Lead Safety Indicators Richard Leonard, Highways England

RIS1 Performance Specification As part of RIS 1 and RIS 2, we already have Key performance indicators and indicators for the business. These all include targets for performance which we are working to hit – details of which can be found in our 2015-2020 delivery plan and various other documents.

Developing a RIS2 Performance Specification Metric Does the metric align with a policy aspiration or long term RIS /HE commitments? Does the metric make sense to road users and other stakeholders? Is the metric aligned to road user priorities? Does the metric create the right behaviours From Highways England Road users Other stakeholders Is the metric affecting the right outcomes? Is the metric tried and tested, or has it been validated (for example through trialling)? Does the level of frequency that data can be provided align with reporting cycles? Is the monitoring burden acceptable to HE and ORR? Are there gaps or duplications with other metrics? Is the quality of the data, and process for capturing and reporting the data sufficiently robust for the purpose needed? Target What triangulation has been undertaken Historical trends Benchmarking Long term commitments Are trade-offs or synergies with other metrics considered? What sensitivity analysis has been undertaken? Do we understand levels of uncertainty? Is HE’s level of control over the metric understood? Is modelling sufficiently robust for the purpose needed and has it been assured? Challenge 1 - Complexity – Interaction Between KPI’s/PI’s – Trade Offs – PACTS 8 Lead Indicators…..could we apply them to the SRN, what's our control, are they achievable (iRAP Star Rating)

Transport Focus/ORR – Road User View Challenge 2 – Cultural…… maturity of thinking…….. measuring failure

Road Safety Performance Framework Challenge 3 – a systems approach – development if indicators aren’t in a vacuum – build on activities to date…role of Stats19 (supportive, but never in isolation, i.e. Fatality Research) Sources of data – are they as comprehensive as they can be, there are many gaps which restrict our approach…i.e. insurance data, what about new sources of data and insight….are we data rich and intelligence poor….can I act meaningfully on insight provided Do our Performance Frameworks drive the right behaviours – are targets agile enough…….what are the effective feedback loops which allow us the change our interventions, i.e. speed compliance…granularity, Intelligence Performance Knowledge Hub

A Safe System Approach to Lead Safety Indicators Safer Road Users Safer roads and roadsides Safer Speeds Post Crash Care Safer Vehicles Challenge 4 – What are we doing? Incrementally developing our Approach. The project has been split under the banners of safe system to give it some structure: safer speeds, safer roads, safer users, safer vehicles and post-crash care. With that in mind, there are areas which will be easier to develop indicators for than others. There are areas where we know we can develop indicators more quickly – safer roads for example. We know a lot about the makeup of our network and we have KPIs surrounding areas such as IRAP. In areas such as speeding, we have a lot of information surrounding compliance on our network and we have clear enough indications of where our KSIs and casualties sit in terms of contributory factors. THE SRN IS A LARGE AND COMPLICATED NETWORK what might a meaningful measure of safe vehicles using the SRN look like? We need to monitor over time and we need to make sure that our data is representative of what is happening. We also need to ensure that the data we have has enough granularity to tell us what’s happening in our various regions as an issue in one area of our network might not be happening in another. This not only we allow us to tailor interventions better but to ensure that we don’t apply blanket interventions which won’t work everywhere. E.g smart motorways vs APTRN

Developing Lead Safety Indicators Where we might need to challenge ourselves if we want more meaningful safe system data (i.e. seatbelt wearing rates at night, mobile phone usage, differential speed on dual carriageways, what might a measure of close following look like, is it feasible to create a valid metric for middle lane hogging, access to better data on prosecutions/disposal through education, The Challenges for us in developing lead safety indicators are If You Can't Measure It, You Can't Improve It But we do have a lot of data that is useable and that can give us a clearer picture of what is happening. Lead indicators rather than lag indicators? Quantifying inputs and outputs/outcomes? Interdependency with other metrics has to be understood

Customer Centred? And not just the Interdependency with other metrics but we have to consider whether metrics are for ALL our customers. Do we prioritise certain customers/certain behaviours or do we try to address everything? Relationship between objective performance and subjective measures of expectations and satisfaction? Lead Safety Indicators that work for all of our customers.

Summary We need indicators (Lead & Lag) that are challenging but achievable, measurable and cost effective Metrics must recognise interdependencies and provide a holistic framework approach Elements which are SRN specific, reflecting its complexity and can be effectively influenced Indicators need to be reasonable and must drive the right behaviours from all parts of the system With this comes the understanding that we have to clear about what we can do and what we might not be able to do. We need indicators that are challenging but achievable, measurable and cost effective. Elements which are SRN specific and can be influenced by Highways England/user? Have to be reasonable with our expectations. To put it simply - You can't manage what you can't measure (how long is a piece of string – I actually took this photo on my kitchen table so I hope you like it!)

Questions or suggestions? Richard.leonard@highwaysengland.co.uk Katy.Harrison@highwaysengland.co.uk