National Conference: The road to Vision Zero

This session comprises four presentations from practitioners already using the Safe System approach and adopting a Vision Zero strategy.

The Safe System Approach and Vision Zero – Can We Make Them Work?
Iain Temperton, Traject Road Safety Specialist, & Tanya Fosdick, Agilysis

We hear a lot about Vision Zero and the road safety actions to create a Safe System, but in real terms can we make them work? A number of road safety partnerships mention both of these in their strategies, but are we actually fully embracing the concepts or just paying lip service to them?

Where are partnerships right now? And where are they headed?

To try to answer these questions, we were commissioned by National Highways to review the position of partnerships. We identified 36 partnerships and organisations with a road safety strategy, and conducted 24 interviews. These were with 16 road safety partnerships, two large metropolitan transport bodies, three local authorities and three police forces.

The opening question was: What does a Safe System approach to road safety mean to you? Overall, there were positive responses, with interviewees citing the underlying principles. They mentioned the pillars and the need for a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral approach. They also linked to Vision Zero aspirations. Just over half of the interviewees demonstrated the understanding we had hoped for. On the other end of the scale, six interviewees really struggled with the Safe System concept.

Partnerships who are doing well are adopting the Vision Zero goal, the 2030 UN target of a reduction of 50% in deaths and serious injuries. And again, these are not just words. They are committing themselves to these targets and are thinking about the ways in which they can measure progress.

It became clear that structures are not reflecting Safe System approaches. Only two interviewees were able to state that their organisational structure was based on Safe System thinking, although another three are moving towards that position, due to co-location and internal practices. Two partnerships are about to embark on a restructuring process to reflect a full Safe System approach, but there is no indication how long that process will take.

How a partnership operates is key – those who are moving forward in embracing a different approach have started by thinking about how they work. They have examined their governance and accountability processes and have established Safe System working groups.

When asked what resources are available to the partnership, all but one reported having access to reasonable funding, with many reporting reasonably healthy funding streams.

So, we have an idea of where we are with partnerships in relation to Safe System thinking but what next? The final question was “what support might you need to help embed a Safe System approach?”

For some, this was a difficult question and it was felt that their lack of understanding of the Safe System hampered their ability to respond.

But overall, the responses were grouped into the following support mechanisms:

• A national network – it became clear that partnerships do not engage in peer communication. Safety camera partnerships engage through Road Safety Support whilst many road safety practitioners benefit from regional Road Safety GB meetings – but both of these forums are for individual partners.
• A national strategy and focus – this was by far the most consistently voiced need from interviewees. The lack of national targets was seen as a disbenefit by most, with targets seen as a mechanism for unlocking local political support and funding. It is felt that a national focus must provide a clear endorsement of both Vision Zero and the Safe System approach. There are differing opinions as to who should provide that focus, with DfT, National Highways and RSGB all receiving mentions.
• Communications support – both internal and external. There is a feeling that communities have no concept of the Safe System approach, in many cases senior managers and politicians are also unaware. Nationally focused communications messages to those audiences would be both beneficial and welcome.
• Expertise – many practitioners realise that they need support to embrace and deliver the Safe System approach. This has been expressed in terms of the ‘critical friend’ approach or mentoring, but it should be noted that this wish is expressed in the context of practical examples rather that theoretical approaches.
• Funding & resourcing – whilst funding is not generally an issue, there is a feeling that adopting the Safe System approach will require investment in time and resources. Perhaps speculatively, the interviewees are hopeful of nationally provided grants to assist with engagement.
• Training & workshops – specific support in this area was frequently mentioned, with potential subjects including the concept of Safe System, and evaluation, data, social media and behaviour change in the Safe System context. The audience for this training would be senior managers, politicians and officers, depending upon the subject matter required.

So, we hope we have produced a picture of what is happening on the ground across England, and provided some food for thought on what we as a community should be doing to provide support going forwards.

Safe system cultural maturity; developing a transformative model for organisations
Dan Campsall, Chairman, Agilysis

To begin, some context. One danger of organisations heading off alone to develop road safety strategies and Safe System action plans is that they interpret and implement the Safe System differently from each other. Some may stick rigidly to Safe System principles, others may cherry pick to suit local needs.

Whilst it is quite clear what the Safe System imperatives are and international guidance cites the actions that are required to deliver a Safe System, HOW those are delivered could be decided locally. Local politics, local resources, local skills could all influence the actions that are delivered, which performance indicators are measured, and which pillars are prioritised.

Without co-ordination and collaboration, we could end up with over 40 different flavours of the Safe System in the UK alone. And without training and support, we could end up with misinterpretations of what the Safe System is. There could be rejections of the concept because it is too hard to do. Or organisations could carry on as before but just declare they are taking a Safe System approach.

Furthermore, Safe System application requires input from multiple actors and stakeholders, within organisations and amongst their partners, and therefore determining levels of understanding, application, and commitment to Safe System thinking will highlight where training, support, and investment, are required to strengthen the work of these organisations. This is the starting point of our work, and we were commissioned by National Highways in the UK to explore how Safe System readiness could be measured.

We decided to start by defining the Safe System – we can’t measure readiness if we are not agreed on what it is.

We reviewed manuals and guides, including international publications, setting out guidance as to how to apply Safe System approaches.

We reviewed these 16 manuals and synthesised the actions they recommend. There were 100 actions identified in total, and 48 of these were most frequently cited, with a workshop of UK road safety experts held to review the applicability of these 48.

We had identified Safe System actions and change mechanisms that we would expect to see if an organisation was Safe System mature, but how do we define maturity?

We felt we needed a mechanism to link Safe System approaches to culture maturity, finding a way of identifying how to change behaviour within an organisation.

This is the Safe System Cultural Maturity Model – it uses the principles of the ISM and Safe System to understand the influences that could move an organisation from Pathological to Generative.

Creating a model was one thing but we needed to build a mechanism to measure the Safe System cultural readiness of organisations – and here, we want to move away from the theoretical to some numbers!

We created a question set which brought all of the elements together. It ensures that we are testing beliefs, language and actions related to the Safe System imperatives and the pillars. It tests whether specific Safe System actions are being undertaken and if the change mechanisms we identified are all being utilised.

To summarise…

Through researching cultural maturity and behavioural change models, as well as the comprehensive review of Safe System actions and the categorisation of change mechanisms, we believe we have brought together key components to create a robust model that allows us to understand how Safe System approaches are embedded in practice.

It is very easy for an organisation to state that it is adopting Safe System approaches, but a strategy on a website or a statement by leaders doesn’t embed the Safe System into everyday practice. Understanding and measuring where Safe System application could be strengthened will be invaluable in assisting organisations and countries in moving forward

The use of data to successfully develop pre-collision interventions
Alison Lowe, West Yorkshire Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime & Simon D’Vali, West Yorkshire Safer Roads Steering Group

The new West Yorkshire Transport Strategy 2040 has been published and includes the following statement: “We will work through our Safer Roads Partnership to deliver evidence-led highway design and road safety interventions to improve safety on the highway network, and to fund education, training and publicity programmes to improve road user behaviour and reduce casualty numbers, aspiring to ‘zero tolerance’ of transport-related deaths.”

West Yorkshire Road Injuries appeared to be either flat lining or going the wrong way, something had to be done.

Safe Roads West Yorkshire

• Established the Vision Zero Board
• Made up of Politicians/Officers/Emergency Services/Lived Experience groups
• Works with the West Yorkshire Safe Roads Executive, Steering Group and Delivery Group
• Provides Strategic oversight, accountability, resourcing and governance.

Our Aim

• To eliminate fatal and serious crashes from the roads of West Yorkshire by 2040

Our Objectives:

• Coordination of Vision Zero across the region
• Mechanisms to share good practice and learning
• Oversight to support the development and consistency of VZ plans across five districts
• Operational autonomy at a local level
• We are acting as one with our communities in a joint effort to reduce road death.

There are 5 key components of Vision Zero that have been collectively agreed at a West Yorkshire level. All Safer Roads programmes will be aligned against these:

• Safe Speeds
• Safe Vehicles
• Safe Roads
• Safe Behaviours
• Post Collision Learning and Support

Data sets from different services 

• CRASH
• Sites and Lengths for Concern
• A+E and Ambulance Service
• Police ASB information, Chase data
• Fire and Rescue cut out data
• Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) data sets:
• Skidding incidents/heavy braking incidents
• Non-seat belt use
• No tax, no insurance

Validate data

• Is there duplication?
• Are data sets incompatible? (e.g. Home address vs incident address)
• Are the outputs meaningful?

Why produce a heat map?

• Vision Zero is a shared responsibility for everyone
• Intended to identify problem areas at a street level
• Identifies which SERVICE needs to be involved with the remedy
• Will assist prioritisation and programme development for services
• Gives confidence to decision makers
• Whole Systems Approach

West Yorkshire Vision Zero – next steps 

West Yorkshire Vision Zero Partnership Strategy Development

• Benchmarking/Baselining exercise
• Programme development and key stakeholder workshops
• Development of thematic technical notes in accordance with the safe systems approach (Safe Speeds. Safe Roads, Safe Vehicles, Safe Road Users and Post Collision response)
• Development of a draft West Yorkshire Vision approach – supported by the priorities within the Police and Crime Plan 21-24.
• West Yorkshire Vision Zero Strategy test and challenge workshops
• Agreement of West Yorkshire Vision Zero Strategy and Action plan for consultation
• Post consultation review and approval sought for final adoption

Implementing Vision Zero – lessons learned so far
Matt Staton, Road Safety Partnership Delivery Manager for Cambridgeshire

Started out with a lengthy review process including:

• Interviews with partners
• What working well, what not working well & priorities
• Engaged external help (Agilysis & Traject)
• Best-practice approaches/ International best-practice / Existing practice that fitted in
• Public engagement through a Survey & Parish Council conference

Lessons learnt

Get help!

Expertise / Critical friend / Independence / Don’t mark your own homework / Impartiality / Develop collaboration

Understand best practice

• SYSTEM-BASED not PERSON-BASED
• Understand why things happen
• Not just about actions of the driver(s)
• No-blame investigations
• Safety performance indicators / What does success look like? / Lagging and leading indicators

Collaborate

• DO things collaboratively
• actively remove silos
• Don’t think ‘the Council’, ‘ the Police’ the ‘Fire Service’ etc. it is ‘THE PARTNERSHIP’
• Understand where political / public engagement fits in your model

Be optimistic – aim high

• Needs a step change
• If we don’t no one else will
• Our job is to sell it
• Senior level buy-in
• If you don’t ask you don’t get…

Funding

With a top-level buy-in to the approach we have seen:

• Safety moving up the agenda
• Additional capital
• Additional revenue
• Additional staff

---