The impact of 20 mph traffic speed zones on inequalities in road casualties in London

Background Road traffic casualties show some of the widest socioeconomic differentials of any cause of morbidity or mortality, and as yet there is little evidence on what works to reduce them. This study quantified the current and potential future impact of the introduction of 20 mph zones on socioeconomic inequalities in road casualties in London. Methods An observational study based on analysis of geographically coded police road casualties data, 1987–2006. Changes in counts of casualties from road collisions, those killed and seriously injured and pedestrian injuries by quintile of deprivation were calculated. Results The effect of 20 mph zones was similar across quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation, being associated with a 41.8% (95% CI 21.0% to 62.6%) decline in casualties in areas in the least deprived quintile versus 38.3% (31.5% to 45.0%) in the most deprived quintile. Because of the greater number of road casualties in deprived areas and the targeting of zones to such areas, the number of casualties prevented by zones was substantially larger in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation. However, the underlying decline in road casualties on all roads was appreciably greater in less deprived areas (p<0.001 for trend) so that despite the targeting of 20 mph zones, socioeconomic inequalities in road injuries in London have widened over time. Extending 20 mph schemes has only limited the potential to reduce differentials further. Conclusions The implementation of 20 mph zones targeted at deprived areas has mitigated widening socioeconomic differentials in road injury in London and to some degree narrowed them, but there is limited potential for further gain.

[1]  Paul Wilkinson,et al.  Effect of 20 mph traffic speed zones on road injuries in London, 1986-2006: controlled interrupted time series analysis , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  I. Chalmers,et al.  Using evidence to inform health policy: case study , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Evaluation of the health effects of a neighbourhood traffic calming scheme , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[4]  Ian Roberts,et al.  Deprivation and road safety in London - a report to the London Road Safety Unit , 2008 .

[5]  Peter Heywood,et al.  How and why do interventions that increase health overall widen inequalities within populations , 2009 .

[6]  Ian Roberts,et al.  Deaths from injury in children and employment status in family: analysis of trends in class specific death rates , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  C. Dibben,et al.  The English indices of deprivation 2004 , 2011 .

[8]  K Lachowycz,et al.  Serious injuries in children: variation by area deprivation and settlement type , 2008, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[9]  O. Morgan,et al.  Measuring deprivation in England and Wales using 2001 Carstairs scores. , 2006, Health statistics quarterly.

[10]  Paul Wilkinson,et al.  20 mph zones and road safety in London , 2009 .

[11]  H. Roberts,et al.  Can traffic calming measures achieve the Children's Fund objective of reducing inequalities in child health? , 2003, Archives of disease in childhood.

[12]  Eric Grubb,et al.  URBAN STREET ACTIVITY IN 20MPH ZONES. , 2002 .

[13]  Elizabeth Towner,et al.  Injuries in children aged 0-14 years and inequalities , 2005 .

[14]  R A Lyons,et al.  Traffic calming policy can reduce inequalities in child pedestrian injuries: database study , 2005, Injury Prevention.

[15]  S. Babones Social inequality and public health , 2009 .

[16]  Phil Edwards,et al.  The limitations of targeting to address inequalities in health: a case study of road traffic injury prevention from the UK , 2008 .

[17]  Traffic speed zones and road injuries , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  R Wentz,et al.  Area-wide traffic calming for preventing traffic related injuries. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.