APPENDIX 18
Memorandum from the Department for Transport
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE, RISK AND EVIDENCE: HOW
THE GOVERNMENT HANDLES THEM.
Memorandum on the use of research and evidence
in the development of Government policy and guidelines on a) traffic
calming measures and b) the use of speed cameras.
INTRODUCTION
1. Research and a strong evidence base are
an integral part of the development of policies in the Department
for Transport (DfT). This can be clearly demonstrated in the areas
of research selected for scrutiny by the Committee i.e. traffic
calming and safety cameras[57].
2. Traffic calming and safety cameras currently
fall within the responsibility of the Road and Vehicle Safety
& Standards Directorate (RVSSD) and contribute to delivering
DfT's PSA objective to achieve by 2010, compared with the baseline
averages for 1994-98:
— a 40% reduction in the number of
people killed or seriously injured in road accidents;
— a 50% reduction in the number of
children killed or seriously injured in road accidents;
— a 10% reduction in the slight casualty
rate, expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100
million vehicle kilometers.
3. The research and evidence needed to inform
policy and operational decision-making is primarily the responsibility
of the relevant policy directorate or agency. RVSSD, for example,
works closely with related areas in the Department but manages
its own research programmes focused on its objectives.
ROAD SAFETY
POLICY AND
RESEARCH
4. The primary objective of research in
the field of road user safety is to support the Government policy
of meeting the road casualty reduction target. Proposed annual
programmes including research into speed management are drawn
up after a careful assessment of priorities, taking into account
other Departmental research plans and advice from our standing
group of Road Safety External Advisers. Such programmes are then
submitted to Ministers for approval.
5. The Department routinely monitors professional
and scientific literature to identify and consider research commissioned
by others, both at home and internationally. Furthermore, where
a research topic is relatively new, rather than a refinement in
an area where we have already conducted some research, the initial
stage is often a literature review. This would scan the professional
and scientific literature, both domestic and international, providing
the basis on which to develop research project objectives for
empirical study.
6. The majority of research projects are
commissioned through competitive tendering procedures, with a
small number let via Single Tender Action (for example when match-funding
part of an EU-funded research project that has already been tendered).
Depending on the nature of the project, adverts may be published
in the national and specialist press inviting expressions of interest.
In other instances, a limited number of organisations/individuals
with specialist experience may be invited to bid for a specific
piece of research.
7. Wherever appropriate the research programme
ensures that both academics and stakeholders are involved through
advisory groups and peer reviews. The Department's research procedures
call for evaluation to be conducted at the end of each research
contract and a year later in a follow-up review. This process
of evaluation feeds into the development of the new research programme.
8. A compendium of road safety research
is published annually and includes summaries of completed, on-going
and newly approved research[58].
Typically the findings of the road safety research projects are
published by the Department through a series of Road Safety Research
Reports (there are currently 67 reports in the series). Some research
reports are published on behalf of the Department by organisations
such as the Transport Research Laboratory. All published research
reports on road safety are freely available on the web, typically
on the DfT website[59].
9. Within the research programme the main
types of research include:
— Monitoring trends over time;
— Fundamental research to identify
issues;
— Development and evaluation of remedial
measures; and
— Policy evaluation—assessing
outcomes and processes using a variety of approaches including
pilots and demonstration projects.
10. The areas of safety cameras and traffic
calming encompass a wide range of tools and interventions to manage
speeds and traffic volumes across the road network using a combination
of the underlying principles of the 3 Es—education, engineering
and enforcement. For many physical road safety interventions the
outcomes and impacts can be measured and assessed in terms of
casualty reductions, the reductions that they achieve in vehicle
speeds and cost benefit.
11. Reducing vehicle speeds is not just
a matter of improving safety. It is also about improving the accessibility
of the network to more vulnerable modes such as walking and cycling,
and creating a more civilised environment. For some schemes that
have broader traffic calming objectives, there are also wider
environmental costs and benefits that can be taken into account
when developing and evaluating the impact of such interventions.
12. This memorandum summarises the areas
of safety camera and traffic calming and sets out the research
that underpinned the development of policies in these areas. This
is followed by an assessment of how far these research programmes
reflect normal practice within DfT in the management and use of
research, and also a look to potential future research and developments.
THE ISSUE
OF SPEED
IN ROAD
ACCIDENT RISK
13. The general principle in developing
interventions to improve road safety is to assess the evidence
on the scale of the risk being faced by road users and then review
the evidence on the potential measures and their effectiveness,
ensuring that any measures implemented will reduce overall risk
without increasing the risk to any sub-group.
14. Research has shown that reducing vehicle
speeds on roads is a major contributor to reducing collisions
and injuries. The Transport Research Laboratory reported in 1994
that every 1mph reduction in average speed led to a 5% reduction
in collisions[60].
A study in 2000 validated this figure[61].
15. Furthermore, analysis of contributory
factor data to accidents collected by the police shows that speed
is a factor in almost one-third of fatal road accidents (the single
most frequently cited factor), 18% of serious injuries and 11%
of all injuries[62].
The Department is also making use of emerging speed-related data
from its ongoing On-the-Spot research project in which expert
teams from Loughborough University and TRL attend the scene following
accidents of all severity[63].
16. Nonetheless, despite this clear evidence,
the Department's annual monitoring of vehicle speeds at selected
sites across the road network shows that a high proportion of
drivers continue to exceed speed limits[64]
and Home Office statistics show that 2.2 million offences for
driving in excess of the prescribed speed limit were dealt with
by police action in 2003[65].
17. The delivery of effective speed management
policies, at both a national and local level, therefore has an
important role to play in improving road safety for all road users
and delivery of the 2010 targets.
18. The Department's primary role is:
— to develop a national framework for
determining appropriate vehicle speeds on all roads, and ensuring
that measures are available to achieve them;
— to publicise widely and increase
public understanding of the risks of speed; and
— to research a number of speed management
problems to gain the necessary information to develop and test
policies.
19. A detailed review of speed management
policies was undertaken in the late 1990's[66].
Based upon the extensive research evidence from the UK and abroad
across the effects of speed, the impact of measures in influencing
vehicle speeds, including traffic calming and safety cameras,
this Review directly underpins the Government's road safety strategy
and speed management policy commitments.
THE INTRODUCTION
OF SAFETY
CAMERAS AND
EARLY EVALUATIONS
20. Safety cameras consist of cameras that
enforce both speeding and traffic light offences. Safety cameras
used by the police to produce evidence for court have to be of
a type approved by the Secretary of State. The U.K. type approval
process undertaken by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch
is extremely rigorous and involves both operational and laboratory
testing. Details of the type approval process are laid down in
the Speedmeter Handbook[67].
21. The purpose of deploying safety cameras
is to encourage road users to drive within the speed limit, specifically
at locations where there is a known speed-related danger of crashes,
and to deter "red light running". With an overall objective
of reduced casualties, camera sites have historically been identified
systematically on the basis of collision statistics.
22. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for
the use of camera technology to combat problems of dangerous speeding
and red light offences. The first deployment of cameras in anything
like a systematic way was in West London in 1992, when 21 fixed
speed camera and 12 red-light camera sites were installed and
their effectiveness monitored[68].
23. In the early days the take up of automatic
enforcement by police forces in Great Britain was modest. An early
evaluation of safety camera effectiveness commissioned by the
Home Office[69]
demonstrated that the net benefit of speed cameras was five times
the initial investment in the first year and more than 25 times
after five years. The study, however, concluded that, whilst cameras
were effective at reducing casualties, the full benefits were
not being realised as many police forces and highway authorities
did not have the resources to use the technology effectively.
24. At that time all fines from camera enforcement
accrued to the Treasury Consolidated Fund. In response to the
Home Office report a new funding system was developed to enable
safety camera partnerships of local authorities, the police, magistrates'
courts committees and other agencies involved in the enforcement
process to have some of their camera enforcement costs refunded
from the fine revenue.
25. To develop the practical arrangements
and inform policy developments, the system was piloted in eight
police force areas from April 2000. The pilots were originally
envisaged to run for two years. However, results from the first
year were so encouraging that the Government decided to extend
the system nationally before the analysis confirming the effectiveness
of the cost recovery system throughout the eight pilot areas over
the first two years was later published in February 2003[70].
Made possible by the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, since that time
the National Safety Camera Programme has been extended to all
but two police force areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF SAFETY
CAMERAS
26. DfT publishes data on camera sites and
regular annual evaluations have been published on their effectiveness
throughout the national roll out[71],[72].
As well as keeping authorities, the police and the general public
up-to-date on the effectiveness of the programme, these evaluations
also enable us to re-assess the future of the programme.
27. Undertaken by independent research bodies,
these evaluations have looked at the impact on traffic speeds
and casualty reductions at camera sites, plus public perceptions
and the costs and benefits of implementation. The key findings
of these annual assessments have continuously confirmed that:
— vehicle speeds are reduced at camera
sites;
— the number of injury collisions and
casualties are reduced at camera sites;
— public reaction to the safety camera
programme has been positive; and
— the cost recovery system has enabled
a rapid increase in road safety investment
28. Other international experience has demonstrated
the effectiveness of cameras. A report by the OECD in 2003 reported
significant reductions in casualties and collisions at camera
locations across Europe and in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland[73].
There is also now increasing evidence emerging from France.
29. There is also no doubt about the effectiveness
of cameras amongst the academic and professional community. For
example, an international review of the evidence of the effectiveness
of speed cameras[74]
that appeared in the British Medical Journal in 2005 found that
reductions in outcomes ranged from 5% to 69% for collisions, 12%
to 65% for injuries, and 17% to 71% for deaths in the immediate
vicinity of camera sites. The reductions over wider geographical
areas were of a similar order of magnitude. This review found
no examples of speed camera programmes producing negative road
safety effects.
30. However, as evidence of the effectiveness
of cameras in reducing the number of casualties increases, there
has been increasing debate as to how much of the effect is a true
effect and how much is an overestimate resulting from selection
bias (regression-to-mean) effects. A study into the effectiveness
of 79 cameras on 30mph roads concluded that, even after allowing
for regression to mean and the general national casualty trend,
those cameras had reduced the number of killed or seriously injured
casualties by 11%[75].
31. The Department has itself been concerned
to ensure that if the effect of regression-to-mean is real then
it should be taken into account in assessing the effectiveness
of speed cameras. Following publication of the evaluation of the
first three years of operation of the national programme the Department's
Chief Scientific Adviser chaired a meeting at the Royal Statistical
Society to discuss the methodology for assessing the effectiveness
of cameras. As a result the independent academics were asked to
consider this as part of the four-year evaluation of the national
programme, which was published on 15 December 2005. The methodology
used by DfT for evaluating the effectiveness of safety cameras
has therefore been open to scrutiny and peer review.
32. From the four year review it was found
that, even taking into account the effects of regression-to-mean,
safety cameras continue to make a valuable contribution to the
reduction of casualties at camera sites.
33. The research evidence from public opinion
surveys including those carried out as part of the evaluation
for DfT and those completed by other organisations such as the
AA, RAC and insurance companies, suggests that drivers are positive
in their attitudes to the use of safety cameras as a way of reducing
casualties, although support has diminished following persistent
criticisms by some sections of the media.
34. Safety Camera Partnerships' participation
in the current National Safety Camera Programme (entering its
final year of operation) is governed by strict rules which are
set out in a published annual Handbook of Rules and Guidance.
Those rules have been developed and strengthened over time in
the light of operational experience.
35. Safety cameras have been thoroughly
and independently evaluated and scrutinized over recent years.
In 2005 DfT undertook a review of the programme to ensure that
it continued to be effective and deliver the best possible casualty
reductions in the future.
36. On 15 December 2005 the Secretary of
State for Transport announced a package of changes to the funding
and administration of the national safety camera programme. The
current funding arrangement will end after 2006-07 and from 2007-08
safety cameras are being integrated into the wider delivery process
through the Local Transport Plan system.
37. The conclusions of the four-year evaluation
of the programme, including those on regression-to-mean, have
been used to underpin some of these changes, especially for camera
deployment criteria for 2006-07. Partly to address the regression-to-mean
issue these include:
— That the deployment criteria continue
to use collision data over the most recent three years but that
when a site is identified, data for the most recent five years
is examined to determine whether collisions are at their peak.
— That all personal injury collisions
(PICs) are considered as part of the deployment criteria.
TRAFFIC CALMING
38. Traffic calming was introduced in the
UK following successful schemes in Europe that had improved safety
in urban areas. Research was necessary to ensure that the techniques
could be introduced safely to this country. The basic concept
behind traffic calming is to provide a self-enforcing speed restraining
effect. If successful, traffic calming removes the need for other
types of enforcement, including speed cameras.
39. Traffic calming measures under the Highways
(Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 are rumble devices, gateways,
chicanes, islands, pinch points, build outs, and overrun areas.
Road humps in their various guises come under the Highways (Road
Humps) Regulations 1999, but are commonly thought of as traffic
calming measures. At a regional or a city-wide level, a traffic
calmed area could be thought of as a calming measure. The techniques
used to create these can be as diverse as direction signing or
careful arrangement of the horizontal road layout (as with a Quiet
Lane in a region and a Home Zone in a city, respectively).
PROCESSES USED
TO COMMISSION
AND EVALUATE
RESEARCH ON
TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES
40. Topics for research are identified in
conjunction with local highway authorities and stakeholders such
as the Countryside Agency and the English Historic Towns Forum.
The scope and priority of projects are put together on a themed
and Divisional basis in a proposed annual programme of research
projects. Consultation is conducted more strategically with local
authority representative groups, the Highways Agency and others;
currently this is done through the Traffic Management Board of
the Roads Liaison Group[76].
USE OF
PILOT STUDIES
FOR DEVELOPING
TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES
41. Pilot studies have been used effectively
to evaluate real-life impacts (positive or negative) of innovative
traffic management measures, often to develop legislation. In
addition, the use of traffic calming measures in particular circumstances
have been studied where a particular problem has been identified.
42. Some measures such as chicanes, alternative
road hump designs and more recently Rumblewave surfacing were
tested off-road initially to determine their performance. They
were then introduced at trial sites on the public highway as pilot
studies within the research. Where successful, the Department
has issued guidance to authorities or drafted legislation based
on good evidence of practical measures that can be adopted. In
some instances, the pilot studies have highlighted previously
unforeseen issues. For example the Rumblewave pilots identified
vibration problems. The causes of these were then studied further
and the final advice to authorities provided robust guidance on
locations where Rumblewave should be avoided.[77]
43. Local highway authorities have considerable
flexibility concerning features they wish to install on their
road network. Information may sometimes be gathered about their
real-life experiences in order to refine advice on certain topics.
Two examples are:
(a) the Historic Core Zone project investigated
how effective traffic management schemes can be designed to suit
areas with special historic character[78];
and
(b) traffic calming in villages on major
roads examined whether schemes could be designed that would reduce
the 85th percentile speeds to no more than the speed limit at
each site.[79]
REFINEMENT OF
POLICY ON
TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES IN
RESPONSE TO
EMERGING RESEARCH
FINDINGS AND
EXPERIENCE
44. Research on traffic calming has been
conducted since the late 1980's to the present day and policy
refined along the way. The first Traffic Advisory leaflet 1987
on the topic simply drew attention to the techniques that had
been used in this country and abroad. The Department is currently
finalising an extensive Local Transport Note (current draft is
170 pages) that brings together a summary of research, legislation,
design, effectiveness and installation in one document to provide
advice on the use of traffic calming measures today.
45. Results of research are published in
research reports and are often summarised to present key messages
in Traffic Advisory Leaflets. 12,000 copies of each leaflet are
printed; about half go straight to local authorities and others
on a voluntary mailing list. The latest bibliography on traffic
calming, that includes Traffic Advisory leaflets, is available
in paper form or through the website.[80]
46. Section III of the bibliography includes
a list of Traffic Advisory Leaflets that give guidance on the
traffic calming topics studied through research projects funded
by the Department. Section IV lists publications from TRL Ltd
which are the reports on the Department's research topics studied
under the following headings: road humps, traffic calming, projects
and impacts of traffic calming.
47. These sections show (through the numbering
system for the leaflets and reports) how issues have been addressed
and how research topics progressed over recent years. For example,
under traffic calming the focus has moved from simple measures
such as overrun areas and gateways to Home Zones, Quiet Lanes
and Rumblewave surfacing. Under the impacts of traffic calming,
research has moved with the concerns of the time from issues associated
with fire and ambulance services' through emissions and vehicle
noise to ground-borne vibrations and discomfort.
48. An example of how research has influenced
changes in legislation can be readily seen in the development
of road humps. The original road hump regulations in 1983 allowed
round-top humps of 100 mm in height and 3.7 metres in length to
be installed on roads in England and Wales with a speed limit
of 30 mph or less. There have been several revisions to these
regulations, and the most recent do not specify a hump profile
because research showed that a range of hump designs had speed-reducing
potential, were safe for use on public highways and would better
fit the needs of authorities. Local authorities are allowed to
install humps (including speed cushions) on roads with a speed
limit of 30 mph or less, without the need for special authorisation,
providing the humps are between 25 mm and 100 mm in height, at
least 900 mm in width in the direction of travel, and have no
vertical face greater than 6 mm. However, the Department also
provided evidence-based advice, via Traffic Advisory Leaflets,
on recommended hump dimensions, for example recommending 75 mm
high full-width humps as a compromise between speed control and
negative impacts[81].
49. Another example is the development of
20 mph zones. When initially introduced, 20 mph zones were seen
as being novel and therefore each zone required the consent of
the Secretary of State before they could be implemented. Research
into the performance of 20 mph zones then showed that accidents
resulting in injuries are reduced by around 60% and accidents
resulting in injuries to children reduced by about 67%. As a result
the Department introduced regulations in 1999 which allowed traffic
authorities to implement 20 mph zones without the consent of the
Secretary of State.[82]
50. There has been concern that the cumulative
effect of the growing number of traffic calming schemes could
compromise the ability of fire and ambulance service operators
to meet the required response times. There have also been suggestions
that traffic calming features might unwittingly lead to increased
patient discomfort, or cause damage to equipment carried in ambulances
or fire appliances.
51. A Code of Practice on arrangements for
consulting on proposals to introduce traffic calming measures
was agreed by the Joint Committee on Fire Brigade Operations,
The Department of Health's Ambulance Policy Advisory Group, the
Local Authority Associations and the DTLR (TAL 3/94) in 1994.
That Code of Practice and the corresponding TAL is currently being
updated in light of more recent best practice, including the designation
of strategic emergency routes on which more severe speed reduction
measures should not be used.
WIDER ISSUES
RELATED TO
SPEED MANAGEMENT
52. Speed cameras and traffic calming are
a few of many policy tools to help deliver more appropriate and
safer speeds on the roads.
53. The DfT continues to monitor the impact
of vehicle speeds and speed on road safety—through its annual
vehicle speeds and contributory factors data collection systems.
More recent research has added greatly to our knowledge of the
impact of different speeds on the severity of road accidents and
actual vehicle speeds being driven on roads. This is being used
to inform decisions on speed limits, their enforcement and future
research needs.
54. In 2004 the Department sought advice
from leading academics in the road safety field regarding the
research questions and objectives that should be included in a
programme of research into speed management and which would inform
development of evidence-based policy for the future.
55. As a result a number of common
themes were identified and four projects are now in the process
of being awarded. These include a study which seeks to understand
the environmental cues that are important in dictating speed choice.
The project will seek to identify the features of the road and
roadside which could be modified affordably to encourage choice
of appropriate speeds, and would thus reduce the severity of injury
in those speed-related crashes which nevertheless will still happen.
56. DfT is also actively involved in a number
of international expert groups to ensure we are aware of best
practice and the most up to date research in other countries—for
example an OECD Speed Management Working Group (established 2004).
TYPICAL OR
EXCEPTIONAL?
57. The ways in which research and evidence
are managed, assessed and exploited vary widely according to the
issue to be studied. In many areas of the Department's work, much
evidence is likely to be generated by other bodies (eg stakeholders,
partners, transport operators) or through regular activities (eg
monitoring or statistical surveys) and our role is to assess the
contribution the evidence derived from these activities can make
to decision-making. In others, such as Road Safety, where our
responsibilities position us as the key user of relevant evidence,
the Department is a major (or the major) funder of research to
improve the evidence base used to inform policy and operational
decisions. This is also an area where trials and pilots can inform
policy within a timescale that can have an effect on future development
and roll-out of that policy. Clearly this is not always the case,
for example, when seeking evidence to inform decisions on long-term
strategic infrastructure.
ROLE OF
THE CHIEF
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER
58. http://transnet/doc2.asp?docId=141339&catId=69301
The role of the CSA is to challenge the content and quality of
the Department's policies at a strategic level and work with heads
of profession and research programme managers to ensure high quality
and fitness for purpose of the science and research funded by
DfT and its agencies. Further details on the general approach
are at annex 1.
59. To improve strategic handling of evidence
and research, a new approach is currently being implemented. The
Department has published a new draft Department-wide Evidence
and Research Strategy covering a whole range of economic, technological,
social and environmental factors. Through this strategy, we are
seeking a more integrated evidence base at a strategic level,
acknowledging all sources of evidence—monitoring and data
collection, analysis (of internal and information available elsewhere),
policy evaluation and commissioned research—and ensuring
quality by adopting best practice. This strategy sets out what
we currently understand our evidence needs are for the next three
years and beyond, as well as the areas and activities we plan
to develop. The high-level strategy will be developed to assist
30-year planning and integration with medium-term and business
planning.[83]
60. More immediate evidence needs have been
assessed against broad policy themes—reducing congestion,
improving accessibility and public transport, reducing environmental
impact, improving safety and security and supporting the economy.
Though these themes, we are better able to review evidence gaps,
priorities, dependencies and possible duplication.
61. Management of evidence and research
funded by the Department is largely devolved to the policy units
and agencies responsible for delivery of our objectives. The Departmental
Strategy will be supplemented by more detailed Unit (and agency)
strategies, currently under development, which will be published
in 2006.
62. Relevant to the cases identified, and
as reported above, the CSA chaired a meeting of academics in October
2004 seeking advice on the scope and content of a programme of
research on issues relating to speed to inform development of
policy. He then instigated the meeting of the Royal Statistical
Society (Nov, 2004)[84]
to consider the evidence which indicated that speed needed to
be managed and examined a number of ways of determining whether
speed cameras had been effective. The meeting also considered
broader issues of interest to all statisticians and practitioners,
regarding the quality of the evidence base that informs public
policy. This reflected the CSA's wish to encourage learned societies
to engage with the Department's research and provide informed
critique and high level scrutiny.
63. One larger issue in the area of roads
and traffic policy is the increasing use of automatic enforcement,
ranging from the enforcement of parking restrictions to the use
of technology and linked databases to detect infringements such
as speeding or driving without insurance or MOT or driving a stolen
car, to road charging, to eventually perhaps "car convoys"
on motorway. A recent Occasional Research Report from the Parliamentary
Advisory Council for Transport safety examined the subject of
automatic enforcement in detail.[85]
64. One of the challenges here is developing
robust information bases to support increased dependence on technology.
An example, on which the Department is currently making progress,
is a database of speed limits. An Outline Business Case Report
was prepared by Atkins for the Department (Speed Limit Database
Feasibility Study: Outline Business Case Atkins Oct 2005). This
analysed three different database delivery options and each showed
benefit-cost ratios for implementation of over 100. Such a database
could be used, subject to an improved understanding of public
attitudes, concerns and behaviours, to deliver a range of value-added
services through the private sector as well as safety techniques
such as intelligent speed adaptation.
65. This links also to the broader picture
exemplified by the Data Grand Challenge—one of three Grand
Challenges identified through consultation with Permanent Secretaries
and CSAs on the basis that they are:
— a public policy issue where scientific
research could play a major role in establishing the way forward
and exhibiting potential for business opportunities; and
— not exclusively the responsibility
of a single department.
66. Improved IT systems offer an opportunity
to integrate data maintained on separate systems both inside and
outside Government. By making use of data from diverse sources,
performance can be monitored in "real time", leading
to greater efficiency and more devolved decision-making. Improved
strategies to address Government's role as a custodian, regulator,
provider and user of data will also help to establish a move from
a centralised 'control and communicate' model of data provision,
to a decentralised model similar to that of the US, in which any
unanticipated but legitimate user can find, access and use data.
This has important implications for the provision of public services.
67. The Science and Innovation Cabinet Committee
approved taking forward the Data Grand Challenge paper (SI(05)1)
assigning DfT, as lead department, to submit a scoping report
in late spring 2006.
April 2006
Annex 1
ROLE OF
THE CHIEF
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER
Professor Frank Kelly reports to the Permanent
Secretary and has direct access to the Secretary of State. Ministers
or senior officials may seek his opinion on any topic where a
scientific or engineering viewpoint is needed.
His work involves:
— making sure that the Departments'
scientific activities are well directed and that policy is soundly
based on good science;
— helping develop the Department's
scientific links with the outside world, and encourage the Department
to consider science issues, as they affect policy, at an appropriately
senior level;
— ensuring representation and strategic
direction at the top of Department, meeting regularly with the
Board and Ministers;
— working with the Government Chief
Scientific Adviser, other Government research advisers and departmental
CSAs to ensure the overall quality of science and research in
government;
— working with staff in advising Ministers,
the Board and senior officials on the scope for enhancing the
evidence base through science and research when major policy reviews
and public consultations on policy development are considered;
— helping ensure that the Department
uses properly the research it commissions and has the right balance
and quality of internal expertise by advising on the training,
development and deployment of science and research professional
staff;
— ensuring that the Department has
effective horizon scanning arrangements so that issues involving
science or issues where science could be of benefit, are identified
in advance; and
— assisting the Department in publicly
explaining the science and research evidence base of policies
57 In this memorandum the term safety camera is used
throughout. Safety cameras are defined as speed cameras (about
87% of camera sites) and traffic light cameras (about 13% of camera
sites). Back
58
The compendium can be found at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032511.hcsp
A related compendium, on vehocle safety and intelligent transport systems (Feb 2006), will shortly be available at:
Vehicle standards: safety.Back
59
Road Safety Research Reports can be found at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032513.hcsp Back
60
Finch, D J, Kompfner, P, Lockwood, CR and G Maycock (1994) Speed,
Speed Limits and Accidents, TRL Project Report 58, TRL, Crowthorne,
Berks. Back
61
Taylor, MC, Lynam, D A and A Baruya (2000) The effects of drivers'
speed on the frequency of road accidents, TRL Report 421,
TRL, Crowthorne, Berks. Back
62 Mosedale, J and A Purdy (2004) Excessive speed as a contributory
factor to personal injury road accidents, Transport Statistics,
Road Safety, Department for Transport.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft-rdsafety_031459.pdf
Back
63 For details see:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft-transstats_037809.pdf
Back
64
Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain 2004
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/page/dft_transstats-037809.hcsp
NB Statistics for 2005 will be published on 6 April.Back
65
Home office Motoring Offences and Breath Test Statistics 2003
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0605.pdfBack
66
DETR (2000) New Directions in Speed Management-a review of
policy, DETR, 2000.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504682.hcspBack
67
The Speedmeter Handbook, available on the HO website:
www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/public-protection/road-safety-cameras/type-approval-testing
Back
68
London Accident Analysis Unit (1997) West London Speed Camera
Demonstration Project, July 1997. Highways Agency, London.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_023366.hcspBack
69
Hooke, A, Knox, J and D Portas (1996) Cost Benefit Analysis
of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras. Police Research Series
Paper 20, Police Research Group, Home Office, London. Back
70
A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras-two
year pilot evaluation, Department for Transport , 11 February
2003, PA Consulting Group and UCL
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507639.pdfBack
71
The national safety camera programme-three-year evaluation
report. PA Consulting Group and UCL, June 2003.
http://www.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_029193.hcspBack
72
The national safety camera programme-four-year evaluation report.
PA Consulting Group and UCL, December 2005.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610815.hcspBack
73
OECD (2003) Road Safety: Impact of New Technologies, OECD, Paris,
France. Back
74
Pilkington, P and S Kinra (2005) Effectiveness of speed cameras
in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties:
systematic review British Medical Journal, 330 (7487), 331-334. Back
75
Mountain, LJ, Hirst, WM and MJ Maher (2004) Costing lives or
saving lives? A detailed evaluation of the impact of speed cameras
on safety. Traffic Engineering and Control, 45 (8), 280-287. Back
76
UK Road Liaison Group. Back
77
TRL Report PPR 020 Prediction of ground-borne vibration generated
by heavy vehicles crossing a rumblewave device by G Watts and
R King, September 2004.
TRAFFIC ADVISORY LEAFLETS 1/05 Rumblewave surfacing, and at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft-roads_037121.pdfBack
78
See for example Traffic Advisory Leaflet 13/99 Bury St Edmunds
Historic Core Zone. Back
79
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/00 Traffic Calming in Villages on Major
Roads. Back
80
Taffic Advisory Leaflet 2/05 (Jan 2005), Traffic Calming Biliography:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft-roads_037119.pdfBack
81
TRL Report 186 Traffic Calming-Road Hump Schemes using 75mm
High Humps. Back
82
TRL Report 215 Review of Traffic Calming Schemes in 20 mph
Zones. Back
83
The DfT Evidence and Research Strategy (draft), Mar 2006, can
be viewed at:
www.dft.gov.uk/ersBack
84
Mantled in Mist: The importance of the evidence for the effectiveness
of speed cameras, Nov 2004:
The Royal Statistical Society - Past EventsBack
85
Policing Road Risk: Enforcement, Technologies and Road Safety,
Sep 2005:
Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport SafetyBack
| 
