More than 100 people were killed on the roads in the Thames Valley and Hampshire in 2013, and more than 1,800 were seriously injured. A fifth of road casualties were partly attributable to factors such as 'impaired by alcohol' and 'exceeding the speed limit'. The Joint Thames Valley and Hampshire Roads Policing Unit is committed to reducing casualties and making the roads safer through evidence-led policing. The Unit prioritises the 'Fatal Four': • Speeding • Non-wearing of seat belts • Drink-driving • Mobile phone use while driving TRL has conducted an independent review to ascertain whether the approach to enforcement is efficient and effective at reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads in Hampshire and the Thames Valley, and how it might be improved further. This consisted of four elements: • A detailed literature review • An analysis of driver offence data • An analysis of collision data • A series of compliance surveys Visible policing, coupled with appropriate media campaigns, can increase the perceived risk of detection and perceived certainty of punishment for drivers. This often acts as a deterrent to non-compliance for the driving public as a whole, particularly if the times and locations of policing are unpredictable. Covert, mobile enforcement methods are better suited to identifying and prosecuting high-risk offenders. Both these forms of policing should be targeted towards higher risk locations and times of day - including the night - whilst also retaining a degree of unpredictability. The data suggest that there should be a particular focus on offenders who are male and all ages under 30. Better recording the amount of time devoted to roads policing and the locations of different road policing activity would enable more robust conclusions to be reached in the future. Speeding is a particular issue both in the evenings and at weekends, when traffic flows are inevitably lower. Fixed speed cameras including average speed cameras are effective at reducing speed offences and casualties, though mobile cameras and radar operated at the scene by the police have a bigger 'halo' effect than fixed speed cameras. Mobile speed cameras and radar catch many more offenders than fixed speed cameras relative to the amount of time for which they are operated. Where possible at high risk locations, it may be sensible to re-engineer the road so that drivers naturally choose a speed within the speed limit. Where this is not possible, however, the use of fixed speed cameras may be prudent. Increased compliance with speed limits, particularly at night, would reduce the number of fatalities on all roads regardless of the speed limit, and increasing the targeting of speeding motorcyclists might be appropriate. At fixed camera sites where there is already good compliance with speed limits, it may be appropriate to reduce the level of enforcement activity, while monitoring to ensure this does not result in reduced compliance. While seat belt wearing rates are generally high, they are lower among rear seat car passengers, younger occupants (drivers and passengers), and van and taxi occupants. If everyone always wore their seat belt, it is estimated that more than 200 casualties In the Thames Valley and Hampshire could be prevented each year, including 10 fatalities in cars alone. Seat belt reminders are increasingly prevalent and are likely to increase wearing rates except among the most intent non-compilers. More effort should be made to record seat belt information in collisions. There remains little known about how effective increasing the enforcement of seat belt wearing Is in terms of reducing casualties. When police in the Thames Valley and Hampshire breath test drivers on suspicion of drink-driving, they are more likely to have been drink-driving than Is the case amongst drivers involved In a collision or amongst drivers stopped for other traffic offences. Drink-driving Is most prevalent In the evenings and, at the weekend, at night, and is a particular Issue among younger males and in rural locations. Police presence earlier in the evening, for example close to pubs, may act as a deterrent to drivers who may be considering drinking, but there Is also a case for increasing the amount of effort put into catching drink-drivers in the early hours. If no one drove while having more than the legal amount of alcohol in their bloodstream, it could prevent approximately 30 people being killed and a further 140 people from being seriously injured each year in the Thames Valley and Hampshire. Drink-drive rehabilitation courses are effective and should continue to be used, and more effort should be made to record the results of breath tests following collisions. The enforcement of hand-held mobile phone use may simply result in a shift to more hands-free mobile phone use; however, the risk of a collision when using a hands-free phone is similar to the risk when using a hand-held phone. The use of both types of phone while driving has increased In recent years and young males are more likely to use a mobile phone while driving. Approximately 16 fatalities a year could be prevented In the Thames Valley and Hampshire if there was no hand-held phone use while driving as long as this did not result in an increase in the use of hands-free phones. The use of mobile phones Is a greater issue In the daytime during the working week, and education activity should highlight that the dangers associated with phone use while driving apply both to hand-held and hands-free phone use. A summary of this report is available at http://www.trl.co.uk/reports-publications/trl-reports/report/?reportid=…. (Author/publisher)
Abstract