Skip to main content

The effectiveness of roads policing

The Joint Roads Policing Unit of Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary in the UK commissioned the Transport Research laboratory (TRL) to evaluate the effectiveness of their roads policing strategy in terms of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured in road collisions. The focus was on the fatal four causes of collisions: speeding, drink-driving, not wearing a seat belt and drivers using mobile phones. TRL carried out a detailed literature review, in-depth review and analysis of
March 6, 2015 Read time: 3 mins
RSSThe Joint Roads Policing Unit of Thames Valley Police and Hampshire Constabulary in the UK commissioned the Transport Research laboratory (491 TRL) to evaluate the effectiveness of their roads policing strategy in terms of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured in road collisions.

The focus was on the fatal four causes of collisions: speeding, drink-driving, not wearing a seat belt and drivers using mobile phones. TRL carried out a detailed literature review, in-depth review and analysis of police offence and collision data, and carried out a series of compliance surveys.

This research estimated the non-compliance levels for each of the fatal four and estimated the numbers of lives that could be saved with increased compliance. The research evidence resulted in a series of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their current strategy. Non-compliance was highest for the use of child restraints (13 per cent), followed by restraint use for all vehicle occupants, and lowest for drink-driving.

However, the impact of these various illegal actions varies. Based on the estimated compliance levels, the potential casualty savings if compliance for each of these offences were increased to full compliance is highest for mobile phone use and drink-driving.

Based on the research, a series of recommendations have been made for the Joint Roads Policing Unit to consider and use to adapt their strategies in an evidence-based way. These include the randomisation of locations and times of general roads enforcement to increase road users’ perceived risk of detection and consequently decrease offending behaviours.

It is also suggested that mobile phone enforcement should be focussed towards weekdays during working hours, while campaigns to reduce mobile phone use should be aimed at employers and work-related road safety and should highlight the dangers of both hand-held and hands-free phones, since the general collision risk is similar, although hands-free phones are legal.

In addition, more priority should be given to evening and weekend enforcement of drink-driving. Fixed speed cameras are a deterrent for general offenders and further fixed camera locations should be considered where a particular speeding issue exists and, as digital fixed speed cameras are introduced in the region, a smart approach could be taken in terms of operating these at the times of highest risk.

Chief Inspector Henry Parsons, at Thames Valley and Hampshire Police, said: “We recognised that this research has been needed for quite some time and we appreciate the work undertaken by TRL.

“With a reduction in resources due to budget constraints, we realised that the impact that we can have on reducing traffic offences and consequently collisions can only be sustained if we become more efficient at protecting the public.

“The figures are cold hard evidence of the number of lives and serious injuries that can be avoided through improving driving behaviours. The findings and recommendations that have resulted from this work are already impacting on our strategies, allowing us to focus on the most effective methods of policing.”

TRL’s Principal Statistician, Dr Louise Lloyd, said: “Our collaboration with Thames Valley and Hampshire Police has demonstrated that the number of people who are injured or killed in road accidents could reduce substantially if road users recognised the risks involved in dangerous behaviours such as using a mobile phone while driving, drink-driving, exceeding the speed limit and not wearing a seatbelt. Sadly, many accidents caused by those who are committing traffic offences also have a significant impact on the lives of individuals and families of other road users.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Advanced traffic management amid urbanisation
    July 30, 2020
    There is no room for error on the crowded roads in many cities: Andrew Watson of Huawei explains why AI is a perfect tool to help urban authorities and transportation agencies look after people in busy traffic
  • Xerox automates HOV/HOT enforcement
    May 27, 2014
    Counting the number of people in a vehicle has always been a manual task, but now Xerox has developed a real-time system to automate the process. Xerox has introduced an automated system that determines the number of passengers in a vehicle, enabling authorities to detect non-qualifying drivers using the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Traditionally HOV/HOT enforcement has entailed local police visually confirming each vehicle has the required number of occupants and chasin
  • Fleet management systems likely to become standard fitting in the Americas
    July 6, 2012
    According to a new research report, Fleet management in the Americas, from Berg Insight, the number of fleet management systems deployed in commercial vehicle fleets in North America was 2.8 million in Q4-2011. Growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.9 per cent, this number is expected to reach 5.9 million by 2016. In Latin America, the number of installed fleet management systems is expected to increase from 1.3 million in Q4-2011, growing at a CAGR of 16.6 per cent to reach 2.8 million in 20
  • In-vehicle systems as enforcement enablers?
    January 30, 2012
    From an enforcement perspective at least, Toyota's recent recalls over problems with accelerator pedal assemblies had a positive outcome in that for the first time a major motor manufacturer outside of the US acknowledged publicly what many have known or suspected for quite a while: that the capability exists within certain car companies to extract data from a vehicle onboard unit which can be used to help ascertain, if not prove outright, just what was happening in the vital seconds up to an accident or cr