1.  SUMMARY

  1.1  Transport for London (TfL) strongly supports the continuing role of the police in the areas of traffic policing and traffic management.

  1.2  TfL believes that there is still a role for Traffic Police within the traffic management arena and this needs to be carefully balanced and supported by technological solutions.

  1.3  TfL believes that the Joint Roads Policing Strategy is an excellent first stage to defining issues in this area, but needs to be enhanced by including partner agency issues.

  1.4  TfL believes roads policing could play a larger part in reducing casualties and has not been a high enough priority for the Home Office over the last five years.

  1.5  Further work should be undertaken with regard to the development of a national framework to ensure that road safety issues are dealt with as a high priority in the traffic policing area.

2.  BACKGROUND

  2.1  TfL is the Highway Authority for over 550 kms of London's roads, encompassing the majority of the major roads in London and is known as the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). As part of the Traffic Management Act 2004, TfL also has a number of responsibilities including the role of Traffic Manager for London and associated network management duty.

  2.2  TfL also undertakes a number of enforcement activities in relation to traffic management and the reduction of congestion, these include:

—  Traffic management via the London Traffic Control Centre (LTCC) and through this control of traffic signals.

—  Camera enforcement of bus lanes in London in partnership with the London Boroughs.

—  Camera enforcement of decriminalised moving vehicle offences (such as stopping in yellow box junctions) in partnership with the London Boroughs.

—  Enforcement of decriminalised parking offences on the TLRN in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

—  In partnership with the MPS deployment of combined police officer and Police Community Support Officer Teams to deal with congestion hotspots.

—  Camera enforcement of speeding offences via the London Safety Camera Partnership (including the MPS amongst others).

  2.3  For this reason TfL is an important stakeholder in the debate on traffic policing in London and our answers to the specific questions raised as part of the Select Committee Inquiry are outlined below.

  2.4  In addition, after discussions with Committee staff, TfL's London Road Safety Unit has made a complementary submission on road safety issues which should be read in conjunction with this memorandum. Where relevant it has been referred to in the main body of this paper.

QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMITTEE

3.   Are traffic officers adequately resourced, trained and supported?

  3.1  TfL does not believe that the necessary resources are directed at these issues. In many ways this relates to the position of traffic policing in the national policing priorities framework and the relationship of the current roads policing strategy with partner agencies and those contraventions perceived to be low level offences. More details on this issue can be found below.

  3.2  In general Traffic Officers in London are well trained and provide an essential service on London's roads.

4.   What impact has the joint Roads Policing Strategy had on the work of traffic officers? How has it influenced the priority given to roads policing, and the resources invested?

  4.1  The strategy has been useful in so far as it has clearly identified the role of policing in this area and the priorities from a police perspective. However, TfL feels that the strategy fails to give sufficient priority to general traffic management activities dealing with what are perceived as low level offences. This type of activity has a key role to play in dealing with the wider issues of criminality on the roads and in society. We feel that the strategy should be expanded to include these areas of activity including network disruption, congestion, parking, etc and incorporate the priorities and roles of partner agencies in this area such as TfL.

  4.2  In addition, the profile of road safety in the strategy needs to be reviewed and given a higher priority in the strategy overall. Again, the role of partner agencies and activities associated with roads policing (but not directly delivered by traffic police) such as parking enforcement and traffic management need to be factored into this area - as they can contribute to road safety.

5.   Have police forces across the UK got the balance right between technology-led enforcement and officers carrying out road policing duties? What evidence is there that the changing balance between traffic officers and technology has influenced casualty reduction rates?

  5.1  Generally TfL is supportive of technology led enforcement and uses it in much of its own enforcement activity. It is important that this activity is fully integrated into the day to day activities of road policing and is not seen as a bolt on or straight replacement. We believe that for many traffic policing/enforcement activities a correct balance needs to be reached between the use of technology and "on street" human intervention.

  5.2  We believe for many enforcement activities such as those relating to road safety and parking it is essential that human intervention remains part of the solution. This is because many of the technological solutions lead to delayed enforcement (for example the ticket arrives in the post). For many of these activities real time intervention and compliance with the law is the required outcome and as such a mix of interventions is required.

  5.3  From TfL's technological and advanced planning perspectives, we consider that the need for standardisation of command and control interfaces is of the utmost urgency in London. To prepare the ground for standardisation, TfL is currently working closely with the MPS to examine and develop the requirements of future command and control systems. Consideration should be given to continuing and developing this diagnostic investigation into the support of the interfaces between "on street" and "control room" activities.

  5.4  TfL is also very supportive of the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) operations and works in close partnership with the MPS on traffic enforcement focused operations in London. We believe the priority given to the enforcement of civil offences in these type of activities is not high enough. If the enforcement of persistent offenders of civil offences was pursued more aggressively then there would be benefits to the police in criminal investigations.

  5.5  A more detailed description of the use of technology and casualty reduction can be found in the complementary memorandum by TfL's London Road Safety Unit.

6.   How effective and how efficient is roads policing in reducing the number of road casualties? Are police forces concentrating traffic enforcement on the right areas and activities to achieve maximum casualty reduction? To what extent do approaches to traffic enforcement and casualty reduction differ between forces across the country?

  6.1  TfL believes roads policing could play a larger part in reducing casualties and has not been a high enough priority for the Home Office over the past five years.

  6.2  A detailed examination of road casualty issues from a London perspective can be found in the TfL London Road Safety Unit memorandum.

  6.3  The growing levels of cycling in London and changing traffic patterns more widely have brought forward new opportunities, as well as new challenges for traffic and public realm policing. Unfortunately existing traffic law, regulation and enforcement regimes make it particularly difficult to address these challenges with cost-effective measures that will raise awareness of cyclists, reduce collisions, attract public support and improve behaviour, both of cyclists and other road users. Two particular areas the Committee are asked to consider are:

(i)  the review of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) requirements in relation to signing and enforcement of cycle facilities. For example, Advanced Stop Lines (ASLs) are not practically enforceable and there is no satisfactory way (in terms of safety, understanding or streetscape) to permit two-way cycling in one-way streets, and;

(ii)  the rollout of initiatives to encourage cyclists to have due regard for traffic regulations and other road users (and vice versa). This is important to the maintenance of respect by other road users for the needs and safety of cyclists. The City of London Police provided a very positive example of how this can be achieved in September last year when they issued on-the-spot £30 fines to cyclists caught disobeying red lights or cycling on footways—the cyclists were then offered the opportunity to avoid the fine if they attended a responsible cyclists training session.

  6.4  The bike patrol teams deployed by the MPS and City of London Police have been very successful in combining traffic policing and general operational work as well as offering a visible, positive role model and means of assurance. Accordingly it is recommended that the Committee consider the value and benefits of borough police teams expanding the use of bikes to tackle issues of road safety, encouraging responsible cycling, crime reduction and traffic policing targets.

7.   How have technological developments affected both the detection and enforcement of drivers impaired through alcohol, drugs and fatigue? Is the best use being made of these technologies? What legislative, strategic and operational changes would improve the effectiveness of these technologies?

  7.1  While TfL has no direct role in this area, we believe that effective enforcement of these issues should have a big impact on road casualty rates.

8.   How will the new funding arrangement announced by the Secretary of State affect the work of the road safety camera partnerships? What lessons can be learned from the experience of speed limit enforcement using camera technology?

  8.1  TfL believes that the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP) is a vital part of London's road safety landscape and it is important that changes to the funding arrangements do not impact on this work. TfL believes that the LSCP has always operated in line with the new guidelines announced by the Secretary of State and will make a strong case that investment in London should not be reduced as part of this change.

  8.2  Safety cameras have made a huge contribution to London's lower casualty figures. "Before" and "after" studies at new speed camera sites have given benefits of around 50% reductions in killed and seriously injured (KSI) casualties. Cameras work in London and are the ideal road safety intervention for many of the high density and higher speed major roads in the capital, where there are no feasible alternatives. Please see the TfL London Road Safety Unit memorandum for more information.

9.    How effective are multi-agency approaches to safety issues? What steps are required to improve partnership work between the police, Department for Transport, local authorities and other agencies?

  9.1  There are many best practice examples of multi-agency work in the safety area, the LSCP being a good example. We believe that there is a need to these partnerships to be developed within a common framework that allows common solutions to be developed and best practice shared. We believe that a structure similar or associated to existing Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships should be investigated to provide a national framework for taking this issue forward.

10.  CONCLUSION

  10.1  Effective traffic policing is a key component of managing London's road network, reducing congestion, catching criminals and reducing casualties on the roads. Arguably, this area has traditionally been under resourced and under prioritised and this needs to be addressed.

21 February 2006