The IAM has published a league table showing the 10 local authority areas where KSI casualties fell by the greatest amount in 2013, and the areas where there were the largest increases.
It claims that the data shows the “local authority areas that have performed best and worst for reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on their roads”.
The table, compiled from DfT casualty stats, shows that three areas shows where KSI casualties fell the most in 2013 compared with the previous year are Nottinghamshire (-98), Tower Hamlets (-81) and Chester/Chester West (-78).
The three areas where KSI casualties increased by the greatest amount last year are Lancashire (+72), Kent (+70) and Cumbria (+43).
The IAM says the “top 10 best performing areas in the UK” are: Nottinghamshire, Tower Hamlets, Chester/Chester West, Suffolk, Hackney, Staffordshire, Islington, Greenwich, Gloucestershire and Redbridge.
Conversely, the 10 local authority areas where casualties increased by the most are: Lancashire, Kent, Cumbria, Norfolk, East Sussex, Rotherham, Wirral, Surrey, Worcester and Hampshire.
Simon Best, chief executive of the IAM, said: “Figures will always vary from year to year but the wide variations do suggest that some councils are much better at putting measures in place that are having a marked difference in reducing the numbers of deaths and serious injuries on their roads.
“As the economy improves spending on road safety must be seen as a priority across the whole of the UK with clear strategies in place to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads.”
Responding to the IAM’s analysis, Honor Byford, chair of Road Safety GB, said: “We warmly welcome the IAM’s continuing support for the road safety measures and programmes that are provided by road safety officers and engineers in their local highways authorities, and its concern that this commitment and service needs to be supported and continued.
“All data and analysis is useful especially from different perspectives, and we are also pleased to see that the increasing amount of data now published by the DfT is being more widely used.
“However, we would be wary of the use of over-simplistic analysis in comparing just one year with the previous year as this is not statistically sound in identifying trends and patterns.
“A rise or fall between one year and the next may be for a variety of reasons, many of which are entirely beyond the control of the local highways authority.
“A three to five year comparison would be more informative to show any authority’s progress and would remove the effect of one particularly ‘good’ or ‘bad’ year.
“We also note that this basic comparison includes all local highways authorities without differentiating between urban – densely populated city areas with small networks and high volumes of traffic – and large rural counties with many more miles of road, much of them with higher speed limits and very different levels and types of use. This is not comparing like with like.
“The table also includes the London boroughs, with their very different funding packages through Transport for London.”
The full data is available on the IAM website.