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

  • National Safety Council estimates traffic deaths down three percent in 2013
    February 13, 2014
    The US National Safety Council announced today its preliminary estimate that approximately 35,200 motor vehicle fatalities occurred in the US in 2013, a three percent decrease from 2012. Crash injuries requiring medical attention also are estimated to have fallen by two percent since 2012 to a total of 3.8 million. Although 2013 traffic fatalities are three percent lower than 2012, they are one percent higher than 2011. The relatively high number of fatalities in 2012 appears to have been a one year bum
  • UK police recommends psychometric profiling for fleet drivers
    May 31, 2012
    Fleet operators have been warned that police forces across the UK are waiting to convict one of them under corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide legislation. The chilling message was delivered to fleet decision-makers attending this year’s Mercedes-Benz sponsored ACFO (Association of Car Fleet Operators) Conference and AGM by Sgt Gareth Morgan, supervisor of South Wales Police Driver Training. To-date there have been just two successful prosecutions under the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporat
  • Stronger penalties needed for texting drivers says IAM
    September 18, 2013
    Drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be given stronger and more consistent penalties, according to road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM). An IAM analysis of eleven recent prosecutions involving mobile and smartphone use revealed that the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is four-and-a-half years in prison and a disqualification from driving for seven years. In all of the cases analysed, the convicted drivers were found to have lost the
  • Speed cameras make safety savings?
    April 18, 2012
    The use of speed cameras in urban areas is said to make major savings overall, according to a new study. A two year cost-benefit analysis published online in Injury Prevention shows that the deployment of speed cameras in urban areas saves vast amounts of money as well as lives.