The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is inviting the public to help shape police policy involving road death investigations.
ACPO’s last review of its Road Death Investigation Manual (RDIM) was carried out in 2007. This consultation will focus on police standards when responding, reporting and investigating road traffic collisions and will influence an agreed policy and guidance to be published by ACPO.
Assistant Chief Constable Sean White, ACPO lead for the investigation of fatal and life changing road collisions across England and Wales, said: “The police service is committed to preventing and reducing the loss of life or serious injury on our roads.
“Long-term trends indicate that together with other agencies we are achieving that ambition.”
ACC Sean White is encouraging full public involvement in the consultation, including bereaved family and friends who have had firsthand experience of police involvement.
ACC White added: “Families quite rightly expect their police service to prevent and reduce these collisions from occurring and in the unexpected event that it impacts upon them they are entitled to the best service and support to aid them through such a difficult time.
“We are committed to listening to their experiences and views as well as those of partner agencies, and to updating and amending our policy and practices to keep pace with and, where possible, exceed expectations.”
The consultation is open until 7 September 2012 and comments can be made via the Cleveland Police website or by writing to ACC Sean White at Cleveland Police Headquarters, PO Box 70, Ladgate Lane, Middlesbrough, TS8 9EH.
My mother was recently killed on the road. The Police have been terrible and not carried out a proper investigation. Doing my own research it is because whilst ACPO offer guidelines, individual forces are allowed to ignore these and do their own thing – which means, if they can’t be bothered, as in my mother’s case, then no investigation will be properly carried out. Nor can one complain because without due procedure there is nothing to complain about – the police just say – those are ‘guidelines’ we don’t have to follow those.
Boudicca, London
0
Dave
I will not agree to differ. To respond to your analogy, it depends if the item of furniture is needed or useful. If it is really useless clutter (as is the case for the speed camera) or badly positioned, move it or get rid of it! And, anyway, better to teach the child to look where they are going and travel according to the conditions. Too often we have SLOW signs on roads, when what would be better is to advise road users what the hazard is.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
We’ll have to agree to differ on that one, personally I believe blaming the hazard rather than road user is a cop out and just offers people a way of dodging their responsibility and offers no incentive to become better, safer drivers or riders.
If a child runs into an item of furniture do you get rid of the that item or does the child learn not to run so fast indoors?
Dave, Leeds
0
Dave
I agree that [good] driving consists of making safe and smooth progress while dealing with hazards, which can be due to other road users, road layout or conditions (fog, rain, sun, day/night). Where hazards can be eliminated (eg re-engineering to avoid a cut through in a dual-carriageway) then they should be.
Engineering, specifically speed cameras, which introduces hazards (distraction) and hazardous behaviour (sudden braking) which lead to more collisions than they could ever prevent, is alien to road safety. No amount of driver training/education will address that.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
No, a hazard is something which could cause you to need to change course or speed – traffic lights, junctions, a football in the road etc. As a road safety officer my first course of action (not last resort) is to educate and train drivers to deal with hazards appropriately, not to remove the hazard. Blaming the hazard removes responsibility from the driver which is how we’ve got to the point where we need speed cameras in the first place.
Dave, Leeds
0
Dave (Leeds) says “a bright yellow speed camera at the side of the road should be treated like any other hazard”. I agree. Hazards create the conditions that can lead to accidents (collisions/casualties). As a safety engineer, my job is to eliminate hazards, or mitigate their effects. As a last resort, I would train people to deal with the effects of the hazard. If a speed camera is a hazard (and it clearly is) it should be removed, thus eliminating its negative effects. Expecting road users to deal with it is not acceptable when it can be eliminated.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
What rubbish; a bright yellow speed camera at the side of the road should be treated like any other hazard – see it early and respond accordingly. If you can’t see one until you’re on top of it then you’re going too fast for your observational capacity regardless of the speed limit and the same goes for any other hazard, children on the curb, a loose animal or a man on a ladder cutting a hedge. Inanimate objects very rarely cause a collision, poor observation and response far more commonly so.
Dave, Leeds
0
Assistant Chief Constable Sean White, ACPO lead for the investigation of fatal and life changing road collisions across England and Wales, said: “The police service is committed to preventing and reducing the loss of life or serious injury on our roads”
What a wonderful set of words, glorious intentions but not backed up with comprehensive operational roads policing. Like so many other policing activities nowadays, buzz words and management speak replace physical policing.
Currently the RTC investigations work well and therefore should not be messed with. However is the review a way of further reducing what the police do? Is it intending to make investigations less effective and pandering to business in trying to get the motorway or A road open more quickly so that someone can get home to their family or business. I would love to think more positively about this review but sadly do not believe it seeks to improve the service.
Alan Hale – South Gloucestershire.
0
The Police do a great job of investigating road deaths and I applaud them for looking to improve on what they do. The broader argument of road policing is interesting but if there is an expectation of a return to previously seen numbers of Traffic Officers it’s unlikely to happen. Finances for the Police Service will not improve in the short term and Road Policing is an area that is dwindling. As an ex Traffic Officer it’s hugely disappointing to see all that lost expertise.
The discussion over collisions or near misses at camera sites I find somewhat academic. The cause of all these incidents is the driver. They are either travelling over the prescribed limit, too close to the vehicle in front or just not paying attention to what they are doing, sometimes all three. This is the area that requires addressing and as road safety professionals where our ETP efforts should be concentrated.
Mike, Leicestershire
0
I agree with Idris. I was nearly involved in a traffic accident when a car overtaking us in a line of traffic saw a camera at the last minute. He was possibly within the speed limit but nevertheless took avoiding action. My eyes are around the roads and not where they should be and it’s time to get back to basics with road policing. Cameras detect one minor offence but a traffic vehicle and officer can detect them all and, let’s use the correct term for this offence which is “exceeding a speed limit”. Banned drivers are still on the roads. Our RTC figures for 2006 attributed only just above 2% due to speed but on a recent “vehicle stop and check” operation the figure for those who had charges for various offences was over 21%. Which is the more serious?
REMEMAN Derbyshire
0
Replying specifically to Mark – please read http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com for detailed analysis of claims for speed camera benefits, and in particular the other factors which bring about at least most of the observed reductions in accidents – i.e. long term trend, regression to the mean and drivers diverting to avoid cameras.
I would be happy to cover all of these issues in detail for any group interested enough to invite me to do so – have projector, will travel.
I have no idea whatever what Mark’s first sentence means, he seems to have conjured up something I never mentioned.
It is also worth pointing out that no one can identify an accident that did not happen because someone was induced not to break the speed limit.
Idris Francis
0
This time 25 disliked my comment – a new record – though again I have to wonder why so many dislike seeing plain fact in print.
There are nearly 40 known adverse effects of speed cameras, many of which are known to have caused accidents including fatalies.
No one can deny, surely, that there are far more near-misses than accidents, and massively more than fatal accidents. As fatal accidents caused by distraction by cameras are a matter of record, then it follows that camera operators must see incidents and near-misses quite frequently.
Does anyone really disagree that it would be useful to ask operators how many times a day they see drivers react dangerously when they see cameras? I would have thought this to be an obvious, desirable, simple, cheap and instructive step to take.
Or would camera enthusiasts prefer not to know?
Idris Francis
0
Idris seems to be confusing the information that a fixed “safety” camera can provide compared to a CCTV one (which may or may not be recorded) and very few safety cameras are within the view of a CCTV camera. On casualty data at camera sites they are studied and despite views to the contrary they appear to reduce collisions where used and this is a repeated observation both in UK annual reports and from worldwide investigations.
Mark, Caerphilly
0
This review needs to include the CPS and courts system too. What’s the point in charging someone with death by dangerous or careless driving if the driver gets off with little more than a big fine and loss of licence? It just sends out the wrong message.
Dave, Leeds
0
As Stats 19 data includes accident location within 10m, Acpo could make a start by investigating fatalities and SI near speed cameras, some of which at least are caused by being distracted by the camera, sudden braking etc.
Given that we all know that there are very many more near-missed than accidents, Acpo might also send a questionaire to all operators of mobile cameras, asking how many times a day they see near misses caused by drivers noticing their cameras and reacting dangerously, and how in all conscience those operators who have seen accidents happen for these reasons can carry on provoking them.
And no, I am not making this up – fatal and other accidents as a direct result of the presence of speed cameras are a matter of record, including 2 in Dorset within a fortnight, some months ago,
Idris Francis
0
This news item is confusing.
Public views are sought regarding “road death investigations” but the included quotes are about collision prevention. Do they also want to have the public’s views on ACPO’s policies on collision prevention?
Road death investigations is one area where the Police do an exceptionally good job. How, why, where, when and how many fatal collisions are reliably established by the Police and the statistics are available on the DfT website for everyone to examine.
The 1st step in safety engineering is to gather the data and I can only think of one practical improvement. I would like to know how many of the fatalities (and other casualties) are victims of the errors of others, and how many have suffered from their own actions.
But, other than that, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Dave Finney – Slough
0
Very nice of them to ask for some form of consultation or at least communication.
Many years ago ACPO agreed that they could no longer protect life and property or maintain order. How can we expect them to have any input into the reduction of such accidents if they no longer police the streets, have little or no specialist traffic officers and are hampered with miles of red tape, form filling and statistics? It means that more than half of their duty time is spent on paperwork for the benefit of a miriad of quango departments and jobsworths bent on their own survival and making sure the guy on the beat does the paperwork right. Never mind the job.
I wish them well in their endeavours.
bob craven Lancs
0