Put traffic police back on the streets, urges GEM

12.00 | 17 March 2015 | | 11 comments

GEM Motoring Assist is urging the Government to reverse the decline in traffic police numbers following a survey in which two-thirds of respondents identified “a properly funded police service” as the most effective casualty reduction measure.

In the survey of 600 GEM members, 94% of respondents said road casualty numbers would continue to rise “because they did not trust the Government to treat the issue as a priority”.

Asked which single measure would be most effective in reducing casualties, 66% chose a properly funded traffic police service; 18% opted for a graduated driving licence scheme for new drivers; 8% suggested a reduction in the drink-drive limit; and 5% called for annual eyesight testing for drivers.

Only 3% of respondents identified an increase in “automatic enforcement” as the most effective measure – and just 8% said automated enforcement could replace the physical police presence on the roads.

David Williams, GEM chief executive, said: “It’s highly unlikely that anyone will establish a precise provable link between the decline in traffic police numbers and the increase in casualties.

“But as long as roads policing resources are allowed to dwindle, we can expect casualty numbers to rise further. This is an unacceptable situation, which we believe should be dealt with as a top Government priority, right now.”

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    You still seem not to be paying attention, Hugh. My web site is called “fightbackwithfacts” because, as an engineer, I deal in facts, not wishful thinking or guesswork.

    I have here Stats19 data from 1987 to 2011 and the few Partnership records that have been published 2.5 years after they were told to publish. The data includes 220,000 FSC’s and not just where they happened but also where and when they happened in relation to where and when speed cameras were installed.

    I also have 30 years’ experience with relational databases that enables me to analyse the data in any way that is necessary.

    I became a professional engineer 55 years ago, Hugh, and in all those years I never came across such utterly convincing evidence of this kind.

    And Olly, while I agree with most of your post, there was not long ago a period of a few years when accidents involving police drivers were increasing fast while those not involving police drivers were falling. Some believe, logically enough, that this was a direct result of serious reductions in their training.


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I agree 100% with the comments of Bob Craven, this is a political issue and the only public service that all parties are promising a better future for is the NHS. As for the police, fire, ambulance and armed services it will be a succession of cuts, more cuts and more cuts whoever gets over the line first on May 7th.


    Jeff, Carlisle
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    In some force areas they now have Traffic PCSOs in lookalike cars doing the less onerous tasks. Other forces have abandoned Roads Policing, now only doing a response to serious/fatal collisions. A camera will not detect a drink/drug/ or disqualified driver. Yes there will be collisions involving patrol cars, but given the miles driven etc it is remarkably low. Many are contacts by bandits, or deliberate tactical impacts by the police. Beware of cold stats. Motorways are a fine example of patrol on the cheap by powerless (only to direct/stop traffic) HATO civil servants. Rarely do you see a police patrol. The Govt want to do it with smart m/ways now, as a regular user they are not very smart!


    Olly, Lancs
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    “The plain fact is that police officers in vans with cameras have no effect whatever on accident rates, other than to cause some which would not otherwise have happened.”

    Are you sure that’s a ‘fact’ Idris? As you can’t possibly know, don’t present it as a fact – be honest and say what you really mean i.e. “I desperately wish this was a fact but I don’t want to check (I can’t anyway) because it probably isn’t”.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    One fails to realise that this is a political matter and not a road safety matter. No government is to increase the establishment of the police, it would be seen to be an admission that the have failed law and order. However much we all want a proactive and responsive policing service that would enforce road traffic laws for the benefit of all, it’s not going to happen.


    Bob Craven Lancs…Space is Safe Campaigner
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    At last, some common sense – road safety is a complex issue needing the cooperation of drivers, not just treating them like naughty children. I would just be concerned that we have gone so far down the road of compliance and income generation above all else that it will need a massive change in approach which I am not sure most of those currently in enforcement will understand or want to understand. One thing I think everyone agrees with is that standards of driving are appalling, the opportunities for improvement even with small numbers of correctly motivated, equipped and skilled traffic police are vast.


    Dave, Guildford
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh, you and others seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance (see recent post) The plain fact is that police officers in vans with cameras have no effect whatever on accident rates, other than to cause some which would not otherwise have happened. And let me be absolutely clear about this – I agree wholeheartedly with the article, YES to more police patrols, YES to proper policing that can monitor and inhibit all sorts of bad driving, most of which are more significant than modest degrees of speeding.


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Worth bearing in mind that, according to a recent IPCC report, typically there are 40 deaths a year involving police vehicles, mostly as a result of police pursuits, triggered by traffic violations – some of the deaths involved innocent bystanders/road users. No doubt the pursuits were deemed necessary at the time, however purely as a statistic, as road safety officers, this must surely be a concern.

    The more technology can be used to detect traffic offences, as an alternative to a risky pursuit therefore, the better. Also, why tie up one or two police officers and a police vehicle for twenty minutes or so to deal with one traffic offence, when a civilian in a camera van can film a string of offences for action later – a more efficient use of resources and potentially safer, I would have thought.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    All interventions consume resources therefore any intervention that is implemented prevents all other interventions that could have been implemented for that cost. The GEM survey appears to recognise this fact and GEM members seem knowledgeable regarding relative cost/benefits in their responses.

    In safety engineering, evidence-based policies and cost/benefits are considered essential (and legally required) and I believe road safety could benefit immensely from this approach. The first step would be to produce high quality evidence of the effects of each road safety intervention along with the true costs. Running scientific trials where possible could start this process.

    I believe that, if this new approach were implemented, limited resources may well be best redirected away from other interventions in order to restore the numbers of traffic Police, as GEM members appear to desire.


    Dave Finney, Slough
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A ‘no brainer’ really. I note the politically correct term ‘RTC’ is being used instead of the legally correct term ‘RTA’ as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988 – an unamended definition as far as I am aware?


    Paul Biggs, Staffordshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I live and work in Suffolk, which is I believe one of only two Police forces to have increased the numbers in it Roads Policing Unit over the past couple of years. That said, there are still far too few RPU officers to allow them to deal effectively with RTCs and also devote some time to actually policing the roads, as used to happen. Automated enforcement is good, but it cannot detect everything. There are increasing numbers of lawless drivers out there who simply clone a car’s index number by buying some number plates over the web without using a V5. This allows them to evade ANPR systems as long as the real owner keeps the car legal. Only the ‘nose’ of an experienced copper is going to catch people like that, so I am all for a restoration of RPU numbers.


    David, Suffolk
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close