Organisation: Agilysis
Date of Publication: April 2023
Uploaded to Knowledge Centre: 25 April 2023
The Safe System Capacity Survey, carried out by Agilysis, represents a detailed analysis into the current state-of-play pertaining to the constituent components of the Safe System and its various levers or ‘change mechanisms’ which facilitate strategic action in each area.
The level of focus, resource, capital, guidance, and strategic co-ordination designated specifically to Safe System working has provided seminal insights into sector-wide variations, between different roles, regions, and organisations.
The headline analysis of the survey results was released to support a webinar series, where key outtakes and road safety expertise were brought together to consider next steps. Building upon this high-level analysis, critical questions are explored regarding how well stakeholders understand and are engaged with the Safe System approach and its imperatives as the guiding instrument to design and implement road safety interventions, and enhance their portfolios more broadly. The results of the survey have been segmented at the organisational level, reflecting this need to elucidate capacity between organisations to deliver the Safe System.
Local highways authorities, as those with responsibility for local road networks, generally recalled
that the Safe System was an ‘holistic approach’ where different components interact systematically to minimise risk and where ‘preventative’ action is taken by all stakeholders and road users. There was an equally strong recognition that a ‘proactive’ rather than ‘reactive’ ethos is critical. For a notable proportion of those who answered, however, the Safe System means changes to only ‘engineering measures’, ‘education, training, and publicity’, or the ‘operating speeds’ of the road network. Equally as many respondents successfully identified all five components of the System, with these respondents often relaying many of the principles which underpin the Safe System approach. Vision Zero was frequently citied as the overarching goal of the Safe System. There was a lack of recognition by some around the need for post-collision response and safe vehicle enhancements, and almost universally, there was minimal recognition of the Safe System levers needed to facilitate strategic action under Safe System components.
There was a mixture of responses about who the Safe System was for and its integral relevance to local authority action on road safety, with some reporting that they had ‘no idea’ what the Safe System was or that it was merely a ‘management tool’.
Among Fire & Rescue Service respondents, ‘partnership collaboration’ and ‘supporting other
workstreams’ were identified as part of ‘making a valid contribution to developing a Safe System.’
As was the case for local highways authorities, many respondents answering on behalf of police forces identified the System’s core components. Notably, police forces were more likely to note that the Safe System represented a ‘cultural shift’ away from reactive policy where the focus was on ‘blaming drivers or riders.’ Guidance on the appropriate articulation and application of Safe System was noted as important for further development.
The majority of those answering on behalf of transport authorities and local road safety partnerships recalled the Safe System principles consistently. The level of accurate and in-depth recall as to what it is meant by the Safe System, however, varied amongst respondents for these stakeholder groups. It is necessary to investigate the internal capacity of organisations, but also to recognise the need for proactive work across the sector that builds resilience in the constituent elements of the Safe System, leveraging the maximum resource available to bring about change.
Click the following link to download the report:
https://agilysis.co.uk/publications/#152-150-wpfd-white-papers