Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
SHEFFIELD MOTORISTS’ FORUM
Minutes of the
meeting held on 13 December, 2012
PRESENT:
Andy Barber
George Beale
Andy Bennett
Chris Blanksby
David Carter
Greg Challis
Tim Hale
Robert Prior
Vernon Silcock
Andy Sturrock
Haydn Vernals
Pete Vickers
GUESTS
Barry Smith
John Bann
1.
- Motorist
- Institute of Advanced Motorists
Network Management, Sheffield
Council
- Motorist
- Motorist
- Transport Planning, Sheffield Council
Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
- Motorist
- Amey (Streets Ahead)
- Motorist
- Motorist
- Highway Network, Sheffield Council
Manager, South Yorkshire Safety
Camera Partnership
Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking
Services
INTRODUCTION
Greg Challis welcomed everyone to the meeting. He explained that
Cllr Chris Rosling-Josephs, Cabinet Advisor for Transport, had
unfortunately been taken ill and had sent his apologies. Despite
attempts to find another Councillor to chair the meeting that
afternoon, none had been available so, with the agreement of the
meeting, he would take the Chair.
2.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
From Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs, Councillor Ian Auckland,
Chris Blanksby, Robert Baybutt and Steve Robinson.
3.
THE WORK OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE SAFETY CAMERA
PARTNERSHIP
a) Barry Smith Introduced himself to the Forum as
Partnership Manager for the South Yorkshire Safety
Camera Partnership (SYSCP) and started by tracing
some of the recent changes made in the organisation
which had emerged since the first speed and red light
cameras had been installed in the county in the 1990s.
b) The Partnership had formed in 2002, using Department
for Transport Guidelines, and involved the four South
Yorkshire local authorities, South Yorkshire Police, the
Highways Agency and the Courts and Tribunals service.
c) Until 2007 it had operated on the basis of “netting off”
Page 1 of 11
ACTION
ACTION: 3t)
Forum
members
invited to
suggest
locations
where
camera
enforcement
of speed
limits would
improve
safety
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
funding, in other words a proportion of fines recovered
from enforcement were claimed by the Partnership to
invest in further enforcement equipment, all with a brief to
improve road safety.
From 2007 onwards, funding was from local authority
Road Safety budgets and revenue from Speed
Awareness Courses. Again the South Yorkshire
Partnership continued to operate in accordance with DfT
guidelines, although they were under no obligation to
continue doing so.
In 2010 SCP Road Safety grants were abolished as part
of the Comprehensive Spending Review and, in order to
reduce the burden on local authorities, a levy was made
on Speed Awareness Course fees to enable their work to
continue.
The Partnership was looking at use of mobile cameras as
well as the traditional fixed cameras and, to this end, was
developing more robust policies in order to decide if and
where these could be justified. The problem with some
existing sites was that there was no “before” data, so it
was difficult to make valid comparisons with the data
since installation. They had to use their own criteria and
local knowledge to measure impact.
At the same time, decommissioning of sites had taken
place. The Partnership had 58 sites with some 69
camera housings across South Yorkshire and eight of
these had been removed leaving 50 sites with 58
housings. Five of the sites were taken out in Rotherham
in one batch, further sites had been removed in
Doncaster and Barnsley is currently being assessed.
Sites in Sheffield were also under active consideration.
Where fixed cameras were removed an alternative
intervention has been adopted, such as Vehicle Activated
Speed devices, Speed Indicator Devices, mobile
enforcement or road engineering measures. This was
because such sites had verifiable data that showed the
positive safety impact of the camera. Some sites were
not appropriate for such alternatives, or the camera was
demonstrably the most suitable option and at these
locations they were looking at upgrading to digital
cameras as “wet” film was phased out.
Mobile sites were being reviewed also, but all sites
needed to have adequate enforcement to be effective.
This was a challenge with the Partnership’s reduced
budget, and efficiencies were constantly sought in
resource and procedures to leave the maximum possible
available for enforcement.
Although the remit of the Partnership was to improve
road safety, the scheme had been criticised from different
quarters for revenue generation. However, the relatively
low number of fixed camera sites in South Yorkshire
Page 2 of 11
ACTION: 3v)
Barry Smith
to confirm
accident and
fatality
figures for
Sheffield and
how they
compare
with other
cities
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
showed that this was not the case and even these sites
were being reduced in number. The Partnership’s reason
for being was casualty reduction.
As the Government was not investing in any more fixed
sites, decommissioning unnecessary sites had enabled
consideration for enforcement at potentially new fixed
sites.
The biggest technological leap forward in recent years
had been the average speed camera, in which South
Yorkshire was proud to say they had led the way. The
camera on the A616 Stocksbridge by-pass, for example,
had proved extremely effective at a notorious accident
blackspot. New average speed systems had been
installed on the A61 to junction 36 and it was anticipated
that enforcement would begin in January 2013.
The Partnership would continue working towards further
casualty reduction, but given the funding position there
was a limit to what could be further achieved. Therefore
the casualty prevention agenda was coming more to the
fore. There remained a need for intervention at major
accident blackspots, and work would continue with the
police Safer Neighbourhoods Team to ensure a high
profile response at such locations.
Another development for the future was a shift towards
enforcement of other safety related driving offences, such
as wearing seat belts and mobile phone use. This
required a mobile unit with video capability. Equally,
these were driver education issues and so SYSCP would
assist the Police in this work. More targeted interventions
would be the future approach, including at certain times
of day when accidents were known to occur.
Members were invited to put comments and questions to
Barry Smith on behalf of the Partnership. David Carter
wanted to know about the reasoning behind targeting
signs for mobile enforcement and the income stream
arising from speed awareness courses. BS said that the
aim was to reduce the funding burden on local
authorities. The DfT had agreed that the levy on speed
awareness courses was appropriate and could be used
to offset Partnership operating costs only. Any revenue
above that amount went into a South Yorkshire wide
fund, to which partners could bid for schemes to improve
road safety. There were no seat belt specific courses at
this time, although one was under development.
Responding to David Carter’s further question about the
courses for motorists as alternatives to fines and licence
endorsements, BS said that two courses – Driving for
Change and What’s Driving Us – were offered. One was
a classroom based course, the other driving based. In the
former, mobile phone use was dealt with along with other
potential distractions. These educative courses were
Page 3 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
aimed at correcting errant driver behaviour.
q) Tim Hale said that he believed it was wrong to use speed
cameras to generate an income stream, and that their
role should be safety and accident prevention. Funding
priority should be given to generating publicity on the
need for seat belt wearing and the danger of accidents
caused by mobile phone use. He was also concerned
about people littering from cars, but BS confirmed that
this did not fall under the SYSCP remit.
r) Haydn Vernals said that accident data often failed to
record mobile phone use, even when it was a
contributory factor. He urged that the Partnership use its
influence to press for more accurate accident statistics
collection. BS said that there were shortcomings with the
collision recording mechanism and the “Stats 19” data,
which was compiled immediately after a road traffic
collision when the full circumstances were not
necessarily apparent. It thus excluded possibly more
relevant information subsequently uncovered by
investigation.
s) Andy Barber said that driver inattention should also be
taken into account, although the police did not seem to
be pro-active on this point. Mobile cameras were
important to assist the safety agenda, but it was
important to win the support of the public by informing
and involving them.
t) Barry Smith re-iterated that the Partnership enforcement
priorities were at sites with the highest KSI (Killed and
Seriously Injured) incidences. Additional sites to be
enforced were still being identified and he invited Forum
members to nominate locations for consideration. The
camera sites were pinpointed on the SYSCP website at
www.safetycamera.org
u) Responding to Andy Sturrock, Barry Smith confirmed that
the Partnership could consider enforcement of double
white line infringements and mobile phone use. The issue
was always having solid statistical evidence about the
prevalence of such driver behaviour and how likely it was
to lead to accidents.
v) Responding to Pete Vickers’ question about road
accident statistics and how Sheffield compared,
particularly in terms fatalities, BS said would he confirm
the statistics for the next Forum but explained the
approach adopted by the Partnership. Sheffield had a
higher accident rate than Barnsley, Doncaster and
Rotherham. Enforcement was county-wide and the top
25 sites were selected using a scoring system to
determine severity of the safety problem. Some 75% of
enforcement took place at these sites. In addition, there
were a further 12 sites county-wide that were enforced as
secondary or “community concern” locations. These did
Page 4 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
4.
not need to have a proven casualty record provided they
were perceived as a problem. Beyond this, enforcement
would be in conjunction with the Police Safer
Neighbourhood teams. The trend in accident statistics
was downward and it was acknowledged that this was
only partly as a result of the Safety Camera Partnership
intervention. Factors such as education and improved
engineering also played a part.
w) Tim Hale suggested that there were more safety cameras
than necessary and more should be removed and asked
what plans there were for this. BS said that this was
under active consideration but to reach such a decision
required the necessary evidence to show that safety
would not be compromised. He confirmed that the
SYSCP website included information on camera location
and further information was available on request.
x) Haydn Vernals said that his experience from West
Yorkshire suggested that it was important to consider all
the factors involved in accidents, not just speed. Andy
Barber pointed out that there was a tendency for drivers
to slow down as they approached speed cameras, only to
then speed up again. BS confirmed that the criteria that
the Partnership used was as set by the DfT. Since 2007
there had been no requirement to sign routes where
enforcement was taking place, but the policy locally was
to continue doing so. This was because the point was not
to catch people speeding, but to get motorists to drive at
a speed appropriate for the road as determined by the
speed limit.
y) David Carter said that as an advanced driver trainer he
was aware that the attitude amongst the general public
towards speed cameras was pretty poor. If people
slowed down at cameras this meant they were achieving
their purpose, although there was still much work to do in
winning over the public, for example by using the website
to explain why average speed cameras were necessary
on the A61.
z) Concluding, Barry Smith agreed that there was still work
to do in convincing the public, but he had been frequently
and pleasantly surprised at the degree of support there
was for speed cameras and the work that the Partnership
did for road safety.
HIGHWAYS PFI – UPDATE FROM CONTRACTOR AMEY ON
STREETS AHEAD PROJECT
a) Vernon Silcock, Amey Community Assembly Steward,
introduced the item by referring to the recent severe
weather which had provided a first test for the Winter
Maintenance programme, for which Amey was now
responsible.
b) He recapped for the Forum on the approach Amey was
adopting to Highway Maintenance works – dividing the
Page 5 of 11
ACTION 4k):
Vernon
Silcock to
look into
Streets
Ahead
website
access
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
city into A zones, which were traffic sensitive, and B issues
zones which were non-sensitive. In the Northern
Community Assembly area work in the largely rural
Ewden zone was due for completion on 17 December
and would provide valuable feedback for the next phase.
Amey was keen for this reason to meet the public at
roadshows, the latest of which had taken place at
Wisewood, where work would be carried out to roads and
pavements, street lighting, drainage and some structural
improvements in the New Year. Wisewood overlapped
with other areas, hence roadshows would also be held in
Stannington and Walkley, along with a drop-in planned at
Hillsborough barracks. However the turn-outs at
roadshows had been low so far, perhaps due to the
weather, and there had been a minimal response from
businesses which was surprising.
In the North East Community Assembly area work in
Shiregreen was complete so feedback was being sought
to help improve and refine the operation. Some 250
surveys had been distributed at random to the public and
a report would be drawn up based on these in January.
Work on street lighting in Carbrook was complete and
would start soon on footpaths, followed by road
surfacing.
For the next phase of works further roadshows were
planned, for example in Manor and Effingham, in the
South East area at Mosborough (which included a drop in
at the Community Assembly meeting) and as part of an
extensive programme for the South and South West
Community Assembly areas.
Amey’s roadshow bus would also be making its first
appearance soon, the purpose being to contact the
community at strategic locations, particularly at hard-toreach sites.
VS concluded by highlighting to the Forum an online
survey on the Council website which aimed to capture
people’s thoughts about the current condition of the road
network and improvements needed.
Robert Prior opened the discussing by saying that there
was a recent BBC news item which had been critical of
the project. The TV had interviewed people who
complained about the disruption caused by the work. He
felt that the public should be expected to fend for itself
more when works were carried out and that a high level
of investment in this aspect of the project could not be
justified, especially when there was a much greater need
to address, for example, city centre access issues.
Tim Hale asked about the approach in rural areas. Were
all roads resurfaced regardless of condition? Many of
them were already suitable for lower speeds being
narrow and without pavements, so was remodelling
Page 6 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
planned? Vernon Silcock explained that roads would be
assessed by a “walk and build” exercise, where Amey
staff would firstly gather all the existing information about
road condition and then take a manual overview to
finalise what work was necessary. There would be no
work done for the sake of it, but on rural roads where
there might be overgrown verges and carriageway
damage then restoration would be to the road’s original
appropriate and agreed width.
Haydn Vernals highlighted difficulties he experienced
accessing the Streets Ahead website from a laptop
computer and via an I-pad. Vernon Silcock to investigate.
Tim Hale pointed out that since Amey had taken over
responsibility for clearing up fly-tipping, there was no
longer a direct dial number available. Vernon Silcock said
that this was laid down in the contract and was therefore
a matter for the client team in the Council. Tim Hale said
that his experience of using the general Streets Ahead
email was that it was well administered, but the example
he had reported had not been resolved, despite the
promise to do so.
Vernon Silcock drew attention to questions from the
public about Shiregreen road markings and whether all
white lines were to be replaced. John Bann took up the
theme, explaining that there was a new innovative traffic
calming approach being tried in both Shiregreen and
Wisewood. At crossroads and T-junctions on main roads
white lines were retained. Give Way lines had been
removed at certain appropriate T-junctions. Introducing
an element of uncertainty to the road lay-out seemed to
encourage motorists to approach the junction more
slowly and carefully.
In Shiregreen new style road markings had been in place
for six months and had now been made permanent
having been subject to a formal road safety audit. The
Council had written to all residents and there was some
concern expressed about accidents but the overall
Council view was that if speeds were lower, then injuries
would generally be less serious.
Responding to David Carter’s question about the thinking
behind unmarked T-junctions, John Bann said that such
markings at junctions already existed, for example on
new housing estates. It was for motorists to do what the
Highway Code indicated by “proceeding with caution”.
Shiregreen was an estate built in the 1930s and designed
largely without cars in mind, so the roads allowed for this
more flexible approach.
David Carter said that the “uncertainty principle” seemed
to work in making motorists proceed with caution, as was
shown when traffic lights were not working. However,
road markings and traffic lights were important in
Page 7 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
5.
safeguarding pedestrians. John Bann said that the
Council remained mindful of risk, which was why it had
been properly assessed. Weighed against this was the
need to innovate and try new approaches and learn from
that. For this reason some experimental signs and road
markings which had been trialled had not been installed
as part of the permanent changes.
ENFORCEMENT OF MOVING TRAFFIC OFFENCES (additional
item)
a) John Bann introduced this item explaining that the 2006
Traffic Management Act allowed local authorities to
enforce traffic offences including infringement of double
yellow lines and bus lanes. In Sheffield, the Council had
had these powers for five years. The Act also had
provision for further powers permitting Councils to
enforce a range of moving traffic offences. At a meeting
with Transport Minister Norman Baker MP, Sheffield and
Nottingham had requested that they be granted these
powers and the Minister had invited them to make the
case and convince him that this was important. There
was already similar enforcement of yellow box junctions
in London.
b) Enforcement of this type had been endorsed in the recent
City Deal, with the Local Enterprise Partnership
supporting such measures to reduce road congestion.
The Police were not resourced to undertake this work, as
they concentrated on speeding, dangerous driving, drink /
drug driving and seatbelt compliance. It meant that there
was minimal enforcement of other driving transgressions
which between them were responsible for a significant
amount of disruption on the roads.
c) There were, therefore, three elements to the case for
enforcement – firstly reducing congestion, secondly
improving safety and thirdly supporting sustainable
modes of transport such as walking and cycling by
keeping pedestrian precincts and cycle lanes free of
vehicles.
d) He was aware that the Motorists Forum was concerned
about congestion and that the proposal had already been
raised at the Chamber of Commerce Transport Forum.
Feedback there suggested that there was concern about
how such enforcement could become a new income
stream for the Council. He wanted to reassure the Forum
that the Council was fair in the way that it enforced traffic
offences such as bus lanes. The point was that ignoring
abuse of bus lanes was unfair on the overwhelming
majority of motorists who respected them.
e) He concluded by saying that a submission had been sent
to Norman Baker making the case for the use of the
moving traffic powers, and that it would be helpful to have
the Forum’s support should a meeting take place with the
Page 8 of 11
ACTION 5i):
Andy
Bennett to
consider
appropriate
locations for
“merge in
turn” signs
ACTION 5n):
Tim Hale to
look into
potential
survey of
SCCI
members
about liftsharing
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
Minister to further discuss this.
Responding to Tim Hale, John Bann confirmed that only
the Police had authority to issue points on licences and
this would not change. Where speeding offences were
involved drivers had the option of attending a speed
awareness course. The Council policy was to issue
warning notices first, rather than moving straight to fines.
David Carter welcomed the proposal but stressed that
management of information was key. If drivers knew why
cameras were there and the safety and congestion
reasons were properly explained, they would understand
that it was a good idea.
Andy Sturrock pointed out that some the road restrictions
that were helpful during busy times, did not serve any
congestion beating purpose in the middle of the night.
Robert Prior felt that it was generally a good idea but
noted that yellow boxes on Gibraltar Street and at the
University roundabout were often abused. This was
because the ring road was not fit for purpose at such
locations. There remained a pressing need to sort out
these bottlenecks and blame should not be pinned on the
motorist in such situations. Andy Sturrock added that at
the University roundabout it was very easy to get stuck in
the yellow box when the pedestrian lights changed.
Andy Barber said that it would help congestion issues if
motorists would “merge in turn” where two lanes went
into one. Andy Bennett said that Amey would be
replacing signs as part of the Streets Ahead programme
and they could install such signs, which would be
beneficial at some locations.
Tim Hale said that the root of the problem was that road
closures had forced too much traffic into bottlenecks such
as the Brook Hill (University) roundabout. He felt that
Council enforcement officers tended to be over-zealous
and he had more confidence in the Police when it came
to enforcing restrictions in order to keep traffic flowing.
John Bann explained the Council thinking behind road
closures which were in response to requests from local
neighbourhoods. The considerations were road safety,
environmental and better traffic management. The
changes were implemented for the best of reasons, and
to improve quality of life for residents, but it was a matter
of opinion as to whether the Council had got it right in all
cases. He was happy to give more detail on why
particular schemes had been done in a certain way.
Robert Prior suggested that prime examples of road
closures which had created problems for the city were at
Pinstone Street / Moorhead and The Wicker. Tim Hale
noted that the Council had agreed to another new
development by the University of Sheffield which would
add to the problems in the Brook Hill area. He was also
Page 9 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
concerned about the impact of the Children’s Hospital
extension, which he understood had an 120 additional
car parking places. The problems on the Inner Ring Road
needed to be sorted out before further developments of
this sort. Andy Sturrock said that capacity issues needed
to be addressed, for example by expanding to three
lanes on the Ring Road.
Andy Bennett acknowledged that the Ring Road was
blocked at certain times, but the answer was not to
simply allow traffic to “free form”. Because of road
capacity and traffic volume issues it had to be metered
and kept moving as far as possible by simplifying
movements and reducing conflicting turns.
Robert Prior said that when the Variable Message Signs,
for example outbound to Hillsborough, showed delays it
resulted in motorists diverting on to even less adequate
routes such as Queen Street. One consequence was
traffic then queuing across the ring road and
compounding the problem.
Haydn Vernals spoke about his positive experience of car
sharing to his workplace. He had saved money, felt less
stressed, in better health and more productive at work as
a result of sharing driving with others. Even doing so
once or twice a week would do much to ease the
congestion problem. He wondered if the Chamber of
Commerce could offer incentives for car sharing and the
Council open up bus lanes to vehicles carrying four
people. Tim Hale, noting the reduction in traffic during
school holidays and the difference it made, said he would
look into whether an SCCI member survey would help.
Andy Barber said matching people to lifts could be a
challenge, particularly where long distances were being
travelled. Greg Challis said that experience of car sharing
schemes showed that there were matches for most lift
requests and spin-off benefits for companies that
incentivised such travel.
Responding to Tim Hale’s question, John Bann
confirmed that buses did not carry camera equipment to
record traffic offences, although on board cameras on
some buses provided information in the event of
collisions or for highway management purposes.
John Bann summed up the discussion around
enforcement of moving traffic offences. He understood
the Forum’s concerns about congestion and that traffic
laws should be enforced. He noted that the Council also
needed to get the road network right. Any enforcement
proposals needed to be specific and the reasons for them
explained to the public. Enforcement should not be over
zealous but flexible in implementation and be preceded
by a warning. He would use this as a summary from the
Forum in his response to the Minister.
Page 10 of 11
Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 13 December, 2012
6.
7.
8.
MINUTES OF THE MOTORISTS' FORUM 27 SEPTEMBER 2012
a) The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September, 2012
were agreed as a correct record.
MATTERS ARISING / UPDATE ON ACTIONS
a) It was agreed that these would be circulated to Forum
members for information, the meeting having overrun its
allotted time. The meeting was brought to a close.
Dates of meetings in 2013: (4.30pm at Sheffield Town Hall)
Thursday 21 March
Thursday 20 June
Thursday 19 September
Thursday 12 December
Page 11 of 11