DfT launches Road Safety Observatory and comparison website

12.00 | 21 March 2013 | | 15 comments

The DfT has launched two new road safety websites, the Road Safety Observatory and the Road Safety Comparison website.

Both sites were commitments made in the Strategic Framework for Road Safety, published in May 2011.

The Road Safety Observatory gives road safety professionals and practitioners access to empirical road safety research with summaries in ‘plain English’ and will be updated as and when new research is published.

The Observatory project has been part-funded by the DfT and run by a board which includes representatives from RoadSafe, PACTS, RoSPA, RAC Foundation, ADEPT, Road Safety GB, the South West Health Observatory, ACPO and the AA.

The Road Safety Comparison site is designed to help the public and road safety professionals compare the road safety performance of local authorities. The site shows how a local highway authority is performing by putting collision and casualty numbers into context.

By setting those numbers against population, traffic levels, road length, and authority spend a set of indicators have been produced which show performance over the last seven years and where that authority stands against others.

The site also provides a mapping facility that can be filtered so that a user can, for example, see how many cyclists or children have been involved in collisions on a particular road.

Launching the two new websites, Stephen Hammond, road safety minister, said: “The new comparison website will give local residents a more accurate picture of their council’s performance in reducing road casualties and will allow councils to make more meaningful assessments of the work they are doing to improve road safety.

“If a council is performing particularly well then I want to see them sharing best practice with others so that they can improve and people across the country can benefit.

“In addition, the Road Safety Observatory will be a valuable resource for all those with an interest in road safety by providing a one-stop-shop for road safety research.”

User guides are available on both sites but the DfT is offering further support on how to use the sites, as well as welcoming any feedback.

For more information contact Dave Hammond at the DfT on 0207 944 6436.

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    And the reason that the comparison site does not include Scotland, Wales and N Ireland is…..?


    Pat, Wales
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A general observation on bias: Everyone is biased in favour of his own beliefs, hence selection of material for publication will not be unbiased but biased towards the views of the selectors. There may be honourable exceptions, but they are few.

    As I have written here before, dissent and disagreement are not only acceptable but essential – without them we would still believe that the world is flat. Long may they flourish, and occasionally triumph against the odds.


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I can agree with comments from all contributors but, as Road Safety GB are sponsors of the Road Safety Observatory, what do Road Safety GB see as the main differences between their Knowledge Centre and the Observatory? Aren’t the two duplicating the same function?

    While the Observatory is just starting up and must be given time to develop, Eric makes a good point. The Observatory have made statements as “facts” even though there is strong evidence that these are not facts at all. This suggests they may have decided their conclusions and will only accept reports that concur with their beliefs.

    This is easy to test though. If researchers submit reports with different conclusions to those already included, and these are refused, then perhaps their “facts” disclose a biased view?

    I could try this out by submitting “DOES REDUCING TRAFFIC SPEED USING SPEED CAMERAS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COLLISIONS?
    http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/07_5pc_per_1mph.htm


    Dave, Slough
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    So what would I like to see included in the reports? I would like to see the grit in the oyster, all those bits of research that never make it past the gatekeepers, all the stuff that doesn’t accord with the prevailing wisdom.

    It is said that 95% of accidents are caused by human error, so where is all the research on human error modes? Where is all the research on vision and perception errors and where is all the research on brain function? Where is all the research on the relationship between punishment and system safety? There is a wealth of valuable information to be found, but only if you go digging for it

    I have a very good example that first surfaced in 1977 and considering its life saving potential it seems odd that even after all these years it remains buried, unknown and unloved. Even if it is wrong it might just generate some new ideas and new thinking which is what we desperately need. The research was carried out by a Highways Engineer and considered spiral easements at the approaches to corners and the effect they were having on the accident rate.

    The research can be found at http://www.dougstewartonline.co.uk/pdfs/lefthandbend.pdf
    and: http://www.dougstewartonline.co.uk/pdfs/bends.pdf


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I’ve looked at the new Road Safety Observatory and I’m inpressed. The site is clean and uncluttered and easy to navigate.

    The content is broad and wide ranging. I am sure the site will become a real assest to road safety practitioners and the public.

    As for the content of any research paper; it is down to the reader to assimilate the material and review it critically and objectively in the context of their own professional needs and areas of activity. They can then make their own judgement as to its relevence to their own areas of interest.

    Readers will, of course, find some research very useful, and other examples less so – but that is the case for any professional discipline – road safety is no different in this respect.

    I think the site has the potential to be an excellent tool – lets give it a little time to develop.


    Mark – Wiltshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    With regard to the Road Safety Comparison site – it’s unfair and naïve to blame Local Councils’ Road Safety Teams for the behaviour of their citizens behind the wheel. The LAs, Police and other public bodies with a road safety remit, can only do so much in terms of engineering, education and enforcement – the rest is up to society and the individuals within it. Instead of suggesting one LA Road Safety Team “performs better than another’s” based on its statistics, you could equally say “…the motorists in this area perform better than the ones in that area!..”


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hang on Carlos, give them a chance!

    The Observatory has only just launched and I know from my experience with the Road Safety Knowledge Centre that it takes considerable time to source, verify, summarise and then publish materials for inclusion. I’m sure the project team intends to add more content as the project progresses – I think it would be fairer to judge this further down the line.


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I know Duncan and can already see a lot of reports are missing from the Observatory. I doubt they’ll achieve anything.


    Carlos
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    OK Eric, so you don’t approve of the use of the word ‘facts’ in this context. But you then go on to imply that this is a deliberate attempt by the Observatory team to mislead people, or promote a particular point of view, which I don’t believe is the case. ‘Key facts’ is a widely used phrase in communications materials and I simply think the Observatory team has used it because it is a little snappier than, for example, ‘important information’.

    Let’s move on from this topic and see what other readers think of the Observatory and Comparison site.


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Honor:
    It devalues the word “fact” if it is used to refer to things that “appear to be”. Facts must, by their nature, be indisputable. As is clear from the debates on this website, there are very facts in the world of road safety. Putting disputable claims and assertions on those websites does not make them any more true – it simply causes more people to believe that they are true. Of course researchers will hypothesise but those suggestions must not be presented under the heading ‘key facts’.


    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Reports and research do not just appear on the Observatory. There is an Evidence Review Panel of academics and other specialists whose remit is to:
    “review and approve all the research material submitted to the Observatory before it is published on the website to ensure that the Key Facts, Summaries and Research Reviews published on the Observatory truly reflect the messages in underlying research, including where there may be contradictions between research findings. The Panel will also ensure that Key Facts, Summaries and Research Reviews are free from bias and independent of Government policies or the policies of the individual organisations on the Programme Board.”

    This is in line with standard academic and research practice.

    Part of the role of researchers is not just to report the facts but also to draw judgements and to suggest hypotheses that can be further tested, thus the two extracts that Eric has referred to are entirely legitimate within a research report. I note that each includes the words “appear to be”.


    Honor Byford, Vice Chair, Road Safety GB
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan: if you feel so strongly about this, instead of simply criticising why don’t you put forward suggestions to the Observatory team of the reports/research you’d like to see included?


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    The Road Safety Observatory is supposed to contain empirical road safety research, yet when you look at it there is nothing but selected ‘research’ that has been cherry picked to support the same tired old dogma.

    Robert S. says that there are many people like him in local authorities who are working hard to understand why crashes happen and to develop programmes that will reduce and prevent them in the future. If Robert and his colleagues had to rely on this stuff to do their job they would never achieve their objectives no matter how hard they tried.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Following on from Robert’s “know and be sure” comment, it is deeply disappointing that the Observatory is purporting to provide KEY FACTS that are clearly not “facts” at all.

    As an example:
    •Road users often report being frustrated by ‘phantom’ roadworks; where no workers appear to be present. It has been suggested that this frustration leads to increased dangerous driving. (S. Jamson, 2008) or
    •Compared to educationally based road safety interventions, area wide traffic calming appears to be a more promising intervention for reducing traffic injuries and fatalities. (F. Bunn et al., 2009)

    There is nothing KEY or FACTUAL in these or many others, and the effect is to undermine the integrity of the site.

    And the Comparison site majors on KSI, which is inherently unreliable due to under-reporting of serious injuries.


    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Let’s just hope that the comparison site isn’t used to “name and shame” those authorities that “appear” to be performing less well than others.

    There are so many factors involved in road crashes, with human behaviour being the most significant, that a simplistic comparison of numbers needs to be treated with extreme caution. There are many of us in local authorities working hard to understand why crashes happen and to develop programmes that will reduce and prevent them in the future. Proper evaluation is essential. We cannot “hope”, we must “know and be sure”. We are all working to this end. I hope this won’t be used as ammunition by some, but I know it probably will be.


    Robert S.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close