Agenda item

ES 20295

A Member highlighted the fact that the Road Safety Policy had still not been published and asked when this would be done. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded that there currently existed fragmented information concerning the policy on the Council website and this needed to be consolidated into a new policy document and a new format. The process was taking longer than had been anticipated, but it was hoped to be completed by the end of July.

A Member observed that the numbers shown in the graph at section 3.9 of the report—'KSI Road Casualties in LB Bromley,’ were figures from 2005 to 2017 which had been back-cast using the new method of reporting that was used from November 2016, yet this back-casting was not noted in the report. The Member commented that if you were to work on a trend line graph for the last five years, i.e.., since the reporting mechanism changed, so 2017 figures up to 2022, (ignoring the pandemic figure in 2020) then the trend line would be observed as a straight line. This would show that KSI road casualties in Bromley had actually plateaued in those five years. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking agreed with the assumption that the figures had plateaued for that period. The Member felt that pandemic figures should not be included, but the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking  disagreed with this.

A Member stated that the report highlighted the Council’s own objectives with regard to ‘Making Bromley Even Better.’ This was in respect of projects to enhance walking and cycling infrastructure.’ She said that the report quoted the Making Bromley Even Better’ objective of..“the safety of road users on our streets needs to be enhanced as far as is possible.” But despite these statements, Bromley had the fourth highest rate of cycling KSIs per cycled trip in any London Borough. The Member stated that in terms of mode share, Bromley remained 29^th out of 33 boroughs for walking as a mode of travel in London. It was explained that existing limited road space made cycle routes less safe than would other wise be the case and that segregated cycle routes were preferable. Much money could be spent on a segregated cycle route whilst covering a limited distance as these were expensive to install. The Council felt that one of the best ways to reduce cyclist casualties was to provide road safety and cycle training programmes. 

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking clarified that whenever possible, the Council would look at data to identify accident hotspots involving cyclists. The Council would then introduce design improvements when possible to reduce casualties. This was currently being considered with respect to the ‘Chinese Roundabout’ in Beckenham, as approximately half of the accidents there involved cyclists. 

A Member referred to the graph in section 3.10: Road Fatalities LB Bromley. She asked if these fatalities included those who had died 30+ days or more after the collision, deaths that would be recorded under “Serious”, not “Killed” in KSI.  It was confirmed that the numbers on the graph did not include those who had died 30+ days after the collision.  It was also noted that the Council would not necessarily know who had died 30+ days plus after a collision.

A Member expressed the view that the report was not aspirational, but purely reactive to KSIs, and that a broader approach was required. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking disagreed and stated that the document was aspirational in that it was trying to balance finite resources with reducing casualties. He stated that it was not just KSI data that was used, but all casualty data was taken into account. The Council would invest finite resources wisely to save lives. The Member responded and said she believed that speeding was not just a police issue and said that there were things that the Council could do like use ANPR in diverse ways. She enquired if any speed cameras were available from TfL. The Assistant Director responded and said that with respect to ANPR cameras, the police would be required for enforcement. He said the Council was not able to use ANPR for speed enforcement.  In some cases LBB may be able to use speed reactive signs, but they would need to be prioritised because of cost. An update was provided regarding traffic education programmes.

A Member pointed out that a 45% reduction in accidents was good and that in many cases the police were of the view that accidents were caused by driver error rather than the road environment. He referred to the matter of cycle lanes and in particular the Crofton Road Cycle Lane Scheme. He said that no one used the cycle lane and it was a waste of £770,000 of taxpayer’s money.

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety said that behaviour change was required and noted the following reasons:

·  Cyclists breaking the law by cycling through red traffic lights.

·  Cycle lanes that had been installed by the Council but not used.

·  Pedestrians crossing roads and not looking properly as they were using their mobile phones.

·  People riding scooters in black, in the dark and with no lights.

·  People driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

·  Drivers driving and using their mobile phones.

·  Driving without using a seatbelt

·  Driving with no insurance 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be recommended to confirm the Borough’s approach to road safety and casualty reduction as set out in the report.