Memorandum submitted by The Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission
on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers to your
current enquiry on Traffic Policing. I note that this enquiry
follows closely after the recently published PACTS report Policing
Road Risk: Enforcement, Technologies and Road Safety. My Association
made a major contribution to the report by providing a member
of the Advisory Committee for the PACTS report, which my Association
has endorsed as an accurate picture of road policing today.
Having consulted with my fellow chief constables,
please find below a response to each the questions posed in your
press release dated 25 January. On a general note, I believe that
it is important to point out the position of ACPO in terms of
the performance of police forces. ACPO is a private company, limited
by guarantee. The purpose of the Association is to provide chief
constables with good practice guidance and advice and to speak
on behalf of the police service on national issues. ACPO has no
role in monitoring the performance of chief constables, neither
has it any influence over the manner in which they deploy resources,
or the level of those resources. It is therefore important that
you seek the views of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary
in this respect.
Are traffic officers adequately resourced, trained
and supported?
The training and resourcing of traffic officers
is a matter for individual chief constables. ACPO has no reason
to believe that there are any inadequacies in this respect. Indeed,
HMIC has indicated that all 43 forces in England and Wales have
been audited in terms of their road policing work and all found
to be between "fair" and "excellent". Whilst
studies show that there has been a consistent decline in the number
of officers deployed on road policing duties, it is important
to remember that numbers do not always equate to effectiveness.
Improvements in technology can mean that fewer officers can be
more effective. The effectiveness of ANPR teams in achieving significantly
more arrests per officer than patrolling officers is a case in
point. The effective deployment of existing resources is the key
factor rather than an obsession with the numbers of traffic officers.
What impact has the joint road policing strategy
had on the work of traffic officers?
Whilst I cannot comment upon the effect upon
the operational deployment of road policing officers, I am encouraged
by the level of take-up of the joint strategy and its inclusion
in local strategies. This is leading to a more focussed, intelligence-led
approach to the deployment of resources.
How has it influenced the priority given to roads
policing and the resources invested?
Priorities in policing are determined by many
factors, including the performance measures set by the Home Office.
The investment of resources in roads policing will therefore depend
upon competing calls upon those resources and the need to meet
national performance targets in other areas. Whilst a number of
forces report that the joint strategy has resulted in a positive
effect upon the prioritisation of road policing it is not possible
to measure the overall effect nationally at this time.
Have police forces across the UK got the balance
right between technology-led enforcement and officers carrying
out road policing duties?
ACPO has always maintained that technology should
be regarded as supporting and enhancing the work of patrolling
officers and not replacing them. The introduction of speed cameras,
for example, should release officers for other patrolling duties
and never be used as an excuse for reducing road-policing numbers.
What evidence is there that the changing balance
between traffic officers and technology have influenced casualty
reduction rates?
The true extent of the influence that road policing
has over casualty reduction rates is difficult to establish, although
a number of studies have indicated a close correlation between
enforcement and death and injury reduction. If technology is used
to enhance and support road policing rather than replace it, then
the effect upon casualty rates should be a positive one.
How effective and how efficient is roads policing
in reducing the number of casualties?
As part of a multi-agency approach to road safety,
road policing has a very important part to play in reducing road
casualties and forces consider their contribution to that partnership
an essential and effective one. The PACTS report Policing Road
Risk: Enforcement Technologies and Road Safety suggests a direct
link between road policing and casualty reduction. In that report
both the DfT and Home Office are quoted as stating that road policing
is essential to casualty reduction.
Are police forces concentrating traffic enforcement
on the right areas and activities in order to achieve maximum
casualty reduction?
Forces are provided with clear guidance on the
most effective strategies and tactics. Firstly, in the Joint Road
Policing Strategy, which identifies Speeding, drink/drug driving
and seat belt, wearing as the key road safety priorities. Secondly,
the Annual ACPO Road Policing Strategic Assessment provides detailed
information on how road policing resources can be most effectively
used using the National Intelligence Model and identifying five
priority areas:
— Denying criminals the use of the
road.
— Tackling the threat of terrorism.
— Reducing road casualties.
— Enhancing public confidence and reassurance
by patrolling the roads.
— Reducing anti-social behaviour.
To what extent do approaches to traffic enforcement
and casualty reduction differ between forces across the country?
ACPO has a very high profile role in the dissemination
of good practice in enforcement and casualty reduction strategies
and tactics to all the forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
and forces do have a common approach to road policing. There is
a strong regional basis for road policing. Each Region has a Senior
Traffic Officers Conference (STOC) chaired by the Regional Chair,
an ACPO Member. ACPO has an Operations Forum, Chaired by a chief
constable, which the Regional STOC chairs attend. The Operations
Forum also acts as a tactical tasking and co-ordinating group
which, by applying the National Intelligence model, seeks to further
encourage a consistent approach to the road policing strategies
and tactics throughout forces.
That said that, it is ultimately a matter for
chief constables to decide their force's approach and there may
therefore be individual variations. However, responses show that
both the Joint Strategy and the tasking and coordinating of resources
through the national intelligence model are now the norm.
How have technological developments affected both
the detection and enforcement of drivers impaired through alcohol,
drugs and fatigue?
Roadside evidential testing for alcohol and
drug screening are both lawful but are not used in practice due
to the time it takes to provide a specification for equipment
and the type approval process itself. One real issue is the cost.
Currently it costs in the region of £60K to type approve
a device and all current suppliers are reporting a reluctance
to submit for approval without some commitment from the police
to purchase large numbers of devices.
Roadside evidential testing will allow the police
in suitable situations to deal very efficiently with offenders,
(both at the roadside and at hospital). It will eliminate the
need for time consuming travel and long periods in the police
station. It will give officers more time to test other drivers
and therefore increase productivity without increased resources.
Drug screening will help the police to gain
convictions as it will remove the requirement for a Doctor to
confirm the driver impaired through a drug, something many are
either unable or reluctant to do. The development of drug screening
technology is very complicated and industry is a long way from
providing the type of device permitted under the Act.
Companies who have produced devices for other,
less exacting, applications rarely acknowledge these complications,
and an officer's evidence of impairment remains currently the
best option.
Field Impairment Testing might not be considered
as a "technological solution" but it is the most significant
improvement in drug enforcement for many years and likely to be
so for some time. Officers stopping suspected drivers are often
reluctant to arrest and bring them into the station, FIT supports
their suspicion and can provide that confidence. We need to ensure
that doctors are better educated and trained in the identification
of impairment if we are to have a real impact in this area of
enforcement.
There is no fully effective technology yet on
the horizon. We need accurate roadside screeners to detect drugs
and eliminate the need for a doctor. We must consider law changes
that remove the burden of proving impairment and encourage the
development of the needed technology to establish if drivers are
drug abusers or not.
Is the best use being made of these technologies?
Yes, but we do need to alter current roadside
alcohol screeners to allow for the collection of accurate statistical
data to remove the paper bureaucracy. However, current type approval
will make this so expensive it might be difficult to show the
business benefit. Free approval, as is the case with speed detection
devices, funded by the Government would accelerate this advance.
What legislative, strategic and operational changes
would improve the effectiveness of these technologies?
Please see above paragraphs about the need to
develop new legislation in respect of drug driving which does
not rely on proving impairment. It is acknowledged that technology
in drug detection needs to improve, but the current legal framework
is inadequate to permit effective enforcement and stimulate new
technology development.
How will the new funding arrangements announced
by the Secretary of State affect the work of the safety camera
partnerships?
The new funding mechanism transfers the funds
via the Local Transport Provision to Highways Authorities in England
(with the exception of London) and to the Welsh Assembly. All
Highways Authorities will need to ensure that commensurate financial
support is provided to police forces in order to ensure that the
appropriate level of enforcement is maintained to deliver their
overall casual reduction commitments.
The proposed wider road safety partnerships
should allow for greater latitude in local control. Currently
only between 1% and 7% of the road network is covered by Safety
Camera Partnership activity and there is a growing perception
among motorists that it is all right to speed where no cameras
are present.
The Camera Safety Programme currently accounts
for over 90% of speed enforcement taking place and the programme
concludes in March 2007. It is therefore incumbent upon Highways
Authorities and the Police Service to ensure that the proposed
Wider Road Safety Partnerships are established and that these
build upon the current achievements.
The new partnerships must release funds to Safety
Camera Partnerships and forces for specific road policing operations
using ANPR and other technology by specialist Road Traffic Officers
if the decline in road policing is to be reversed. Failure to
deliver this will make our roads more dangerous and reduce our
impact on crime.
Whilst forces are generally supportive of the
proposed changes, there is some concern that since the funding
is not ring fenced, funding might be diverted away from safety
cameras by other partners.
What lessons can be learned from the experience
of speed limit enforcement using camera technology?
Despite the concerted campaign against safety
cameras by sections of the media and a small but vociferous group
of campaigners, their introduction has resulted in a significant
reduction in vehicle speeds and death and injury. Speeding is
becoming more socially unacceptable and average speeds are reducing.
Following the introduction of safety cameras, the police service
was almost a lone voice in their defence and no robust support
was offered by Government until very late in the day. Whilst that
has been addressed, there is a clear need to ensure that the Government
makes a clear commitment to strongly supporting the benefits of
new enforcement technology through strong advertising and robust
defence in the media, rather than expect the police to defend
them.
How effective are multi-agency approaches to safety
issues?
The effectiveness of multi-agency approaches
to safety issues will depend upon the level of commitment and
resources devoted to the particular partnership. All forces signal
their commitment to multi-agency working in road safety and particularly
value their involvement in Casualty Reduction Partnerships. The
very fact that the UK is a world leader in casualty reduction,
with one of the best overall safety records, certainly supports
the case for their effectiveness.
What steps are required to improve partnership
work between the police, Department of Transport, local authorities
and other agencies?
Nationally, ACPO has a very close relationship
with the DfT and its Agencies and with local authorities through
its links with the Association of Police Authorities and the Local
Government Association. Locally, the Government is encouraging
better performance by local partnerships through the Community
Safety Plan. However, whilst specific in their demands upon police
and local authorities to develop effective crime reduction and
antisocial behaviour strategies, there is no mention of road safety
or road crime other than the KSI PPAF indicator. There is a need
for greater incentives in the way of performance indicators for
road safety and road policing to be included in the Community
Safety Plan.
The ACPO Roads Policing Business Area welcomes
the opportunity to develop the debate on road safety beyond media
single-issue focus. It is imperative that the new wider road safety
partnerships resource continued technology deployment, new technology
development and above all, the supervision of the roads by trained
specialist police officers pursuing criminals and enforcing road
safety legislation. Please accept the above responses as being
on behalf of the Police Service.
17 February 2006
| 
