Agenda item

To consider an attached report which updates the Panel on the work of the Road Safety Working Group which was set up as a result of a recommendation of this Panel in April 2017.

 

Supt Colin Hudson from TVP will present the item.

The Panel was reminded that at a previous Panel meeting held in April 2017, consideration was given to an item on Roads Policing, a core part of policing.

 

As a result of a recommendation of the Panel, a Road Safety Working Group was set up and it was asked to consider the following:

 

•         Transparent documentation on TVP’s 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.

 

Supt Colin Hudson from Thames Valley Police attended the meeting and Members were provided with a report which provided an update on the progress made in considering the recommendations.

 

The Panel was informed that in relation to more transparent documentation on a roads policing strategy, the current JOU Roads Policing plan was based on the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) 5-year strategy 2015-2020 of policing the roads in partnership. There were four key objectives, Safe, Secure, Effective and Efficient roads.

 

Reference was made to monthly Tasking and Co-Ordination Group (TCG) meetings which were held, which identified the highest risk locations and offenders on roads. Roads policing resources would be tasked with attending the locations or tackling offending.

 

This meeting also identified casualty trends in relation to vulnerable road users and links this with road safety campaigns at a national and local level.

 

The Safer Roads Team deployed mobile speed camera vans to areas identified as a having a high rate of KSIs, personal injury collisions, community concern or non-compliance of speed.

 

It was acknowledged that in relation to the HMICFRS report which reviewed roads policing, there was a need for improvements to be made, although TVP was not one of the Police Forces inspected.  

 

The Panel was informed that regarding a business case for average speed cameras; the Thames Valley did not currently have police funded average speed camera sites. Supt Hudson commented that they were an effective deterrent, however, historically the cost of the systems had precluded the use of this technology.

 

With an improvement in the technology and a reduction in costs, consideration could now be given to review this position. An example was given of a pilot taking place in Hampshire and if feasible would be looked at for Thames Valley.

 

In relation to the siting and decommissioning of speed cameras, Members were informed that TVP was currently in the process of upgrading roadside cameras as part of a digitalisation programme. Existing fixed camera locations have been rated in order of priority using collision and offence data over a 5-year period, the weighting being 60% collisions and 40% offences.

 

Each location has been individually assessed taking into consideration site environment and Roads Policing were working jointly with the nine local and unitary authorities to identify suitable locations for upgrade.

 

Siting of fixed cameras was governed by the Department of Transport. For consideration of a new fixed camera site all other measures would have had to be tried, evidenced and exhausted. A full risk-based assessment would be made considering, collision and casualty data, any available speed data, any available Community Speedwatch data and any specific local road layout or hazards.  

 

Enforcement can only be used in certain situations, road markings and layout etc. Reference was made to local authorities being able to consult with the police in relation to areas that they felt should have an increased level of enforcement. There was recognition that there should be better communication with partners and it was reported that the work of the Working Group needed to communicated across the whole of Thames Valley as it was clear that the messages were not getting out to all local authorities.

 

Questions from Members

 

(1) Has TVP spoken to other Police Forces such as Avon & Somerset who do enforce 20 mph speed zones in residential areas, which TVP do not enforce? Also does the PCC and TVP support the decriminalising of speeding offences such as 20 mph zones, to enable local authorities to carry out the enforcement?

 

[The Chief Constable responded that 20 mph speed zones were an issue. The Police had to be around and have the capacity to enforce these zones, but of course if the Police were around and an offence was committed, enforcement would take place. Regarding the sharing of enforcement, TVP was always open to looking at how enforcement and encouragement efforts could be shared and would be supportive of local authorities acquiring such powers.

 

Supt. Colin Hudson said he would  look at what Avon and Somerset Police were doing in relation to enforcement of 20 mph zones.

 

The Deputy PCC commented that regarding local authorities acquiring enforcement powers, he was researching whether local authorities had existing powers which could be used for enforcement or whether there was a case for campaigning for local authorities to be given the powers to enforce. TVP would be supportive of another agency being involved in enforcement. Discussions were taking place with Reading Borough Council and the Deputy PCC said he would update the Panel on the outcome of these discussion.] ACTION: DEPUTY PCC

 

(2) How was the PCC holding TVP to account in relation to road safety partnership working with local authorities. Local Councils collect lots of speeding data from cameras and report this data to the Police which does not get actioned.

 

[The Deputy PCC reported that it was hoped that Community Speedwatch programme could be improved. This included support to the volunteers as this support had been sporadic. TVP were looking to use an on-line Community Speedwatch system which was used in Sussex.  This was due to start in the Thames Valley with trials in Buckinghamshire, however, this had been delayed because of COVD 19. This was due to begin on 1 November 2020 with the system rolled out over Thames Valley in the new year. The key to the system was engagement with residents and the gathering of huge amounts of data which was invaluable for Police enforcement of traffic offences.

 

The intention was to have a strategic approach by enhancing Community Speedwatch and using the data to task Roads Policing to carry out enforcement. In turn, this enforcement data would be fed back to local authorities to enable better road design. He was optimistic that all this would improve partnership working for communities and the Police.

 

The PCC commented that 20 mph speed zones were effective, however, they were difficult for the Police to enforce. Reference was made to many serious speeding crimes occurring outside working hours, which again were difficult to enforce due to Police resources prioritising the night time economy.

 

The Chief Constable informed Members that TVP’s dedicated Roads Policing Unit issued 156,000 tickets last year for speeding, drink driving and using mobile phones, so considerable effort was put in with regards to enforcement.]

 

(3)   With the formation of  the ambitious new ‘Vision Zero’ partnership, such as that in Cambridgeshire, which involves local road users and communities, what vision does the PCC have for an effective, evidence-led roads policing function within the Thames Valley and what targets would be appropriate for casualty reduction by 2030.

 

[The PCC responded that there were a number of national PCC led initiatives, with Devon and Cornwall coming up with a number of proposals. Casualty rates in Thames Valley were very low and had reduced year on year. There would be an Association of PCC led programme on speeding in 2021, however, Thames Valley did not have anything such as “Vision Zero” in place now.]

 

(4)  On the siting of speed enforcement cameras, how is the balance struck between education and prevention with enforcement?

 

[The Chief Constable reported that speed cameras were on fixed sites or mobile enforcement sites. The mobile enforcement sites were based often on a combination of public concern on speeding through villages and towns. An assessment was then done by Roads Policing in consultation with communities, on where they should be sited.

 

On education, there was a programme of education on speeding for young people which was a very powerful programme which raised awareness of the consequences of speeding. These involved working with other emergency services and their experience of dealing with road accidents, together with victims and victims’ families and the consequences of speeding. This was a very powerful programme. First time speeding offenders were eligible for speed awareness courses which were about education and prevention and were a positive means of engaging with speeding offenders and reminding them of the law relating to road traffic.]

 

(5) Reference was made to Councillors often being passed from the highway authority to the Police when asking questions on road safety matters and that there should be clarity on roles and responsibilities to help Councillors and the public understand who was responsible for what. In addition, what is Roads Policing’s rural strategy?

 

[The Chief Constable agreed that there was uncertainty on roles. TVP primarily was an enforcement agency but would work with other agencies. There was a requirement to know what each agency was responsible for with a clear understanding of remits. Highways Authorities were concerned with road safety. This information should be shared with Councillors.

 

Supt. Colin Hudson reported that he had not been in post that long, but that he would attend the Working Group to ensure participants were listened to and joint working took place. In relation to a rural strategy, Members can be reassured that the Police do look at speed profiles and collision data and make a risk assessment on speeding in rural areas.

 

The PCC endorsed the comments of the Chief Constable that the Police were an enforcement agency who offered advice. Speed limits were put in place by local authorities. The Police did not have the resources to enforce everything such as 20 mph zones and policing enforcement had to be prioritised as Thames Valley was a big area. TVP got the balance right between education and enforcement.

 

The Chairman commented the partnership working was a two-way process and Highway’s Authorities were not blameless in the lack of communication. Collaboration was important as expectations were high from the public. Top level collaboration was needed at the top level of Highway Authorities and the Police to ensure road safety schemes were feasible and realistic to manage the public’s expectations.]                                            

 

(6) In relation to cyclists on the road and the increasing conflict between the cyclist and the motorist, reference was made to the Close Pass protocol which had been implemented in the West Midlands. A video had been sent to Panel Members on the scheme. Oxfordshire County Council for example had made available £5m as part of Active Travel, to get more people cycling. The PCC was asked whether there had been any prosecutions for close passing of motor vehicles to cyclists in Thames Valley?

 

[The PCC replied that he was not aware of any prosecutions for this. The Chief Constable commented if evidence was provided, the process for prosecution could be taken.

 

The Chairman referred to the problems caused by some cyclists in pedestrian schemes and that enforcement did not take place against come cyclists who endangered pedestrians.]

 

Reference was made to speed reduction measures such as VAS signs, particularly outside schools, which were a good speed deterrent. In relation to Average Speed Cameras, it was recognised that they were expensive, although they were a good deterrent. Members noted the improvements which were to be made to Community Speedwatch with an on-line system being introduced.

 

The PCC was asked to update the Panel at a future meeting on the timescales for introducing Average Speed Cameras in Thames Valley and on introducing an on-line Community Speedwatch system. ACTION: PCC

 

RESOLVED – (1) That the update provided by TVP be noted.

 

(2) That the PCC be requested to report back to the Panel on the outcomes arising out of the recommendations contained in the HMICFRS report on Roads Policing as they are applied to Thames Valley Police. ACTION: PCC