Agenda item

11.35am

The PCC provides the Panel with an update on the Community Speedwatch scheme.

The PCC provided the Panel with an update on Community Speedwatch. Members were reminded that the new Community Speedwatch scheme was launched by the PCC in October 2021 in conjunction with Community Speedwatch Online and managed by Roads Policing.

The main difference of this scheme was that the scheme was out of the hands of Neighbourhood Policing teams. Starter kits were provided for residents and volunteers which included a speed detection device.

The Panel noted that there were 217 groups across the TVP footprint, comprising of over 1200 residents/volunteers, and the system has been set up so that Councils can access information on all schemes in their LPA/jurisdiction areas.

Members’ Questions

(1)  The PCC was congratulated for the roll out of Community Speedwatch schemes in Thames Valley and from the data it looks like it is having an impact on recording speeding vehicles. However, there appeared to a disconnection between the collection of speeding data and actual enforcement. The PCC was asked for his view on this.

[The PCC agreed with the statement. Community Speedwatch was about education of motorists. The data used to be collected on paper on a voluntary basis, which the system did not enable a proper analysis of the data.

The Panel was informed that a motorist could receive 3 letters over a rolling 6 month period with any further transgressions leading to a visit by a Roads Policing Officer to discuss driving behaviour. There could be further escalations should the behaviour continue and ultimately could lead to enforcement. Local Neighbourhood Policing Team could be tasked to carry out an enforcement package.

Reference was made to sites where there were persistent offenders. This could be an issue caused by the roads design which may need redesigning the road to mitigate the speed.]

(2)   Reference was made to resource and effort put into Community Speedwatch and the frustration at the lack of enforcement from the data gathered. Speeding hot spots were not being policed or enforced. The PCC was asked for his view on this.

[The PCC replied that the data provided should combat speeding vehicles. Resources used were primarily based on crash records and the need to look where the danger and speeding was on roads. The whole point was to build up the data and work on solutions for problem sites. There was a mismatch about community perception of what the aims of Community Speedwatch were.]

(3)  The PCC was asked whether Community Speedwatch volunteers were given advice on how to deal with threats they received and how many threats were given to volunteers?

[The PCC replied that these incidents were the exception rather than the norm. There were a minority of threats received and the level of abuse took on different types of abuse. Engagement took place with the officer who managed the scheme.

There was a preview of sites before volunteers were deployed, looking at road safety for the site. The safety of the volunteer was of most importance and the practicality of volunteers going out at night and when it was dark based limitations on the scheme. Overall, volunteers were safe and issues of threats were not a big issue.]

(4)  The PCC was asked about the interactions which took place with local authorities on sites where it was determined that roads required speed being designed out.

[The PCC replied that there was a network of TVP officers and Council Highways and Road Safety officers who met regularly at a Thames Valley Road Safety Working Group to discuss road safety issues. There needed to be a new structure with a strategic group overseeing the work of the working group to enable the work to be carried out.  

The PCC referred to the need for a more joined up approach regarding communications to strengthen the work.]

(5)  The PCC was asked what steps could be taken to tackle night time speeding when Community Speedwatch schemes did not operate?

[The PCC generally pointed out that there was no shortage of Community Speedwatch volunteers and the data provided to officers of Highways Authorities could be promoted more to highlight where speeding was taking place.

There could be more funding for new groups of volunteers to start up Community Speedwatch schemes, with the PCC providing start up equipment. It had to be accepted that it would be difficult to undertake Community Speedwatch in evenings, mainly because of the safety hazards. Police enforcement with camera vans would be a better solution.

The Chair commented that Milton Keynes Council had funded equipment and cameras to volunteers to monitor speeding. This helped TVP to detect other motoring crimes on sites such as using automatic number plate recognition and finding motorists with offences such as no car insurance, road tax etc.]

RESOLVED - That the report of the PCC, together with the information provided at the meeting be noted.