Meeting documents

In his new Plan the PCC says that roads policing is a core part of policing. Thames Valley has the largest motorway network of any police force and major trunk roads such as the A34 also cross the area. One of his key aims is for police and partners to address road safety concerns, especially amongst vulnerable groups such as younger people, cyclists and pedestrians. Sue Brown, Team Leader Casualty Reduction Bucks County Council, Cheryl Evans Senior Road Safety Officer West Berkshire Council and Richard Owen, Operations Director, Road Safety Analysis have been invited for this item.

Areas for discussion include:-

·         How the PCC will address his key aim in relation to road safety

·         How the PCC holds Chief Constable to account on the Joint Operation with Hampshire and resourcing

·         Policies on road safety including speed camera replacement and use of average speed cameras

·         Issues being raised by residents on road safety issues

·         Current initiatives in preventing road deaths

The themed item discussed at this meeting was roads policing which is a core part of policing. Thames Valley has the largest motorway network of any police force and major trunk roads such as the A34 also cross the area. One of the PCCs aims is for police and partners to address road safety concerns, especially among vulnerable groups, cyclists and pedestrians.

Sue Brown, Team Leader Casualty Reduction Bucks County Council, Cheryl Evans Senior Road Safety Officer West Berkshire Council and Richard Owen, Operations Director, Road Safety Analysis (Manager of Safer Roads Berkshire) attended the meeting.

The Officers above introduced their experiences of roads policing as follows:-

Bucks

·         There is a good partnership between the Council and the police. However there have been significant cuts in funding. There used to be a Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership which was a useful co-ordinating body across the area which highlighted good practice and provided good information on roads policing issues. This had now been disbanded because of funding issues, but Berkshire are still using Safer Roads (officers who were originally part of the partnership) to help with strategic issues.

·         In 2010 powers and responsibilities had been devolved to local authorities and there is now significant diversity across the UK in the approach to delivering road safety and the resources available for doing so. The loss of the Road Safety Grant has been significant as it was specific to road safety and gave Local Authorities the ability to use this funding for innovation in road casualty reduction. Now in many Local Authorities the capacity of road safety is often dependent upon accessing alternative funding streams through partnership and co-operating with other Departments.

·         Road Safety is not on any Community Safety Plans for the four District Councils.

·         There is a gap as there is no co-ordination across the area and they only have one link into the police (who provide excellent support). However, they would value better links between road safety and neighbourhood policing.

Berkshire

·         Their main work with the police is linked to the ‘fatal four’,  which includes not wearing a seatbelt, drink/drug driving, inappropriate speed and using a mobile phone, to educate the public around their road safety responsibilities alongside roadside enforcement.

·         They undertake research using MAST which is based on STATS 19 reports looking at the contributing factors and profiling of those involved in crashes. Each campaign or initiative they are involved with includes an evaluation process to measure effectiveness but there are concerns about the lack of police support from roads policing as specialists in enforcement and the added experience they bring when working with local neighbourhood teams.

·         In terms of speed cameras being installed or decommissioned there is no communication with the Local Authority when this is undertaken and no clear guidelines to why these decisions are made.

·         A local version of community Speed Watch was run by West Berkshire in collaboration with Thames Valley Police but they were restricted by the internal police process and the availability of police volunteers. The police volunteer available to the Council is only available half a day a week and all volunteers need to go through a police vetting system which can sometimes be difficult. The Community Speed Watch database is restricted in its reporting systems which have led to the police undertaking their own separate reports to evaluate local effectiveness, this requires extensive staff resources.

·         They had lost their Road Safety Constable (three years ago) with the post not being filled, which was making it hard to liaise with the police on improving deterrents to speeding and other road safety concerns. The Constable played a crucial communications and training link to neighbourhood teams which means that some teams are not receiving the necessary laser gun training and getting the positive intervention support required.

PCC

·         The PCC reported that whilst it was important to address the fatal four the biggest concern he had regarding road safety was in car technology and the distractions this caused to the driver. This had a significant impact on road deaths. He had written to the Minister, Chris Grayling about his concerns and asked for an analysis to be undertaken on how many deaths were caused by this as there was currently no evidence on this. He had not yet received a reply.

During discussion the following points were noted:-

·         Cllr Page referred to speed cameras and the comment made by the officer that they were not being consulted about decommissioned cameras. He expressed concern about the transparency around speed cameras (as referred to in the written public question). He then referred to a police document which gave an overview of police mobile and fixed camera enforcement which included that currently 190 locations had been identified by local communities as concern sites through Neighbourhood Action Groups/community complaints and expressed concern that Members has not been made aware of these. He would like to see a list of these concerns and also a list of decommissioned sites. There should be better dialogue between the police and Local Authorities about fixed and mobile camera sites as Local Authorities had good detailed knowledge about their local areas. In terms of the Road Safety Partnership this should be discussed further in terms of how a formal mechanism could be put in place to exchange information and ideas without using too much resource – his Local Authority Reading was not part of this partnership but thought that it was something that should be considered. His final comments were that average speed cameras had been shown to be an effective motorway deterrent and also commented that it would be good to have Automatic Number Plate recognition technology to monitor 20mph zones and whether the penalties could be used to offset the capital and revenue costs.

The PCC reported that information could be distributed on speed cameras and commented that a Group could be set up to look at this area. He commented that Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Unit was a collaborated unit with Hampshire Constabulary. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that a number of Local Authorities had withdrawn funding for speed cameras. He reported that there was some data on the Thames Valley Police website  where members of the public can view reported injury collision data and individual site information for all fixed and mobile camera sites. The injury collision data on Traffweb is updated every six months, and the offence data for camera sites is updated annually.

http://www.tvphampshiretraffweb.co.uk/

The Deputy Chief Constable also referred to Community Speed Watch Schemes which was run by local volunteers where they use a mobile speed camera. He commented that some members of the public could be suspicious that speed cameras were being used to generate income but he wanted to reassure them that all income had to be spent on road safety schemes. The Force could be more transparent in this area.

·         Cllr Egleton referred to the report which stated that a press article in March 2016 had referred to TVP upgrading all fixed speed cameras in the Force area to be replaced with more advance digital technology. He asked for an update on how many cameras had been replaced as the budget was £2.139m with £0.602m currently spent and further commitments of £0.678m. He expressed concern that the target has not been met to upgrade speed cameras. The Chairman then suggested that the PCC develop a business case on the benefits of average speed cameras. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that average speed cameras were not suitable in every location and depended on the infrastructure. The focus needed to be on better road safety and decreasing casualties. The PCC commented that it was frustrating for motorists to drive through road works with cameras particularly when no work was being carried out. He commented that average speed cameras were very expensive units and it was important to use them for maximum road safety benefit. Richard Owen reported that he had undertaken some research into this area and although average speed cameras were expensive there was a level of compliance achieved through them, although he did comment that they were not suitable in all circumstances. There were new systems now available which were slightly cheaper. The Deputy Chief Constable undertook to raise with the TVP Roads Policing Unit the issue of average speed cameras and the comments of the Panel.

Action: Deputy Chief Constable

·         Cllr Sinclair asked what the PCC is doing in terms of prevention in terms of fatalities and enforcement in high risk areas and referred to a dangerous roundabout in Oxford where the traffic lights had failed and was not considered to be a police responsibility. She also said that she was sceptical about hand held devices used by Community Speed Watch. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that Community Speed Watch was a good visible deterrent and did have an impact on driver behaviour. The police would not be involved in traffic light failure but they would work with the Local Authority if there was a potential for a serious accident.

·         Cllr Webb asked whether the number of road safety police officers would be cut back any further. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that he could not give any reassurance around this as the Force had to balance resources on priorities and across the Thames Valley. He commented that Thames Valley Police had six sites across the Thames Valley with 24 police officers at each one and they worked closely with Hampshire. They also prosecute more than other Forces. He commented that to put this in context some police forces had disbanded their Roads Policing Units.

·         Cllr Mallon referred to collaboration with Hampshire and the fact that there was cost cutting and asked whether there were any further opportunities for financial savings. The Deputy Chief Constable referred to the changes in funding in 2010 which made it necessary to merge operational functions across Hampshire and the Thames Valley. However they still have six sites across the Thames Valley even with a £6.5 million budget reduction. Cllr Mallon commented that it would be useful to know what other areas were doing in terms of road policing.

·         Cllr Mallon also asked about terrorism and how this fitted in with roads policing. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that the majority of roads policing related to road traffic matters. However, ANPR was a useful tool and could be used for information and intelligence

·         Cllr Sinclair referred to the review of shift patterns with the roads policing unit which are estimated to reduce the establishment requirement and asked whether this reduction would impact on surveillance. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that it was not just roads policing officers on patrol but also neighbourhood policing who acted as the eyes and ears of the Force. The changes to the shift pattern was to make more effective use of resources.

·         With reference to the setting up of a Group, Cllr Page suggested that in advance it would be useful to obtain more information about the structure of roads policing and the amount of information on the website. He also asked for information on which speed camera sites were being decommissioned, information on how speed cameras were deployed and also community concerns. Better liaison could lead to better deployment of technology. He commented that some Local Authorities would be willing to work more closely with the police and share resources for more effective roads policing. It would be useful to discuss how Local Authorities could work more in partnership with the police in a co-ordinated way.

·         The Deputy PCC reported that in terms of governance Thames Valley had regular meetings with Hampshire involving the Chief Constables and the PCCs. They looked at efficiencies where they could and he informed Members that, for example, there were two separate ANPR systems in place, one in each force area, as Hampshire had outsourced their contract. Nevertheless, the Joint Operations Unit had been a model for further collaboration and significant savings and operational improvements had been made. In terms of re-establishing a Safer Roads Partnership it was important for all Local Authorities to buy into this concept and to consider the most cost efficient approach to improved co-ordination.

·         Cllr Macpherson referred to the building of HS2 near her village and asked whether cameras could be deployed in her area to help manage traffic during the building of this significant infrastructure. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that ANPR was used during the Olympics and that this could be a good case for using the technology which could be paid for by the developers. The Deputy PCC reported that ANPR had many benefits not just relating to road safety and could be linked with other crime reduction and community safety technology.

RECOMMENDED

That a Working Group be set up to look at roads policing and that requests for information on this area be sent to the Deputy Chief Constable. Areas for consideration could include:-

·         More transparent documentation on the PCC’s/Force strategy on roads policing

·         Consideration of a business case for average speed cameras

·         Improved dialogue between police and local authorities on the siting and decommissioning of speed cameras and the need for a Deployment Strategy

·      Consideration of the most effective way to ensure better co-ordination of information across the Thames Valley and ways to improve partnership working