engineering a safer future - amazon s3 · 2017-06-19 · engineering a safer future eurorap 2012...
TRANSCRIPT
Engineering a Safer Future
EuroRAP 2012 ResultsSponsored
by Ageas
Performance managing busy high risk routes to minimum safety levels
ATIONFO
UN
D
1
Contents
Forewords
The government is undertaking a review of finance and ownership of the road network. This is a radical
reform. Shortly, some of the fuel and road tax that drivers pay may well go directly to those who manage our roads. If reform is done well, it could mean an end to short term patch and mend. It could mean Britain investing for the long term boosting safety and economic growth. The arrangements for safety will be key to whether public support for reform is won or lost. Fortunately, the public’s view and good economics point the same way. Some
2% of British GDP is lost in road crashes. The respected OECD has urged countries to look at their institutions and focus on the economic cost of road crashes.
Other leading countries are investing to upgrade safety on major roads. Dutch Ministers have announced a minimum 3-star safety rating for their national network by 2020 following an assessment of costs, benefits and practicality.
The British public should not be driving 5-star cars on 1- and 2-star roads. The government has an opportunity to make the achievement of minimum safety levels the centrepiece of any reform.
This year’s annual report compares how the safety of each stretch of Britain’s 45,000kms of motorways and A roads changed between the first half of the last decade (2001-2005) and the second (2006-2010).
The planned reforms in road financing means a new focus on measuring safety performance and the high returns quickly available from safety engineering. Most A roads are higher risk than motorways. Deaths can be frequent when these carry high traffic flows. This year, for the first time, we have introduced a listing of “busy higher risk roads” where the economic case for intervention is compelling.
You cannot manage what you do not measure.
As taxpayers, we spend around £10bn each year on roads. Insurers like Ageas pay out £10bn more to meet the cost of crash claims. The Foundation’s annual publication is the key measure of the safety of Britain’s roads and demonstrates both the need for action on high risk roads and the positive results this can have.
As a leading UK insurer, Ageas is the fourth largest private car insurer covering around three million vehicles - over 11 per cent of the UK market. We also employ 5,500 people, many of whom deal with the consequences of road traffic incidents on a daily basis. All are exposed to risk on the roads.
In the interest of protecting both our customers and employees, I am proud that Ageas is supporting this key report from the Foundation.
Lord Dubs of Battersea Chairman, Road Safety Foundation
Barry Smith Chief Executive, Ageas (UK) Limited
Dr Joanne Marden Director, Road Safety Foundation
ii
Forewords 1
Key findings 2
Regional findings 3
Improved roads 4
Most improved 6
Persistently higher risk roads 8
Risk Rating of Britain’s Motorways and A Roads 10
High risk roads with motorcycles 16
Busy higher risk roads 18
Highest risk road by region 20
Further Information
About the Network 22
About Risk Mapping 22
About Performance Tracking 23
About the Road Safety Foundation 24
About EuroRAP 24
Acknowledgements 25
2 3
Key findings
Fatal and serious crashes on Britain’s roads have reduced by 36% over the last decade
Motorways and single carriageways each account for
34% of travel on the network, with
19%on dual carriageways
4 in10 fatal and serious crashes occur on rural roads
people are killed or70 seriously injured on Britain’s roads every day
of Britain’s motorways and A roads have unacceptably high risk6%
is lost annually in road crashes on Britain’s roads
£15.6bn
Average risk on Britain’s motorways and A roads has fallen by 25% in the last five years
Motorcyclists make up just of traffic but of all fatal crashes
18% 1%
Regional findings
of motorways,
of single carriageways were rated in the ‘low risk’ safety standard
91%9%
31% of duals
&
3%
The number of people killed on Britain’s roads in 2011 increased by to 1,901 from 1,850 in 2010
1% of the network surveyed rated as high risk, medium-high, 5%
low
21%56%16%
medium,
low-medium
and
1 in 10 non primary A roads are rated as higher risk compared to
1 in 33 primary A roads
Motorways and dual carriageways have seen the greatest improvement with a 23%reduction in fatal and serious crashes compared to single carriageways at
18%
Single carriageways have
times the risk of motorways and times the risk of duals6 3
One-third of all crashes on the motorway and A road network occurred at a junction, 22%were run-offs, 18% pedestrians and cyclists, 9% head-on and 7% rear-end shunts
of fatal and serious crashes occur on single 62% carriageways, 15% on mixed carriageways, 13% on duals and 10% on motorways
Road travel in the West Midlands is the safest. More than half of the travel is on generally lower risk motorways or dual carriageways and, crucially, single carriageway safety is well above the average. There are few high risk roads.
“ “The risk of death and serious injury on Britain’s motorways and A roads is highest in Scotland and lowest in West Midlands
1 in 6 non primary single carriageways are high risk in the North-West compared to
1 in 32 in the South-West
The greatest improvement has been in the East of England where risk has dropped by
30% in the last 5 years
Risk on motorways is highest in the
East of England
Single carriageways in the North-West have the highest average risk; those in the South-West have the lowest
travelled on Britain’s motorways and A roads is in the South-East
1 in 5 km
Wales carries the lowest traffic flow of all regions at 6%
10%
The road geography of Scotland is Britain’s most challenging; accounting for one quarter of Britain’s motorways and A road by length and of travel
4 5
Improved roads
Ranked by percentage reduction in the number of fatal or serious (F&S) crashes between 2001-05 and 2006-10; significant reduction in the number of F&S crashes between data periods at the 98% confidence level; section lengths are greater than 5.5km; minimum of 13 F&S crashes 2001-05; minimum F&S crash density of 1 F&S/km 2001-05; * indicates roads classified as non-primary; 1 road type accounting for at least 80% of section length; 2 EuroRAP Risk Rating based on the number of fatal or serious crashes per billion vehicle km travelled: black (high risk), red (medium-high risk), orange (medium risk), yellow (low-medium risk), green (low risk); measures implemented based on road authority responses to pre-publication consultation.
Road
num
ber
From
-to
desc
ript
ion
Regi
on/c
ount
ry
Leng
th (k
m)
Road
type
1
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
01-
05
Euro
RAP
Risk
Ra
ting
(20
01-
05)
2
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
06-
10
Euro
RAP
Risk
Ra
ting
(20
06-
10)2
% d
ecre
ase
in n
o.
F&S
cras
hes
Mea
sure
s im
plem
ente
d in
clud
e:
A605*B1095 (Peterborough) - A141
E 20 Single 34 97.1 9 25.9 74%Installation of traffic signals at busy junction, fixed speed cameras throughout villages, mobile camera enforcement sites, pelican crossing
A435*Cheltenham - A46
SW 12 Single 29 93.4 8 26.2 72%
Junction improvements including widening, signing and lining, interactive signs, resurfacing, traffic calming, speed limit changes, toucan crossing
A120Puckeridge - Braintree
E 41 Mixed 71 43.7 23 11.0 68%Kerb re-alignment, additional warning signs, high friction surfacing, speed limit changes, road marking improvements
A52Nottingham RR - Bingham
EM 13 Mixed 39 47.2 13 15.9 67%Average speed cameras, consistency of signing and markings, 50mph buffer zones between 40mph/NSL, central safety barriers
A1066 Thetford - Diss E 31 Single 40 94.4 15 37.3 63%
Junction re-shaping, construction of splitter island, surface treatments, lining and signing consistency, pedestrian crossing provision, cycle lanes
A41Hemel Hempstead - Aylesbury
E/ SE 28 Dual 70 47.9 27 18.1 61%Bypass opened around Aston Clinton in 2003, improved roundabout with signing and lining, speed limit changes
A612*
A6011 (Nottingham) - A617 (Newark on Trent)
EM 27 Single 72 127.2 28 53.2 61% Interactive signs, speed cameras, skid resistant surfacing, improved signalling for right turns
A4010High Wycombe - Aylesbury
SE 24 Single 44 70.3 18 28.7 59%
Re-surfacing, right turn restriction at busy junction, staggered junction re-design, speed limit reduction from national speed limit to 50mph and 40mph, new road markings
A52Boston - Skegness
EM 33 Single 57 104.9 27 54.4 53%
Improved signing and lining including a central ladder in wider sections, bend signing scheme, introduction of 50mph across total length, interactive signs
A590M6 J36 - Barrow-in-Furness
NW 52 Mixed 85 47.1 41 23.3 52% Junction re-alignment, improved signing and lining, lay-by improvements
Table 1. Britain’s most improved roads (2001-2005 vs. 2006-2010)
Map
key
1
3
2
4
6
9
5
8
7
10
Improved roads are those where there has been a statistically significant reduction in the number of fatal or serious crashes over time. Only 1% of road sections analysed this year qualified, equating to 573kms (359 miles). The top ten are shown in Table 1. The majority are primary single carriageway A roads.
Between 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 fatal and serious crashes on those roads listed fell by nearly two-thirds (61%) from 541 to 209. This represents an economic welfare cost saving of £35m or £120,000 per kilometre annually.
When consulted, road authorities responsible for these sections reported that measures implemented during the most recent survey period were aimed at reducing crashes at junctions, those involving loss of
control and at speeds higher than the posted limit.
Speed enforcement with fixed and mobile cameras and speed limit changes were reported on all but two of the most improved roads. Changes to the layout and traffic management at junctions was also a common feature. Measures included the installation of traffic signals to control traffic flow; restricting turning movements onto roads with high traffic levels or poor visibility; widening entry and exit lanes with associated changes to the lining and signing; advanced warning signs; and installing high friction and coloured surfacing.
Detailed information on the road topping this list is given overleaf.
6
Most improvedThis year’s most improved road is a rural 20km (13 mile) single carriageway section of the A605 in Cambridgeshire.
Over the two survey periods, the number of fatal and serious crashes on this section fell by 74% (34 to 9), and its rating improved from the medium risk (orange) category in 2001-2005 to low-medium risk (yellow) in 2006-2010.
Between 2001-2005, crashes at junctions, involving pedestrians and cyclists and vehicles running off the road were prominent, each accounting for 30% of all fatal and serious crashes along the route. Between 2006-2010, these proportions fell to 11% for each category.
A detailed drive-through inspection was carried out by the Road Safety Foundation in August 2012 to identify the route characteristics and measures that had been undertaken. Pictures shown are taken from the inspection video.
The route begins at the junction with the B1095 on the edge of the city of Peterborough. Running west, this 60mph section reaches the town of Whittlesey, with a 3km buffer zone of 40mph marking the approach, dropping to 30mph through the town.
Continuing for 9km the A605 passes through Eastrea and Coates, with a 30mph speed limit within the village boundaries and a 40mph speed limit on either side.
Gateways create a safer transition from high to low speeds
7
Accident plots detailing the location and type of crashes along the section showed a concentration in low speed sections. New gateway treatments warning road users that they are entering a different environment with different hazards were implemented along the route. In addition to an intermediary speed limit “dragon’s teeth” markings were added at the village boundary. These can give the perception of the road narrowing and can act as a natural braking zone. Modern cars are tested to provide side impact protection to occupants at crash speeds up to 29mph. Pedestrians generally do not survive impacts at greater than 25mph. Reducing speeds modestly so that impacts after braking become survivable can bring disproportionate benefits.
Aimed at speed related crashes, a combination of fixed and mobile speed camera sites were implemented along this section in 2003 and 2004 by Cambridgeshire County Council, resulting in fewer crashes at these locations.
The most significant drop in serious crashes has been on the 9km section between Whittlesey and Coates where the number of fatal and serious crashes have fallen by 74% (from 23 to 6). In economic terms this represents a saving of £1.4m per year (£150,000 per kilometre) over the period surveyed.
The remainder of the route is predominantly straight with generally open fields on either side of the carriageway and telegraph poles close to the side of the road in places. Set at the national speed limit, road markings along this section are well defined and forward visibility is good.
Straight sections with no dangerous roadside hazards can be safe if a vehicle loses control at legal speeds
Self-explaining routes with clear signing and lining halve the risk of death and serious injury
Signalised junctions manage traffic flow and regulate right-turning movements
Interspersed along the straight sections are three bends, which on drive-through inspection had been subject to a programme of signing and lining. In 2001-2005, two of these bends saw high concentrations of crashes. In 2006-2010 fatal and serious crashes had dropped by 83% from 6 to just 1.
The route comes to an end where it meets the A141 near the hamlet of Hobbs Lot Bridge. The
previous layout at this point had been identified by Cambridgeshire County Council as having a high potential for severe crashes. A signalised junction was introduced in 2008, with the aim of managing the flow of traffic along the road with that turning into and joining from the right. Since the introduction of traffic lights, no fatal or serious crashes have been reported.
8 9
Persistently higher risk roads
Ranked by EuroRAP Risk Rating 2006-10; no significant reduction in the number of F&S crashes between data periods; section lengths are greater than 5.5km; minimum number of 13 F&S crashes 2001-05, 10 in 2006-10; minimum F&S crash density of 1 F&S/km in both data periods; * indicates roads classified as non-primary; 1 road type accounting for at least 80% of section length; 2 EuroRAP Risk Rating based on the number of fatal or serious crashes per billion vehicle km travelled: black (high risk), red (medium-high risk), orange (medium risk), yellow (low-medium risk), green (low risk); 3 percentages may not sum due to rounding. Some of the roads listed may have had measures implemented since 2010.
Table 2. Britain’s persistently higher risk roads (2001-2005 & 2006-2010)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Road
num
ber
From
– to
des
crip
tion
Regi
on/c
ount
ry
Leng
th (k
m)
Road
type
1
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
01-
200
5
Euro
RAP
Risk
Rat
ing
(20
01-
05)
2
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
06-
10
Euro
RAP
Risk
Rat
ing
(20
06-
10)2
% c
hang
e in
no.
F&
S cr
ashe
s
% contribution of crash types (2006-10)3
Pede
stri
ans/
cycl
ists
Junc
tion
s
Run-
offs
Hea
d-on
s
Rear
-end
shu
nts
Oth
er
A537 Macclesfield - Buxton NW 12 Single 32 293.5 53 516.8 66% 4% 23% 30% 19% 2% 23%
A5012*A515 (Pikehall) - A6 (Matlock)
EM 15 Single 19 230.0 23 239.5 21% 9% 30% 30% 9% 9% 13%
A809*B8050 (nr Milngavie) - A811 (nr Croftamie)
Scot 16 Single 17 134.8 24 195.0 41% 4% 13% 38% 29% 0% 17%
A5004*Whaley Bridge(A6) - Buxton
EM 12 Single 21 203.4 21 187.7 0% 10% 10% 52% 10% 0% 19%
A621* A619 (Baslow) - Totley EM 9 Single 25 283.6 16 172.8 -36% 0% 25% 44% 25% 0% 6%
A530*A525 (Burleydam) - Nantwich
NW 13 Single 23 166.9 23 161.8 0% 22% 39% 26% 9% 0% 4%
A54 Congleton - Buxton NW 24 Single 32 176.9 29 150.2 -9% 14% 10% 28% 14% 3% 31%
A581*A59 (Rufford) - A49 (Chorley)
NW 11 Single 19 162.2 16 140.8 -16% 6% 25% 38% 13% 0% 19%
A588*A585 (Blackpool) - A6 (Lancaster)
NW 29 Single 53 219.2 37 140.0 -30% 14% 32% 27% 16% 3% 8%
A559*M56 J10 - Lostock Gralam
NW 10 Single 16 115.9 22 138.6 38% 5% 50% 32% 9% 0% 5%
Map
key
Persistently higher risk roads are those rated high (black) or medium-high (red) risk in both survey periods and which have shown little or no change over time. The top ten are listed in Table 2.
The majority fall in the North-West and the East Midlands. Eight of the ten are non-primary single carriageway A roads. Run-off and junction crashes are predominant accounting for one-third and a quarter, respectively, of all fatal and serious crashes on those roads listed.
Four of the ten authorities responsible for these routes reported loss of control, particularly at bends, as a common issue requiring intervention. Typical countermeasures have included the introduction of interactive warning signs and anti-skid surfacing, the removal of roadside hazards (such as trees, signs and lamp-posts), and the introduction of road studs. For junction crashes improved signing, lining, resurfacing with high friction treatments, and speed reductions were common.
The section at the top of this year’s persistently higher risk roads is the A537 between Macclesfield and Buxton, known nationally as the Cat and Fiddle. This road has featured at the top of this list for the past four years and further details can be found on page 16.
This year’s second highest risk road is the A5012 between Pikehall and Matlock. A tourist route through the Peak District National Park this 15km single carriageway, non-primary A road saw a 21% increase in crashes between survey periods from 19 to 23. Crashes at junctions and those involving vehicles running off the road account for the majority (60%) of those on the section between 2006 and 2010.
In addition to a continuous package of resurfacing and signing improvements along the length, speed awareness campaigns aimed at all road users are currently being rolled out.
10
miles
kms
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50 60 70 80
Road Assessment Programme Risk Rating
Low risk (safest) roads
Low-medium risk roads
Medium risk roads
Medium-high risk roads
High risk roads
Motorway
Single and dual carriageway
Linking roads
This map shows the statistical risk of death or serious injury occurring on Britain’s motorway and A road network for 2006-2010. Covering 45,000km in total, these roads represent just 11% of Britain’s road length but carry 56% of the traffic. Half of Britain’s fatal crashes occur on these roads.
The risk is calculated by comparing the frequency of road crashes resulting in death and serious injury on every stretch of road with how much traffic each road is carrying. For example, if there are 20 collisions on a road carrying 10,000 vehicles a day, the risk is 10 times higher than if the road has the same number of collisions but carries 100,000 vehicles.
Some of the roads shown have had improvements made to them recently, but during the survey period the risk of a fatal or serious injury collision on the black road sections was 27 times higher than on the safest (green) roads.
For more information on the Road Safety Foundation go to www.roadsafetyfoundation.org.
For more information on the statistical background to this research, visit the EuroRAP website at www.eurorap.org.
Risk Rating of Britain’sMotorways and A Roads
12
miles
kms
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50 60 70 80
Road Assessment Programme Risk Rating
Low risk (safest) roads
Low-medium risk roads
Medium risk roads
Medium-high risk roads
High risk roads
Motorway
Single and dual carriageway
Linking roads
14
miles
kms
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50 60 70 80
Road Assessment Programme Risk Rating
Low risk (safest) roads
Low-medium risk roads
Medium risk roads
Medium-high risk roads
High risk roads
Motorway
Single and dual carriageway
Linking roads
© Road Safety Foundation 2012. The Foundation is indebted to the Department for Transport (DfT), the Scottish Government and the National Assembly for Wales for allowing use of data in creating the map. This work has been sponsored by Ageas®. Collision information is for 2006-2010, the most recent available when the map was prepared. Traffic data is the average for 2006-2010 weighted by section length with local corrections where appropriate. The roads shown are based on the 2008 network but the map excludes the centres of major cities. No results are presented for roads shown in grey - these are either motorway spurs, connecting sections off the major route network, are short links, or roads that opened part way through the data period. Risk rates on road sections vary but it is expected that, on average, those off the A road network will have higher rates than sections on it. Generally motorways and high quality dual carriageway roads function in a similar way and are safer than single carriageway or mixed carriageway roads.
Prepared under licence from EuroRAP AISBL using protocols © Copyright EuroRAP AISBL. This map may not be reproduced without the consent of the Road Safety Foundation.
16 17
High risk roads with motorcycles
Ranked by contribution to EuroRAP Risk Rating 2006-10 from motorcyclists; no significant reduction in the number of F&S crashes (all vehicles) between data periods; no significant reduction in the number of F&S crashes involving motorcyclists between data periods; section lengths are greater than 5.5 km; minimum number of 9 F&S crashes involving motorcyclists 2001-05, 8 in 2006-10; minimum F&S crash density (all vehicles) of 1 F&S/km in 2006-10; % total of F&S crashes involving motorcyclists >33% 2006-10; contribution to EuroRAP Risk Rating from F&S involving motorcyclists above average 2006-10; * indicates roads classified as non-primary; 1 road type accounting for at least 80% of section length; 2 EuroRAP Risk Rating based on the number of fatal or serious crashes per billion vehicle km travelled: black (high risk), red (medium-high risk), orange (medium risk), yellow (low-medium risk), green (low risk); 3 percentages may not sum due to rounding. Some of the roads listed may have had measures implemented since 2010.
Table 3. Britain’s highest risk roads with high numbers of fatal or serious crashes involving motorcyclists (2006-2010)
Map
key
Roads listed in Table 3 fall into the higher risk categories in the latest survey period (2006-2010) and have a significant proportion of fatal or serious crashes involving motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists have the highest fatality rate of any road user group. They accounted for just 1% of the traffic on the network analysed in this report, but were overrepresented in high severity crashes, accounting for 26% of all fatal and serious collisions reported. The majority of these occurred at junctions (53%), with 15% involving vehicles running off the road, 7% rear-end shunts and 6% head-ons.
For every kilometre travelled, motorcyclists are 50 times more likely to be killed than car occupants.
Just under two-thirds of motorcycle fatalities occur in rural areas ‡. On Britain’s rural A roads and motorways, for every kilometre travelled, motorcyclists are four times more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious crash when travelling on single carriageways compared
to dual carriageways and motorways.
The top ten listed in Table 3 are typically scenic routes at or on the way to National Parks or coastal areas, in the North-West, South-East, East Midlands and Yorkshire & the Humber.
The road topping this year’s list is the A537 Macclesfield to Buxton. On this section motorcyclists comprised just 1% of traffic but 70% of all crashes resulting in death or serious injury.
Following a crash investigation study, Cheshire East Council installed motorcycle-friendly barriers on high risk bends in 2008 – involving the use of a secondary rail below the existing barrier, preventing riders from sliding under the horizontal beams and impacting metal support posts. In 2009 rearward facing average speed cameras were installed at 7 locations along the route in a programme aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries amongst high-powered two-wheelers by 10%.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Road
num
ber
From
– to
des
crip
tion
Regi
on/c
ount
ry
Leng
th (k
m)
Road
type
1
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s in
volv
ing
mot
orcy
clis
ts 2
00
6-10
% o
f tot
al F
&S
cras
hes
on
sec
tion
Euro
RAP
Risk
Rat
ing
(all
vehi
cles
) (20
06-
2010
)2
Cont
ribu
tion
to E
uroR
AP
Risk
Ra
ting
from
mot
orcy
clis
ts
(20
06-
10)
% of F&S crashes involving motorcyclists by type (2006-10)3
Pede
stri
ans/
cycl
ists
Junc
tion
s
Run-
offs
Hea
d-on
s
Rear
-end
shu
nts
Oth
er
A537 Macclesfield - Buxton NW 12 Single 37 70% 516.8 360.8 0% 35% 42% 13% 3% 6%
A5012*A515 (Pikehall) - A6 (Matlock)
EM 15 Single 18 78% 239.5 187.4 8% 50% 33% 0% 0% 8%
A621* A619 (Baslow) - Totley EM 9 Single 10 63% 172.8 108.0 0% 43% 43% 14% 0% 0%
A54 Congleton - Buxton NW 24 Single 16 55% 150.2 82.8 0% 15% 38% 31% 0% 15%
A272*A31 (Winchester) - A3 (Petersfield)
SE 25 Single 19 63% 97.6 61.8 0% 29% 46% 17% 8% 0%
A285*A27 (Chichester) - A272 (Petworth)
SE 19 Single 11 46% 129.3 59.2 0% 33% 11% 33% 0% 22%
A169* Pickering - A171 (Whitby) Y&H 30 Single 13 42% 137.6 57.8 0% 39% 28% 22% 6% 6%
A588*A585 (Blackpool) - A6 (Lancaster)
NW 29 Single 15 41% 140.0 56.8 0% 25% 31% 19% 13% 13%
A534Welsh boundary - Nantwich
NW 25 Single 11 42% 106.8 45.2 0% 60% 15% 20% 5% 0%
A259 Brenzett - Hastings SE 30 Single 23 43% 100.3 43.5 0% 50% 30% 10% 0% 10%
‡ Department for Transport (2012) Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2011 Annual Report
18 19
Busy higher risk roads
Ranked by number of fatal and serious crashes per kilometre 2006-10; traffic flow is above average for the road type to which each section belongs in both data periods; section lengths are greater than 5.5 km; minimum F&S crash density of 1 F&S/km in both data periods; minimum of 13 F&S crashes in 2001-05, 10 in 2006-10; EuroRAP Risk Rating above average of medium (orange) category in both data periods; *indicates roads classified as non-primary; 1 road type accounting for at least 80% of section length; 2 EuroRAP Risk Rating based on the number of fatal or serious crashes per billion vehicle km travelled: black (high risk), red (medium-high risk), orange (medium risk), yellow (low-medium risk), green (low risk); 3 percentages may not sum due to rounding. Some of the roads listed may have had measures implemented since 2010.
Table 4. Britain’s busy higher risk roads (2006-2010)
Map
key
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
Road
num
ber
From
– to
des
crip
tion
Regi
on/c
ount
ry
Leng
th (k
m)
Road
type
1
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
06-
10
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s pe
r ki
lom
etre
20
06-
2010
Ave
rage
ann
ual d
aily
tr
affic
20
06-
10
Euro
RAP
Risk
Rat
ing
(20
06-
2010
)2
% contribution of crash types (2006-2010)3
Pede
stri
ans/
cycl
ists
Junc
tion
s
Run-
offs
Hea
d-on
s
Rear
-end
shu
nts
Oth
er
A21 A229 - Hastings SE 23 Single 77 3.3 13883 130.8 21% 35% 12% 18% 1% 13%
A642Wakefield - Huddersfield
Y&H 14 Single 34 2.4 13650 97.6 29% 35% 21% 6% 0% 9%
A1101Outwell (A1122) - Long Sutton (A17)
EM/E 21 Single 48 2.3 9653 131.5 31% 25% 19% 15% 4% 6%
A646 Burnley - Halifax NW/Y&H 30 Single 70 2.3 10811 117.3 33% 27% 16% 16% 0% 9%
A619Chesterfield - Baslow
EM 14 Single 27 2.0 10843 98.8 26% 26% 19% 19% 0% 11%
A113*Chigwell - Chipping Ongar
E 17 Single 32 1.9 10221 102.8 3% 41% 19% 19% 3% 16%
A271* A22 - Battle SE 21 Single 35 1.7 8341 111.4 20% 40% 23% 9% 0% 9%
A65Long Preston - M6 J36
NW/Y&H 42 Single 61 1.5 8547 94.1 2% 46% 15% 16% 3% 18%
A264*East Grinstead - Tunbridge Wells
SE 21 Single 30 1.4 8749 89.5 17% 20% 20% 27% 0% 17%
A1077*M181 - Barton-upon-Humber
Y&H 24 Single 34 1.4 7593 101.4 21% 29% 29% 12% 0% 9%
Roads rated in the higher risk categories can include examples where an individual road user’s exposure to risk is far above average, making them obvious candidates for priority action. This can often include sections with relatively low traffic volumes. Narrow, twisting, country roads are stereotypical candidates.
However, the economic case for intervention can also be compelling where large volumes of traffic are exposed to risk levels above average. Elected leaders worldwide increasingly want engineers to manage busy high risk routes to clear minimum safety levels, typically a minimum 3-star safety rating.
The top ten roads listed in Table 4 and are those with:
• a risk rating over the average of the medium risk banding (orange);
• higher than average traffic flows for A roads on the network surveyed;
• a high crash density.
Six of the ten are primary A roads. These carry an average of 10,000 vehicles per day compared to 7,000 on local authority non-primary A roads.
Improving the risk rating of the sections listed below, to just the average of the road type to which each belongs, has the potential to save 45 fatal or serious crashes per year, reaping a benefit in crash cost savings of £20m annually.
20 21
20%
10%
7%7% 12%
3%
9%
12%
10% 10%
21%
11%
6%9% 12%
3%
10%
10%
9% 9%
13%
12%
10%
6% 9%
3%
7%
25%
7% 8%
Highest risk road by regionTable 5 shows the highest risk road section in each of the regions, Scotland and Wales. Roads listed are ranked by EuroRAP risk rating from highest to lowest. Short sections and those with low crash numbers
have been excluded. Full commentary for each region, including regional risk maps, can be found at www.roadsafetyfoundation.org.
Ranked by EuroRAP Risk Rating 2006-10; section lengths are greater than 5.5km; minimum number of 10 F&S crashes in 2006-10; minimum F&S crash density of 1 F&S/km in 2006-10; * indicates roads classified as non-primary; 1 road type accounting for at least 80% of section length; 2 EuroRAP Risk Rating based on the number of fatal or serious crashes per billion vehicle km travelled: black (high risk), red (medium-high risk), orange (medium risk), yellow (low-medium risk), green (low risk); 3 percentages may not sum due to rounding. Some of the roads listed may have had measures implemented since 2010.
Table 5. Britain’s highest risk roads by region (2006-2010)
Regi
on/c
ount
ry
Road
num
ber
From
– to
des
crip
tion
Leng
th (k
m)
Road
type
1
No.
F&
S cr
ashe
s 20
06-
10
Euro
RAP
Risk
Rat
ing
(20
06-
2010
)2
% c
hang
e in
no.
F&
S cr
ashe
s (2
00
1-20
05
vs
200
6-20
10)
% contribution of crash types (2006-2010)3
Pede
stri
ans/
cycl
ists
Junc
tion
s
Run-
offs
Hea
d-on
s
Rear
-end
shu
nts
Oth
er
North-West A537 Macclesfield - Buxton 12 Single 53 516.8 66% 4% 23% 30% 19% 2% 23%
East Midlands
A5012*A515 (Pikehall) - A6 (Matlock)
15 Single 23 239.5 21% 9% 30% 30% 9% 9% 13%
Scotland A809*B8050 (nr Milngavie) - A811 (nr Croftamie)
16 Single 24 195.0 41% 4% 13% 38% 29% 0% 17%
East of England
A4012*A505 (Leighton Buzzard) - A5 (Leighton Buzzard)
8 Single 10 138.7 25% 10% 10% 52% 10% 0% 19%
Yorkshire & the Humber
A1077*A160 (nr Immingham) - Barton-upon-Humber
17 Single 18 136.4 80% 0% 25% 44% 25% 0% 6%
South-East A269* A271 - Bexhill 10 Single 22 133.2 10% 22% 39% 26% 9% 0% 4%
South-West A371*Wincanton - A37 (nr Shepton Mallet)
20 Single 23 110.0 5% 14% 10% 28% 14% 3% 31%
West Midlands
A451*Kidderminster - Stourbridge
7 Single 13 88.9 63% 6% 25% 38% 13% 0% 19%
Wales A4076Haverfordwest - Milford Haven
13 Single 27 78.5 59% 14% 32% 27% 16% 3% 8%
North-East A1086*A179 (Hartlepool) - A19 (Easington)
13 Single 16 71.0 14% 44% 31% 19% 0% 0% 6%
In the latest data period (2006-2010) Scotland accounted for the greatest proportion of the motorway and A road network surveyed. Covering one-quarter of the total length (9,929km), this is equivalent to the South-East and South-West combined. Despite the overall size of the network, just 12% of all fatal and serious crashes occurred in Scotland. The vast majority of this network (87%) is single carriageway (Figure 5).
South-East
East Midlands
South-West
East of England
Wales
North-East
West Midlands
North-West
Yorkshire & the Humber
Scotland
Figure 6. Proportion of fatal and serious crashes by region
Figure 5. Proportion of network length by region
Figure 8. Average risk rating by region over time
Figure 7. Proportion of traffic by region
Figure 9. Change in risk over time
Despite accounting for just 13% of the total road network by length, 1 in 5 fatal and serious crashes on motorways and A roads occurred in the South-East. Just 3% of crashes occurred in the North-East, the region with the shortest network length overall (Figure 6).
The South-East carried over one-fifth of traffic using the British motorway and A road network, significantly more than the remaining regions. Traffic flow was lowest in the North-East and Wales, carrying 3% and 6% respectively.
Risk ratings are calculated by comparing the frequency of death and serious crashes with how much traffic a road carried. Traffic flow can have a significant effect on the risk rating of individual sections, since only small numbers of fatal or serious collisions over a survey period can push a road into a higher risk category. For this reason, risk ratings of low flow roads are sensitive to minor fluctuations in crash numbers over time (Figure 7).
A combination of road types, road density and the amount of traffic carried can have an impact on the overall performance across the regions. In the period 2006-2010 average risk was highest in Scotland and lowest in the West Midlands. The average risk rate in Scotland was 65% higher than West Midlands.
Average risk across the network for 2006-2010 was 31 fatal and serious crashes per billion vehicle kilometres travelled. Higher than average risk was seen in Scotland, Yorkshire & the Humber, East Midlands, Wales and East of England while lower than average
risk was evident in the South-East, North-West, South-West, North-East and the West Midlands (Figure 8).
The average risk rating has fallen in all regions. This is most pronounced in the East of England, which has seen a 30% drop in the five years 2006-2010 compared to 2001-2005. In this region the number of fatal and serious crashes has fallen by 28%. The greatest improvement in this region has come from single carriageways. Motorways and A roads in the West Midlands have traditionally been some of the lowest risk in the country (Figure 9).
Aver
age
risk
rate
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
risk
ove
r tim
e
2001-2005 average risk rate 2006-2010 average risk rate
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
50
Scot
land
York
shire
&
the
Hum
ber
East
M
idla
nds
Wal
es
East
of
Engl
and
Sout
h-Ea
st
Nor
th-W
est
Sout
h-W
est
Nor
th-E
ast
Wes
t
Mid
land
s!""0$!"#"&'()*'+)&*,-.&*'/)&
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
Scot
land
York
shire
&
the
Hum
ber
East
M
idla
nds
Wal
es
East
of
Engl
and
Sout
h-Ea
st
Nor
th-W
est
Sout
h-W
est
Nor
th-E
ast
Wes
t
Mid
land
s
22 23
About Performance TrackingAbout the Network
About Risk Mapping
The 45,000km (27,000 mile) network analysed in this report includes all motorways and A roads in Britain.
• Motorways: major roads of regional and urban strategic importance, often used for long distance travel. Usually 3 or 4 lanes in each direction with a maximum speed of 70mph.
• Primary A roads: include trunk roads (managed by national road authorities), major roads forming the recommended routes for long-distance and freight traffic, and primary A roads (managed by local authorities).
• Non-primary A roads: the responsibility of local authorities, these roads exist where the route is important but where a nearby primary A road or motorway carries the majority of the traffic.
Routes outside urban cores, typically inside the inner ring road of major cities, are excluded since allocating crashes to specific roads is not straightforward, and improvements to safety standards differ from those in rural settings.
In countries where detailed crash and traffic data are available, EuroRAP risk maps give an objective view of where people are being killed or seriously injured on a road network and where their crash risk is greatest. By showing the number of fatal and serious crashes per kilometre travelled the results demonstrate the risk arising from the interaction of road users, vehicles and the road environment.
The emphasis of Risk Mapping is on identifying high risk routes rather than ‘blackspots’ or ‘cluster sites’. The costs of proactively treating known areas of high risks by upgrading the safety detailing along a length of road are often far lower than piecemeal change once a crash has occurred.
Risk maps help to create awareness and understanding of road safety risk as users move around a network. They are being increasingly adopted by road authorities and Governments across Europe as a way of prioritising network improvements and leveraging the funds required to take action.
The mapping in this report has been produced to a standardised methodology, making it possible to identify the lowest and highest risk sections nationwide. By comparing risk by region, they also provide consistent safety ratings of roads across borders. Risk Mapping is now available in more than 20 countries across Europe.
The methodology used here compares the number of crashes resulting in death or serious injury on a road with how much traffic it carries. This takes account of an individual road user’s exposure to risk. For example, a length of road with 20 fatal and serious crashes and carrying 10,000 vehicles per day will have a risk 10 times higher than a road with the same number of crashes but carrying 100,000 vehicles per day.
Motorways can have high crash numbers but they also carry the majority of the network’s traffic, giving an overall small exposure to risk for any one road
user. On the measure of the number of crashes by vehicle kilometres travelled a road with relatively few fatal and serious crashes can be rated as higher risk if it carries low volumes of traffic.
Road networks are aggregated into sections where they fall along the same numbered road and where design and operation is uniform. Crash and traffic data are assigned to each section, compiled into five-year periods to minimise year-to-year fluctuations.
Sections are allocated into colour-coded categories from high risk to low risk.
High risk
Medium-high risk
Medium risk
Low-medium risk
Low risk
The Risk Mapping shown in this year’s report uses the most up-to-date crash and traffic data available. Crash data are from the national road injury and accidents (STATS19) database provided by the Department for Transport (DfT), and include all crashes resulting in fatal or serious injuries during the data periods 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 inclusive. Traffic flows are from the DfT database based on automatic and manual vehicle counts, the latter carried out at three-yearly intervals. Values used for individual road sections are the average for the data periods 2001-2005 and 2006-2010 (inclusive) weighted by section length.
Risk maps showing the national and regional pictures, and by Parliamentary constituency, are available from www.roadsafetyfoundation.org.
Performance Tracking uses the data compiled for each risk map to assess how risk on the network as a whole, and on individual road sections, has changed over time, and is a way of measuring success and the effectiveness of investment in safer roads.
This is done in several stages:
1. Risk Mapping for consecutive five-year data periods are compared to identify road sections that have shown a statistically significant reduction in the number of fatal and serious crashes over time and those where there has been little or no change;
2. Data for individual years is checked to assess consistency of trends over time;
3. Highway authorities are consulted in order to build up information on specific issues affecting road safety, and on the types of engineering, enforcement or education measures that may have been implemented, and any actions planned in the immediate future.
The annual results include tracking of road sections where there is a high incidence of motorcycle involvement in fatal and serious crashes. This is particularly relevant given that the road safety measures required on different road sections will depend on the types of crashes and road users involved. For example, a section of road where the majority of crashes involve cars running off the side of the road at a particular bend will require a different approach to one where problems are largely of drivers making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.
This year’s results carry the following listings, comparing risk in 2001-2005 with 2006-2010:
• Improved roads• Persistently higher risk roads
Using the latest five-year data period only:
• High risk roads with motorcycles• Busy higher risk roads• Highest risk road by region
British Results from 2002 onwards can be viewed at www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/library
24 25
AcknowledgementsAbout the Road Safety Foundation
About EuroRAP
The Road Safety Foundation is a UK charity advocating road casualty reduction through simultaneous action on all three components of the safe road system: roads, vehicles and behaviour.
The Foundation has enabled work across each of these areas. Several of its published reports have provided the basis of new legislation and government policy.
For the last decade the charity has focused on leading the establishment of the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) in the UK and internationally.
Since the inception of EuroRAP in 1999, the Foundation has been the UK member responsible for managing the programme in the UK (and, more recently, Ireland), ensuring the UK provides a global model of what can be achieved.
The Foundation plays a pivotal role in raising awareness of the importance of road infrastructure at all levels including:
• regular publication of EuroRAP safety rating measures which can be understood by the general public, policy-makers and professionals;
• issuing guidance on the use of EuroRAP protocols at operational level by road authorities in order for engineers to improve the safety of the road infrastructure for which they are responsible;
• proposing national strategies and benchmarks.
The European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP AISBL) is an international not for profit association dedicated to saving lives through safer roads.
The programme aims to reduce death and serious injury through a programme of systematic testing of risk, identifying the major shortcomings that can be addressed by practical road improvement measures. It forges partnerships between those responsible for a safe road system – civil society, motoring organisations, vehicle manufacturers and road authorities, and aims to ensure that assessment of risk lies at the heart of strategic decisions on route improvements, crash protection and standards of route management.
Its Members are automobile and touring clubs, national and regional road authorities and researchers. The programme is supported by the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, the European Commission, the International Road Assessment Programme, motor industry, and governments.
For more information visit www.roadsafetyfoundation.org
For more information visit www.eurorap.org
Road Safety Foundation is registered in England & Wales under company number 02069723. Registered UK Charity number 295573. Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS, UK.
Registered Office: Rue de la Science 41, 1040 Brussels, Belgium. Registered in Belgium number 50962003. Company number 0479824257.
ATION
FOU
ND
The Road Safety Foundation is grateful for the financial support of Ageas in their sponsorship of the British EuroRAP Results 2012. The Foundation would like to thank iRAP and the FIA Foundation for their support. We would also like to thank those road authorities who responded to pre-publication consultation of the results and who have provided detailed information on specific road sections listed.
The detailed data used to produce these results was commissioned from TRL Limited and included the creation of the British EuroRAP network of road sections, assignment of crashes and traffic data to individual routes and classification of crash types.
The British EuroRAP programme is managed by Dr Joanne Marden. Analysis and validation was carried out by Caroline Moore. Pre-publication
consultation with road authorities on roads listed in the report was carried out by Caroline Moore and Josie Bowler. Cartography was carried out by Nick Moss, using Digital Map Data (c) Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2012). Regional mapping contains Ordnance Survey data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2012. The report was designed by Javelin.
The Foundation would like to thank the ADAC for their assistance in providing the inspection vehicle used to inspect the most improved roads featured in this report, and to Raphael Dziub who carried out the work.
Sole responsibility for this report lies with the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of supporters of the Road Safety Foundation or EuroRAP.
ATIONFO
UN
D
Engineering a Safer FuturePerformance managing busy high risk routes to minimum safety levels
Sponsored by Ageas
The Road Safety Foundation supports the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020
The government is undertaking a radical review of the finance and ownership of our major roads. Shortly, some of the fuel and road tax that drivers pay may well go directly to new organisations responsible for managing roads.
The arrangements for monitoring safety will be key to whether public support for reform is won or lost. This report details the safety levels, stretch by stretch, being achieved on 45,000 kilometres of motorway and A roads – the network on which half of Britain’s road deaths are concentrated.
It shows the most improved roads where some authorities have engineered safer routes with high returns. For the first time, the report identifies busy high risk roads where the suffering and cost of road crashes is especially concentrated.
The respected OECD has called on governments to re-examine their institutions and focus on the economic cost of road crashes which consume 2% of our GDP.
Other countries are implementing large high-return safety engineering programmes after evaluating costs, benefits and practicalities. They are setting minimum safety levels that make sense to investors, to authorities and to the public. Road operators are setting clear performance goals to which they can manage safety meaningfully.
Unlike other infrastructure projects, engineering safe junctions, safe roadsides and safe villages is popular and benefits the whole country. Engineering safer roads is an immediate, flexible and certain way to boost GDP.
The government has an opportunity to make engineering a safer future the centrepiece of the finance and ownership reforms it has in mind. This report maps the way.
Road Safety Foundation is registered in England & Wales under company number 02069723. Registered UK Charity number 295573. Registered Office: 60 Trafalgar Square, London, WC2N 5DS, UK.
Road Safety Foundation Worting House Basingstoke Hampshire RG23 8PX
Corresponding authors: Caroline Moore [email protected] and Dr Joanne Marden [email protected]
Copyright Road Safety Foundation 2012.
Content from this report, except for photographs, maps and illustrations, may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes providing the source is acknowledged.
Published by the Road Safety Foundation, October 2012.
Publication No.: RSF 02/2012