Road Traffic Safety in Lewisham.
1. INTRODUCTION
The largest number of serious unintentional injuries and deaths in children are because of road
traffic accidents1. In 2009 in Great Britain, 2332 children and young people aged 0–14 were
seriously injured and 65 died as a result of road traffic accidents2 3. Five per cent of all such accidents
are known to involve children, therefore ensuring necessary measures are in place to keep roads
safe is essential to protect children and young people4.
This report was written at the request of the Lewisham Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) to
explore what might be done to reduce mortality and serious injury due to road traffic accidents
(RTAs) in Lewisham. The report is for discussion at the September 2012 meeting of the LSCB.
The aims of the report are:
1. To analyse the pattern of road traffic accidents (RTAs) involving children in Lewisham
2. To examine how policy related to road safety in children and young people is formulated and
implemented in the UK
3. To examine what is known to be effective in preventing RTAs in children
4. To identify gaps in the current service provided in Lewisham and make recommendations
This report was written using an extensive literature review of policy and peer-reviewed journal
articles related to the prevention of road traffic accidents in the UK, with a particular emphasis on
measures which have been considered to reduce road traffic accidents in children and young people.
In addition, data on road traffic accidents causing serious or fatal injuries to children and young
people in Lewisham were obtained from Transport for London. These data were analysed using
simple descriptive techniques.
The report was written in collaboration with the Road Safety and Sustainable Transport team at
Lewisham Council who provided information regarding past and current initiatives employed by
their department to reduce RTAs in children and young people in Lewisham.
1
http://www.capt.org.uk/resources/road-safety
2
Department of Transport, 2010.
3
Preventing unintentional injuries among under-15s. Costing report. Implementing NICE guidance. 2010.
4
Better safe than sorry. Preventing unintentional injury to children. Audit Commision. February 2007.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Road traffic accidents as a cause of death and serious injury in children and young people
Unintentional injury is a leading cause of death among children aged 1-14 years, and leads to more
children attending hospital than any other cause. Unintentional injury kills three children per
100,000 population, a similar rate to that of cancer. Five per cent of all road traffic accidents involve
children and they are a leading cause of child fatalities4.
Road traffic injuries among those under 25 years rank as the eighth leading cause of death around
the world5. However, when analysed in five-year age bands, the significance of road traffic injuries
rises dramatically. Among 15–19 year-olds, road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death
worldwide, while among the 10–14 years and 20–24 years age groups they are the second leading
cause of death5. Under-reporting of deaths and injuries resulting from road traffic accidents is
known to be widespread, and may be more common among children, particularly when they incur
moderate injuries.
In March 2000, the previous government published a national road safety strategy and casualty
reduction targets for 2010 in ‘Tomorrow’s roads: safer for everyone’6. At this time it was noted that
every year over 130 children died and more than 4,500 were seriously injured while walking and
cycling, many of them close to their homes. Another 60 died and over 1,100 were seriously injured
travelling in cars. At this time, despite road deaths falling by nearly 40% and serious injuries by 45%
compared to the 1981-85 average, the record for child pedestrian deaths still lagged behind other
European countries.
Therefore, the targets laid out in ‘Tomorrow’s roads: safer for everyone’ were formulated with a
special focus on reducing the number of children who are killed or injured in road accidents. By
2010, the Government set out to achieve, compared with the average for 1994-98:

a 40% reduction in the numbers of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents;

a 50% reduction in the numbers of children killed or seriously injured; and

a 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate, expressed as the number of people slightly
injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres6.
5
WHO Youth and road safety. 2007
6
http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf
In London, The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was published in 2001 promoting an increase in walking
and cycling, and recognizing an increase in the use of powered two-wheelers7. At the same time, the
London Road Safety Plan was published endorsing the targets set in ‘Tomorrow’s roads: safer for
everyone’ and also recognising the extra measures needed in London to protect vulnerable road
users8. The Mayor’s strategy set a target of a 40% reduction for accidents causing fatal or serious
injuries (KSI) in pedestrians, whilst the target to reduce the number of children killed or seriously
injured by 50% was maintained.
By 2005, these targets had largely been achieved in London, with the exception of that for powered
two-wheelers, therefore in 2006 after consultation with stakeholders, the Mayor of London
announced new more challenging targets which set out to achieve by the end of 2010, compared
with the average for 1994-98:

a 50% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured;

a 50% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured;

a 50% reduction in the number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured;

a 40% reduction in the number of powered two-wheeler users killed or seriously injured
(unchanged);

a 60% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured; and

a 25% reduction in the slight casualty rate, reduction in the slight casualty rate expressed as
the number of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres9.
The Government published its new National Strategic Framework for Road Safety (SFRS)4 in May
201110. The SFRS sets out the national policies that are intended to continue to reduce deaths
and injuries on the roads and places an expectation on local government to continue to
prioritise road safety and to seek improvements by adopting policies that reflect local priorities
and circumstances.
7
http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/pdf/final_execsumm.pdf
8
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Londons-road-safety-plan.pdf
9
http://www.lscp.org.uk/lrsu/data-research_casualty-red_lon.html
10
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/strategic-framework-for-road-safety/strategicframework.pdf
In July 2012, the Mayor of London launched ‘Towards a Road Safety Action Plan for London: 2020’ a
consultation document which sets out a comprehensive draft Road Safety Action Plan to meet the
continuing challenges of road safety, and which sets a new target of cutting the number of those
killed or seriously injured by a further 40 per cent by 2020 from a baseline of the 2005-09 average; a
total reduction of 10,000 over the life of the plan11 . Despite the apparent road safety successes of
the last 15 years there is still work to be done. This report contains the latest published data for
London’s road safety targets, and highlights further areas for improvements, as London moves
towards 2020. This will be explored in more detail in Section 2.4.
2.2 The evidence base for initiatives to improve road safety
Road safety measures generally fall into two categories: traffic calming measures, which may be
area-wide or localised, and education programmes, which again may be population-level or targeted
to specific groups e.g. vulnerable road users.
2.21 Traffic calming measures
A Cochrane Collaboration systematic review and meta-analysis entitled ‘Area-wide traffic calming for
preventing traffic-related injuries’ was published in 200912. In the absence of randomised control
trials meeting their inclusion criteria, they analysed 22 controlled before-after studies of area-wide
traffic calming schemes including:

Vertical and horizontal shifts in traffic (e.g.) road humps, speed cushions, mini-roundabouts,
road narrowing etc;

Optical measures (e.g.) chevron road sings, road surface treatments), reduced horizontal
visibility, audible measures, alterations to road lighting;

Redistribution of traffic of alteration to road hierarchy (e.g.) permanent or temporary
blocking of road, creation of one-way streets, four way stops;

Changes to road environment (e.g.) increased vegetation along road; and
11
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/road-safety-plan
12
Area-wide traffic calming for preventing traffic related injuries (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2009.

Reduced speed limit zones (e.g. 20 mph-zones, 30 km/h zones) where speeds are physically
limited by traffic calming measures.
Data was extracted and pooled on the total number of road traffic accidents, all road user deaths
and injuries, pedestrian-motor vehicles collisions and road user deaths. The results of the metaanalyses were inconclusive. Nine studies reported the number of road traffic crashes resulting in
deaths; pooled rate ratio 0.79 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.68). Eighteen studies reported a pooled slight
reduction in number of road traffic accidents resulting in injuries (fatal and non-fatal) of 0.85 (95% CI
0.75 to 0.96). Fourteen trials reported the number of pedestrian-motor vehicles collisions, pooled
rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.16). There was significant heterogeneity reported for the total
number of crashes and road user injuries outcomes.
Regarding road traffic accidents affecting children - in November 2010, the NICE guidelines
‘Preventing unintentional injuries among children and young people aged under 15: road design and
modification’ were published13. This is one of three pieces of guidance from NICE on how to prevent
unintentional injuries amongst children and young people under fifteen years of age. Due to a lack of
evidence related to other measures meeting the NICE inclusion criteria, the guidance only covered
20 mph limits, 20 mph zones and engineering measures to reduce speed or makes routes safer. A
key recommendation from the guidance was that local highway authorities and strategic
partnerships should take action to introduce measures to reduce speed in streets that are primarily
residential, or where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high. These measures could include
speed reduction features (for example, traffic calming measures on single streets, or extended 20
mph zones) or changes to the speed limit with signing only (20 mph limits) where current average
speeds are low enough13. This is consistent with previous evidence that higher speeds reduce the
time available for people to react and increase the severity of collisions. Studies have shown that
pedestrians have a 90% chance of surviving a car crash at speeds below 30 kph but a less than 50%
chance at speeds of 45 kph14.
13
NICE public health guidance 31. Preventing unintentional injuries among children and young people aged
under 15: road design and modification. November 2010
14
Racioppi F, Ericsson L, Tingvall C et al (2006). Walking, cyclist and transport safety: an analysis of child road
deaths. Journal of the Roayal Society of Medicine. 99: 402-5.
A research review ‘Reducing unintentional injuries in childhood’ conducted by the National
Children’s Bureau in 2010 investigated the evidence for effective strategies to prevent unintentional
injuries in childhood15. They found that seatbelts and child safety restraints and relevant legislation
mandating their use were effective in reducing child injuries. Bicycle helmets were also cited as an
important measure in reducing injury, with studies from outside the UK reporting that legislation
mandating the use of helmets led to fairly sizable increases in use (43-84%) and reduced injuries in
children. Area-calming measures also appeared to be effective in reducing casualties and accidents
involving children. Reduced speed zones were also found to be effective, but the injury reduction
was less demonstrable for pedestrians and cyclists compared to car occupants.
A review of evidence for the prevention of RTAs was published by the Centre of Public Health (CPH)
at the Liverpool John Moores University in September 201016.They found that environmental
changes such as implementing area-wide traffic calming (e.g.) speed humps, 20mph zones and speed
cameras), marked pathways for cyclists, and school crossing patrols were effective in reducing road
traffic accidents and associated injuries.
The introduction of 20mph zones in residential areas or areas frequently used by pedestrians and
cyclists were recommended in the Department of Transport’s ‘A Safer Way’ consultation document
in April 200917. Concentrating traffic calming measures in deprived areas have also been shown to
help reduce the inequalities gap in child pedestrian injuries seen between more deprived and less
deprived geographical areas of the UK18.
2.22 Road safety education programs
Education programmes can be used to increase an individual’s ability to cope with traffic
environments and so reduce pedestrian injuries. Courses targeted at children either alone or along
with their parents and teachers and can take place in the home, school or road setting. The CPH
evidence review found that safety education programmes can increase safety knowledge and skills
15
Fauth R and Ellis A. Reducing unintentional injuries in childhood: a research review. National Children’s
Bureau. September 2010.
16
Road traffic accidents. A review of evidence for Prevention for the UK focal point for violence and injury
prevention. Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University. September 2010.
17
. A safer way: Consultation on making Britain’s roads the safest in the world. Department of Transport April
2009.
18
Jones SJ, Lyons RA, John A, Palmer SR. Traffic calming policy can reduce inequalities in child pedestrian
injuries: database study. Injury Prevention 2005; 11: 152-156.
or behaviours among children16. The Kerbcraft child pedestrian training programme has been
associated with an increase in road safety skills among those aged five to seven years19. However,
these is little evidence to show the impact of these safety education programmes on accidents or
injuries. Evidence on injury reduction in children, rather than the acquisition of road safety skills, was
also found to be lacking in the research review from the National Children’s Bureau15.
A recent systematic review investigating the effectiveness of educational programs found mixed
results in the prevention of outdoor unintentional injuries (including road traffic accidents) to
children under 15 years. There were very few studies evaluated reporting data related to the
behaviours, knowledge and attitudes of children aged under 15 years relating to road safety;
however, one programme delivering oral presentations to students delivered over the course of a
school year reporting statistically significant changes in children’s behaviour and attitudes towards
safety outdoors. This may indicate that prolonged initiatives and education programmes may have
better results than more sporadic ‘one-off’ educational sessions20.
2.2.3 Mass media campaigns
In the UK, media education campaigns have been used to increase knowledge and change behaviour
towards road safety, through the use of television, radio, printed materials such as newspapers,
posters and magazines, and more recently, social media21. The Government’s THINK! Campaign run
in England and Wales has targeted issues such as using a mobile phone when driving or crossing a
road and driving when tired, to both drivers and pedestrians22. However, once more whilst evidence
shows that these campaigns effectively increase knowledge about injury prevention, was not shown
to translate to a reduction in actual childhood injuries15,16,20.
2.24 Community-based approaches
The Health Development Agency report entitled ‘Injuries in children aged 0-14 years and
inequalities’ published in 2005 examine 10 studies that had evaluated the effectiveness of
19
Whelan K et al. Road safety research report no. 82. Evaluation of the national child pedestrian training pilot
projects. London. Department for Transport. 2008.
20
Pearson M, Hunt H, Garside R, Moxham T, Peters J, Anderson R. Preventing unintentional injuries to children
under 15 years in the outdoors: a systematic review of the effectiveness of educational programs. Injury
Prevention 2012; 18:113-123.
21
http://www.grsproadsafety.org/news/building-culture-road-safety-social-media
22
http://think.direct.gov.uk/
community-based injury programmes and included elements related to child safety23. Of the 10
studies, the Harstad WHO Safe Community Programme, included interventions related to road
safety. The Harstad programme reported that interventions were more effective in specific age
groups, eg in children under 10 years the greatest reductions were seen in traffic injury rate,
pedestrian injury rate and increased use of cycle helmets23. However, the NCB review noted the
positive impact of the community-wide interventions across all 10 studies in promoting awareness of
good practice, and leading to some behaviour change and injury reduction15.
2.3 Progress on these initiatives in London
The total length of roads within 20mph zones in London have increased rapidly since the mid-1990s
(Figure 1)24. The changes in the annual frequency of injury accidents demonstrated by Webster and
Layfield in 2003 are shown in Figure 2, with an overall annual accident frequency reported reduction
of 43% (1.84 accidents per year per 20 mph zone) between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ periods. The total
length of roads in the seventy eight 20mph zones used for the accident analyses was 253.4 km,
giving a ‘before’ overall accident frequency of 1.31 accidents per year per km, and an ‘after’ overall
accident frequency of 0.74 accidents per year per km25.
23
Injuries in children aged 0-14 years and inequalities. Health Development Agency. 2005.
24
Grundy C et al, Effect pf 20mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London. 1986-2006: controlled
interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2009; 339: 4469.
25
Webster D, Layfield R. Review of 20 mph zones in London boroughs. Transport for London, 2003 (Project
report (PP243).
Figure 1. Location of 20 mph speed zones in London (1991-2007), based on Census boundaries24.
Figure 2. Accidents in 20mph zones in London (78 zones) 25
A similar but more recent study by Grundy et al found that the introduction of 20 mph zones in
London was associated with a 41.9% (95% CI 36.0-47.8%) reduction in road casualties between 1986
and 200624. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and for the category of killed
of seriously injured casualties than for slight injuries. Furthermore there was no reported evidence
of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones where casualties also fell by an average of
8.0% (95% CI 4.4-11.5%).
Across London as a whole, the target set in 2006 to reduce the number of children and young
people killed or seriously injured (KSI) by road traffic accidents has been reached and surpassed
(highlighted in Figure 3). Since 1998 levels of KSI casualties have decreased each year expect for
a small increase in 2006. However a decrease of 5% in 2010 meant that they are now at the
lowest level since records began26.
Figure 3. Summary of changes in casualties for London target categories by year 2010 26
Category
Casualties
% change by
compared with
2010
Target
change by 1994-98
2010 (%)
average
2009
2010
2009
1994-98
average
Total
-50%
6684.4
3227
2886
-11%
-57%
Pedestrians
-50%
2136.6
1055
913
-13%
-57%
Pedal cyclists
-50%
566.8
433
467
8%
-18%
Powered 2-wheelers
-40%
932.8
706
615
-13%
-34%
Children
-60%
935.4
263
250
-5%
-73%
Killed or seriously
injured casualties
Child casualties represented 9% of the total casualties in 2010. Child pedestrian casualties accounted
for 66%, child car occupants for 12% and pedal cyclists for 9%of all child KSI casualties. Data from
2011, shown in Figure 4, demonstrates that child pedestrian casualties peak at around 11 to 12
years old, at around the time children move from primary to secondary school11.
Figure 4. All child casualties in London in 2011 by age11
26
http://www.lscp.org.uk/lrsu/www/downloads/publications/report_200907_towards2010.pdf
2.4 Progress on these initiatives in Lewisham
In 2006, the overall lowest ever total of injuries for people of all ages was recorded in Lewisham with
1019 people injured on the roads. At this time there were two fatalities, 130 serious and 887 slight
injured recorded27. Despite the general reduction, it was noted at this time that certain road users
remain vulnerable on Lewisham’s roads and are still highly represented in the casualty figures for
those killed or seriously injured.
The most vulnerable road users by mode of transport (2004-6) were reported to be pedestrians
(making up 33% of all KSI in Lewisham), followed by powered two-wheelers and car occupants.
Children aged fifteen years and under were found to be highly represented in the pedestrian figures,
with those aged between 12-15 years deemed most at risk. This is similar to patterns noted both
throughout London as shown previously in Figure 4, and described nationally in the DfT’s 2007 ‘Child
Road Safety Strategy’28.
Despite an increase in reported child KSI casualties between 2009 and 2010, Lewisham met both the
national target, as well as the TfL extended casualty target for reduction in the number of children
killed or seriously injured by 2010 (Figure 5)26.
Figure 5. Casualties in children under 16 years in 2010 compared with the 1994-1998 average and 200926.
User group
Casualty numbers
1994-1998
average
Children (under 16 years): 41.4
Fatal and serious casualties
Percentage change in 2010
2009
2010
2009
1994-1998
average
8
13
63%
-69%
The overall trend in numbers of children under 16 years of age killed on Lewisham’s roads are shown
in Figure 6. This figure also shows that at every recorded time point, the number of KSI casualties in
children has been below the casualty reduction target. Since 2001, six child road traffic accident
fatalities were reported in Lewisham, three in 2002, one in 2003, and two in 2008.
27
Draft Lewisham Road Safety Plan, 2010.
28
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8530/1/childrdsafetystrategy2007
Figure 6. Children (under 16 yrs) killed or seriously injured on Lewisham's road networks
The next target for the reduction in number of children killed or seriously injured on Lewisham’s
roads by 2020 was set as a 40% reduction of the 2005-2009 average, totalling 14 casualties. Current
trends, shown in Figure 6, suggest that this target has already been obtained in Lewisham, however,
continued work is needed to ensure the number of KSI road casualties in children are maintained at
the current low levels.
3. THE PREVENTION OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LEWISHAM
Improving road safety has been highlighted as a goal of Lewisham Council within the Local
Implementation Plan (LIP) 2011-2031, published in April 2011. One of the objectives highlighted in
the LIP is to ‘reduce the number of road traffic collisions and improve safety on the public transport
network’29.
However it is evident that, within the last decade, work has been done to reduce the number of fatal
and serious casualties on the roads of Lewisham. This has been achieved by the targeted work of
Lewisham Council’s Road Safety and Sustainable Transport team.
3.1 What is being done to increase road safety in children and young people in Lewisham?
3.1.2 Accident hot-spots identification and traffic calming measures
Between 2006 and 2008 there were on average 926 casualties in Lewisham in people of all ages. Of
these 44% were using a car, 18% were pedestrians, 16% were motorcyclists and 11% were using
pedal cycles29. These incidents, when mapped to the location of the road traffic accident, showed a
number of key roads where a greater number of collisions occurred. Roads with a greater frequency
of accidents are shown in Figure 7 by an increase in the size of coloured dots29.
Looking at road traffic accidents resulting in child KSI casualties only, it is possible to map the
collisions in a similar way. Figure 8 shows all known child KSI collisions in Lewisham between 2007
and 2012. Whilst fewer collisions are recorded in Figure 8, it is still notable that many of the
collisions occur on major roads, with increased concentrations of incidents taking place on the A20,
the A2 and the A209 (South Circular), as well as in Lewisham and Catford town centres.
In order to reduce the number of casualties associated with road collisions, Lewisham Council’s
proposed 20 mph zone programme reflects area where there have been high casualty rates.
Lewisham has adopted an area-wide approach to the introduction of 20 mph zones with the aim for
20 mph zones to cover all local residential access roads. By 2010, 17 of the 27 geographically-defined
zones in Lewisham had appropriate 20 mph zones27.
Another important collision-reducing measure used in Lewisham is the use of safety cameras.
Decisions regarding the use of safety cameras in Lewisham are data-led and are taken with the
29
London Borough of Lewisham: Local Implementation Plan 2011-2031. April 2011.
Figure 7. Road traffic collisions (all ages) from 2006-200829
Borough’s approval, by the London Safety Camera Partnership. In 2010, there were 18 safety
cameras in the borough – 13 red light cameras, 3 fixed speed cameras and 2 fixed digital speed
cameras27.
The use of traffic engineering measures as targeted local safety schemes remain an important
method of reducing collisions. Between 2007 and 2010 the following measures have been used in
Lewisham:

Installing mini-roundabouts
Figure 8. Road traffic collisions resulting in a child KSI casualty 2007-2012 (compiled using data from TfL)

Providing traffic refuges

Providing anti-skid surfaces

Traffic calming features

Junction realignment27.
Finally, adequate street lighting and regular maintenance of Lewisham’s roads are essential for road
safety. A comprehensive relighting of the Borough has been begun as part of a joint 25 year PFI with
the London Borough of Croydon, with the installation of new lighting to be finished by 2014.
Maintenance works is also continually on-going and effort is made to ensure that work associated
with road safety, such as the renewal of anti-skid materials, replacement of traffic signs, School Keep
Clear marking and other safety markings are prioritised.
3.1.3. Road safety education programmes
Much work is also undertaken in Lewisham to improve road safety education, both for children and
young people within the school, home and leisure settings, as well as through the education of
targeted road users, such as new drivers.
Many specific projects have been undertaken in Lewisham to educate children in road safety. These
have included:

Kerbcraft
Kerbcraft is a practical child pedestrian training scheme, developed in Drumchapel, Glasgow,
by Professor James Thomson at the University of Strathclyde. It was designed to teach
pedestrian skills to 5 to 7 year olds, by means of practical road-side training rather than
teaching in the classroom and is built around teaching three skills:
o
choosing safe places and routes
o
crossing safely at parked cars
o
crossing safely near junctions
Skills are taught over the course of at least 12 roadside sessions. Children are taught in the
road environment near their schools, in pairs or groups of three children, by trained
volunteers.
The Department for Transport (DfT) piloted this programme in areas that could demonstrate
a need for child pedestrian training, that were areas of deprivation, and showed a
commitment and ability to host the pilot. Lewisham was successful in two rounds of the
three year programme in 2001 and 2002.
The programme worked intensively with 20 schools in the south of the borough and the
northern wards. The programme funded a full time officer to work intensively with up to 10
schools, encouraging parents and school teaching assistants to carry out roadside practical
training. The work, due to the health and safety guidelines, is quite costly. To continue to
offer this programme Lewisham Road Safety has had a How to set up and run your own
pedestrian skills guide. This is available to all schools in the borough free of charge.

Bikeablity
Cycle Training is offered by an in-house team to children currently in Year 6. The cycle
training comprises of off road and on road training.
The numbers of children trained to Bikeability levels 1 and 2 has increased year on year to
nearly 1000 pupils per year. The training is funded by TFL through the LIP programme. The
programme also enables the team to train adults.
This has been very successful in
encouraging parents to cycle with their children.
There is anecdotal evidence that children trained practically on the road as a cyclists become
more traffic aware and therefore safer more aware pedestrians.
Work with the RATED new drivers, see below, is also being carried out to ensure an
understanding of why cyclists cycle as they do, in an effort to create a greater respect of
vulnerable road users.

RATED
RATED (the Road Safety and ADI Driving Instructor Programme) is a unique scheme
developed by the Lewisham Council. The aim of the programme is to reduce the numbers of
young drivers & their passengers injured on our roads.
Young drivers are taught about protecting their own safety and the safety of their
passengers, as well as the need for them to consider the safety of vulnerable road users, in
particular, children.
The programme works in partnership with local instructors with the aim to reduce the
collision involvement of newly qualified drivers and create an awareness of personal risk
factors. It includes a Theory workshop to help learners to pass the theory test, e-learning
tools.
All instructors are given the information and training to deliver the in-car micro lessons
covering topics including drugs and medication, alcohol, speed choices, fatigues,
distractions, the influence of others, and the use of seatbelts.

DFT Funded Pilots –Lewisham was successful in attracting £18,000 over two separate three
year periods and a further £150,000 for a two year programme working with Young
Lewisham Motor Project, working with young moped and cycle riders.
In addition to these individually funded projects, the involvement of primary and secondary schools
has been essential in improving road safety in Lewisham. This has occurred in through both physical
and practical improvements and through educational programmes:

School Travel Plans (STPs)
The aim of the School Travel Plan Programme is to reduce the number of car journeys to and
from schools and to increase the number of people choosing healthier and more sustainable
‘active travel’ options such as walking and cycling. In conjunction with this, safety forms a
significant component within the aims of STPs, as walking and cycling routes around school sites
are often developed to make these modes of travel safer. In addition, by reducing car usage
roads become less congested, more pedestrian friendly and air quality is improved by lowering
pollution levels.
Lewisham Council has actively worked with local schools identifying local safety concerns
through School Travel Plans, which can be addressed by the implementation of physical
measures including:

Raised crossings

Bollards

Parking restrictions

Traffic signs

Improved Lighting

Speed humps
Where particular concerns have been identified in a travel plan, funding can be sought for traffic
calming features. One such example is the implementation of the 20 mph zone in Downham
East (in and around Haberdasher’s Aske’s Knights Academy and Launcelot Primary School).
The appointment of a School Travel Plan advisor in April 2004 has enabled a co-ordinated work
programme targeting all schools to produce and publish school travel plans. Transport for
London’s target is that all schools in London should have a School Travel Plan. Schools with STPs
can apply for additional funding for the installation of cycle racks, waiting shelters, CCTV etc. In
2011, 85 of 95 schools in Lewisham were involved in the School Travel Plan programme, of the
remaining ten schools – eight declined and two were closed for redevelopment. A total of 53
schools updated their school travel plan in the same year. Lewisham schools also received the
second highest funding level in London for their walking bus initiative to encourage children to
walk to school.
Unfortunately, there is no longer a school travel plan advisor appointed in Lewisham. This post
was part of the savings during 2011/2012.

School Crossing Patrols
School Crossing Patrols provide a vital service by escorting children across the road at points on
their journey where they are often most vulnerable.
Since April 2000 the school crossing patrol service (SCP) became a London borough remit. Since
this time all existing sites have been reassessed and some new sites have been added, whilst
others have been deemed to be no longer necessary. In Lewisham there are currently 50 sites in
need of a school crossing patrol, of which 28 are staffed. These sites are assessed in line with the
LARSOA School Crossing Patrol Guidelines. The Council runs an ongoing recruitment drive to
attempt to fill all vacancies.

Junior Road Safety Officer
Majority of primary schools in Lewisham are involved in the Junior Road Safety Officer (JRSO)
scheme. This gives pupils a dynamic role in road safety and active travel education along with
the chance to get serious messages across in a fun way. The road safety team offers support
throughout the year to the JRSO.
Schools usually appoint two JRSOs from pupils in years five or six. Their role is to spread road
safety and active travel messages to their school community by:
Giving talks
Running competitions
Putting up posters
Using their own ideas to spread the message
Each JRSO receives an activity pack to help them get started.

Lewisham Peer To Peer Road Safety Programme
The aims of the Lewisham Peer to Peer Road Safety Programme are:
o
to educate year 5 pupils to cascade train year 1 & 2 pupils
o
to support the JRSO programme
o
to encourage safer road use by year 5 & 6 pupils
The pack is aimed at Year 5 students and explores five areas of road safety. The work
culminates in the year five students presenting the information they have learned to
children in years 2 and 3. This is carried out in ‘junior citizen’ style activities. It is designed to
cater for mixed ability groups throughout.
The theme of road safety runs through all the work areas, including an introductory session hazard spotting, then 5 main topics of be safe be seen, the rules of the road, in car safety,
cycle safety and cycle maintenance.
The year 5 pupils are taught all together in the starter session, then split in to smaller groups
with each group being given a topic to work on. Together they produce a 10 minute
presentation to be delivered to their peers and the younger pupils at a later stage.
The road safety work offers pupils an opportunity to learn skills to plan, prepare
presentations, to carry out research. To deliver a message in a fun, lively way and the skill of
being able to speak in public with clarity and enthusiasm.
The local child casualty data shows that children are most at risk at between 3 and 6pm,
pedestrians and start to increase from the age of 8. The topics chosen to cover with pupils
are chosen to address the problems.

Secondary School Talks
A number of programmes have been developed for secondary schools, some for curriculum time
and some for one off presentations. These include topics such as advertising and road safety,
and geography and road safety. Road safety based lessons plans are available for teachers to link
to the curriculum targets. Additionally, school assembly presentations are available for all
secondary schools covering issues such as passenger safety, pre driver, moped riding and
pedestrian safety. Presentations at secondary school citizenship days are available to all schools
by road safety officers.
3.3 Where we currently stand: Data on road traffic accidents in children and young people aged 18
years and under in Lewisham between 2007 and 2011
The number of KSI casualties, in children and young people aged 18 years and younger between
2007 and 2011 is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9. KSI casualties in children and young people aged 18 years and younger in Lewisham from 2007-2012
Accident Severity
Fatal
Serious
Total
2007
22
22
2008
2
21
23
2009
2010
9
9
14
14
2011 Total
10
10
When these casualties are stratified according to mode of transport (Figure 10) it is notable that 70%
of the KSI casualties occurred to children who were pedestrians.
Figure 10. KSI casualties in under 18s stratified for mode of transport.
KSI casualties
8%
21%
Pedestrian
Pedal Cycle
Car
Bus Or Coach
1%
70%
Despite, the road safety measures used in Lewisham, highlighted in the previous section, the
number of child pedestrians involved in KSI accidents has not shown a consistent downward trend
2
76
78
over the last 5 years (Figure 11). However, the number of casualties is low, and it may take some
time for a consistent downward trend to emerge.
Figure 11. The number of child pedestrian casualties in Lewisham from 2007-2011
No of Child pedestrian casualties
14
12
10
8
No of Child pedestrian
casualties
6
4
2
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
The age range of children at increased risk of involvement in KSI accidents in Lewisham has
previously been suggested to be those aged 12-15 years. Figure 12 suggests a wider age range, with
increased numbers of accidents occurring in children aged 10-15 years. This may indicate that road
safety education should take place at an even earlier age, as by later ages, risk-taking behaviours
may already have developed in children leading to KSI casualties.
28% of child KSI accidents (22 of 78 casualties) occurred in the dark, including one fatality, and whilst
32% of accidents (25 of 78 casualties) occurred in roads further than 20m from a junction, 42% of
accidents (33 of 78 casualties, including one fatality) occurred at T-junctions, or staggered junctions,
and 18% (14 of 48 casualties, including one fatality) occurred at cross-roads. This may indicate that
whilst children understand how to be safe in basic road environments, education is still needed to
help them make good road safety choices the more complex situations mentioned above.
Figure 12. Child KSI casualties in Lewisham from 2007-2011 stratified by age
Number of road traffic casualties
12
10
8
Fatal
6
Serious accidents
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Age
3.4 Major issues and concerns
It is evident that much work has been done in Lewisham in the last decade to improve road safety
and to reduce the number and severity of road traffic accidents. However, continued investment of
both time and money is needed in order to maintain this work. Lewisham’s next Local
Implementation Plan comes into effect in 2014 and at this time the amount of LIP money is being
reduced, with the potential for less money being available for road safety measures. At the current
time, there is no possibility of Lewisham Council being able to make up this shortfall. These financial
constraints at best will slow the pace of progress in road safety in Lewisham, and at the worst will
risk jeopardising the advances in road safety made over the last decade leading to an increase in the
number of child KSI casualties in Lewisham.
Secondly, the road safety figures for Lewisham, and indeed for the whole of London rely heavily on
the completion of the STATS19 form at the time of the accident. The STATS19 form is filled out by
the police officer attending the scene of the accident and then passed through the relevant official
channels. This can pose two issues. Firstly, it is not uncommon for this form to be incomplete.
Incomplete forms, which fail to provide important information about the place, time or type of
accident which has taken place, could prevent the necessary measures being put in place to stop
further accidents taking place. Secondly, it routinely takes six to nine months after year end for
information about accidents which have taken place in a particular year, to be sent to the Road
Safety team from TfL. This means that if trends or patterns of accidents are present, there is a
significant time delay before the necessary measures can be introduced. This is time during which
further accidents could take place, accidents which could be preventable if this information was
obtained sooner. Further work is needed to identify whether key information could be available
sooner, either from TfL or through other routes e.g. the use of A&E records or other hospital data.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has provided an insight into the vast amount of work undertaken over the past decade in
order to improve the safety of children and young people on Lewisham’s roads. These
recommendations serve not to detract from all that has been achieved so far, but to ensure both
that this work is maintained in years to come, and to continue to allow road safety initiatives, both
engineering and education based, to develop and grow further over the next decade with the aim of
reducing the number of child KSI casualties in Lewisham even further.
We therefore recommend the following:

In order to maintain the observed decrease in numbers of child KSI casualties in Lewisham,
current levels of financial resources should be maintained.

Regular review or audit of the use of road safety measures in Lewisham is needed in order to
ensure the needs of children and young people are being met on the roads of Lewisham.

There is consistent evidence to suggest that a 20 mph speed limit increases the chance of
survival after a road traffic accident. Plans for an area-wide 20 mph zone on appropriate
roads in Lewisham by 2014 should be delivered.

Targeted education programmes for children and young people including guidance on how
to cope with complex situations on the road e.g. complex road junctions, or road safety at
night, should be available to school age children.

Lewisham Council should work with Transport for London and other relevant bodies to
identify ways in which key data regarding road traffic accidents can be made available to the
Road Safety team within three months of the year end.
Dr K Mohan
Liz Brooker
Ian Ransom
Dr D O’Sullivan