Survey seeks public views on roads policing

11.30 | 24 September 2020 | | 7 comments

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has launched a public engagement survey, designed to understand public perception of road safety and enforcement.

The survey, which takes about a minute to complete and closes on 30 September, has been developed on the back of the recently announced Government review into roads policing.

Launched in July, the review aims to help stakeholders better understand how enforcement can be utilised to reduce road casualties.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) says the results of the survey, which closes on 30 September, will be fed into the DfT’s call for evidence. 

Alison Hernandez, APCC lead for road safety, said: “PCCs have a strong voice in local communities and are eager to understand the public’s views on road safety and policing our roads. 

“This survey will allow PCCs to assess the strength of public feeling to make our roads safer and, I hope, give the Government the evidence it needs to act.”

Martyn Underhill, APCC deputy lead for road safety, said: “It is sadly the case that, wherever you live in England and Wales, you will have experience, probably very recently, of reckless and unlawful driver behaviour. 

“Many, many communities are affected by serious collisions on our roads and, I am sure, have strong opinions on what can be done to reduce the frequency of such tragedies. That is why we are encouraging people from all over the country to contribute to this survey.”


 

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Your email address will not be published.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

    If someone says we should cure cancer do you agree?
    Should the govt (tax payer/ motorist) fund more for this?

    Then you are going to get a lot of yes responses.
    It’s biased polling.

    You’re focusing on easy metrics that don’t actually represent the whole picture nor reflect the RTC statistics collected.

    Incentivising people to continue advancing their driving/ riding skills is where effort is required and the best way to do that is to make significant concessions on insurance premiums for people to do an advanced (rather and overstated term) course. Not by having Police officers jump out into the road to point a LIDAR at you or in your eyes to see if they can catch you out as I did at the Weekend..diving for his machine once he spotted me in an excited state then made himself a hazard I had to keep an eye on.


    Robert Hicks, Staffordshire
    Agree (18) | Disagree (0)
    +18

    David

    the whole point of a speed limit is to set a legal maximum for those who do think it’s too low. Far cheaper that re-engineering roads is to re-engineer the mindset who those who think that speed should be universally determined by the perceptions of drivers rather than society.


    Rod King, Lymm
    Agree (4) | Disagree (34)
    --30

    David’s comment is a bit like saying that the drink-drive limit should be raised to accomodate those who drink and drive. Perhaps all our laws should be so relaxed that technically no-one could ever break them.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (1) | Disagree (23)
    --22

    > No point enforcing where there aren’t any speeders

    There’s a difference between enforcing a speed limit that is not fit for purpose due to it being too low, and enforcing a speed limit that is in place to protect against a hazard.

    A road where I used to live once caught someone at or exceeding 110% + 2 every 47 seconds during the session.

    The speed limit on that road is now 10mph higher – something that was most certainly NOT instigated by the safety camera operator team.

    If it is a case of rich pickings, then one of two things need to happen. Either the speed limit needs to go up as above, or re-engineered the road.


    David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
    Agree (16) | Disagree (2)
    +14

    “…because the areas were “good hunting grounds” for speeders,..” Whats wrong with that? that’s the whole point of enforcement! No point enforcing where there aren’t any speeders.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (5) | Disagree (25)
    --20

    Seen the survey, it’s coercive and designed to be emotive rather than eliciting views.


    Jillian, Newark
    Agree (35) | Disagree (1)
    +34

    This survey is very poor quality. It is biased, with leading questions and is more to do with raising revenue for the Police….mainly by fining motorists as they are easy prey than safety. We are seeing this with the abuse of speed cameras as a means of obtaining revenue as reported by the Police Watchdog in June:

    “The report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) found that the placement of speed cameras had often been chosen because the areas were “good hunting grounds” for speeders, rather than because they were hotspots for collisions.”


    J Prentice, Peterborough
    Agree (34) | Disagree (4)
    +30

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