6.5 It was Agreed by the Board that one of the four sub-groups would report to each Board meeting to provide an update and overview of the work being undertaken. The first group would be the Vulnerable Users sub group. 6.6 The Board noted the report. 7 Any Other Business 7.1 Mr I Temperton, Team Manager of Casualty Reduction Education & Development gave a general update on the progress of the four sub groups. Communications The focus of the Communications group had been based on the fatal four. The team was getting ready for the summer drink driving campaign. 7
Young Drivers The TREAD scheme was going well and was ahead of its projections for this year. The aim was to catch the new drivers within 6 months of passing their driving test. Honest Truth was a new scheme that was being looked at for Norfolk County Council that would help to enhance the young drivers learning process. Motorcyclists There had been good attendance by the group at large events that attracted the motorcyclists. The group welcomed the news of the development of the new police enforcement team to target motorcyclists. The group was still waiting on the legal team to approve the Trusted Trainer scheme. Older Drivers There had not been much progress regarding this group; the Gold scheme was moving forward. It was very easy to target this group through the many different channels available. Members of the Panel suggested that pharmacies might be a way to create awareness for this group and also the delivery of free bus passes could also be exploited. Members of the Panel commented that the age range in the Older Drivers group was quite large from 55+ and therefore there could a large amount of variables to be considered within this group. The hope was that the new Mosaic analysis would provide some further data and insight into this group. The meeting closed at 11:20am. CHAIR 8
If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact the Committee Team on 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 9
10
Appendix A Experian MOSAIC demographic data allows organisations to better understand their target market, or in the case of local authorities, their target population. It provides a segmentation of a population based on a number of factors, including income, occupation, family size, education, health, access to services, and technology use amongst others. This segmentation is presented as 66 sub-groups which are grouped into 15 supergroups. The groups are assigned names and descriptions, such as Rural Reality which is defined as Householders living in inexpensive homes in village communities, to make them easily identifiable and distinguishable. Each postcode in the country is paired to one of these 66 sub-groups based on the characteristics of its population. We can pair the MOSAIC data with our accident data to build a series of profiles for at risk individuals based on their characteristics and the type of accidents they are involved in. These profiles can then be used to direct resources more efficiently, targeting those most at risk by creating approaches which are tailored to them and those which share their characteristics. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O MOSAIC Supergroups Norfolk Population Segmentation (Rounded) Country Living Prestige Positions 3% 1% City Prosperity 5% Domestic 6% Success Suburban Stability 6% Senior Security Rural Reality 3% Aspiring Homemakers Urban Cohesion 4% Rental Hubs 1% Modest Traditions 14% 2% 0% 5% 5% 8% Transient Renters 12% Family Basics Vintage Value Municipal Challenge 24% 11
Method The method utilises an over/underrepresentation method of data analysis. The analysis assumes that all casualties should be proportionate to demographic make-up of the population. Therefore in Norfolk, where approximately 24% of the population is classified as Rural Reality, approximately 24% of all casualties should come from this demographic. This is however rarely the case. Based on mid-2013 population estimates, 209,136 individuals from a population of 883,767 fall into the Rural Reality supergroup. By matching the home postcodes of the 829 cyclist casualties, it is found that 106 casualties came from this group. Despite accounting for almost one quarter of the population, this supergroup accounts for only 12% of all casualties little over half of what might be expected. The supergroup is assigned an over/underrepresentation value of 54 a figure arrived at by dividing the percentage share of accidents that the group accounts for by its percentage share of the population, and multiplying the value by 100. A score of 100 indicates proportionality between population and casualty, a value greater than 100 is an overrepresentation, and a value less than 100 is an underrepresentation. When all casualty postcodes are matched in this way, the following is returned: 300 250 MOSAIC Groups for Pedal Cycle KSI Casualties (April 2010 - March 2015) 800 600 Pedal Cycle Casualties 200 150 100 40 127 228 106 91 87 54 104 310 254 95 155 192 97 199 26 400 200 0-200 50-400 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O U -600 Casualties Index The supergroups of most concern are: I Urban Cohesion, J Rental Hubs, M Family Basics, and O Municipal Challenge accounting for 30% of all casualties in Norfolk despite making up only 14% of the population. In spite of having an overrepresentation score of 228, C City Prosperity has been discounted. As the group only accounts for 0.2% of the population, any incidents, in this case four, will have the effect of skewing the overrepresentation score. The process is then repeated with the sub-groups which make-up the selected supergroups, returning the following: 12
120 MOSAIC Sub-Groups for Pedal Cycle KSI Casualties (April 2010 - March 2015) 500 Pedal Cycle Casualties 100 80 60 40 20 140 130 105 127 119 131 102 29 62 118 92 30 109 204 400 300 200 100 0-100 -200 0 I37 I39 J40 J41 J42 J43 J44 J45 M53 M54 M55 M56 O62 O63 O64 O66-300 Casualties Index The sub-groups of most concern are: I39 Ageing Access, J42 Learners and Earners, M55 Families with Needs, and O63 Streetwise Singles. As with C City Prosperity above, O64 Inner City Stalwarts has been discounted as it accounts of 0.017% of the county population, or 157 people. With these sub-groups identified, key characteristic information can be extracted from MOSAIC. This ranges from the home-type, to the car usage, to the preferred method of contact for individuals within each subgroup. In the case of I39 Ageing Access for example, the can be extracted: Deprivation: Score of 18.72 (National average 21.64) Property: 2 Bed (47.93%), 1 Bed (24.36%) / Flats (60.74%), Terrace (25.6%) Urbanity: Strong score of 4662.24 (National average: 2893.69) Average Household Income: 30,425 (83.4% are comfortable or coping) Vehicle Ownership: Car (77.68%), Bicycle (27.22%) Car Usage: 50.42% drive fewer than 2000 miles a year Technology Ownership: Laptop (81%), Smartphone(58%) Values and Personality: Respects rules, independently minded, environmentally aware This information is paired with evidence from STATS19. STATS19 allows us to identify the gender and age of the typical casualty, and place their accident in a time and location, assign a journey purpose and understand the actions they are likely to take on the network. When brought together, this data can be used to create a high-risk profile for each sub-group. 13
In the case of I39 Ageing Access, the profile is: Gerald Gerald is in his 60s and lives on a comfortable income. He lives in a two-bed flat in Norwich, and has lived there for more than a decade. He owns a car but rarely uses it, using it to drive around 2500 miles a year, particularly in the colder months. He also owns a bicycle and uses it for personal reasons, travelling within and around his urban environment during the day in periods of good weather. He shows little interest in keeping in shape, and by virtue of his average income and personal outlook, he is unlikely to have invested heavily in a quality bicycle or protective clothing. Gerald will be most often involved in collisions during the week when travelling through the city. Collisions involving Gerald are head-on and occur between himself and a car, usually when he is travelling ahead, with the failure to look properly being the cause of most accidents. Although he owns a laptop and is an almost daily internet user, Gerald has little interest in social media only using Facebook from time to time. He is however a keen email user, checking his emails at least once a day. He is also fiercely independent, although respectful of rules and regulation. Any attempts to reach out to Gerald should engage with these qualities and target him when he travels through the city. This profile, and the data which supports it, can then be used to better understand the kind of individuals who are most at risk when using Norfolk s roads. 14
01/07/2015 300 MOSAIC Groups for Pedal Cycle KSI Casualties (April 2010 - March 2015) 800 250 600 High Risk Cyclist Profiles Pedal Cycle Casualties 200 150 100 40 127 228 106 91 87 54 104 310 254 95 155 192 97 199 26 400 200 0-200 MOSAIC Profiles for 5 Year Accident Data (April 2010 March 2015) 50 0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O U -400-600 Nile Pennington, Analyst Road Casualty Reduction Casualties Index Analyse overrepresentation in MOSAIC supergroups Analyse overrepresentation in MOSAIC sub-groups Analyse STATS19 accident and casualty data Apply learning to create overrepresented casualty profiles A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Country Living Prestige Positions City Prosperity Domestic Success Suburban Stability Senior Security Rural Reality Aspiring Homemakers Urban Cohesion Rental Hubs Modest Traditions Transient Renters Family Basics Vintage Value Municipal Challenge A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Country Living Prestige Positions City Prosperity Domestic Success Suburban Stability Senior 6% Security Rural Reality 3% Aspiring Homemakers 4% Urban Cohesion 1% Rental Hubs 8% 6% Modest Traditions 5% Transient Renters Family Basics Vintage Value Municipal Challenge 3% 1% 24% 14% 2% 0% 5% 5% 12% M53 M54 M55 M56 O62 O63 O64 O66 AI Urban Country Cohesion Living BJ Prestige Rental Positions Hubs MC City Family Prosperity Basics OD Municipal Domestic Challenge Success E Suburban Stability F Senior Security G Rural Reality Budget Generations H Aspiring Homemakers I37 Community Elders Childcare I Squeeze Urban Cohesion I39 Ageing Access Families with J Needs Rental Hubs J40 Career Builders Solid Economy K Modest Traditions J41 Central Pulse L Transient Renters Low Income Workers J42 Learners & Earners Streetwise M Singles Family Basics J43 Student Scene High Rise NResidents Vintage J44 Value Flexible Workforce Inner City OStalwartsMunicipal Challenge J45 Bus-Route Renters 15 1
01/07/2015 Ageing Access: MOSAIC Detail MOSAIC Sub-Groups for Pedal Cycle KSI Casualties (April 2010 - March 2015) Older residents owning small inner suburban properties with good access to amenities 120 500 100 400 Deprivation: Score of 18.72 (National average 21.64) Property: 2 Bed (47.93%), 1 Bed (24.36%) / Flats (60.74%), Terrace (25.6%) 300 Homeownership: 69.86% Pedal Cycle Casualties 80 60 40 20 140 130 105 127 119 131 102 29 62 118 92 30 109 204 200 100 0-100 -200 Urbanity: Strong score of 4662.24 (National average: 2893.69) Average Household Income: 30,425 (83.4% are comfortable or coping) Benefit Recipients: Below national averages for all except Pension Credit Residency: 61.43% have been resident for 11 or more years Vehicle Ownership: Car (77.68%), Bicycle (27.22%) Car Usage: 50.42% drive fewer than 2000 miles a year Education: Degree (42.19%), 1 or more GCSE (77.6%) GP: At least one visit a year (80.3%) Technology Ownership: Laptop (81%), Smartphone(58%) 0 I37 I39 J40 J41 J42 J43 J44 J45 M53 M54 M55 M56 O62 O63 O64 O66-300 Contact: Prefer email (56.72%), No contact (21.74%) Casualties Index Social Media Use: Twitter (Never 73%, Some 27%); Facebook (Never 42.5%, Some 57.5%) Values and Personality: Respects rules, independently minded, environmentally aware I37 I39 J40 J41 J42 J43 J44 J45 M53 M54 M55 M56 O62 O63 O64 O66 Community Elders Ageing Access Career Builders Central Pulse Learners & Earners Student Scene Flexible Workforce Bus-Route Renters Budget Generations Childcare Squeeze Families with Needs Solid Economy Low Income Workers Streetwise Singles High Rise Residents Inner City Stalwarts Ageing Access: STATS19 Detail Gender: Male (60%) Day: Weekdays (83%) predominantly Monday and Wednesday (46%) Month: Summer/Autumn (78%) Jun., Jul. and Aug.(49%), Sep., Oct. Nov. (29%) Time: Mornings and evenings 08:00-10:00, 13:00,16:00-17:00 (63%) Journey Purpose: Reason other than work or school (56%), Work-related (39%) Local Authority Area: 1. Norwich (66%) 2. Broadland (20%) 3. South Norfolk (14%) Junction Detail: 1. T or Crossroads (60%) 2. Roundabouts (17%) 3. No Junction (14%) Manoeuvre: Going ahead (75%) Other Vehicle: Car (100%) Point of Impact: Front (56%), Side (28%) Contributory Factors: Failed to look properly (39%) Weather: Fine weather conditions (83%) Lighting: Daylight (83%) I37 I39 J40 J41 J42 J43 J44 J45 M53 M54 M55 M56 O62 O63 O64 O66 Community Elders Ageing Access Career Builders Central Pulse Learners & Earners Student Scene Flexible Workforce Bus-Route Renters Budget Generations Childcare Squeeze Families with Needs Solid Economy Low Income Workers Streetwise Singles High Rise Residents Inner City Stalwarts Ageing Access: Profile Gerald Gerald is in his 60s and lives on a comfortable income. He lives in a two-bed flat in Norwich, and has lived there for more than a decade. He owns a car but rarely uses it, using it to drive around 2500 miles a year, particularly in the colder months. He also owns a bicycle and uses it for personal reasons, travelling within and around his urban environment during the day in periods of good weather. He shows little interest in keeping in shape, and by virtue of his average income and personal outlook, he is unlikely to have invested heavily in a quality bicycle or protective clothing. Gerald will be most often involved in collisions during the week when travelling through the city. Collisions involving Gerald are head-on and occur between himself and a car, usually when he is travelling ahead, with the failure to look properly being the cause of most accidents. Although he owns a laptop and is an almost daily internet user, Gerald has little interest in social media only using Facebook from time to time. He is however a keen email user, checking his emails at least once a day. He is also fiercely independent, although respectful of rules and regulation. Any attempts to reach out to Gerald should engage with these qualities and target him when he travels through the city. 16 2
01/07/2015 Ageing Access: Accident Location () and Home Postcode () 17 3
CRG Vulnerable Road Users Group 2015 Group Meeting Feb 2015 CRG Data Meeting May 2015 March 2015 September 2015 March 2015 August 2015 Group Meeting June 2015 June 2015 ongoing Insight and Information Building a picture of risk. Detailed research into all KSI incidents (accident and postcode hotspots). Overlay data stats 19 and Experian Mapping work. When are accidents happening (commuter / school / night). Who is involved (both pedestrian and motorist / Experian profiles / reason for accident / reason for travel). How do we reach those involved / or those most at risk (market segmentation profiling) Building our response Best practice research review where have counties with statistically similar profiles to Norfolk made a big difference in reduction of casualties. Can we adopt responses. 3 prong approach Education, Engineering and Enforcement: Education A specifically targeted campaign aimed at the people we know are at most risk and in particular geographical hot-spots. Training / awareness raising for at risk populations and vehicles more likely to cause accidents (lorries and Buses) Engineering Do we need to alter anything structurally at particular incident hot spots. Enforcement Working with authorities (police / fire) how do we deter increased causality. Reducing reckless behaviour from all users. Enforcing the highways code to reduce accidents. Action and Maintenance Targeted marketing / communications campaign Mind Out For Each Other and Keep your mind on the road in design (May 2015) Targeted Workplace adult cycling initiatives focusing on those areas where increased incidence. Norfolk Constabulary to engage with the group by naming a nominated lead officer. Use examples of best practice to design new interventions. Work with wider partners (e.g. DAAT and Fire to reduce risk or to support promotion). 18
Road Casualty Reduction Partnership Board Item No 8 Report title: Road Casualty Reduction Progress Update Date of meeting: 21 July 2015 Responsible Chief Tracy Jessop, Assistant Director, CES Officer: Strategic impact While the Government s Strategic Framework for Road Safety does not set specific targets for levels of road casualty reduction, Norfolk set a local target of 33% reduction in killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties. Progress against the target is shown in Graph A1 in Appendix A. Executive summary The current rolling twelve month figure for killed or seriously-injured (KSI) casualties is 409 to the end of May 2015, which represents an 11% reduction from the 2005-2009 baseline figure of 462. This represents a slowing down in progress towards the target of 310 KSI in 2020, and the total number of KSI casualties remains above the interim target of 386 at the end of May 2015. In Norfolk the level of enforcement and education spending has been maintained and the newly formed Road Casualty Reduction Partnership has adopted a public health model to guide closer engagement with Key Target Groups which have the highest risks of involvement in KSI collisions. Based on the current KSI numbers for each Key Target Group, the aspiration for All KSI to maintain the same number as 2014 (375) is currently not likely to be achieved. Most at risk is the delivery of the projected reductions for Pedestrians and Cyclists involvements in KSI casualties. Recommendation: Members of the Board are asked to comment on the report 1. Proposal (or options) There are no proposals associated with this report. The key trends have been shared at the Road Casualty Reduction Partnership Data Meetings and provide the basis for development of interventions and actions by the Sub-groups as set out in the Business Plan. 2. Evidence KSI casualties in Norfolk 19
Progress against the target is shown in Graph A1 in Appendix A. The current rolling twelve month KSI figure is 409 to the end of May 2015, which represents an 11% reduction from the 2005-2009 baseline figure. This represents a slowing down in progress towards the target of 310 KSI in 2020, and the total number of KSI casualties now remains above the interim target of 386 at the end of May 2015. Key Target Groups Appendices A2-A5 contain graphs of movements in casualty numbers for the following Key Target Groups: A2 Powered-Two-Wheeler (P2W) KSI A3 Pedestrian and Cyclist KSI A4 KSI involving young (17-25 years) drivers A5 KSI involving older drivers aged 70 years and above These groups have been identified as significant contributors to overall KSI numbers and are used as a focus for developing actions under the Road Casualty Reduction Partnership (RCRP) Business Plan. In-year performance 2015 Progress achieved within the Key Target Groups is summarised in Appendix B. Based on the current KSI numbers for each Key Target Group, the aspiration for All KSI to maintain the same number as 2014 (375) is currently not likely to be achieved, and this is due to the increases in vulnerable road user involvements. The KSI numbers in each Target Group to the end of May 2015 are shown in Appendix B and are discussed in the sections which follow. Powered-Two-Wheeler (P2W) KSI The P2W KSI figure is 106 which is a reduction of 5% from the 2005-2009 baseline. An in-year projection of 95 KSI for this group would represent a return to good progress, continuing the positive trend over the last year. Last June (2014) represented a peak of P2W numbers and these high levels will now begin to fall out of the 12-month moving totals. This could help to reduce the numbers over the remainder of 2015 provided performance over the next periods is good. The most recent comparative data indicates that the current rate of reduction of P2W KSI in Norfolk is lagging behind the national and regional progress. In June 2014 (the latest available data) the comparative progress against baseline for similar authorities to Norfolk was: Table 1: Authorities similar to Norfolk P2W KSI June 2014 comparison with 2005-09 baseline Norfolk Gloucestershire Lincolnshire Somerset Suffolk 106.4% 85.5% 99.7% 75.8% 68.3% 20
Table 1 above illustrates that there have been some variations in progress achieved, even when selecting comparator authorities with similarities of demography and travel networks. Current progress against the targets will also be affected by the rate of casualty reduction achieved in the previous monitoring period which ended in December 2010, as this will have determined the baseline levels set for the current monitoring period. Following the presentation to the Board in May, STATS19 and Mosaic data has been analysed for the period 2005 to 2015 in order to provide more detailed profiles of the individuals most at risk in this group. This will next be shared and reviewed by the P2W Sub-group to support the targeting of measures. Pedestrian and Cyclist KSI Pedestrian and Cyclist KSI are currently 126 which is a 34% increase on the baseline. A projection of 95 KSI by the end of December 2015 is a challenging aspiration based on this latest movement, and the prevailing trends for cycling and pedestrian involvements. The latest movements in the figures indicate that this group is off target for this year, with a high risk of the reductions not being achieved. The most recent comparative data indicates that the current rate of reduction of Pedestrian and Cyclist KSI in Norfolk is lagging behind the national and regional progress. In June 2014 the comparative progress against baseline for similar authorities to Norfolk was: Table 2: Authorities similar to Norfolk Pedestrian KSI June 2014 comparison with 2005-09 baseline Norfolk Gloucestershire Lincolnshire Somerset Suffolk 94.8% 123.5% 115.0% 95.1% 73.7% Table 3: Authorities similar to Norfolk Cyclist KSI June 2014 comparison with 2005-09 baseline Norfolk Gloucestershire Lincolnshire Somerset Suffolk 105.9% 84.3% 160.9% 119.6% 161.9% Tables 2 and 3 illustrate that there can be wide variations in progress achieved, dependent on local factors and conditions. Current progress against the targets will also be affected by the rate of casualty reduction achieved in the previous monitoring period which ended in December 2010, as this will have determined the baseline levels set for the current monitoring period. Following a presentation to the Board in May, STATS19 and Mosaic data have been analysed for the period 2005 to 2015 in order to provide more detailed profiles of the groups most at risk in these groups. This has been shared and reviewed by the Pedestrian and Cyclist Sub-group to support the targeting of measures. 21
In Norfolk Pedestrian and Cyclist casualties are strongly associated with the urban centres and in particular the Norwich area. Table 4 below shows the latest figures which will be reported to the Norwich Joint Highways Agency Committee as part of the Highways Agency Annual Report for 2014-15 financial year. Table 4: Norwich City Casualty Reduction progress Reported Road Casualties 2005-09 Baseline 12 months (average) 2013-14 12 months 2014-15 12 months All KSI Change from baseline Change from previous year 51.6 53 65 +13.4 +12 Child (0-15) KSI 5 4 4-1 0 P2W KSI (motorcyclists) 14.6 16 20 +5.4 +4 Pedestrian KSI 17.2 12 14-3.2 +2 Cyclist KSI 8.4 10 20 +11.6 +10 Slight Casualties 420.2 378 417 <1% 10.3% Further analysis of cyclist involvements in KSI is included in the work to develop a Norwich Bicycle Account, which is being developed as part of the Norwich Area Transport Strategy (NATS) Programme, and overseen by the County s Cycling and Walking Working Group. The Bicycle Account aims to include estimates of the total distance cycled within the NATS area so that figures in casualty reduction can be interpreted in that context. Young Drivers (aged 17 25 years) KSI involvements There are currently 86 KSI where one of the drivers involved was aged 17-25. This is 37% below the baseline. Since the start of the current monitoring period in January 2011 the trend is generally flat with fluctuations around the level of 100 KSI per annum. Reducing costs of fuel and the strengthening economy could provide upward pressure on this group s involvements over the rest of the year. Therefore an in-year projection of 100 KSI would represent success in maintaining progress for this group. Current progress is generally on track to meet the projected reductions. The most recent comparative data indicates that the current rate of reduction of Young Driver KSI in Norfolk is lagging behind the national and regional progress. However the basis of the comparative data is 16-24 year-olds and includes motorcycle/moped riders, so this is not a direct comparison with Norfolk key target group data. Older Driver (aged 70 years and over) KSI involvements 22
KSI resulting from a collision involving an older driver are currently down to 59, which is 2% below the baseline. An in-year projection of 55 KSI would represent a good outcome for this group, and would help contribute to maintaining overall levels of KSI casualties. Current progress is generally on track to meet the projected reductions. Comparisons with national and regional trends are very difficult due to the definition used for senior driver and rider involvements which is significantly different to the Norfolk key target group. These comparisons show a very wide gap between the progress in Norfolk and at the national/regional level, which may not reflect the like-forlike trends. Slight casualties The Slight casualties figure is 2,143 which is a 22% reduction from the 2005-2009 baseline, as shown in Appendix C. 3. Financial Implications All measures are met from Partners existing budgets 4. Issues, risks and innovation The slowing down of progress in reducing road casualties in Norfolk, together with wider patterns showing lack of progress at the national level (as set out in the report to Board on 11 November 2014), have highlighted a growing concern that targeted reductions in All KSI and P2W KSI may not be achieved. Current projections of progress under the 2015-16 Business Plan do not indicate that overall KSI will reduce over the period. 5. Background In May 2011 the government issued the Strategic Framework for Road Safety which set out new measures to reduce deaths and injuries on roads. The document set out Measures that we intend to take nationally and areas where the policy and delivery will reflect local priorities and circumstances. At both the national and the local level, safer infrastructure, better and more targeted education that draws upon behavioural science and tougher enforcement for the small minority of motorists who deliberately chose to drive dangerously will all be important. We also see a key role for citizens in improving the performance of their areas by holding local decision makers to account where they feel that further action is needed. The annual Business Planning Day for the RCRP was held on 5 December 2014 and included the evidence base for actions for the 4 new sub-groups to focus partnership actions which target road user behaviours which affect the key groups highlighted in Section 1. The analysis of trends and patterns in road casualties has been extended by the publication of Road Casualties in Norfolk: Baseline Evaluation Report 2013 via the Norfolk Insight website. The report can be viewed via this link: Norfolk Insight. This report has been prepared to provide a summary of the data which is currently available 23
to support the work of the RCRP, and the scope for further data-sharing between the partner organisations to improve the targeting of measures. The 2013 report also provides a baseline for comparisons with new information as the work of RCRP partner s progresses. A 2014 update to the report has been published to inform business planning during 2015-16, and can be viewed via this link. Road Casualties in Norfolk 2014 Update Report Officers attended the EDT Service Committee on 16 January 2015 to provide an overview of the trends in Norfolk KSI road casualties and the work undertaken by the newly formed Road Casualty Reduction Partnership Board. The Committee also received a report on the Highway capital programme and Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP), and resolved to recommend that 0.25m of additional DfT funding be allocated to Local Safety Schemes for 2015-16. This was approved at Full Council on 16 February, and means that the annual budget for network safety improvements increased by 100% to 0.5m. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with: Officer Name: Dave Stephens Tel No: 01603 22231 Email address:dave.stephens@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 24
600 550 Norfolk KSI casualties with 33% 2020 reduction figure 05-09 Baseline (all KSI) Actual KSI 33% 2020 KSI target 500 450 2015 interim target 400 409 373 350 300 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 308 250 200 25
150 140 Illustrative reduction if P2W KSIs perform in accordance with accepted overall KSI reduction targets Norfolk P2W KSI casualties 05-09 Baseline (P2W) Actual P2W KSI Illustrative 33% 2020 P2W Target KSI 130 120 110 106 100 90 80 70 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 74 60 26
140 Illustrative reduction if KSIs perform in accordance with accepted overall KSI reduction targets Norfolk Pedestrian & Cyclist KSI casualties Ped & Cyclist KSI baseline 120 126 Illustrative 33% reduction Actual Ped & Cyclist KSI 100 80 63 60 40 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 20 0 27
250 Illustrative reduction if performance is in accordance with target reductions accepted for KSI casualties Norfolk KSI casualties involving non P2W drivers aged 17-25 KSI involving a non P2W driver aged 17-25 (baseline) KSI involving a non P2W driver aged 17-25 Illustrative 33% reduction 200 150 100 91 86 50 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 0 28
90 80 Illustrative reduction if performance is in accordance with target reductions accepted for KSI casualties Norfolk KSI casualties involving a non P2W driver aged 70 or above KSI involving a non P2W driver aged 70 or over (baseline) KSI involving a non P2W driver aged 70 or over Illustrative 33% reduction 70 60 59 50 40 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 40 30 20 10 0 29
Key Target Groups Dashboard 2015 Key Group (KSI unless specified) Norfolk 05-09 baseline average Norfolk 2014 Comparison with latest national and regional progress (red = worse, green = better than comparator) Norfolk E of E latest GB latest 2014 2014 Projection to December 2015 from recent trend May 2015 KSI and comparison with target All KSI 462 375-11% - 23%(Sep 14) - 19%(Dec14) 375 409 P2W 111 105-5% - 18%(Sep14) - 13%(Jun14) 95 106 Pedestrian/ cyclist Young drivers 1 17-25 Older drivers 1 70 and over. 94 97 +34% -3%(Sep14) +2%(Jun14) 95 126 136 76-37% - 56% 2 (Jun14) - 57% 2 (Jun14) 100 86 60 62-2% - 46% 3 (Jun14) - 47% 3 (Jun14) 55 59 1 casualties resulting from crashes involving a driver (excluding P2W riders) within age range (young 17-25, older 70+) 2 Young driver/rider 16-24 years of age (as per national reporting convention) 3 Senior driver/rider involvement (65 years and above as per national reporting convention) Key to colours: 385 Figures in red are indicators for end of 2015 calendar year. Currently below and likely to be below in-year projection. Likely to be in-line with in-year projection. Currently above and likely to exceed in-year projection. 30
3300 3100 Illustrative reduction if slights perform in accordance with target reductions accepted for KSI casualties Norfolk Slight casualties 05-09 Baseline (slights) Actual slights Illustrative 33% 2020 Target slights 2900 2700 2500 2300 2100 2143 1900 1700 January 2011 (commencement of new monitoring period) 1828 1500 31
Road Casualty Reduction Board Item No 9 Report title: Enhanced Partnership Media Strategy Date of meeting: 21 July 2015 Responsible Chief Officer: Tracy Jessop Assistant Director, Highways & Transport, Community & Environmental Services. Strategic impact Adoption of the proposals will enhance the strength of the Road Casualty Reduction Partnership and broaden the involvement and experience of the partner organisations. It will also enrich the media output in relation to Casualty Reduction and potentially enhance the relationships with local media. Executive summary This report seeks to inform the Board about the current media programme and consider ways of wider partner involvement, alignment and opportunities to raise the profile of Road Casualty Reduction Partnership (RCRP) in media output. Recommendations: That the Board accept the proposals made below. 1. Proposal (or options) 1.1. To invite the Police & Crime Commissioner s Communications officer to join the RCRP Communications function. 1.2. To schedule lead officers for specific proactive RCRP campaigns, to be agreed in advance by the Board. 2. Evidence 2.1. N/A 3. Financial Implications 3.1. Small amounts of senior officer time. 4. Issues, risks and innovation 4.1. The most significant risk is incorrect information or inappropriate opinion being given out to the media. This will be managed by briefing from the RCRP Communications function. 5. Background 5.1. Norfolk s RCRP has a successful and effective working relationship with news media, both locally and on a wider platform. Our press releases are regularly acted upon and key officers within the partners are deemed a safe pair of hands for media interaction by both parties. 32
5.2. Press releases are created by the RCRP Communications function and are released on behalf of the partnership. 5.3. The need for media output will be based upon the desires of the four sub-groups and the European Traffic Police Network (TISPOL) enforcement calendar. Scheduled events for the rest of this calendar year are: Speed w/c 17/7/15 Seatbelt w/c 7/8/15 The Honest Truth Launch 27/8/15 Drink/Drug Driving m/c 1/12/15 2016 dates are yet to be announced. It is expected that the Vulnerable Road Users Sub Group will be launching a media strand in the near future and the Young Driver s Sub Group will launch The Honest Truth during August. There will be a launch of the motorcycle season next spring, with the possibility of the Approved Trader scheme happening before then. 5.4. Recent successes include David s Story, which has resulted in nearly 17 million YouTube views and the most recent mobile phone campaign, which attracted a huge amount of local interest, plus enquiries from national broadsheets, the USA and Australia. 5.5. A request has come from the PCC s office for greater involvement in media output, this request has been supported by senior officers of other agencies. 5.6. There is benefit in using different voices for campaigns, particularly where there is a direct link, for example Fire & Rescue leading on the Seatbelt Campaign as they extricate drivers from cars. This will enhance the output of the partnership and refresh the already strong media links. Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper or want to see copies of any assessments, eg equality impact assessment, please get in touch with: Officer name : Iain Temperton Tel No. : 07748 933955 Email address : Iain.temperton@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact 0344 800 8020 or 0344 800 8011 (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 33
Item 10 Norfolk Road Casualty Reduction Partnership 2015-16 Delivery Plan Version 1 Aims: Reduce the number and severity of road traffic casualties on roads in Norfolk. Increase public confidence that journeys, by foot, cycle or vehicular means, will be safe. Targets By December 2020 to:- 1. Reduce the number of killed or seriously injured on Norfolk roads to 310 or fewer. 2. Reduce the number of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured on Norfolk roads to 74 or fewer. 3. Reduce the number of children killed or seriously injured on Norfolk roads to 22 or fewer. Budget: Actions funded by Partner s service budgets unless otherwise stated. Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership funded by specific financial arrangements secured between Norfolk Constabulary and Norfolk County Council. 34
Norfolk Information Hub Data (Virtual Group) Kadhim Alabady Ref Action Outcome / Outputs Lead Planned Milestones Progress 1. 2. 3. 4. Prepare and present annual comprehensive road casualty report for 2014 containing both public health and road safety data (e.g. PIAs, Mortality, hospital admissions, ERPHO (profile road traffic casualties) and LAPE (alcohol related accidents) indicators Monitoring and reporting on trends and progress in reducing road casualties Identifying arising casualty issues for potential interventions Providing data analysis to assist in targeting interventions (geographical areas, user groups, behaviours etc). Production of 2014 report. Identification of progress overall and on key target groups, young and older drivers and motorcyclists. Early warning of need for interventions. Identification of cluster sites. Support and respond to requests from the Target Road User Group aiding intervention development 2014 Report Kadhim Alabady, Public Health Dave Stephens, NCC Dave Stephens, NCC Dave Stephens, NCC 2014 report presented to the Management Group planning Meeting in December 2014, and the Board meeting in January 2015. Reports quarterly to Management Group and Board. Annual report to December Management Group meeting of comparative data from like Authorities and the East of England. Reports quarterly to the Management Group Follow up reports to quarterly meeting based on requests from Target Road Users Groups 35
Norfolk Information Hub Data (Virtual Group) Kadhim Alabady Ref Action Outcome / Outputs Lead Planned Milestones Progress 5. 6. Providing data analysis to assist in evaluating interventions Research in to links between offender profiles and casualty involvement. Evaluated interventions Potential strategy for targeting of high risk young drivers Dave Stephens, NCC Dave Stephens, NCC Ongoing / on demand Completion of research by end of July 2015 36
Communications (Virtual Group) Richard Wiseman Ref Action Outcome Lead Planned Milestones Progress 1. Production and management of an Annual Communications Plan Agreed Annual programme of communications and media campaigns and statements. Richard Wiseman, NCC 11 th Feb meeting with sub groups to move forward with plans for new financial year. Plan in place, awaiting further requests from sub-groups. 37
Communications (Virtual Group) Richard Wiseman Ref Action Outcome Lead Planned Milestones Progress 2. Publicity campaigns, including support for the Constabulary s Fatal Four and the Council s Keep Your Mind on the Road countywide campaigns which target increasing personal responsibility. Improved standard of driving and awareness of the factors that can lead to road casualties. Increased community and business engagement in helping to reduce road casualties or the adverse affects of anti-social driving Richard Wiseman, NCC Fatal 4 campaigns throughout year in line with Tispol & ACPO timetable as follows: Speed from March 15, Drink & drugs from June 15, speed August 15, seatbelts September 15, December drink & drugs Acpo timetable for mobile phones to fit in around Tispol Discussion at Feb meeting re keep your mind on the road campaign to promote messages to vulnerable road users. Provision of Comms support to the 4 sub-groups as requested. Work planned and ongoing to support the drink/drugs and mobile phone elements of the Fatal 4 creative. 5512 Mobile Phone (Jan 2015) 14876 Seat Belt (Aug 2015) 14876 Speed (Sep 2015) 19477 DD (Dec 2015) Currently in the process of updating Keep your Mind creative with new images and text to support request from VRU subgroup. 9500 spent on this element The motoring editor of the EDP did Safe Rider. Two excellent 2 page spreads consecutive Sat papers + BSB Snetterton supplement. 2140 spent on this element Young Driver Education programme refresh is near completion and we are in the process of procuring The Honest Truth 7200 spent on this element. All teams now have access to the RCRP Google Calendar and we are currently investigating the use of the Gov Delivery service for newsletters. 38