COMPREHENSIVE data on road traffic collisions and casualties has been released by the North West Public Health Observatory – with details on the situation in Warrington.
The report shows that Warrington has a significantly worse number of road casualties than the region as a whole, a significantly worse number of hospital admissions but a significantly better record on accidents involving pedestrians.
In most other respects, the borough’s record is not significantly different to the rest of the region.
The report is intended to support local decision-making and inform the development of local plans to reduce the risk of injury and death from road traffic collisions among people who travel in the region.
For the first time, the report brings together data from five sources, the police, ambulance service, A&E attendances, hospital admissions and mortality data.
The North West has the highest rates of all age and child road casualties in England, despite the number falling by about a fifth over the last 30 years.
Between 2006 and 2008, on average, 1,072 people per year were injured in a road traffic collision in Warrington, a directly standardised rate of 563.55 per 100,000 population. This is significantly worse than the North West average of 469.36.
Of the 1,072 casualties, on average 109 were killed or seriously injured (KSI). This equates to a directly standardised KSI rate of 57.43 per 100,000 population compared to the regional average (50.89).
There were 97 pedestrian casualties per year in Warrington. This gives a
directly standardised pedestrian casualty rate of 50.34 per 100,000 population, significantly better than the North West average of 61.84.
Casualties were injured in a total of 774 collisions per year in Warrington.
This equates to a crude rate of 396.42 collisions per 100,000 population, which is significantly worse than the North West average of 320.40.
A total of 101 children aged 0-15 years were injured in road traffic collisions in Warrington per year and of these casualties, 14 were killed or seriously injured. Warrington’s child casualty rate was 266.72 per 100,000 (crude rate) – not significantly different to the regional average of 281.48, while the child KSI rate was 36.85 per 100,000, not significantly different to
the North West rate of 36.45.
There were 639 ambulance call outs to road traffic incidents in Warrington, a rate of 326.21 per 100,000 population, not significantly different to the North West rate of 325.75.
There were 283 hospital admissions of Warrington residents per year as a result of road traffic collisions. The hospital admission rate is 145.91 per 100,000
population, significantly worse than the regional average of 123.05. Of these admissions, 50 were for children aged 0-15 years, equating to a crude rate of admission of 131.6 per 100,000 population aged 0-15 years, not significantly different to the regional average of 148.18.
On average per year, 10 people from Warrington died as a result of a land transport accident, equating to a directly standardised mortality rate of 4.86 per 100,000 population, not significantly different to the regional average of 4.34. In total, 18.98 years of life per 10,000 population under 75 years are lost in Warrington as a result of land transport accidents, not
significantly different to the regional average of16.82.
“Child accidents could be avoided”
At the same time, the 20s Plenty for Us campaign – which was founded in Warrington and wants 20mph zones in residential areas – claims research carried out by the North West Regional Directors of Public Health, indicates that 140 fatal or serious child accidents could have been avoided between 2004-2008 if residential 20 mph speed zones had been introduced across the region.
It strongly recommends that wide-area 20 mph limits for residential streets, without traffic calming, be included in all council’s Local Transport Plans before March 30.
Some councils, including Warrington, are already committed to wide area residential 20mph limits.
20’s Plenty for Us campaign director Rod King said: “Our campaign for lower speeds has been very successful and now over five million people live in local authorities with Total 20 policies.
“This report provides a critical review of how our road network in the North West is failing and aligns its recommended intervention with our campaign. Total 20 is winnable for communities and progressive local authorities are recognising that Total 20 delivers benefits not only across all their Local Transport Plan
objectives, but also makes their cities, towns and villages better places to live. We welcome the report.”
7 Comments
Standardising these figures across towns by “per 100,000 population” results in artificially skew results. What has the population of a place got to do – directly – with road accident rates? To be statistically rigourous the figures should be standardised by number of road users and number of miles driven.
Warrington – being an employment and shopping hub for a large part of the region as a whole – has a FAR higher number of road users than its simple population would indicate. More people using the roads will naturally lead to more people involved in accidents.
At least these figures do show that Warrington already has a MUCH lower pedestrian casualty rate than other areas – which means there’s absolutely no need for an anti-motorist cycling nut to keep spouting all this “20’s Plenty” rubbish.
Are the motorways that surround the town included in those figures, if so then I suggest that they should be excluded?
With regards to the 20mph campaigners, why don’t they stand for election, the results would be most informative.
Figures don’t tell the story. Why did these accidents happen and where? Are they caused by locals or by people who don’t know the town?
Until they have a proper ringroad system in to stop drivers having to go through town to get to the other side and stop messing with every junction, even the locals will get confused and frustrated.
More and more apartments/flats are being built which means more cars.
Things won’t improve until sensible changes are made.
It’s time that we had a decent Highways dept.
I agree with Inky Pete – you only have to look at the sheer volume of traffic in my area (Birchwood) to recognise that more traffic must equate to more accidents. Plus, the fact that commuters are speeding on ‘rat runs’ to avoid the hold-ups on the main roads. You take your life in your hands trying to cross the road that serves the estates by me – supposed to be 30mph but traffic usually far in excess of that.
Unsolveable problem. Too many cars, too few roads, too little real estate, it was always going to reach saturation point at sometime on a small island. The only answer for the furure is to restrict car ownership – one per family? Bad medicene I know, but is there an alternative?
Yep. Build more, and better, roads – a decent ring road as has been suggested as a start. Build more crossing points over the Mersy and Ship Canal. Get a DECENT team in to re-design and re-prioritise junctions in a joined up way across the borough so that traffic FLOWS instead of forcing it to constantly stop/start. Stop stealing tarmac space that motorists have paid for and reserving it for the exclusive use of the occasional bus. Require all bus stops to be off-road layby types so as to prevent a stationary bus from completely closing a road when it stops every couple of hundred yards. Require the fitting of number plares to bicycles, and police them in exactly the same way as cars when they run red lights, ride on the pavements, and go the wrong way along one way streets. There are lots of things which could be done if motorists weren’t simply treated as eco-wreckers who deserve to be taxed out of existence. And most of all, ACCEPT that life is not without risks and that a certain level of accidents is INEVITABLE regardless of what transport method is used.
What an excellent post Inky. Really summed things up.