1.  SUMMARY

  1.1  London has been very successful in reducing casualties, having already achieved a 49% reduction in Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI), against a target of 40% by 2010. This has been achieved through a data-led and balanced programme of road engineering, safety cameras, education, training and publicity. Good partnering between stakeholders has also been important, as evidenced by the successful Pan London Road Safety Forum.

  1.2  TfL believes roads policing has not been a high enough priority for the Home Office over the past five years. This has led, for example, to a rise in "hit and run" collisions, which are now very substantial in number in some parts of London.

  1.3  TfL commissioned a literature review of research into the effectiveness of roads policing, which indicated that more roads policing was linked with fewer collisions. A second project is to be undertaken working with the police to measure changes in casualties and unsafe driving behaviours on links with higher levels of policing to better quantify its effect.

  1.4  Safety cameras have made a large contribution to London's lower casualty figures. London is unique in still having potentially some 300 sites which meet the Department for Transport (DfT) criteria of four KSI in the past three years. Our aspiration is to grow the camera operation in London, but this is now in jeopardy following the recent changes in safety camera funding.

  1.5  London has around 10,000 km of roads that could be classed as residential and potentially suitable for 20 mph speed limits. Road humps are not popular with buses and the emergency services. New Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology is becoming available that will allow 20 mph zones to be enforced using time-distance cameras. These have huge potential in London, but we will need the fine income to be used to fund new schemes.

2.  BACKGROUND

  2.1  The London Road Safety Unit was established in 2003 to bring together TfL's work to deliver the London Road Safety Plan. The Unit improves road safety for all road users in the capital through the following activities:

—  collation and analysis of casualty data in London;

—  road safety research;

—  road safety engineering schemes on both TfL and borough roads;

—  20 mph zones;

—  speed reducing measures;

—  publicity, training and educational campaigns; and

—  speed and red light cameras.

  2.2  After consultation with Committee staff, it was agreed that TfL's London Road Safety Unit could make a submission on road safety issues. This paper complements TfL's main memorandum on other aspects of traffic policing and technology.

3.  INTRODUCTION

  3.1  London has been very successful in reducing casualties, having already achieved a 49% reduction in Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI), against a target of 40% by 2010. The Mayor is about to announce new lower casualty reduction targets for London. Casualty targets, reductions and the latest 12 months casualty data to the end of June 2005, are given in the table below.

	Baseline average 1994-98	Target reduction by 2010 %	12 months to June 2005	% reduction	New target reductions %
KSI	6,684	40	3,405	49	50
Pedestrian KSI	2,137	40	1,144	46	50
Cyclist KSI	567	40	328	42	50
P2W KSI	933	40	837	10	40
Child KSI	935	50	381	59	60
All Slights	38,996	10	29,653	24	25

  3.2  This phenomenal success has been achieved through a data-led and balanced programme of road engineering, safety cameras, education, training and publicity. Good partnering between stakeholders (in particular the police, boroughs, Greater London Authority, Association of London Government and TfL) has also been important. One of the ways good partnering has been achieved is through the successful Pan London Road Safety Forum. This meets three times a year and brings together road safety stakeholders in London to exchange information, share best practice and consider future programmes.

4.  THE BENEFITS OF ROADS POLICING

  4.1  TfL believes roads policing could play a larger part in reducing casualties and has not been a high enough priority for the Home Office over the past five years.

  4.2  TfL commissioned TRL Ltd to investigate "How methods and levels of policing affect road casualty rates". The report was published in July 2004 and is available via the link below:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Research_Reports/Policing-Affect-Road-Casualty-Rates.pdf

  4.3  For the great majority of studies found in the literature review, increasing the level of traffic policing reduced the number of road collisions and traffic violations. The exact nature of the relationship, however, is complex and non-linear, and it was not possible to quantify the relationship between enforcement levels and collision reductions.

  4.4  Stationary and highly visible policing appeared to be the most effective. The "time halo" affect appeared to be around eight weeks, and the "distance halo" affect between 1.5 to 5 miles.

  4.5  This study did not provide the link we were looking for between policing levels and collisions for urban streets. We are therefore planning to start a second project soon to measure changes in speeds, seatbelt wearing rates, mobile phone usage while driving etc, on links with differing levels of policing. It is our hope that providing an estimate of the casualty benefits (using surrogate measures) achieved by higher levels of policing, will greatly help Police Services in justifying more resources for traffic enforcement.

  4.6  Hit and run collisions are increasing in London, [1]with up to 25% of pedestrian injuries caused by drivers who did not stop in some boroughs (eg Hackney). These collisions cluster on certain roads and tend to occur at particular times of the night, which make them ideal for targeted policing. We believe hit and runs are linked to the low penalties for driving without insurance, MOT or vehicle licence, coupled with the low likelihood that the vehicle is stopped by the police. The high cost of insurance for young people relative to penalties may contribute to this problem.

  4.7  General compliance of drivers to features such as banned turns, yellow boxes and even red traffic signals, also appears to be a growing problem in London. The recent de-criminalisation of some of these offences has allowed camera technology to deal with a few of the most dangerous sites, but again the low level of roads policing in London might be considered to have encouraged this behaviour in the past.

5.  SAFETY CAMERAS

  5.1  Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to London's lower casualty figures. "Before" and "after" studies at new speed camera sites have given benefits of around 50% reductions in killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties. Cameras work in London and are the ideal road safety intervention for many of the high density and higher speed major roads in the capital, where there are no feasible alternatives.

  5.2  Red light cameras have also proven to be effective, with "before" and "after" studies showing over 50% reductions in KSI casualties on those traffic movements treated. Collision data suggests that there still appears to be potential for further use of red light cameras, where red light violations still appear to be a problem.

  5.3  London is unique in having potentially some 300 more sites which meet the current DfT criteria of four KSI in the past three years. At many of these locations speed has been identified as a key factor in the high levels of risk. Safety cameras have proven to be the most effective treatment for many of our high-risk sites, particularly on busy high speed main roads. We would hope to expand our safety camera operation in London, but this is now in jeopardy following the recent changes in safety camera funding. London has different funding arrangements, so will need to be treated separately from other highway authorities. We have been told that there will be a fixed amount, ranging from £10.5 million to £12.5 million for TfL to fund camera partnership activities for the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Given that the DfT guidance on camera funding mentions allocations will made on a "needs" basis, we are concerned that these fixed amounts have been allocated without due consideration of the fact that London has far more high-risk potential camera sites than any other Partnership. We also have major concerns about the government's fixed camera budget (£110 million) that is available for all camera operations. It is our current understanding that our growth could only be at the expense of another Partnership's decline.

6.  FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

  6.1  Research commissioned by TfL has shown that 20 mph zones more than halve KSI casualties. The report is available here:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Research_Reports/Reviewof20mphZonesinLondonBoroughsFullReport.pdf

  London has around 10,000 km of roads that could be classed as residential and potentially suitable for 20 mph speed limits. Road humps are not popular with car drivers, buses and the emergency services. New Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology is becoming available that will allow 20 mph zones to be enforced using time-distance cameras. These would work by being placed at the entry/exit gateways to the zone, and recording the number plate and time of passage of every vehicle entering and leaving the zone. The times of entry and exit can be compared and a "travel time" between two points calculated. This can be compared with a threshold time, based on travelling at 20 mph (plus a percentage allowance, as per current Association of Chief Police Officer guidance) and speeding motorists identified.

  6.2  This method has the advantages of minimal street clutter and no negative effects for emergency vehicles or buses. This method has huge potential in London, especially if the fine income could be used to fund new camera schemes. De-criminalising speeding in 20 mph zones in London may be one way in which schemes could be self-funding. Alternatively, an agreement from DfT to allow hypothecation of income of 20 mph zones in London would also allow zones to be funded.

  6.3  Using this new technology could allow London's residential streets to be 20 mph zones in the next 10 years, rather than the 35+ years it would take to install road humps. This is a real opportunity to halve casualties in London's residential areas, using self-funding measures. It will be vital, however, to allow the fine income to be retained in order to run the camera systems and fund new schemes.

7.  CONCLUSIONS

  7.1  Road safety professionals agree that roads policing is a vital element of any road safety strategy and that levels of roads policing have generally been falling; this is particularly so in London. The results of this can be seen, for example, in rising rates of "hit and run" collisions in the Capital and general disobedience of the law by drivers.

  7.2  There is no published research that has quantified a robust link between levels of policing and casualty reductions, but TfL and the Metropolitan Police Service hope to undertake such research in the near future.

  7.3  A great deal has been achieved in road safety using tried and tested methods, but the time is now ripe to really use technology to tackle the remaining huge road safety problem.

  7.4  TfL is developing time-distance camera systems to enforce 20 mph speed limit zones in residential areas. This will need hypothecated funding to allow residential zones in London to be treated over the next 10 years.

21 February 2006