Road Safety News
 

Presentation will examine pedestrian risks

Thursday 31st July 2014

A new report which will examine how pedestrian risks change in the night time economy will be launched at the National Road Safety Conference later this year.

The report, titled ‘Things That Go Bump in the Night’, will be co-published by Road Safety Analysis and Road Safety GB.

The proportion of road casualties who are pedestrians is at its highest level for years, and with upward pressure on walking for health, economy and environmental reasons the challenge of maintaining safety for pedestrians is likely to further increase.

The risk of harm to pedestrians is even greater in urban areas as a result of the night-time economy; the heady cocktail of drunkenness, walking and proximity to traffic presents a serious road safety issue.

In this new study the authors will examine some complex behavioural motivators and begin to set a direction on how to address this key risk area.

The presentation will be delivered by Richard Owen, operations director at Road Safety Analysis.

With more than 10 years' road safety experience, Richard Owen’s areas of responsibility include enforcement management, service delivery, casualty analysis and oversight of cycle safety campaign work.

Richard is also a regular media spokesman on a range of road safety issues, author of a number of reports into road casualty trends and has worked on numerous award winning initiatives including MAST online and Crashmap.

National Road Safety Conference
The 2014 National Road Safety Conference is being hosted by Road Safety GB South East region at The Grand in Brighton, 25-26 November. The event is co-sponsored by Colas and AA DriveTech.

More than 160 people have already registered to attend and 13 organisations have booked to exhibit alongside the conference.

Click here for more information about the agenda and themes, click here for delegate fees and to register to attend, click here for information about exhibiting at the event – or here for information about sponsorship. For more information about the event contact either Sally Bartrum or Nick Rawlings on 01379 650112.

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:

This is probably off topic but I support what Rob is saying about rights versus licenced activity. There is a perception that because a car driver has a licence, paid tax and insurance they are in a superior position to pedestrians and cyclists who have not. Drivers of commercial vehicles, due to higher driving standards and costs think they are in a superior position to car drivers as well.

However, they are “looking through the wrong end of the telescope”. Apart from a few special roads and specific TROs, pedestrians have the right to use the public highway network. There are a few more limits on where cyclists and equestrians can go and some more on horse drawn vehicles.

When you come to motorised vehicles, Parliament have had to introduce successive constraints and licencing requirements to address the social, environmental and health issues that they have created, along with their many benefits and costs.

My ability to drive a car can be lost as easily as losing my glasses – literally, or I could have a fit or stroke. A car can become illegal to use on the road whilst it is driving along, either due to tyre wear, brake problems, failure of lights or one of any number of reasons that make it is no longer roadworthy. My car tax, insurance, MOT can all expire overnight if I forget and an insurance company can withdraw cover when they like. Drivers of commercial vehicles are, rightly, subject to higher levels of constraint as are their vehicles.

When people say, “Why don’t cyclists pay tax or have to have tests and insurance?” the answer is Parliament has not seen the need which means there is not a enough of problem for them to have brought forth legislation over the last 100 years apart from a restriction on the use of pavements (footways in law).
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
0

I think that one of the key aspects of any consideration of pedestrian risk is to put it into the perspective of walking and freedom of movement being a basic right, whereas the use of motorised vehicles is a licensed activity. Too often initiatives to reduce pedestrian exposure to risk focus on the denial of that right rather than the control of the licensed motorised activity.

As the article explains as we increase and encourage active travel within the urban realm then we will question the rights and values as a society between the freedom to walk and roam the public spaces between buildings that we call streets and the licensed use of motorised vehicles which are the predominant risk to those activities.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Idris
As I'm sure you know Richard Owen challenged Dave Finney's report in a detailed response which is also published in the Knowledge Centre alongside Dave's report. For Knowledge Centre subscribers here's the link to both:
http://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/sections/advocacy-papers/knowledge/1198.html

Also, I do not believe Richard Owen was 'head of the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership' as you state.

NOTE TO ALL READERS:
This story is not about speed cameras and as such can I please request no further posts about cameras in this thread. Thanks for your co-operation.
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News

Agree (5) | Disagree (0)
+5

Richard Owen was head of the Thames Valley Safety Camera Partnership when (as Dave Finney's analysis in your Knowledge Centre shows) KSI at camera sites went up, not down. He also published claims, within a few months of the Partnership's cameras being removed, that the number of vehicles speeding had gone up by 50% or 100% or whatever. Closer examination based on likely traffic volume on those roads shoe that the % not speeding had fallen from something like 99.6% to 99.3%. I was not impressed.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield

Agree (0) | Disagree (6)
-6

Duncan:
I suspect that as normal "Nothing is as simple as it first appears". In other words, we would be able to ask the bloke down the pub how to solve all our problems.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (7) | Disagree (0)
+7

"Complex behavioural motivators?" Nothing complex about people going out and getting smashed out of their brains on lager and alcopops.
Duncan MacKillop, Startford on Avon

Agree (9) | Disagree (9)
0