Agenda item

The Committee has requested a report on road safety in Oxfordshire.

 

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Sean Rooney, Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, and Andrew Ford, Road Safety Education Team Manager at Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service have been invited to present the report.  The Committee has also invited a representative of Thames Valley Police.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Sean Rooney, Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, Andrew Ford, Road Safety Education Team Manager at Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, and Anthony Kirkwood, Team Leader – Vision Zero, were invited to present the report.

 

The Committee had also invited a representative of Thames Valley Police (TVP), who sent apologies and a short statement in response to questions raised in advance. The statement explained that a dedicated roads policing team would work within communities to engage, educate, and enforce in areas with high casualty rates, targeting persistent offenders and collaborating with other agencies to address road safety issues. Written questions were welcomed for the TVP to address.

 

The Cabinet member for Transport Management opened the item by emphasising that safety sat at the centre of all transport policy. Vision Zero had been presented as the overarching framework guiding the Council’s decisions, with the ambition to eliminate all road deaths and serious injuries. The principle that deaths and serious injuries should not be seen as an acceptable cost of economic or environmental functioning had been reiterated throughout the discussion.

 

Recent and ongoing initiatives were highlighted, including the countywide 20mph programme, the expansion of school streets, and the delivery of segregated active‑travel infrastructure. The Cabinet member stressed that safety should take precedence across the transport network.

 

The Head of Service – Highway Maintenance and Road Safety noted that maintenance and safety must be managed together and prioritised, with Vision Zero at the forefront as a collaborative system involving multiple teams. The Head of Service highlighted the necessity for unified strategies across engineering, operations, and engagement.

 

The Road Safety Education Team Manager at Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue Service outlined how road safety education had moved into the Fire & Rescue Service’s Prevention team, which already worked extensively with schools and communities. The longstanding “three Es” - Environment, Education and Enforcement - continued to shape the programme. Vision Zero had helped to bring these elements closer together operationally. Officers highlighted a range of successful education programmes, including pedestrian training and cycle training reaching more than 6,000 children each year. There was an ambition to reach all schools, although instructor capacity had remained a limiting factor. Work with young drivers included advocacy for graduated licensing, behavioural‑change campaigns and advanced driver training opportunities. Officers had also delivered targeted engagement with motorcyclists and continued joint operations with TVP, offering equipment, safety advice and enforcement.

 

The Director of Environment and Highways acknowledged the recent publication of the national Road Safety Strategy and confirmed that Oxfordshire’s Vision Zero strategy would be reviewed to ensure alignment with the revised national framework. This review was seen as an opportunity to update priorities, strengthen partnership work, and reflect emerging best practice.

 

The Committee considered the organisational structure of road safety functions and discussed why Bikeability delivery sat within Fire & Rescue rather than Highways. Officers explained that several years earlier, when national road safety funding had been reduced and many councils had disbanded their safety teams, Oxfordshire had transferred the educational element into Fire & Rescue to preserve staff capacity. This approach had enabled the Council to avoid losing expertise at a time of instability nationally. Members questioned whether the model remained the most effective arrangement, especially given performance pressures and recruitment challenges. Officers accepted the concerns and stated that the structure could be reviewed, particularly in the context of future local government reorganisation, although they emphasised that outcomes rather than organisational location should guide decisions.

 

The Committee discussed the ongoing national shortage of Bikeability instructors. Officers explained that Oxfordshire worked with five contracted providers and a small internal team, all of whom were operating at maximum capacity and struggling to recruit. To create a more resilient model, officers were developing a new recruitment pool of instructors directly contracted to the Council but available to all providers. This would give greater flexibility and help address peaks in demand. Further work was underway with neighbouring Councils, the Bikeability Trust and local institutions to broaden recruitment and build long‑term stability for training providers, alongside strengthened engagement with schools to increase participation.

 

Members drew comparisons with Cambridgeshire, noting that its model appeared to provide greater stability for providers and more consistent instructor recruitment. Officers explained that Oxfordshire’s multi‑provider system had originally been chosen as a lower‑risk approach when national funding appeared uncertain. Although this approach had helped the county expand capacity, officers accepted that the Cambridgeshire model and other comparators should inform a future review, especially in light of ongoing recruitment challenges and the need for predictable long‑term delivery.

 

The condition of cycle lanes and the risks posed by potholes and poor surfaces were raised. Members described cases where cyclists had been forced into the carriageway to avoid defects, particularly in poor weather or at night. Officers acknowledged these concerns and reiterated that safety and maintenance were closely connected. Data on collisions, road condition and cycling patterns informed maintenance programmes, and interventions such as surface dressing, structural patching and drainage improvements were used to extend the lifespan of key active‑travel corridors. Officers emphasised that infrastructure improvements sat alongside education, behaviour change and design measures within a safe‑system approach.

 

Concerns were also raised about cyclists’ equipment and visibility. Officers confirmed that equipment formed a key part of education and enforcement. Roadside engagement events with TVP involved distributing lights, high‑visibility equipment and reflective accessories, funded from road safety budgets. Seasonal campaigns promoted visibility and planned improvements to public information, including updated materials and a refreshed website, aimed to strengthen safety messaging.

 

Bus speeds on arterial routes were discussed, with members suggesting that high speeds created a hostile environment for cyclists and pedestrians. Officers explained that while 20mph limits had been implemented widely across the county, decisions on arterial routes in Oxford were linked to broader transport considerations. Improving bus reliability and reducing congestion were identified as safety measures in themselves, reducing conflict points for cyclists. Officers acknowledged that speed enforcement rested with the police but noted that ongoing reviews of speed limits and road design on A and B roads formed part of the wider Vision Zero programme.

 

The Committee explored the handling of post‑collision information. A cited case involving a cyclist injured by a pothole on Botley Road highlighted inconsistent reporting from TVP to the Council. Officers acknowledged the issue and stated that while joint post‑collision site visits already took place, the system needed strengthening to ensure timely intelligence reached highways teams.

 

Members questioned the long‑term impact of the 20mph programme, noting that compliance varied between locations. Officers reaffirmed the programme’s importance to Vision Zero, referencing early evidence from other areas indicating reductions in casualties. Behaviour change was expected to develop over time, with further work on reviewing A and B‑road speeds underpinning wider safety objectives.

 

FixMyStreet was examined as a tool within Vision Zero. Officers explained that FixMyStreet formed a core element of the Council’s intelligence‑led safety approach, enabling real‑time reporting of defects and helping identify patterns and clusters of risk. The transparency of the platform was seen as a strength, allowing the public to track how defects were triaged and repaired. Members raised concerns about delays and the premature closure of some reports, and suggested stronger links between FixMyStreet data, Officer decision‑making and post‑collision information. Officers confirmed that improvements were underway, including system updates, clearer communication and improved engagement with members.

 

Members inquired about the methods used to identify future schemes and how they might access forward plans. Officers explained that a multi-year programme was published outlining resurfacing, maintenance, and safety-focused initiatives, all determined by casualty data, FixMyStreet reports, asset condition surveys, and predictive modelling. Particular emphasis was placed on active-travel corridors and bus routes to advance Vision Zero objectives. Locality meetings were described as valuable forums for members to contribute local insights prior to finalising programmes.

 

The Committee explored why A‑roads and junctions were prominent in casualty statistics. Officers explained that turning movements, particularly at side roads and roundabouts, created points of conflict where pedestrians and cyclists were often injured. To address this, new funding had been secured for schemes on Banbury Road and Iffley Road, incorporating side‑road entry treatments and measures to slow turning vehicles. These interventions formed part of the safe‑system approach, alongside engineering, enforcement and behavioural measures designed to account for human error. Upcoming corridor studies would further identify locations needing safety improvements.

 

Members discussed leadership structures and questioned whether the Council had a single officer with clear responsibility for both highways and road safety. Officers confirmed that the Head of Highways Maintenance and Road Safety also held responsibility for road safety, a deliberate decision taken two years earlier to strengthen strategic oversight and align asset management, engineering and safety work. Members welcomed the clarity and sought reassurance that this alignment translated into delivery; officers stated that the combined role improved responsiveness and use of safety data, though conceded that member communication could be strengthened.

 

Concerns about road signage and infrastructure, particularly around schools, were raised. Officers acknowledged that signage at certain school‑street locations, such as Windmill School, had led to non‑compliance and confirmed that improvements had already been made or were planned, including backing boards, refreshed markings and improved carriageway signs. Broader discussions recognised the importance of consistent design and clear signage within the safe‑system framework, with ongoing review of risks and compliance issues.

 

The Committee examined pedestrian casualty patterns, noting that some districts, especially Cherwell, showed high levels of pedestrian deaths and serious injuries. Officers confirmed that casualty data underwent detailed annual analysis and could be broken down to identify risks at junction or corridor level. They proposed using locality meetings to explore district‑specific patterns and ensure future investment aligned with areas of greatest need. Pedestrian safety remained a core focus within Vision Zero, with future programmes shaped by the evidence.

 

The safety of larger vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) connected with construction sites, was discussed. Members asked whether Oxfordshire should adopt standards similar to London’s Direct Vision Standard (DVS) or expand the use of Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) or Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) type safety requirements. Officers explained that, whilst national requirements could not be mandated locally, the Council worked with developers through Construction Traffic Management Plans and acknowledged that references to DVS and CLOCS could be strengthened. Although national vehicle regulation would ultimately deliver the largest improvements, officers were exploring how procurement, contractual standards, and partnerships with universities and city partners might extend local safety expectations.

 

Members questioned how funding decisions were made and whether safety schemes were truly guided by evidence. Officers explained that some funding streams, such as the Safer Roads Fund, required spend on specific corridors, but other investment was wholly evidence‑led. Collision analysis, condition surveys and modelling helped identify high‑risk junctions and areas used frequently by vulnerable road users. Predictive tools and FixMyStreet trends also shaped priorities.

 

Finally, the Committee asked about the completion of 20mph signage updates, including Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS). Officers confirmed that the remaining conversions, around fifty units, were being funded from the final stages of the 20mph programme budget. Progress had taken longer than expected owing to the volume of signs, but a dedicated Officer was working nearly full‑time on the remaining updates. Members stressed the importance of completing the conversions promptly to reinforce compliance and support wider safety outcomes.

 

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

 

• That Council should work to improve the post‑collision responses in regard to communication and follow-up, particularly about serious incidents.
• That the Council should launch a campaign to recruit more Bikeability instructors and investigate the underlying limiting factors.
• That the Council should improve the road‑safety website and marketing, ensuring clearer public information and better visibility of safety campaigns.
• That the Council should strengthen communication between officers and members, with clearer reporting routes and updates.
• That the Council should ensure Vision Zero / road‑safety data is taken to locality meetings for more granular analysis.
• That the Council should develop a specific pedestrian‑safety programme, focused on areas with high numbers of fatal and serious pedestrian casualties.
• That the Council should work with Thames Valley Police to encourage the increase of enforcement, including use of more speed cameras.
• That the Council should review the use and deployment of Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) to assess effectiveness and improve the process.
• That the Council should update the Vision Zero Action Plan (Annex 1 and Annex A) so that actions marked as complete or overdue are properly recorded.
• That the Council should encourage primary schools to have leaders for road safety.
• The Council should advocate nationally for improved HGV safety standards (e.g., type‑approval requirements).

 

The Committee adjourned at 11:28 and reconvened at 11:36.