Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (ETM 53)

1 Introduction

1.1 The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and co-ordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, coordinates the strategic policing response.

1.2 ACPO’s 341 members are police officers of Assistant Chief Constable rank (Commanders in the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police) and above and senior police staff managers, in the 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and other forces such as British Transport Police and States of Jersey Police.

2 We have been asked to provide a response on:

· The extent to which the Government and local authorities should intervene to alleviate congestion and the best means of doing so;

· the extent to which road user culture and behaviour undermines effective traffic management, including the relevance to today’s road users of the Highway Code;

· intelligent traffic management schemes, such as the scheme which has operated on the M42, and their impact on congestion and journey times;

· the effectiveness of legislative provisions for road management under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004; and

· the impact of bus lanes and other aspects of road layout.

2.1 The extent to which the Government and local authorities should intervene to alleviate congestion and the best means of doing so.

2.1.1 Despite a reduction in the level of traffic using our roads over the last two years, congestion continues to be a problem. The economic impact of congestion, particularly on the strategic road network has been well reported and we accept that it is key driver for tackling congestion. Other aspects worthy of consideration are the frustration caused to drivers caught up in the congestion and the potential for subsequent driving misbehaviour brought about by that frustration.

2.1.2 Whilst we are not in a position to suggest engineering measures to alleviate congestion, we consider that Government and local authorities have an obligation to concentrate on collision reduction. The financial cost of collisions is estimated at up to £30 billion annually, representing 2.3% of GDP. A fatal collision may now cost £2 million to manage. Added to that is the inestimable emotional cost of the death and serious injury to thousands of people every year.

2.1.3 A significant amount of congestion is obviously caused by collisions, particularly on motorways where traffic may become trapped for long periods. Last year there were 18,269 closure incidents on our motorways, although not all of these were caused by collisions. We have been working with Government to look at ways of reducing post-collision congestion and the outcome of that work was announced on 19 May and will be available to the committee. That work will continue at a national level with key partners in the Department for Transport and Highways Agency.

2.1.4 At a local level, local authorities need to work in partnership with police forces to analyse collision data and jointly identify engineering and enforcement activity that will lead to collision prevention. The cuts last year to the road safety grant given to local authorities has led to the withdrawal of council funding to Road Safety Partnerships in some areas and significant reductions in other areas, which may lead to an increase in collisions in those areas.

2.1.5 Average Time Distance Cameras have demonstrated that when they are deployed they achieve very high speed limit compliance rates from motorists. This leads to reduced congestion, improved traffic flow, less accidents and casualties. The compliance rate with speed limits are significantly higher when Average Time Distance Cameras are utilised instead of standard speed cameras. ACPO also recognise the advantages for drivers who might pass an Average Time Distance Camera whilst exceeding the speed limit. They have an opportunity to modify their speed between the first and second camera. If they do so and comply with the speed limit over the set distance they will avoid prosecution. This is beneficial for the driver, the roads become safer, the traffic flow is better and the driver is educated regarding speed limit compliance.

2.2 The extent to which road user culture and behaviour undermines effective traffic management, including the relevance to today’s road users of the Highway Code.

2.2.1 While it is difficult to present any quantifiable evidence, there is a perception that driver behaviour has deteriorated in recent years. However, there is clear evidence that Road Safety Partnerships, through the appropriate placement of speed cameras are saving lives by having a positive effect on driver compliance. This is supported by Professor Richard Allsop’s report showing how the removal of speed cameras would result in 800 more people per year being killed or seriously injured on our roads.

2.2.2 Figures clearly show that speeds on our roads have reduced and the number of speeding offences captured by technology is falling. The perception is that other, equally harmful offending behaviours such as dangerous and inconsiderate anti-social driving has increased due to a less visible police presence on the roads, particularly motorways. These behaviours include undertaking, tailgating, speeding in areas not monitored by cameras and driving without insurance.

2.2.3 This wilful offending will obviously undermine any traffic management system and is likely to lead to collisions with the inevitable consequential congestion. We are addressing this by diverting low-level offenders into education through a simplified process. Evaluation of education courses currently offered to road traffic offenders has shown they are more effective in changing driver attitude and behaviour than enforcement by fixed penalty or prosecution.

2.2.4 The lack of bureaucracy involved in diverting offenders into education will enable us to concentrate on wilful or high-harm offenders thereby improving overall compliance.

2.2.5 It is important that there is a high level of intelligence-led enforcement against these wilful offenders. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) has a positive role to play in providing such intelligence, causing level 1,2 and 3 criminals to be denied the use of the roads by targeted enforcement. This is line with the ACPO Roads Policing Strategy, which is:

• Denying criminals use of the road by enforcing the law;

• Reducing road casualties;

• Tackling the threat of terrorism;

• Reducing anti-social use of vehicles;

• Enhancing public confidence and reassurance by patrolling the roads.

2.2.6 Many of the persons arrested at the roadside will not have licences, insurance and often will not be driving the vehicle in a safe manner. The Central Motorway Police Group (CMPG) manage a very effective network of ANPR cameras that in the last year alone resulted in the arrest of some 490 cross-border criminals. Seizures amounted to £2.1 million in drugs and under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), some £3 million in cash and assets.

2.2.7 ANPR has also had a significant role to play in counter-terrorism, providing invaluable evidence in cases such as the Glasgow Airport attack and attempted car bombings in Central London.

2.2.8 The relevance of the Highway Code is an interesting issue in as much as it remains highly relevant to road users but we believe that once a person has passed their driving test the majority will never look at it again. Most police officers can give personal examples of people they have stopped who have no knowledge as to the meaning of the road signs that they have just passed or even of the speed limits applicable to types of carriageway that they are driving along.

2.3 Intelligent traffic management schemes, such as the scheme which has operated on the M42 and their impact on congestion and journey times.

2.3.1 We fully support the use of intelligent traffic management schemes utilising variable mandatory speed limits (VMSL) and hard shoulder running in appropriate circumstances. We are aware that evidence shows a reduction in collisions, improved journey times and a reduction in pollution. We do, however have some concerns relating to the system.

2.3.2 The system deployed on the M42 works extremely well and officers who cover that area report no problems with it. What we would contend is that the layout of the M42 at that point is urban in nature with access and egress slip-roads very close together. This means that when an incident does occur, disruption is minimised as traffic may still leave the motorway quite promptly and emergency services access the scene. Having said that, since the implementation of the scheme there has not been a fatal incident to fully test its resilience.

2.3.3 The proposed areas for extension, such as the M1 in West Yorkshire are totally different in nature. In the majority of cases there are many miles between junctions, so the potential for traffic to clear the scene of a collision is severely limited. If hard shoulder running is in operation at the time of the incident, congestion will build extremely quickly and there may be four lanes of standing traffic going back a mile in just a matter of minutes, as hard shoulder running will be implemented during peak traffic flow times.

2.3.4 This clearly provides the emergency services with a significant problem in reaching the scene of the incident due to having to negotiate the standing traffic with no hard shoulder to utilise. Delays in reaching the scene may result in serious injuries becoming fatalities. Highways Agency resources and recovery services will also face a similar problem, which may well increase scene clearance times.

2.3.5 The other practical issue facing the police is how to safely stop an offending vehicle on a managed motorway when hard shoulder running is in operation without causing danger to officers, offenders and other road users alike?

2.3.6 We also believe that it is vital that speed limits set in VMSL areas are appropriate to the prevailing traffic conditions. We have received complaints relating to the speed limits set at times on managed motorways, such as a 40mph limit for congestion, when all four lanes are running normally, with no sign of congestion.

2.3.7 This has two effects. It brings the speed limits into disrepute, potentially causing motorists to ignore them at a time when they are valid. It also criminalises motorists who are driving at a reasonable and safe speed for the prevailing road and traffic conditions but in excess of the set limit.

2.4 The effectiveness of legislative provisions for road management under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.

2.4.1 The Traffic Management Act moved the responsibility for traffic management away from the police as we had historically carried this role. We believe that responsibility is not always grasped and the police are still often expected to take responsibility for producing traffic management plans for major events or iconic venues.

2.4.2 The situation is improving and a major success has been the introduction of the Highways Agency Traffic Officers in England and the Welsh Assembly Governments Traffic Officer service in Wales. There has been significant savings in police officer time, better management of incidents/congestion and subsequently Police officers released to concentrate on denying criminals the use of the roads.

2.5 The impact of bus lanes and other aspects of road layout.

2.5.1 We have no comment to make on the impact of bus lanes.

2.5.2 Road layout goes without question, well designed junctions and roads can significantly aid traffic flow. We can cite examples including some significant redesign of junctions on the M6 which resulted in safer passage for traffic entering and leaving the motorway.

May 2011