Appendix
The Government is grateful to the Committee for this
report and the constructive suggestions that have emerged from
the inquiry.
The Department of Transport (DfT) and Home Office
(HO) have examined the report in depth and would like to offer
the following comments in response to specific recommendations
on pages 64-73.
1. We congratulate the Department for Transport,
the police, local authorities and road safety professionals for
the good progress that has been made toward the casualty reduction
targets. This is a considerable achievement. There should be no
complacency however, when over 3,000 people continue to be killed
each year, and almost 30,000 are seriously injured. The number
of deaths and injuries remains far too high. People accept a level
of risk on the road which far surpasses anything they would consent
to in other aspects of daily life, including other modes of transport.
(Paragraph 7)
COMMENT
The Government agrees fully with the Committee's
view that the number of deaths and injuries is unacceptable irrespective
of the achievement of targets. There is no complacency on the
part of the Department of Transport or the road safety practitioners
with whom it works. The Department has recently undertaken the
second review of the 2000 Road Safety Strategy and that will be
published in the spring of 2007. The focus of this Review is on
priority actions for delivering further casualty savings up to
2010 but it is recognised that there is now a need to look well
beyond that date at the prospects for further savings.
Number of roads police officers
2. The experience of police forces is that roads
policing requires specialised knowledge and skills, specific training
and equipment. The practice of treating roads policing as a secondary
or additional duty of officers engaged in other activities offers
chief constables a high degree of flexibility in how they use
their officers, but there is a significant danger that it will
lead in the longer-term to a reduced priority for roads policing.
This is nowhere more in evidence than in the fact that it is no
longer possible to say with any certainty how many officers are
now engaged with roads policing. Multi-tasking in this way requires
careful monitoring, and if it is found that the arrangement further
impedes the ability of police officers to dedicate the necessary
time and resources to operational roads policing, a different
approach should be introduced. The special role of roads police
officers must be recognised and protected, and the high standards
of roads policing—which have helped the UK's roads to be
among the safest in the world—must be maintained. (Paragraph
23)
Use of 'non-sworn' staff
3. Policing the roads is a complex and resource-intensive
activity. The government has attempted to free police time by
transferring responsibility for some roads policing tasks to non-sworn
officers. In using subsidiary staff the Department for Transport
and the Home Office must ensure that the lines of control and
areas of responsibility are very clearly delineated. The onus
is on the Government to ensure there is no drift of responsibility.
In assessing the impact of the Highways Agency Traffic Officers
the Government should evaluate the impact not only on traffic
flows, but on other factors such as safety and protection of crash
scenes and evidence. It should monitor any actual conflict between
the responsibility of the Highways Agency to keep the network
flowing and the need for the police to investigate crashes in
considerable detail. The Government should set out guidelines
to resolve these issues to determine a sensible balance between
these two conflicting factors. (Paragraph 29)
COMMENT
The Government agrees that police have a very important
role in roads policing. However the number of dedicated traffic
police should not be the sole measure of roads policing activity.
Any police officer can enforce the law on the roads and the Government
has increased the number of police over-all by over 14,000.
Integration of roads policing with other core activities
might be the best way locally to make more effective use of police
resources. Where a force has adopted such an approach, the number
of dedicated officers might have reduced without any lower level
of enforcement. The effective use of technology and removal from
the police of work not requiring their specialist expertise and
powers are also significant, as is decriminalisation where appropriate.
Such changes remove unnecessary burdens from the
police and free up their time. The policy on how such freed up
resources are used is a matter for local decision in the light
of changing situations, circumstances and public concerns at different
times and in different places. It is right that day-to-day decisions
should be taken at the local level, to respond to local needs
and concerns. Nationally the Government has made clear its view
of the importance of roads policing, as has the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO).That importance is reflected in the
issue of the joint Roads Policing Strategy, agreed by ACPO, HO
and DfT.
On the strategic road network the different roles
of police and Highways Agency Traffic Officers (HATOs) are clear.
The latter do not have enforcement powers and the police retain
operational primacy when in attendance at an incident. The transfer
of roles enables existing road policing officers to pursue core
roads policing activities rather than being diverted into network
management tasks.
We welcome the focus on roads policing in ACPO's
Uniformed Operations Business Area and the championing of effective
roads policing by the Chief Constable Head of Business Area, Meredydd
Hughes. The importance of roads policing is demonstrated and supported
through the extensive senior level involvement in events such
as ACPO's annual national roads policing conference and the activities
of specialist groups such as the Roads Policing Operational Forum.
National policing plans
4. Failure to include roads policing as a priority
in the National Policing Plan over a number of years seriously
undermines the claim that roads policing is seen by the Home Office
as a core part of police activity. In the future the Home Office
must ensure that road safety and roads policing representatives
are fully consulted when the priorities for the National Policing
Plan are being determined. We recommend that the road casualty
reduction targets become part of the Home Office's Public Service
Agreements. Given the vital contribution that roads policing can
make to casualty reduction, the targets should be explicitly acknowledged
to be the joint responsibility of both the Department for Transport
and the Home Office. The offences of drink driving, drug driving
and disqualified driving are serious ones, and should be included
in the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime. (Paragraph
38)
COMMENT
The Government has made its expectations as regards
roads policing clear. All the National Policing Plans issued have
included a reference to roads policing, as did the National Community
Safety Plan issued last year. The update to that Plan, issued
on 30 November, set implementation of the Roads Policing Strategy
as a key action for the police in 2007-08 and set support for
the police in its implementation as a specific Government commitment.
There was full consultation across Government and with ACPO before
the Plans were finalised.
One of the main aims of the Strategy is to reduce
road casualties. The Home Office, like DfT, is committed to the
achievement of the casualty reduction targets set out in the Government's
Road Safety Strategy, as published in Tomorrow's Roads - Safer
for Everyone and specifically reflected in DfT's Public Service
Agreement (PSA). The current PSAs cover the period 2005-08 and
final decisions have not yet been taken on new agreements beyond
then.
The recorded crime figures are based on statistical
returns provided by the 44 police forces in England and Wales,
including the British Transport Police. The police compile these
data in accordance with the rules for coverage, classification
and counting contained in the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR)
for Recorded Crime. The data relate to crimes that have to be
reported to the Home Office. Historically these have been those
offences which are either indictable or triable either way: Some
closely related summary offences, such as common assault, were
included from 1998-99, but in general, summary offences are excluded.
The offences of drink driving, drug driving and disqualified driving
are all summary offences. Only recorded crimes can count as sanctioned
detections, and only recorded crimes currently count towards the
Government's offences brought to justice target.
The list of offences notifiable to the Home Office
has been revised on a regular basis to reflect legislative changes
and the rules and police recording practices are reviewed to ensure
consistency. In August 2005 the Statistics Commission initiated
a review of crime statistics. Their Interim Report and
the final report Crime Statistics: User Perspective published
in September 2006 indicated that the current presentation of the
crime data led to confused reporting and could be lead to a lack
of trust. The final report recommended that the appropriateness
of statistical classifications of crime were kept under review.
Following the publication of the Statistics Commission's
interim report, the then Home Secretary commissioned a review
of crime statistics to examine key issues raised by the Statistics
Commission and to make any relevant practical recommendations.
The Adrian Smith Report Crime Statistics: An Independent Review
was published in November 2006. This acknowledged that the integrity
of police recorded crime data was amongst the best in the world,
but concluded that the scope and definitions of the national crime
statistics needed a radical overhaul. The Home Office will be
considering the recommendations contained in these reports in
detail in the coming months.
As regards drink driving, drug driving and disqualified
driving, we fully agree that these are serious offences. Their
omission from the recorded crime figures does not imply otherwise.
While these do not currently feature in the offences brought to
justice target, we are considering how their importance can be
adequately reflected in future performance frameworks.
Evidence-based policing priorities
5. The Home Office should base priorities in the
National Policing Plans on evidence of the actual number of casualties
which result from different types of crime, not the amount of
publicity they generate. We welcome the decision by the Home Office
and the Department for Transport to undertake research into the
links between offences and collision data. The results of this
research must be taken fully into account in police deployment
decisions. (Paragraph 43)
The potential of roads policing
6. In the interests of public safety, roads policing
should be more about deterrence than about maximising the number
of drivers caught for offending. We recommend that roads policing
is guided by the conclusions of TRL's research into the methods
and levels of roads policing. Visible, stationary roads policing
units should be increasingly deployed randomly at different locations
on the road network. This kind of visible policing will increase
the deterrent effect and the perceived risk of detection across
the network as a whole. The importance of visible roads policing
should not be underestimated. In the context of rising numbers
of 'hit and run' collisions the importance of a police presence
is even greater. There is value in drivers knowing that enforcement
of all traffic regulations takes place. (Paragraph 51)
COMMENT
The police section of the National Community Safety
Plan was produced following consultation with the key policing
stakeholders. Its priorities were informed by ACPO's National
Strategic Assessment and the Government's Public Service Agreements.
The strategic policing priorities allow sufficient flexibility
for police authorities to set local priorities on that basis,
within the framework of the Plan, the deployment of resources
for the national Roads Policing Strategy is a matter for individual
chief officers. They will base their decisions on what in their
professional judgement is most likely to be efficient and effective
in their particular local contexts.
It must be recognised, however, that enforcement
of law on the roads cannot be the only concern of the police.
We firmly believe, and believe the public would agree, that they
must also concentrate on the prevention and detection of crimes
directly against the person and property. All deaths and injuries
are tragic and we want everything possible done to prevent them.
Effective enforcement of road traffic law will help this. The
police must however also act to reduce deaths and injuries that
are the direct result of other crimes - domestic violence, child
abuse, robbery, terrorism and others. Such offences are not only
distressing to their victims, but contribute greatly to public
concerns and fears and diminish the over-all quality of life nationally.
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary assessment
7. We are pleased that roads policing operations
performed well in HM Inspectorate of Constabulary's assessment
of protective services. But the result is undermined by the fact
that it was not heavily influenced by actual casualty rates. Models
and frameworks in place should form part of the assessment, but
the single 'outcome' indicator of primary importance in assessing
roads policing performance should be the level of road casualties
and the casualty reduction rate. The police should periodically
monitor 'real world' compliance with traffic law in order to give
an indication of the scale of violations and to help target police
enforcement efforts where they will have maximum impact. (Paragraph
55)
COMMENT
The number of people killed or seriously injured
in road traffic collisions per 100 million vehicle kilometres
travelled is a grading criterion in HMIC's baseline assessments.
Credit is also given in assessments to forces which promote road
safety and engage in public education.
Roads policing is one of the 27 areas of policing
on which HMIC carries out its baseline assessments. It is however
important not to regard these areas as silos. Roads policing is
an integral part of core policing and therefore is the
responsibility of all police officers whether attached to a Roads
Policing Unit or not.
The key elements of the joint Roads Policing Strategy
are denying criminals the use of the roads; reducing road casualties;
tackling the threat of terrorism; reducing anti-social use of
the roads and enhancing public confidence and reassurance by patrolling
the roads. These objectives from the basis of the specific grading
criteria for baseline assessment areas:
- User satisfaction
- Volume crime reduction
- Serious and organised crime investigation
- Forensic processes
- Criminal justice processes
- Anti-social behaviour
- Special Operations support
- Human resources
- Race and diversity
- Leadership
- Performance management
HMIC inspects and credits police forces for their
commitment to the basic tenets of policing, namely the protection
of life, protection of property and the preservation of the peace.
All of these are integral components of roads policing.
Compliance with road traffic law is routinely monitored
by day to day police operational activity, but special exercises
may also be undertaken. A recent example is the V79 exercise.
For this, police forces throughout the UK undertook a national
police compliance check on motoring requirements for both drivers
and vehicles on 31 March 2006. This involved the random stopping
of nearly 6,000 vehicles (cars, motorcycles and light goods vehicles).
The police checked for compliance with requirements as to driver
licensing, vehicle registration, road tax, insurance and MOT.
In addition, the police checked for stolen vehicles, those being
driven with a Statutory Off-Road Notification in force, and illegal
number plates. The police also undertook checks on compliance
with live animal transportation regulations at the same time.
The operation, organised on behalf of ACPO, was supported by DfT
and by DEFRA and a report is available on the DfT website.
Promotional campaigns
8. The level of road casualties each year is not
widely known. The public should be educated about the number of
people killed and injured, the dangers of driving and the risks
of offending. While some excellent campaign materials are produced,
exposure to these materials needs to be increased. The effort
that goes into producing them should be matched by investment
in ensuring the material reaches the target audience regularly
and in the most effective way. Advertising campaigns should more
effectively support enforcement campaigns to maximise the impact
of roads policing. (Paragraph 60)
COMMENT
Our award winning campaigns secure wider coverage
and recognition. We are always looking for new ways to widen the
coverage. However, we are not convinced that good knowledge of
the basic statistical facts about road deaths and injuries would
necessarily have an impact on the driving behaviour of the individual.
However we fully agree that road users do not always understand
the dangers they expose themselves to or the risks they might
present to other people. This is a prime aim of our road safety
publicity campaigns. The DfT is working more closely than ever
with the police to synchronise publicity and enforcement on specific
issues at a regional level as well as a national level.
For the period approaching Christmas 2006 DfT adopted
a number of innovative approaches including a diverse range of
messages on drink and drugs and driving via partner websites whose
cooperation is much valued.
Roads policing strategy
9. While the introduction of the Roads Policing
Strategy was broadly welcomed there has been some doubt over the
actual impact it has had. The Home Office, Department for Transport
and ACPO must jointly commit to evaluate its effectiveness and
set outcome performance indicators to assist such judgements.
It is of concern that not all forces have adopted the strategy—the
Home Office should put in place the incentives to ensure all do
so. (Paragraph 64)
10. It is a matter for concern that the emphasis
of roads policing has to some extent transferred from road casualty
reduction work to tackling terrorism. Both objectives are clearly
extremely important. The need to deal with terrorism should not
reduce efforts or resources in what should be a core policing
function that includes tackling the driving offences most likely
to result in a collision; such as speeding and impaired driving.
(Paragraph 68)
COMMENT
ACPO, on behalf of the police, was an equal partner
with the HO and DfT in drawing up and issuing the Roads Policing
Strategy. The first National Community Safety Plan set as one
of the actions for the police in 2006-07 "to implement the
Roads Policing Strategy" and committed the Government "to
support the police in implementing the joint Roads Policing Strategy".
How the police implement the Strategy is an operational matter
for individual chief officers. In the baseline assessments by
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, however, a force must have a
roads policing strategy based on the national Strategy to achieve
in this area an assessment of Fair or above. The Strategy has
five key elements: denying criminals the use of the roads, reducing
casualties, tackling the threat of terrorism, reducing anti-social
use of the roads and enhancing public confidence and reassurance
by patrolling the roads. The Strategy does not prioritise any
one of these. How they are all addressed is a matter for forces
locally. DfT and Home Office Ministers have however written recently
to all chief officers of police to stress the Government's continuing
commitment to the Strategy and the importance of its effective
implementation.
The current Policing Performance Assessment Framework
already includes a specific roads policing indicator relating
to the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic
collisions per 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled. Another
indicator relates to satisfaction with the way incidents are dealt
with, including for victims of road traffic collisions. For the
future, the Home Office has committed to establishing a single
performance framework for crime, drugs and policing. The new framework
will cover key police criminal justice targets and, in due course,
be further aligned with the frameworks used by other parts of
the Home Office, plus those used by other departments such as
DCLG and DH.
Investment in staff
11. There are many extremely dedicated and committed
police officers working on traffic law enforcement. Technology
must complement their role and not be seen as an excuse for reducing
the number of roads police officers. In some forces there has
been a tendency to see technology as 'freeing up' police officers
to be deployed on duties other than roads policing—this
approach is short-sighted. There are numerous serious traffic
offences which technology cannot yet detect. In addition, technology
cannot perform the educative role that police officers carry out.
While it is hard to measure the value of stopping drivers to give
a warning and some guidance, that type of intervention seems certain
to have some effect in raising driving standards. The Police also
play an important role in collecting the collision and casualty
data which underpin the road safety targets and future strategies
and interventions. Technology cannot replace police officers:
its value lies in making roads police officers more efficient
and effective in carrying out their duties. The Home Office and
individual forces should properly invest in both roads police
officers and technologies to enhance the impact of police enforcement.
(Paragraph 75)
12. New technology such as speed cameras and automatic
number-plate recognition can make a significant contribution to
road safety. But it should not be seen as an alternative to police
officers on the ground. There are a number of important aspects
of officers' work—warning and advising drivers, collecting
collision and casualty data and, most importantly, detecting certain
moving vehicle offences—which cannot be carried out by new
technology. We recommend that the Government issue clear guidance
to police forces about the role of new technology in supplementing,
not supplanting, the work of roads police officers. (Paragraph
76)
13. Most new enforcement equipment requires staff
to interpret and act on the intelligence. If the resources are
unavailable then the capacity of the technology is curtailed.
The police are not able to maximise the impact of Automatic Number
Plate Recognition technology because they do not have the resources
to respond to every positive identification. This gives a worrying
indication of the level of lawlessness on our roads. New technology
must be supported by adequate police staff resources and skills.
(Paragraph 79)
COMMENT
We recognised and clearly stated in the Roads Policing
Strategy that technology cannot wholly replace the police and
that an adequate police presence on the roads is also vital. We
agree that technology cannot enforce all offences and cannot replace
direct intervention by the police or the police role in providing
confidence and reassurance. Its aim is to reduce burdens and enhance
the police capacity to perform their role more efficiently and
effectively.
ANPR is one example of extremely valuable technology,
a proactive tool that seeks to target those using the roads illegally.
The majority of police vehicles are not yet equipped with ANPR,
but the Home Office, realising the obvious benefits and success
that ANPR can bring to reducing crime, has invested £32.5
million to encourage the adoption and development of this technology.
It is the responsibility of individual forces, however, to allocate
their budgets as they see fit.
The volume of ANPR-generated hits is high and we
welcome this as demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology
in detecting and preventing criminality. It means, however, that
it is unavoidably necessary to prioritise such hits according
to their importance. The Home Office is working closely with both
ACPO and the police service more widely to ensure that robust,
operational procedures are in place to enable an effective response
to the most serious criminal activity. When it has not been possible
to act immediately on this information derived from ANPR cameras,
the intelligence is often used for vital post-incident investigation
analysis. Numerous offenders have been brought to justice subsequently
through this process. ANPR intercept teams also provide a highly
visible police presence on the strategic road network which contributes
to public reassurance and general road safety, in accordance with
the objectives of the national Roads Policing Strategy.
Applying the National Intelligence Model to roads
policing
14. The National Intelligence Model has an important
role in improving intelligence-led policing and should help the
police to identify where to focus resources to achieve maximum
effect. We hope to see the Model more fully integrated into roads
policing and casualty reduction, including at the local level.
The Inspectorate should continue to evaluate progress in these
important areas. (Paragraph 82)
COMMENT
The importance of the National Intelligence Model
is recognised in the Roads Policing Strategy. Its principles are
used in the National Roads Policing Intelligence Framework (NRPIF)
and this is a specific grading criterion for roads policing. HMIC
will continue to refer to its implementation in baseline assessments.
No force can achieve a "Good" grading without being
able to demonstrate evidence of implementation and use.
Training
15. With the move away from specialist roads police
officers to centralised roads policing units there must be a strenuous
effort to ensure there is no reduction in the specialist training
provided. Initial and refresher training for police officers must
be improved. It is imperative that officers engaged in roads policing
understand how to manage and protect the scene of a serious road
collision, both for their own safety and for the quality of the
crash investigation. Offenders must not have the opportunity to
escape serious driving charges because of police failure to use
equipment competently or as a result of procedural irregularities.
(Paragraph 87)
COMMENT
The initial police learning and development programme
(IPLDP) was officially launched on 1 April 2006 with the purpose
of reforming the delivery of student officer training within police
forces in England and Wales. IPLDP is broadly a 2 year probationer
programme which is modular in structure. It is delivered and assessed
against 22 recognised National Occupational Standards (NOS) and
is delivered locally to a quality assured national curriculum
by individual forces. IPLDP is now live nationally, with all 43
forces having received their first intake of IPLDP students. National
Occupational Standard 2C1 refers to attending incidents - the
range includes road traffic incidents. Student officers are required
to meet the specified outcomes and show evidence of this in their
Student Officer Learning Assessment Portfolio.
The 22 NOS are regularly updated through wide consultation
by Skills for Justice. The centrally developed learning materials
published by Centrex reflect any updates. There are also regular
updates to the detailed national learning materials as a result
of, for example, input from key stakeholders, legislative changes,
strategic initiatives, public enquiries, independent advisory
groups and force feedback. There are several scheduled changes
in relation to road traffic legislation. CCTV and the role of
passive data generators are also scheduled to be included in the
programme
Investment in technology
16. We believe it signals an insupportable choice
of priorities that Highways Agency vehicles designed to keep traffic
moving on the motorway should be better equipped than the police
service's law enforcement vehicles. We heard that there are problems
with IT interoperability between databases and between forces.
We welcome the progress that has been made in this area and expect
further resources to be found to invest in roads policing technology,
to ensure that wherever possible access to data is instantaneous.
This is the responsibility of both individual Chief Constables
and central government. (Paragraph 93)
COMMENT
We acknowledge that the disparity of IT systems deployed
by individual forces can be a barrier to greater efficiency and
effectiveness in all areas of policing. Given that forces have
the freedom to select and procure the systems that best meet their
local needs, the problems of interoperability can only be addressed
by a more corporate approach to the way that data are handled.
The Home Office is already supporting two initiatives
that will have a significant impact on this problem. Work is well
advanced as part of the IMPACT programme to help forces locate
and access intelligence and other operational information held
in other forces' local systems. Secondly we are supporting the
adoption of the Information Systems Strategy for the Police Service
(ISS4PS). Under the ISS4PS (amongst other things) IT systems will
be developed to provide a national view rather than a purely local
view of information. From 1 April 2007 both of these important
pieces of work will be driven forwards by the new National Policing
Improvement Agency.
The influence of new technologies on deployment
decisions
17. Technological developments alone should not
be allowed to direct or unduly influence the deployment of police
resources. Automatic Number Plate Recognition is an example of
a technological development which has had a significant impact
on policing. It very efficiently enables the police to identify
vehicles wanted for past offences and registration-type offences
when they are on the road. We welcome its introduction and wish
to see all forces making full use of the technology. Nevertheless,
it is vital that the police teams visible on the roads fulfil
the whole range of road policing tasks and enforce all types of
traffic offence. (Paragraph 97)
As we stated in our response to paragraphs 11-13
above, we recognised and clearly stated in the Roads Policing
Strategy that technology cannot wholly replace the police and
that an adequate police presence on the roads is also vital. They
need to be there both because technology cannot enforce all offences
and because it cannot replace direct intervention by the police
or the direct police role in providing confidence and reassurance.
How law enforcement is carried out at any particular
time and in any particular place and the role of technology in
enforcement are operational matters for the police. It should
be noted however that ANPR intercept teams now present on the
roads are highly visible and in addition to their direct ANPR
function provide an important resource to promote reassurance
and tackle other motoring offending - it may well for example
be an ANPR team that observes and can deal with a motorist using
a hand-held mobile phone, who might not otherwise be detected.
Introducing new technologies into enforcement
18. When new technologies and new systems of enforcement
are introduced there must be adequate attention given to how best
to contribute to the public and media debate. The Government should
properly convey reasons for the changes. Lessons about the importance
of public communication must be learned from the safety camera
hypothecation scheme. Both the Department for Transport and the
Home Office must do more to publicly support new enforcement initiatives
and ensure their success. (Paragraph 100)
COMMENT
The Government has continued to give strong financial
and political support to the national safety camera programme
and acted to provide maximum publicity and generate public support.
The decisions to make cameras highly visible by painting them
yellow and to publicise their location on websites were indicative
of the objective of reducing speed rather than collecting fine
revenue. The commissioning and publication of regular independent
evaluation reports have in particular helped to raise media and
public awareness of the programme, and its objectives and effectiveness.
Type approval
19. Difficulty achieving full market development
of new technologies, and Home Office type approval, can lead to
delay in anticipated improvements in roads policing. Ideally any
necessary legislation and type approval of new technologies will
come about at the same time—this requires proper planning
and investment in research, design and development. The Home Office
should examine whether the type approval process can be improved
and accelerated without jeopardizing the outcomes. The process
should encourage, not hinder, manufacturers to innovate. (Paragraph
105)
COMMENT
An efficient and effective type approval process
is essential to insure the integrity and reliability of evidence
produced by technological devices and its acceptance by the courts.
We are aware of views that the type approval process is lengthy
and expensive, but do not agree. We always seek to avoid unnecessary
burdens on manufacturers and our requirements are only such as
are essential to meet the over-all goal of type approval.
The process for devices such as safety cameras is
managed through ACPO's Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee,
which includes representatives from HO Scientific Development
Branch (HOSDB) and HO policy. The Committee's expectation is that
manufacturers will have completed any development work before
submitting either final pre-production or production equipment
for entry to the type approval process. Often that is not the
case. Companies often seek to present their equipment at the first
possible meeting of the Committee, but then find they have not
quite completed its development by that time. The Committee will
nevertheless often agree to its entry on condition development
will be completed to the satisfaction of the Committee Secretary
and HOSDB.
An effective process requires manufacturers to be
able and willing to provide full technical documentation and an
in depth explanation of their equipment. Once a device has been
admitted to the type approval process, it is the time taken for
these to be provided that in most cases dominates the length of
the process. The approach of companies varies. Some first provide
what they regard as the minimum information necessary and then
provide additional information only when it has been specifically
requested. Some provide nothing at the start of the process, seemingly
because they have no documentation ready or else need to write
or re-write it. This is despite the fact they are advised they
can submit what they do have, then provide more as requested.
In some cases manufacturers fail to respond to requests for information
and have to be set a deadline. If nothing further is heard, the
device is withdrawn from the process and brought back only after
payment of a deposit. The police will not commence field testing
until HOSDB is content with the technical documentation and user
manual and able to advise ACPO on its testing.
When manufacturers come with final equipment, are
clear about how it is to be used, are ready to provide technical
documentation to HOSDB, the process is likely to take less than
one year, but where that is not the case, it can take several
times longer. Only rarely does it take longer because of technical
problems which require correcting.
For our part, we are willing to consider any specific
proposals for change and already do adapt the process to facilitate
and encourage innovations. HOSDB, for example, published in 1996
a guidance document which introduced requirements for digital
images and their protection to enable their use in evidence. This
was innovative at the time and we believe led other European countries
to introduce similar requirements. HOSDB also assisted in the
introduction of 'bus lane enforcement in London by producing a
handbook and helping take forward type approval, it worked with
DVLA to enable the type approval of ANPR equipment to detect unlicensed
vehicles, and when a company put forward an automatic average
speedmeter it produced the Automatic Distance/Time Speedmeter
handbook in 1995 to enable it to be approved. This was before
any other country had such systems.
More recently, in the light of legal advice, HOSDB
in 2002 published requirements that enable evidence to be recorded
at a remote location and for the device to be controlled from
there. In January 2004 HOSDB published new, extended, requirements
for automatic distance/time speedmeters to enable average speed
enforcement over a network of roads sharing the same speed limit.
It has also produced a new handbook for manual distance/time speedmeter
because, at ACPO's request, the HO started to require new such
devices to be approved. Supplementary requirements were then produced
to allow the addition of devices to the in-car video recording
system.
There is no shortage of companies wishing to submit
new devices for approval. From a commercial point of view, many
manufactures have indicated that UK type approval is valuable
in gaining access to overseas markets. Our concern is to ensure
only devices which have a benefit to UK police and camera partnerships
for UK traffic law enforcement are considered and that limited
government resources are used only to that end. We would not wish
to encourage applications for the type approval of devices that
were clearly unsuitable or were unlikely to be marketed in the
UK, nor would we wish to incur costs simply to reduce a commercial
company's development costs and thereby increase its profits.
Regarding the cost, there is no charge for the time
of police or safety camera partnership staff in conducting and
reporting on field tests, or for HOSDB time, or for the time of
HO policy officials in preparing the necessary agreements with
companies and processing the type approval order. The manufacturer
has to meet only the costs of contracting an independent test
house to test their device against the relevant requirements,
of providing a copy of the report to HOSDB, of loaning equipment
for field tests and where fixed installations are required, paying
for two sites. It is a matter for manufacturers to consider their
costs and how these are recouped in sales.
Co-ordinating legislative change and the type approval
of any new technology it requires are not straightforward. There
is no real incentive for manufacturers to develop specific items
of equipment for police use which cannot be used within the existing
legal framework as there would be no market Developing a device
without knowing what exactly might be required of it, either directly
in the legislation or in any specification that might be laid
down, could also be fruitless expenditure Government does however
keep in touch with scientific and technological advances to inform
its policy development and manufacturers maintain an awareness
of areas in which they might be able to offer a product to benefit
the implementation of policy.
Safety Camera Partnerships
20. It was disappointing that whilst acknowledging
the essential role of safety cameras, the Association of Chief
Police Officers' Head of Road Policing did not wish to see more
cameras in use. We find such a contradictory approach bewildering.
Well-placed cameras bring tremendous safety benefits at excellent
cost-benefit ratios. A more cost effective measure for reducing
speeds and casualties has yet to be introduced. An increase in
safety camera coverage would be supported by evidence, as well
as public opinion. There are many more sites which meet the existing
camera guidelines and more funding should be made available to
enable better coverage. (Paragraph 118)
21. The police and road safety campaigners want
flexibility on where and how to deploy cameras. It is a disgrace
that the existing Department for Transport guidelines require
potentially preventable deaths and injuries to have occurred in
a location before cameras can be installed. The relationship between
speed and collisions is so well proven that this requirement is
unnecessary and even irresponsible. Evidence of excessive speed
is evidence of danger and there is no need to wait for somebody
to die in order to take action intended to slow vehicles. We recommend
that the casualty criteria be lifted. Future guidance from the
Department should emphasise the importance of local decisions
about camera siting: there should be more flexibility for rural
roads with casualty problems which do not meet speed criteria
and urban roads which cannot fulfil the visibility requirements.
(Paragraph 119)
COMMENT
The independent four year evaluation of the National
Safety Camera Programme confirms that safety cameras continue
to be a valuable and cost-effective method of enforcing speed
limits. The camera deployment criteria for the National Safety
Camera Programme were amended in light of the conclusions of this
report to provide partnerships with greater flexibility to deploy
cameras where there is a strong road safety need. In particular
for 2006/07:
· The
criteria allow increased levels of enforcement at exceptional
sites where there are community concerns about speeding or where
there is a speeding problem and a history of all types of injury
accident, rather than focusing on those that result in death or
serious injury; and
· The
criteria now allow cameras to be deployed on longer routes, especially
in rural areas, where there is a clear problem of speeding and
accidents along the route as a whole, but the accidents are not
sufficiently clustered in one section to trigger the previous
criteria.
Local road safety partnerships will be responsible
and accountable for the deployment of cameras from 1 April 2007.
The Department therefore intends to be less prescriptive about
deployment criteria from that date. The primary objective for
their deployment will continue to be to reduce deaths and injuries
by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red light running.
However partnerships will have much greater freedom to develop
local deployment criteria and use cameras in response to community
concerns about excessive speeding. The Department for Transport
will be issuing guidance to traffic authorities on these matters
shortly. Alongside this greater local determination and accountability,
we are providing £110 million a year of funding which represents
a significant increase in funding for road safety compared to
current spending on cameras.
22. Even driving a few miles per hour over the
speed limit makes a big difference in a collision with a pedestrian
or cyclist: the chances of survival halve between collisions at
30 miles per hour and 35 miles per hour. With more accurate camera
equipment and with accurate digital speedometers installed in
vehicles, it would be possible to lower the enforcement threshold
speeds. The Government and the police should work towards harmonizing
threshold speeds and reducing these to nearer the actual speed
limit in order to improve the effectiveness of speed cameras,
and to better protect pedestrians and cyclists. (Paragraph 121)
COMMENT
The Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines
to Chief Constables on minimum enforcement thresholds for speeding
are kept under review. Any improvements in camera technology will
be taken into account in future reviews.
23. The change in funding arrangements for the
National Safety Camera Partnerships ends the ring-fencing for
camera operations. The police fear that under the new system their
involvement could be sidelined and their access to funding might
be curtailed. Transport for London in particular has concerns
that it will be difficult to increase funds to expand camera enforcement
even where cameras are the most effective solution. Camera Partnerships
have provided valuable lessons in partnership working; the connections
that have been made must not be lost. We will keep the new arrangements
under review and hope to see that cameras continue to be an important
part of casualty reduction for as long as they remain one of the
most effective interventions. (Paragraph 128)
COMMENT
Safety cameras play an important role in an integrated
road safety strategy. As part of the integration of cameras into
the wider road safety delivery process, we are encouraging the
establishment of wider road safety partnerships. The intention
is that the existing close working between local authorities,
the police and other local partners on safety cameras is extended
across a broader range of road safety measures. DfT will continue
to monitor progress, facilitate good practice and provide assistance.
Future technologies for speed limit enforcement
24. Speed cameras have achieved significant reductions
in collisions and casualties. There remains potential to increase
this impact not only through the rules and arrangements which
govern their use, but also through ongoing technological developments.
Time-distance cameras improve effectiveness: the Department for
Transport, Home Office and police forces should take the steps
necessary to encourage their use and make sure sufficient resources
are invested. The possibility of using time-distance cameras to
enforce 20 miles per hour limits on residential roads should be
explored by the Department. We welcome Transport for London's
efforts to secure Home Office type approval for such equipment
in order to protect vulnerable road users through enforcement
of appropriate speed limits. Development work on Intelligent Speed
Adaptation should be continued. We would welcome the early introduction
of in-vehicle enforcement technology. The potential of Intelligent
Road Studs should also be further explored. (Paragraph 135)
COMMENT
We recognise the significant advantage of using time
over distance speed enforcement as well as enforcement at particular
points on the road. As outlined above, HOSDB has produced the
necessary type approval requirements as and when needed.
Time over distance speed enforcement is already encouraged
at sites where a significant number of collisions are scattered
along a length of road and for major road works enforcement. Greater
flexibility was afforded to Safety Camera Partnerships to use
this technology in 2006/07 and their use is also included the
shortly to be published guidance on the future deployment of cameras
post 1 April 2007.
Subject to the technology meeting the type approval
requirements, it will for example be possible to use time over
distance cameras to enforce 20mph speed limits from that date.
However, 20mph zones are typically self-enforcing, where appropriate
through suitable traffic calming measures. At this stage, the
Department remain of the general view that this should continue
to be the case.
Nonetheless we are happy to consider Transport for
London's proposals and are working in co-operation and collaboration
with them on the type approval process. HOSDB had early discussions
with TfL and the supplier of the only approved average speed system
when it published in January 2004 requirements to enable a network
of roads to be enforced. TfL is very helpful in facilitating test
sites for the Metropolitan Police to undertake HO type approval
testing and we are very grateful for this. TfL is currently facilitating
a test site for an average speed enforcement system that is currently
in the type approval process. TfL also have a development project
for a digital 'bus lane enforcement camera system on which they
have consulted HOSDB.
The police and HO already do make resources available
for adapting and operating the type approval process. Some forces
also assist highway authorities with projects that include the
development of new enforcement technology. It would however not
be possible for the Home Office to fund or be involved in any
development work itself in this area. It is beneficial to have
a range of products available. To achieve this, companies have
to develop systems at their own cost and submit them to the type
approval process. HOSDB could not continue to maintain the confidence
of the companies that their information was being protected if
it seemed that any HOSDB development was benefiting from HOSDB
seeing the technical documentation of all competing products.
For the type approval process to work, it is essential it operates
in confidence to protect the commercial interests of all companies
submitting their products.
We acknowledge that Intelligent Speed Adaptation
technology is an option for helping drivers to remain within speed
limits in the future. The Department has been undertaking a trial
through a research project and this is scheduled to report shortly.
Only one company is known to claim that it has intelligent road
studs with the potential for use in speed enforcement. HOSDB has
encouraged the company to submit such a device, but so far without
success.
We acknowledge that Intelligent Speed Adaptation
(ISA) technology could help drivers to remain within speed limits
in the future and anticipate manufacturers taking forward ISA
in response to consumer demand. The Department has carried out
trials looking into the longer term effects of using ISA on driver
behaviour; this project is due to report shortly.
Increasing prevalence of drink-driving and drug-driving
25. More than one in six people killed in road
crashes are the victim of drivers over the permitted alcohol limit.
This is far too many deaths and indicates a level of non-compliance
with traffic law which is appallingly high. The number of drink-drive
casualties has increased in recent years, as the number of roads
policing officers has fallen. Police enforcement has a crucial
role to play. As ACPO noted, the operation does not need to be
complex: it is a case of doing much more of the same. We need
a uniformly stringent approach to drink-driving enforcement. There
should be a greater effort to understand and address the reasons
for an increasing number of people's preparedness to drink-drive.
(Paragraph 144)
COMMENT
The number of drink drive casualties has actually
been falling although the number of deaths has increased. After
several decades of progress towards the eventual goal of eradicating
drink driving this is a very disappointing situation. The fact
that the severest of accidents are not declining does support
the view that the culprits are well above the legal drink drive
limit and are therefore the types of person who have little regard
for the law. We have been researching the degree and form persuasion
needed to get the message over to these people - who are not necessarily
long term hardcore but younger inexperienced motorists who have
a perception of themselves as indestructible. It is believed that
their willingness to drive impaired is boosted by a perception,
whether accurate or not, that police are not around to enforce.
It is our joint aim through publicity and actual police action
to destroy that myth.
26. The incidence of drug-driving is also on the
rise, although the actual scale of the problem is still unknown.
There is a widely-held belief among offenders that drug-driving
is not enforced by the police. The drug-driving enforcement campaign
has not yet really begun in earnest. Given the estimated scale
of the problem, there must be much greater enforcement and a publicity
campaign directed at drug-driving. The Department for Transport
must do more to educate the public of the dangers of both drug-driving
and drink-driving. (Paragraph 145)
The full impact of drugs on road traffic accidents
is not yet known. The DfT contributory factor measures recorded
by the police on the Stats 19 accident record system suggest that
drugs are a factor in about one tenth of the number of fatal accidents
where alcohol was involved. The incidence of drugs in injury accidents
as a whole may sometimes be concealed by the presence of excess
alcohol because the police may take forward prosecution proceedings
for drink driving without investigating for drugs. Paragraphs
30-33 detail the government's and police's progress on enhancing
enforcement. For example, we are in communication with commercial
manufacturers on the development and delivery of a suitable roadside
device for testing for a broad range of drugs. This would enhance
the scope to measure the prevalence of drugs and is discussed
in detail at paragraphs 30-31 below. Publicity on drug driving
was at an all time high at Christmas 2006 and is being targeted
through the most relevant media.
27. It is disappointing that the police, Home
Office and Department for Transport have not found funding to
secure the type approval of roadside evidential breath testing
equipment. It is unacceptable that last year the Government announced
£15 million of extra funding for the continuing development
of Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology, and yet it has
not made £60,000 available to ensure type approval of roadside
evidential breath testing equipment, which could be instrumental
in reducing the 3,000-plus people killed and seriously injured
through alcohol-related road crashes each year. The Government
must work earnestly with manufacturers to resolve barriers to
production of the equipment as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph
148)
COMMENT
Our remarks above on paragraph 19 are relevant also
to the developmental and type approval costs of evidential breath
test equipment. The cost of type approval testing is considerable,
but unavoidably so. (The cost of £60,000 is an estimated
cost per device based on the assumption that it passes
the required tests first-time and that the test set-up costs are
spread over 3 devices.) Commercial decisions are matters for the
individual companies that might seek to produce devices and have
them approved.
Devices must demonstrate that they can give accurate
results under extremes of temperature and humidity, as well as
against quite severe shocks, vibrations and impacts. They must
demonstrate that they do not give off any radio waves which might
affect other equipment; as well as demonstrating that they are
not themselves adversely affected by radio waves. When all of
these tests have been satisfactorily completed, the devices have
to be tested for their response to alcohol vapour samples. An
evidential breath test instrument must show that it responds only
to the ethanol in a sample of breath not to any individual one
of a number of other volatile substances. Instruments must prove
they will give accurate and repeatable results and that they will
show no "memory effect" (i.e. the result of a particular
test must not be influenced by the test(s) carried out immediately
beforehand), or "drift" (i.e. the calibration of the
device must be stable for at least 3 months). The test time for
a device can run into several days per test type and the complex
software has to be tested carefully to ensure it does all that
is required, but nothing else. Special materials have to be used
in the tests and some very specialised test equipment has to be
used.
The Forensic Science Service, which advises the Home
Office on the type approval of breath test devices, has supported
the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in its bid for funding
from the Department for Trade and Industry's national Valid Analytical
Measurement (VAM) programme. In the recent VAM funding meetings,
NPL have been successful in securing some set-up funding to support
the Type Approval of mobile evidential breath test instruments.
It is expected that various devices will be tested during 2007
with the likelihood that recommendations as to type approval may
be made by the end of the year.
28. As technology improves the government should
review the guidelines governing its use to ensure they continue
to strike the correct balance between gathering sufficient evidence
to prosecute and making effective use of police time. We recommend
the government reviews the merits of offering a blood and urine
testing option to drivers with between 40 and 50 micrograms of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Improvements in technological
accuracy may have made such an option superfluous. (Paragraph
149)
COMMENT
On the blood/urine testing option, technological
accuracy is not the only issue. One of the reasons for the introduction
of this option was the physiology of alcohol in the human body.
The ratio between blood alcohol (BAC) and breath
alcohol (BrAC) is not the same for everyone. The figures in the
Road Traffic Act (80mg/100ml BAC = 35ìg
/100ml BrAC imply a ratio of 2300:1. This was obtained statistically
from the analysis of many hundreds of blood samples taken concurrently
with breath samples.
The lowest BAC/BrAC ratio obtained was 1600:1, though
this has been questioned by more recent studies. Someone with
a BAC/BrAC ratio of 1600:1 could blow 50ìg/100ml
on a breath screener, but their blood would contain 80mg/100ml
(50ìg
x 1600 = 80mg). Therefore, even though their BrAC would be in
excess of the legal limit, their BAC would not be. If the option
were to be removed, the de facto prosecution limit of 40µg/100ml
would mean that anyone with a BAC/BrAC ratio of less than 2000:1
would be disadvantaged.
As the Committee recognises, technology has improved
in terms of accuracy and specificity and the calculations and
factors used now are different from those employed previously.
A further study is necessary of drivers making use of the option
before any change can reasonably be made. We shall consider this
further.
29. The scale of the drink-drive problem indicates
the need for all efforts to be made to promote compliance. Where
technology can help increase compliance its use should be encouraged.
'Alcolocks' should be fitted to offenders' vehicles. In addition,
the Department should evaluate the impact of eventually fitting
alcolocks in all new vehicles, and should the results prove to
be beneficial for road safety, the Government should push for
alcolock fitment to be incorporated into the European Whole Vehicle
Type Approval standards. The alcolock should be calibrated to
the Member State's national alcohol limit. (Paragraph 151)
COMMENT
The technology of alcohol ignition interlocks continues
to evolve. It has been reported that the (US) State of New Mexico
has adopted a system based on a transdermal sensor in place of
a breath test as part of its judicial interlock programme. We
continue to monitor developments in other countries. Enabling
powers have been taken through the Road Safety Act 2006 to allow
for the setting up of a judicial programme but this will progress
via an experimental phase probably in a limited part of the country.
DfT research on operational and social aspects of the use of interlocks
is nearly complete and a report will be published in spring 2007.
A simpler version of an interlock can be used as a preventive
device. It is possible that fleet operators may be interested
in this. Decisions about fitting interlocks to all new vehicles
are not likely to be taken at national level but if they were
it is likely that manufacturers would want to calibrate them well
below legal limits because of potential liability in the case
of any failure or inaccuracy in a particular machine.
Drug screening equipment
30. We welcome the development work which is underway
into technologies that will effectively and accurately detect
whether drivers have used drugs. Drug-driving already poses a
very significant danger on our roads: studies indicate that 18%
of collisions involve a driver in whom illicit drugs are present.
We are therefore concerned that, given the extent of the problem,
far too little attention has been dedicated to such research and
development. It is a complex task but the Home Office must prioritise
the development of drug screening equipment and police officers
must have access to this technology at the earliest possible opportunity.
Until this technology is available, the deterrent effect of enforcement
will be minimal. (Paragraph 156)
31. There should be effective co-operation between
roads police officers and forensic scientists to ensure that prosecutions
for drug-driving offences are pursued wherever possible. We are
concerned that in the context of drug-driving enforcement, the
results of police and medical tests frequently do not match. This
problem should be explored and both groups should be better trained
in the procedures. (Paragraph 158)
COMMENT
Any devices the police might use to test a driver
for the presence of a drug must be of a type approved by the Secretary
of State. The responsibility of the Home Office, with its advisers
in the Forensic Science Service and HOSDB is to prepare a type
approval guide setting out the specification which a device would
have to meet to achieve type approval. The Department then has
to ensure that any device presented meets that specification and
merits type approval. The actual development of devices is essentially
the responsibility of commercial manufacturers, with whom we maintain
regular communication. We welcome the keen interest they show
in this area.
The type approval process is overseen by the HO-chaired
Drink Drug Drive Working Group (DDDWG). Although the road safety
issue is whether a person is impaired by a drug, rather than simply
has a drug present, the Group is fully aware of the importance
of this work and is pressing for the guide to be available as
soon as possible. It is, however, of vital importance that there
is extremely careful drafting of the guide. The type approval
process must result in a device that is practically useful, reliable
and accurate. A device which detected some impairing drugs but
not others that might be in common use, or that could not be used
properly and reliably in different operational conditions, would
be of limited benefit; one that gave either a falsely positive
reading or a falsely negative reading would be actively harmful
and potentially dangerous.
There has already been extensive work towards production
of the guide. and this continues. It involves outside academic
experts and consultation with industry and other interested parties.
A further draft of the guide is expected to be issued by 31 January
2007 or shortly afterwards.
The work also had regard to relevant research, particularly
the joint European/USA ROSITA-II study. This found a wide range
of problems with the different existing devices tested, both in
their accuracy and sensitivity and in their operational use. The
specific conclusion was that "no device was considered to
be reliable enough in order to be recommended for the roadside
screening of drivers". One manufacturer has subsequently
prepared what is claimed to be an improved device but there are
no independent data to back up the claims
We are aiming to enable manufacturers to have devices
on the market by the end of the year. This is a best-case scenario
and depends on the following assumptions:
a) The next circulated version of the Guide requires
little or no change before publication.
b) Manufacturers have devices ready for testing.
c) Some (or all) of the environmental testing
has been carried out before final publication of the Guide (The
environmental tests are all taken directly from International
Standards. If the manufacturer has a device ready, there is no
reason why these tests cannot be done now, and only the "drug-specific"
tests have to wait until publication of the Guide.)
d) Police field trials find at least one device
satisfactory.
e) The devices pass all the tests first time
(and hence require no re-engineering and subsequent re-testing).
f) The agreed calibration check interval is no
longer than 1 month (which would require 3 months of testing).
In parallel to this work, and on a longer time-scale,
HOSDB is engaged on a priority project to develop a more sophisticated
device which rather than screening for the presence of specified
drugs analyses a sample of oral fluid and identifies the illegal,
prescription or over-the-counter drugs that are present. This
work, at the forefront of scientific and technological development,
is extremely difficult, complex and delicate. When complete, a
specification will be prepared for commercial manufacture of the
device.
As regards co-operation in drugs tests, there are
3 stages that lead to the analysis of a blood or urine sample
from a motorist suspected of driving whilst unfit through a drug:
a) An officer witnesses the suspicious driving
behaviour and possibly conducts a field impairment test; the driver
is taken to the police station. A field impairment test, which
can only be conducted by a trained and certified officer, is not
a definitive indication that a person is impaired by a drug but
can give support to an officer's suspicion.
b) A medical practitioner states that the motorist
has a condition which might be due to some drug and a sample is
taken, It is for the medical practitioner to decide on what to
base his statement.
c) A forensic scientist analyses and reports
the result of the sample.
The Road Traffic Act blood sampling kit contains
a copy of the national MGDD/E Drug Sample Information Form. This
should be submitted with every blood or urine sample taken from
a motorist and is designed to help the forensic scientist decide
which analyses to carry out, and in which order.
The analysis and reporting of drug levels is not
as straightforward as the analysis and reporting of blood alcohol
levels. The main differences are:
a) Drugs are not volatile and so cannot be easily
and quickly separated from the blood for analysis.
b) The drug potentially present may be a single
drug (e.g. cocaine), or a group of drugs (e.g. benzodiazepines),
or a specific metabolite rather than the drug itself.
c) The levels of drugs which may cause an effect
are hundreds of times lower than the level of alcohol which may
cause an effect. This means that the forensic scientist has to
undertake a far more discriminating analysis.
d) Regular drug users will have an increased
tolerance to the drugs that they regularly take. This can make
it hard to interpret a particular drug level as one which may
cause impairment (and means that a field impairment test may correctly
not suggest impairment, even though blood analysis shows the presence
of a drug).
e) The forensic scientist can rarely say that
the motorist was impaired or unfit from the analysis of the sample.
The analytical result should provide an indication that a person's
suspicious condition was, in the absence of any medical or physical
explanation, due to drugs.
The Home Office chaired Drink Drug Driving Working
Group has a specialist Drug Driving Advisory sub-group in which
those with professional, operational and scientific interest in
the issue can discuss problems as they arise and potential improvements
to the system.
Field Impairment Test
32. We are pleased to see that in the absence
of drug screening devices, the police have developed the Field
Impairment Test to assist officers to accurately detect drug drivers.
The early results are promising. It is therefore disappointing
that not all forces have adopted the system. The Home Office and
the Association of Chief Police Officers should work together
to ensure that the Field Impairment Test procedure is harmonised
and fully applied across police forces. (Paragraph 161)
COMMENT
The Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, requires any
police officer carrying out a preliminary impairment test, such
as Field Impairment Tests (FIT), to be specifically approved by
the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs. Before
approval, a constable must be qualified for the purpose by training
and assessment in the use of Field Impairment Tests in accordance
with the standard set in:
* BS EN ISO 9001: 2000 and
* The Quality Manual held by the Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Chief Police Officers
Scotland (ACPOS).
In addition to being trained to administer the Field
Impairment Tests, constables so authorised will also be trained
to a standard set down in the above BS EN ISO, to identify the
signs and symptoms of drug influence. Constables will be trained
for the purpose only by instructors who have been approved for
that purpose, in England and Wales by the Association of Chief
Police Officers (ACPO) and, in Scotland by the Association of
Chief Police Officers (Scotland) (ACPO(S)). The Act also requires
the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on the use
of FIT. Such a code was issued in December 2004 and is available
on the DfT and HO websites.
Legislation and enforcement of drink-driving and
drug-driving
33. The continuing requirement to prove impairment
is an obstacle to the effective policing of the drug-driving problem.
We recommend that the Government work in consultation with police
services and the appropriate medical experts to identify suitable
thresholds and tests for the presence of illegal drugs in a driver's
body. At the same time, the Government should bring forward the
legislation necessary to enable drivers to be prosecuted on the
basis of drug-testing rather than impairment-testing. (Paragraph
168)
COMMENT
In terms of operational convenience for the police,
there is an immediate attraction in the suggestion that the requirement
to prove impairment should be removed. The Government is therefore
prepared to give this further consideration. There are, however,
a number of issues to be resolved before the Government might
properly decide to introduce primary legislation to give effect
to the suggestion.
Such evidence as is available suggests that drink
driving remains probably a tenfold more significant problem than
drug driving. With both, the road safety issue is the extent to
which a driver's ability might be impaired by drink or drugs.
There is no absolute ban on driving with alcohol in the body.
The prescribed limit for alcohol reflects empirical evidence as
to the amount the average person can drink before a significantly
higher chance of being involved in a collision. There is a very
wide range of drugs that might be used and people's tolerance
of each varies, as therefore does the point at which their driving
becomes impaired and potentially dangerous. Moreover, some drugs
can remain in the body long after they could be having any impairment
effect.
To set limits for every type of drug that is currently
available or might become available in the future is not practical.
To have an absolute ban would make it an offence to be driving
a vehicle with an illegal drug in the body, although it is not
otherwise an offence (the offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act
is to be in possession of a controlled drug). It is also not simply
the case that people have particular drugs in their bodies, because
the substances metabolise after consumption. Impairment is the
road safety issue and there is a need for proof that an illicit
drug has been consumed before it can be claimed that a person
is likely to be impaired by it. Such proof relies on markers.
In some cases, however, the impairment might outlast any marker
related to a drug. Moreover, some more dangerous drugs are eliminated
from the body more quickly than less dangerous drugs. It would
be counter-productive to encourage people to take more dangerous
drugs in the hope of being better able to avoid detection.
34. We believe that impairment is still the appropriate
test in relation to drivers who are affected by licensed medicines.
(Paragraph 169)
COMMENT
The Government agrees.
Mobile telephone use
35. Driving while using a mobile telephone is
extremely impairing—drivers holding a mobile telephone conversation
are four times more likely to be involved in a crash. Anyone who
observes traffic for even a short period of time is likely to
see this law being flouted with impunity—it is disappointing
that there have not been more high profile enforcement operations
to support the change in legislation. Failure to enforce the new
law risks bringing traffic law enforcement into disrepute. Given
the significantly increased risk of collision, the police should
undertake regular and highly visible enforcement action, supported
by targeted advertising campaigns. (Paragraph 175)
COMMENT
Enforcement is going up. Home Office figures are
only available for 2004, but reports we have had suggest that
some forces will catch this year more than three times the numbers
in the 2004 figures. The Road Safety Act raises the stakes from
27 February 2007 by doubling the FPN and bringing in points; and
we believe this will make a serious difference to the way the
offence is perceived and enforced.
DfT is running a national campaign in early 2007
linked to the new penalties. We are also looking at increasing
social unacceptability with publicity aimed at those who make
calls to drivers. The THINK! team are talking to ACPO about linking
enforcement and publicity campaigns, and plan a trial on seat
belts. Mobile phones would be an obvious next target if the results
are positive.
36. Collision data should include details of whether
a driver was using a mobile telephone at the time of the incident,
and certainly in all fatal crashes the collision investigator
should check telephone records to identify whether the driver
was using a telephone at the time of the crash. The fact that
it is currently difficult (or impossible) to detect mobile telephone
use through technology should not mean that this law is neglected.
In addition, the Home Office should support research into new
technologies which detect telephone use or prevent people from
driving while using them. (Paragraph 176)
COMMENT
We have included mobile phone use among the contributory
factors recorded on STATS19, but this is not straightforward.
A policeman arriving at the scene of a road traffic accident will
rely at the scene on an admission or other witness evidence that
a phone was being used. The driver might well make another call
before the officer arrives (to summon the police and/or other
emergency services, report delay to family or work, etc), which
makes detection possible only by a check of the phone company
record. We understand that there are thresholds to cross before
the necessary authority to search these records will be given.
Devices that can detect whether a mobile phone is in use nearby
already exist and have been used by the Department for Transport
for survey work. They do not, however, indicate retrospectively
whether a mobile phone was in use.
Fatigue
37. We welcome the research being undertaken by
the Home Office Scientific Development Branch into a device which
would help police officers reliably detect impairment in drivers.
If such a device is shown to be effective, the Home Office should
ensure that police officers have access to this equipment as soon
as possible, and that they are adequately resourced and trained
to make best use of it. (Paragraph 179)
COMMENT
HOSDB will continue this work. The availability and
use of any device that may be developed will in due course depend
on commercial manufacturers and decisions taken by individual
chief officers as to its value and cost-effectiveness in assisting
with operational duties. There should not be too much focus on
the ability to detect impairment due to fatigue. Many experts
believe that this will not be possible because of the rush of
adrenalin a suspect driver might experience when stopped by the
police. The main focus of the HOSDB work is on impairment resulting
from drugs or alcohol.
Haulage vehicles
38. Commercial vehicle and driver compliance checks
should be properly resourced. The Department for Transport and
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency should work together to enforce
vehicle safety standards on all vehicles, including foreign-registered
Heavy Goods Vehicles. We welcome measures in the Road Safety Bill
that toughen the regime for foreign-registered vehicles. (Paragraph
183)
COMMENT
The Vehicle Operator and Services Agency spends a
significant amount of resource on compliance checks, but there
are inevitably limits as to what can be undertaken, and a reasonable
balance needs to be struck. The solution is not just about the
absolute level of checking - it is about targeting checks against
the most likely offenders, and this is exactly what the Agency
is doing, irrespective of where a vehicle is registered and where
the driver comes from.
| 
