SUMMARY

  The submission sets out strong support for an expansion of enforcement and greater police resources going into traffic enforcement. Some extracts from public opinion surveys by the borough are given, as well as the interim results from a unique borough-Metropolitan Police speed enforcement pilot taking place currently. The borough supports a balance between technology and officer based enforcement, and sets out statistics to support this.

INTRODUCTION

  The context in Camden is that we have a successful road safety strategy, which has met the national casualty reduction targets for 2010 by 2004, and we have made excellent progress on the Mayoral targets for pedestrians, to a lesser extent for cyclists, but are struggling to make progress for powered two wheelers. Our Road Safety Plan (2005) sets out our innovative approaches, and how enforcement activity is required to complement engineering and education. Camden believes that in addition to being a strong imperative in itself, casualty reduction and improving road safety is critical in encouraging travel on foot, and by bicycle, both critical issues in achieving the sustainable transport growth which London requires over the coming decade.

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

  We are not in a position to comment upon all of these issues but we believe that in London there has been a growing driver culture that there is very little effective traffic enforcement taking place, and that this has contributed to a degradation of driving standards, with a detrimental effect on road safety. We were very pleased to gain the additional powers for enforcement of moving traffic offences by under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.  We issued over 25,000 PCNs for these offences in Camden in the first six months, and this shows a widespread and flagrant disregard of basic traffic regulations—no entry's and banned movements included. We do not believe that there are sufficient police resources in London devoted to traffic policing. The public in the borough, and the borough, support strongly more enforcement of traffic law, with particular emphasis on speed management.

  Extracts from recent borough consultations are below. In a MORI survey with the 500-strong citizen's panel in 2002, residents were asked what would make them feel safer crossing busy roads: 82% supported "fines imposed on drivers who do not stop at traffic lights/crossings" (58% great deal safer, 24% fair amount safer), the top support for any of the four measures offered. Views were also sought on the extent of support for a range of measures that could be introduced to reduce speeding in the borough (see adjacent extract).

  The following are from the borough's Local Implementation Plan (LIP, London version of Local Transport Plans) consultation in early 2005. When asked what would be effective in making the borough safer and more pleasant for walking and cycling:

—  66% supported more enforcement against traffic offences (30% believed this would not be very effective)

—  52% supported funding more police speed enforcement (45% more sceptical)

  There was support for lower speed limits, as set out below:

  In the same survey when asked which were the most effective methods of controlling speeds 51% supported police patrols, 47% cameras, 34% traffic calming and 23% publicity about the dangers of speeding. Only 3% felt that none of these were effective. Views were also sought on support for use of cameras as alternatives to traffic calming:

2.   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?

  We believe that technology has a strong role to play in continuing improvements in road safety. We welcome the ability to enforce some moving traffic offences (which Camden does ONLY using camera technology). We believe that there is greater scope for these methods of enforcement across the UK. However, we also believe that there is major value in raising the level of officer-based traffic policing. The main value of officer enforcement include:

1.  the ability to address a far wider range of road safety issues than technology can address;

2.  the additional community safety benefits—wider than traffic enforcement—that can be delivered, including reassurance to the wider community by visible on-street police presence;

3.  the value of intervention from respected traffic police officers, and the interaction that they can have over and above the simple receipt of a fine by post.

  Evidence for this comes from the interim results of the innovative speed enforcement pilot project, as summarised below.

CAMDEN/METROPOLITAN POLICE JOINT SPEED ENFORCEMENT PILOT PROJECT

  In 2004 Camden and the Metropolitan Police started a joint pilot project looking at speed enforcement using traffic police officers. The project, funded by Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF), focussed on roads which had a proven speed and casualty problem, but which were not suitable for physical traffic calming, since as well as reasonably major roads they had been identified by the borough level emergency services as "key routes".

  The project used funding to pay for additional police time—over and above the standard time spent policing the borough—and used police officers with hand-held "speed guns" to enforce.

  Focussing on around 8 locations, the officers mainly focussed on speeding vehicles, and used a jointly produced booklet showing the clear links between speed, collisions and injury severity. However, because the project used officers and not speed cameras, the project outputs were wider than this, as set out below. On the issue of speed, officers were able to use a range of responses, from a verbal warning and distribution of the booklet, through endorsement of licence and even prosecution. But officers were also able to pick up on wide range of other issues of relevance to road safety: the condition of the vehicle, driver behaviour other than speed, and whether drivers were legally entitled to be driving—with the appropriate licence, insurance, MOT and even tax.

  The initial project will come to a halt in April 2006, and we intend to analyse continuous speed monitoring data to fully grasp impacts on traffic speed, and to look at casualty trends at these sites to try and identify project effects here also. At this point none of this data is available. However, the data below is still of relevance in looking at the balance of technological and officer based enforcement. The pilot data is from mid July 2004 to December 2005 inclusive.

  Camden and the Police believe that there is value, in road safety terms, in every one of the 2606 interventions. This includes a discussion with a road safety policing professional on the impact of speed, poor driving behaviour or poor vehicle maintenance on road safety. There is a value in drivers knowing that enforcement of ALL traffic regulations takes place, and that they should drive accordingly. This sits well with the new enforcement of moving traffic offences (other than speed) by the borough's traffic camera network following its decriminalisation in 2004.

  In comparison with speed cameras, it is estimated that if each of these sites had had a speed camera perhaps 20% of these drivers would have received a ticket. None of the non-speeding offences would have been addressed.

  The arrests included:

—  one for theft;

—  one for vehicle in a dangerous condition;

—  one for possession of an offensive weapon;

—  one for drink driving; and

—  two wanted on earlier warrants.

  We believe that these arrests offer a community safety benefit and show the linkage between driver crime and the wider community safety agenda.

	Project total	% of those stopped
Vehicles stopped	2,606	100%
Vehicles examined	1,631	63%
Verbal warnings issued	1,689	65%
FPN Endorsed (for speeding)	512	19.6%
FPN non-endorsable (ie not for speeding)	71	2.7%
Processed for prosecution	174	6.6%
Poor driving/without due care	26	1%
Vehicle problems/offences	77	2.9%
No insurance/tax/ licence/MOT	56	2.1%
No seatbelt/helmet	101	3.9%
Use of mobile phone whilst driving	29	1.1%
Other traffic offences	32	1.2%
Arrests	6	0.23%
Non speeding offences that would not have been dealt with in purely camera based enforcement:	2,094	80.4%

FPN = Fixed Penalty Notice

  For a successful road safety strategy to take place Engineering, Education and Enforcement all have a role to play. Within the Enforcement strand there is a role to play for both technological measures (speed cameras and moving traffic enforcement cameras), but also for the flexible enforcement by police officers, able to pick up on the wide gamut of other traffic offences, driver behaviour and vehicle condition that would not trigger technological enforcement. The ability to make non-traffic arrests is a bonus on top of that.

3.   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?

  We do not yet have final results from the joint pilot described above. However, we believe that there is real value in raising awareness of a culture of enforcement, and the improvement of compliance rates with all traffic law and regulation generally. This would be in addition to any impacts from particular projects.

  We believe that speed management remains key in improving road safety, and that police resources should recognise this. The evidence is clear that speed cameras can address this effectively, although we very strongly support exploration of the new time-distance technology, and allowance of its wider use. However, as described above, there is a range of issues that are also of importance in road safety but are not susceptible of technology-based enforcement, and these also should be key areas of officer-based enforcement. We should not take for granted that impaired driving through alcohol or drugs will not be a rising problem.

  There are some areas of road safety work that are not conducive to addressing via engineering, and where education requires effective enforcement backup. One of these areas is Powered Two Wheelers (P2W). We commend the educational BikeSafe project involving the Metropolitan Police, but would request additional resources be devoted to both education of P2W, and enforcement against unsafe riding practices.

4.   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?

  Drink-driving: Drink-drive deaths rose from an all time low of 460 deaths in 1998 to around 590 deaths in 2004. Police need wider breath testing powers and Camden supports random breath testing for drivers (currently police need to have reason to breathalyse drivers, such as a motoring offence, injury collision or "suspicion" that driver may be under the influence): "a high breath testing rate is acknowledged to have a deterrent effect upon potential drink-drivers, although research shows that a lower number of carefully targeted breath tests, which lessen the burden on police resources, can identify a large proportion of drink-drivers". Source Richard Campbell, Transport Statistics: Road Safety, Dept for Transport.

  Camden supports the call from many road safety organisations to lower the drink-drive blood alcohol limit (BAL) from 80 milligram's of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligram's of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

  Drug driving: The dangers of drug-driving has not received anywhere near the same attention as drink-driving. The public is not adequately informed about the consequences in terms of penalties and risk associated with drug driving, whether it be illicit drugs or prescription and over the counter drugs. Camden proposes that the government campaigns to raise public awareness of this serious and growing problem.

  Research by TRL showed significant increases in the number of people testing positive for drugs who were involved in fatal collisions. "Between the 1980s and 1990s the number of people involved in fatal road accidents who tested positive for cannabis increased four-fold (3% to 12%), with detection of illegal drugs overall increasing from 3% to 18%. The BMA fears that this number will rise given the increasing use of drugs—nearly half of 16-24 years old in England and Wales are reported as having tried cannabis and 39% claimed to have taken hallucinogens"—BMA press release.

  Recent on-line surveys in the south-east revealed that 39% of young drivers who responded admitted to driving within 12 hours of taking drugs (KISS 100 on-line survey 2005.  1,922 respondents).

  It is likely that the incidence of drug driving is underestimated, since drivers are more likely to be breath tested for alcohol at the roadside and if they fail the breathalyser it is unlikely they will also be tested for drugs. Camden supports roadside field impairment tests by the police to ascertain whether a person is unfit to drive due to drugs and urges that police are resourced adequately to enable them to give real priority to this problem. Camden also supports the BMA's call for "speedier and more specific and co-ordinated research in order to establish appropriate drug testing devices".

5.   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?

  Detail is still rather vague on the proposed overall changes in the legal arrangements around safety cameras, but we will comment from what we believe to be the case. Camden welcomes some of the changes—notably the relaxation of the requirement for four KSI casualties at a site. However, we believe that there is real potential to expand safety camera use—particularly using the new time-distance cameras—to enforce speed limits across residential areas (20mph Zones), and to enforce speeds along urban major roads that are key routes for the emergency services and therefore not so suitable for engineering measures. Note the public opinion support for enforcement above. We do NOT support the proposed national cap on the total funding available for LSCPs, as we believe this will be a real constraint on the wider use of camera based enforcement, just when the time-distance technology and relaxation of the KSI site requirements allow for a change in approach.

6.   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?

  We would support greater partnership working, and believe that multi-agency approaches to road safety and wider community safety are essential and effective. The current speed enforcement pilot relied on the Met Police and Camden agreeing a joint approach and agreed target sites, based on a strong evidence-led approach. Sustaining the necessary funding longer term remains problematic.

  We would be supportive of a project in London between the Met Police, local authorities including Transport for London and the Association of London Government, and the DVLA, looking to reduce the estimated 10-15% of vehicles in the capital which are illegal in some way—no MOT, no insurance, no legal registration etc. We believe that this minority are likely to be over-represented in traffic offences and in collisions, and have a disproportionate impact on casualty figures. Other studies show clear links between driver crime and more general criminal behaviour—the same individuals who commit driver crime are far more likely to commit other types of crime. A Home Office study showed that drink drivers were twice as likely to have a criminal record than the population generally, and dangerous or disqualified drivers had twice as many previous convictions as drink drivers.[3]

  We also believe that targeting this sector of drivers would have significant benefits for community safety through arrests for non-traffic offences, and would have widespread community support.

CONCLUSION

—  There should be an expansion of traffic enforcement, including both technology and officer based systems.

—  There should be more police resources devoted to traffic enforcement.

—  Enforcement is required to address issues of speed management and that technological methods should be encouraged to improve (eg time-distance) and the use become more widespread.

—  There remains a strong need for human based enforcement to address those multiple issues that are not susceptible to technology based systems. These include powered two wheelers, poor driver/rider behaviour and driver crime, impaired driving, poor vehicle condition, and sites and types of offences not susceptible to engineering based solutions.

—  We support random breath testing, a lower blood alcohol limit and better research into drug driving.

—  There are real benefits in officer based traffic enforcement, both in road safety terms and more widely.

—  There remains room for strengthened and new partnerships.

10 February 2006