Victorian Road Harm Intelligence

This graph focuses only on fatal and serious injuries.

That makes it one of the most important charts, because it removes the lower-severity injury component and looks directly at the outcomes that matter most for road-safety policy.

The highest councils by fatal and serious injuries are Greater Geelong, Casey, Melbourne, Greater Dandenong, Hume and Brimbank.

What stands out again is the mix of places at the top. Greater Geelong ranks first, showing the large serious road-trauma burden in a major regional city. Casey, Hume, Wyndham, Cardinia and Melton show the pressure in outer-suburban growth corridors.

Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra, Merri-bek and Darebin show the inner-city and inner-metro serious-injury burden. Greater Dandenong, Brimbank, Monash, Kingston and Whittlesea show the role of major arterials, freight movement and high-volume suburban corridors.

This graph is useful because it is harder to dismiss as just lots of minor crashes. These are the places where people are being seriously injured or killed in large numbers.

It is not a ranking of council performance. It is a public-interest screening view showing where fatal and serious road trauma is most concentrated.

This graph shows councils with the highest SCATS-matched road harm.

SCATS is Victoria’s traffic signal system, so this graph is focused on road harm captured near signalised intersections and signal-adjacent locations.

That makes this a very important intersection-safety chart.

The highest councils by SCATS-matched weighted road harm are Melbourne, Greater Dandenong, Casey, Monash, Hume, Kingston, Port Phillip, Brimbank, Stonnington and Yarra.

Melbourne is the clear standout, with a much higher SCATS-matched harm score than any other council.

That suggests a very large share of Melbourne’s road-harm burden is concentrated around signalised intersections, where pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, trucks, trams, buses and turning traffic all interact.

Greater Dandenong, Casey, Monash, Hume, Kingston and Brimbank also rank very highly, which points to the importance of major arterial intersections, high-volume suburban corridors and freight/commuter routes.

In plain English: this graph shows where signalised-intersection-adjacent harm appears most concentrated.

That matters because intersections are places where targeted safety improvements can be highly practical: signal timing, protected turns, pedestrian crossings, bike protection, speed management, truck-turning treatments, visibility improvements and conflict reduction.

This is not an engineering safety audit. It is a public-interest screening layer showing which councils appear to have the largest burden of road harm around signalised intersections, and therefore where closer review may be most justified.

This graph shows TIRTL freight-conflict harm by council.

TIRTL is the freight and traffic sensor layer, so this graph is focused on heavy-vehicle crash harm captured near freight corridors.

The highest councils by TIRTL-matched freight-conflict harm are Monash, Wyndham, Hobsons Bay, Casey, Hume, Brimbank, Whittlesea, Greater Dandenong, Cardinia and Moonee Valley.

What stands out is that this is a very different ranking from the general road-harm graphs. Melbourne ranks very highly on total road harm and SCATS-matched intersection harm, but it is much lower here.

This graph is really showing the freight-corridor layer.

Monash, Wyndham, Hobsons Bay, Casey, Hume, Brimbank, Whittlesea and Greater Dandenong are exactly the kinds of places where heavy vehicles, freeways, industrial areas, logistics movements, commuter traffic and arterial roads overlap.

Hobsons Bay ranking third is especially significant because it is a relatively small inner-metro council, but it carries major freight and freeway pressure linked to the West Gate corridor, port-related movement and industrial land use.

The councils with zero or very low scores should not automatically be read as having no freight risk. It may also reflect where the TIRTL freight-corridor proximity layer has coverage.

In plain English: this graph shows where heavy-vehicle crash harm is most visible in the freight-corridor sensor layer.

It is not saying heavy vehicles are always at fault. It is showing where freight movement and road-harm records overlap strongly enough to justify closer review of truck routes, freeway ramps, arterial intersections, industrial access roads and vulnerable road-user conflict points.

This graph compares the number of crash records in each council with the total weighted road-harm score.

It helps separate two different things: how many crash records a council has, and how severe the harm from those crash records appears to be.

Most councils follow the general pattern: more crash records usually means more total harm.

But the really interesting councils are the ones sitting above the general cloud, because they appear to have more severe harm for their crash count.

Greater Geelong stands out strongly. It has fewer crash records than Melbourne, but a higher weighted harm score. That suggests the crash outcomes in Greater Geelong are, on average, more severe.

Casey also sits very high, showing both a large crash count and a very high harm burden.

Melbourne is far to the right because it has the largest crash-record count, but its weighted harm score is lower than Greater Geelong and Casey. That suggests Melbourne has a very large volume of crashes, but the average severity profile differs from some other high-harm councils.

In plain English: this chart shows that the number of crashes is not the whole story. Some places have many crashes. Some places have fewer crashes but more severe outcomes.

The most important places to examine are the councils with both high crash volume and high weighted harm, or those sitting unusually high for their crash count.

This is why weighted harm matters. It gives more weight to deaths and serious injuries, rather than treating every crash record as equal.