Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

LTNs halve number of road traffic casualties, new study shows

"To put it in context, that is twice as large as the 23 per cent reduction in injuries following the introduction of 20mph speed zones"...

Road injuries were halved in low-traffic neighbourhoods when compared against areas without the schemes, a new study has found.

The improvement in safety is more than twice that created by 20mph urban speed limits.

The research, which examined police data on casualties for 72 low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) put in place in London between March and September last year, also showed no apparent increase in danger on roads at their outer boundaries, the Guardian reports.

However, the greatest reduction in injuries was among pedestrians and people in cars, with a modest effect at most for cyclists, according to the study, which was led by Dr Anna Goodman, a public health expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, with academics from Westminster University and Imperial College London.

The report’s authors compared casualty data from October to December 2018 with the same period in 2019, and then the same months during 2020 after the schemes were installed.

> Hackney Council collects £2.7 million from drivers who breached LTN rules

Once the LTNs were in place, injuries fell to a ratio of 0.51 to 1 in comparison with the rest of London during the same period.

In contrast, there was no observable reduction, as against the rest of the city, in injuries from 2018 to 2019 within the future LTN areas.

The authors said this strengthened the case for the LTNs being the cause of the safety improvement.

The data also showed no observable change in injury numbers on boundary roads, defined as injuries taking place less than 25 metres from a road surrounding a scheme.

> High Court judge rejects challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

The number of road users killed or seriously injured inside LTNs also halved, although the authors emphasised that the dataset for this was notably smaller.

Goodman said that with an earlier study of a single, longer-standing LTN having found a substantial safety benefit for cyclists as well, it would be important to re-examine the issue once the schemes had been in place for more time.

Even so, Goodman said, the reduction in injuries was 'a really impressive effect'.

She said: “To put it in context, it is twice as large as the 23% reduction in injuries that was estimated following the introduction of 20mph speed zones in London in the early 2000s.

“Across Britain, over half of all pedestrian casualties take place on urban minor roads, as do a third of all pedestrian fatalities. This suggests extending these kinds of schemes to more urban minor roads could have substantial impacts on overall pedestrian injury rates.

Add new comment

8 comments

Avatar
jaymack | 2 years ago
3 likes

Low traffic neighbourhoods work, I mean, who knew?

Avatar
Awavey | 2 years ago
1 like

the thing that bugs me about this research data, is why are the KSIs so high in the first place.

These are mostly residential roads right ? so how is it that so many people are being killed or seriously injured as pedestrians on them when they arent protected by  an LTN ?

assuming the LTN is the thing thats offering the protection and its not just a random anomaly in the data due to changing habits of travel due to covid. and Id argue the non LTN areas dont provide the counter data on that part because they themselves may be seeing a change in pattern we cant measure purely statistically via KSIs.

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
5 likes

Awavey wrote:

the thing that bugs me about this research data, is why are the KSIs so high in the first place.

These are mostly residential roads right ? so how is it that so many people are being killed or seriously injured as pedestrians on them when they arent protected by  an LTN ?

assuming the LTN is the thing thats offering the protection and its not just a random anomaly in the data due to changing habits of travel due to covid. and Id argue the non LTN areas dont provide the counter data on that part because they themselves may be seeing a change in pattern we cant measure purely statistically via KSIs.

KSI'a are high in non LTN areas because they are racetracks for people to use from outside the LTN. A pedestrian (especially children or elderly) who walk out from between a park car across what used to be a quiet street is then hit by a speeding motorist who couldn't give a toss about the people who live there. Some of my local streets in the suburbs are essentially one car width wide thanks to cars parked on both sides of the street. The absolute minimum most cars are driven at is 30mph, often it's far, far higher. 
 

And so we have high KSI's and local people stopped from crossing the road they live on

Avatar
Awavey replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
1 like

they are basically saying in a 3month period in these LTN areas, pre LTN implementation, 81 people were hurt, now digging into it they do say those numbers count all injury severities so its not just KSIs, though they claim if you just do KSIs you get similar results in reductions through the LTN, though why they cant show that I dont know.

but anyway thats beside the point it still says 81 people were hurt, and over 7000 across London, but it feels so odd that no-one was doing anything about that to begin with.

dont the local communities lobby their councillors/mps/police to do something about it? it just seems an appallingly high level thats simply been accepted as part of life in these areas and I dont understand why.

Avatar
nikkispoke replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
1 like

I guess it is because we have become normalised to deaths and serious injuries due to traffic and over the years we continue to prioritise motor traffic and even blamed the victim as shown by the language that media reports use. Evidence shows that in urban areas when travelling by car you do not really save time, the proportion of people supporting commerce and shops is small but change is difficut and you can be in your own bubble and do not expend effort like walking or cycling. We know it is a false position as humans are designed to move so we now have an obesity and mental health challenege but the mirage or travelling with no effort pervades. This and those in positions of power be them politicians or highways designers are bought into the deception and cannot face reality. Charities such as Brake and Road peace have made many gains but are working against the system instead of with, which shows how powerful the distortion given the promise of speed and effortless travel is.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to EddyBerckx | 2 years ago
0 likes

Totally agree. We had a temporary unofficial LTN when the road works at the bottom of the road caused it to be closed for several days. The peace and quite without people racing up the hill outside the house (blind hill with cars parked on it but why would that slow them) was very noticable. I wasn't even fussed that I had to take a longer route home either. (I don't cycle on pavements if I can help it).

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
5 likes

The obvious answer is to make all residential roads LTNs, where possible, thus preventing the racers and the rat runners from accessing them.  This would have another massive advantage in reducing road capacity and cutting the number of cars, a long term objective, nay, necessity, if we are to prevent the planet burning.  Of course you'd also have to have segregated cycle and public transport lanes on the main roads, further cutting capacity.

This would reverse the policies of expansion of the road network to meet demand, the so-called "predict and provide" strategy which has so disastrously led us here, but there really isn't any alternative.  The problem is political, with the car lobby wielding enormous power, supported by many people whose jobs depend on building more and more cars.  The car industry are trying to push the idea that electric cars will solve all the problems of profligate car use, but they will exacerbate at least two; congestion and danger.  If people think their car is clean and green, they'll drive more, and the reduced noise will result in more deaths; we've all had people step into our path because they couldn't hear a car.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
5 likes

Awavey wrote:

the thing that bugs me about this research data, is why are the KSIs so high in the first place.

Because motor vehicles are dangerous, but we don't talk about it. Person injured by car doesn't make the news, even it it is a child and they were on the pavement. Barely makes the news when  when a car crashes into someones house.

shh nothing to see here, cars are not a problem at all.

Person injured by bike deserves national news coverage, either because it is so rare, or because there is an agenda.

Latest Comments