Road Safety News
 

Seminar will look at “what matters, what works”

Tuesday 14th January 2014

A road safety seminar being organised by CAPT will focus on reducing the inequalities in child deaths and injuries on the roads.

The seminar, “What Matters, what works”, is being supported by the DfT and will be held in London on 11 March.

CAPT says that a child from a deprived neighbourhood is up to five times more likely to get killed or injured on the road than a child in a well-off area.

The seminar, part of CAPT’s Making the Link project, will showcase the latest thinking in this important area of injury prevention. It is intended for road safety professionals, public health specialists and practitioners, highways engineers, policy makers and researchers.

Confirmed speakers include: Peter Goldblatt and Heather Ward, University College London; Duncan Vernon, RoSPA; Katrina Phillips, CAPT; Davina Hartley and Simon D’Vali, Bradford MDC; Bill Smith, Children’s Traffic Club; and Halema Uddin, Haringey Council.

The delegate fee is £48. Click here to book or for more information contact Gillian Colver at CAPT.

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Good to see the debate is already underway. These are the kind of issues we will be exploring at the seminar. And comments like this help as we move into the final stages of preparation for the event. Please join us!
Kevin Lowe, CAPT

Agree (1) | Disagree (3)
-2

Some initial work in MAST showed that (for the City involved) whilst for most socio-economic groups the peaks were morning (smaller)and after school (larger), for the most deprived it continued during the 6pm to 9pm period at an increased level. This indicates (not proves) children from that group are about more in the dark and are probably less supervised. Note this was based on home location, not collision location.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (2) | Disagree (0)
+2

Sorry John Morrison. While what you write will also be a factor, the fact remains that children of the better-off tend to live where there are wider roads, wider pavements, more off-road play areas etc.
Idris Francis Fight Back with Facts Petersfield

Agree (6) | Disagree (2)
+4

The link between deprivation and child accidents mainly relates to road casualties and domestic fires. There are of course many more causes of accidental injury for children, which are also influenced by many other different factors (ethnicity, age, developmental factors, gender etc). In some instances the link between deprivation and accidental injury is created by the exposure to harm as opposed any form of dangerous behaviour. Different studies show different results because they use different factors to measure deprivation. There is plenty of work and research in this field. I guess that is why Crucial Crew/LASER Schemes have been so successful in getting risk management lessons to children of all backgrounds.
Supplied

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

“A child from a deprived neighbourhood is up to five times more likely to get killed or injured on the road than a child in a well-off area.”

Are they only talking about accidents that occurred on the roads within that deprived neighbourhood where, as Duncan says, the road characteristics and population density may play a part, or do they mean accidents anywhere, but which happened to involve children from a deprived neighbourhood, possibly many miles away?

There are extremely well-off areas in London where the roads have no driveways, have parked cars and narrow roads. If a child from a 'deprived' neighbourhood is hit by a speeding driver on a road in a ‘well-off’ area - what’s the conclusion? Supposing it’s neither a ‘deprived’ area nor a ‘well-off’ area?

As usual, too much reliance on ‘data’ and not enough examination of the actual circumstances.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (10) | Disagree (3)
+7

For top 10% most deprived wards compared to least 10% deprived wards ped fatalities are 3:1. For children it's 4:1. Hardly "slightly elevated".
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (8) | Disagree (7)
+1

Poorer areas tend to have a much higher population density than well-off areas. There are also fewer driveways, the roads tend to be narrower and the vehicle stock tends to be older. Taking all this together, it is not surprising that the accident rate is marginally elevated.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (15) | Disagree (2)
+13

I doubt if there is any more danger in deprived area, but as John Morrison says the exposure is far higher because the children do not have the choice to be driven to school. But the "safeness" of driving children to school is undermined by denying them the independent mobility that similar aged children gain from far more child friendly road environments in other countries. If denied the ability to walk or cycle independently through their teens then children will aspire towards the only transport mode that they have experienced.

There is perhaps no better way to develop a single mode and congested transport model than keeping a road environment that prevails against parents giving their children the opportunity for independent mobility. For every 20 something driving around without due concern for vulnerable road users then see a previous teen who never experienced what it was like to walk or cycle on the roads.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (8) | Disagree (5)
+3

Obviously cutting casualties in deprived areas has to be a priority. But it's wrong to think that better-off areas are 'safe' because kids don't get hit by cars. Their middle class parents are so terrified of the traffic that they won't let them walk alone or cycle, so they get driven everywhere. That's a road safety problem even if it can't be measured in casualty statistics.
John Morrison

Agree (19) | Disagree (1)
+18

Is it not inevitable that the areas in which deprived children are likely to live are far more dangerous than where their more fortunate peers live? I hope you report here how the delegates plan to solve that problem.
Idris Francis Fight Back with Facts Petersfield

Agree (10) | Disagree (6)
+4