AREA PROFILE for Suffolk 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AREA PROFILE For Suffolk 2016 By Road Safety Analysis Executive Summary The analysis in this report is summarised in an interactive online dashboard, providing access to the trends, comparisons and maps included in this document. The following is a very brief summary of the main findings. The annual average rate of casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 7% below the national rate. In 2015, there has been a 32% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident casualties since 2006 and a 15% reduction since 2014. In 2015, there has been a 41% reduction in the number of Suffolk residents killed or seriously injured in road collisions since 2006 and a 20% reduction since 2014. The annual average rate of pedal cycle casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 17% below the national rate. The number of Suffolk child resident pedal cycle casualties has continued to decrease and has fallen by 65% in 2015 since 2006. The number of Suffolk adult resident pedal cycle casualties increased from 2006 to 2015 by 19%. However, there was a reduction of 27% from 2014 to 2015. The annual average rate of senior casualties amongst Suffolk residents is 10% below the national rate. There has been fluctuation in the trend in of Suffolk resident senior casualties since 2006, although there has been a 3% reduction since 2006 and a 15% since 2014. Suffolk’s resident senior casualties are most likely to be injured as car drivers (58%). The annual average rate of Suffolk residents who were involved in collisions as drivers is 9% lower than the national rate. There has been a 30% reduction in the number of Suffolk resident motor vehicle drivers since 2006 and a 14% reduction since 2014. Suffolk’s motorcycle rate is 1% higher than the national rate but there has been a downward trend since 2009 and the number of Suffolk’s resident riders involved in injury collisions was 25% lower in 2015 than in 2006. The rate for Suffolk’s young driver involvement in collisions is 30% above the national rate, however, there has been a significant reduction of 48% fewer young drivers involved in collisions in 2015 than in 2006. The rate of collisions per KM on Suffolk’s roads is 33% lower than the national rate. There has been a downward trend in the numbers of collisions on Suffolk’s roads, with a 29% reduction from 2006 (and KSI collisions down by 40%). Suffolk’s rate per KM of urban road is 19% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of 32% since 2006. Suffolk’s rate per KM of rural road is 13% lower than the national rate and there has been a reduction of 26% since 2006. A forecasting function was used to determine confidence levels for the resident casualty trends for 2014 and 2015 to check if the reductions experienced by Suffolk’s residents were as expected. Forecasting was based on 2005 to 2013 data, as 2014 figures were close to or above the upper confidence bound and it appears to be an unusual year, compared to the general trend. 2015, in contrast, appears to be back on the general trend with all road user groups close to the forecast, apart from resident adult pedal cycle casualties (which are below the lower confidence bound). It could be that there were fewer adult pedal cyclists from Suffolk riding in 2015 and this reduced crash involvement. Given that the trends were based on Suffolk residents who could have been injured anywhere in the country, the reductions in casualties are unlikely to be due to under-reporting (as this would involve more than one reporting police force) and instead look to be a continued general downward trend. Given the forecasting, aside from adult pedal cyclists, the reductions in 2015 are as expected. Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.2 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.3 Analytical Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PROFILE CONFIGURATION .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 2 RESIDENT RISK ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 RESIDENT CASUALTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 All Resident Casualties .......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Resident Pedal Cyclist Casualties ........................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 Senior Resident Casualties .................................................................................................................. 18 2.2 RESIDENT MOTOR VEHICLE USERS ...................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.1 All Resident Drivers and Riders involved in Collisions ......................................................................... 25 2.2.2 Resident Motorcyclists involved in Collisions ...................................................................................... 30 2.2.3 Young adult resident drivers involved in collisions .............................................................................. 34 3 ROAD NETWORK RISK .................................................................................................................................. 41 3.1 COLLISIONS ON ALL ROADS ................................................................................................................................. 41 3.1.1 Rates ................................................................................................................................................... 41 3.1.2 Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 42 3.1.3 Trends ................................................................................................................................................. 42 3.1.4 Casualty trends on all roads ................................................................................................................ 44 3.1.5 Contributory Factors ........................................................................................................................... 46 3.2 COLLISIONS ON ROADS BY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 54 3.2.1 Urban Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 54 3.2.2 Rural Roads ......................................................................................................................................... 58 4 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................. 64 4.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................................................. 64 4.2 MOSAIC PUBLIC SECTOR ................................................................................................................................... 68 4.2.1 Complete list of Mosaic Types ............................................................................................................. 68 4.2.2 Profile and distribution for selected Mosaic Types ............................................................................. 70 4.3 DATA TABLES .................................................................................................................................................. 72 4.4 CONTRIBUTORY FACTOR GROUPINGS ................................................................................................................... 78 4.5 SUFFOLK MAP ................................................................................................................................................. 79 4.6 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................... 80 AREA PROFILE 2016 – SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview 1.1.1 Background Area Profiles from Road Safety Analysis (RSA) provide overviews of road safety performance within specific local areas. This profile delivers detailed analysis and insight on all injury