Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel

Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel4 February 2008

COMMUNITY SAFETY AND LEISURE SCRUTINY PANEL

A meeting of the Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel was held on 4 February 2008 at the Middlesbrough Teaching and Learning Centre

PRESENT: Councillor Biswas (Chair), Councillors Hobson, Hubbard, McPartland and Rehman

OFFICIALS: P Clark, V Flynn and B Glover

**ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:M Bennett – Middlesbrough Police;

C Cole– Safety Camera Partnership;D Nixon - Durham Police;

Inspector E Robinson – Cleveland Police;D Wafer - Durham County Council

**APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Davison, McTigue and Porley

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - No declarations of interest were made at this point of the meeting.

**MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2007 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

INTRODUCTIONS

The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed all present. As there were representatives from outside organisations at the meeting, all those present introduced themselves and outlined their role in the proceedings.

SPEED CAMERAS – TO CONSIDER THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND LINES OF ENQUIRY

The Senior Scrutiny Support Officer presented a report, the purpose of which was to inform the Panel the sources of evidence to present at this meeting.

Members were reminded the Overview and Scrutiny Board had approved this item and the Panel, at its meeting of 5 December 2007 had agreed to focus on two points:-

• What evidence was there that speed cameras reduced accidents?
• What were the issues regarding claims that speed cameras were primarily for income generation?

In order to obtain sufficient information, the Panel had agreed that representatives from various sources should be invited to address the Panel on these issues.

Accordingly, the following representatives were present:-

• Middlesbrough Council – Head of Transport and Design Services – Mr B Glover
• Cleveland Strategic Road Safety Partnership –

• Ms C Cole – Camera Enforcement Unit Manager
• Mr M Bennett – Camera Enforcement Unit Officer

• Cleveland Police – Inspector E Robinson
• Durham Police – D Nixon
• Durham County Council – Highways Engineer – Mr D Wafer

SPEED MANAGEMENT – PRESENTATION BY THE HEAD OF TRANSPORT AND DESIGN SERVICES, MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL

The Panel received a presentation entitled Speed Management, from the Head of Transport and Design Services, who set the scene by advising of the many ways traffic was controlled, such as with road humps, traffic lights, speed limits and road policing and of the other ways motorists were pressured, including spiralling fuel costs and parking issues. The Head of Transport and Design Services maintained that there was a strong link between speed and accident frequency and also the severity of accidents, in that the faster a driver was travelling, the shorter the driver’s reaction time.

It was noted that there were three definitions of speed, namely excess speed; (up to 10 mph above the limit); excessive speed (15 mph above the limit) and inappropriate speed; (such as driving too fast for the road conditions, such as thick fog or icy conditions, yet still be driving below the speed limit). Speed cameras were only one of the effective methods used to manage speed, the others being traffic calming, education and training, information and enforcement. Members were informed that education was often targeted at young children, especially regarding road safety, as well as young drivers and other road users. Enforcement would always be necessary as not all drivers adhered to speed limits, despite the amount of information presented to them in the form of road signs, overhead motorway signs etc. all of which can warn a motorist about excess or excessive speed as well as traffic hazards and congestion.

A table was included which presented details of the number of fatal, serious and slight injury casualties for the period from 2003 to 2007 inclusive. It was noted that the total number of casualties had fallen from 614 in 2003 to 443 in 2007, although this was not solely due to the use of speed cameras, but the other factors referred to. It was also noted that the volume of traffic on local roads had increased by between 2 – 6% in that same period of time.

SPEED AND RED LIGHT CAMERAS

The Camera Enforcement Unit Officer (Mr M Bennett) gave a presentation on the use of speed and red light cameras. He began by showing a dvd entitled ‘Gotcha’ which showed crashes and speeding cars and the consequences. It was mainly shown to young irresponsible drivers in an attempt to get them to slow down and had been distributed all round the country and the footage was evidence collected by the police from accident scenes. The British Army used the dvd also, and any recruits who collected speeding tickets had to report it and were made to watch the dvd.

Mr Bennett then referred to the presentation and handed provided to all present. He advised that the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership was made up of representatives from Cleveland Police, Teesside Magistrates Court, Hartlepool Borough Council, Middlesbrough Council, Stockton Borough Council and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and it was set up as one of 8 pilot schemes in April 2000. Fines generated were sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Partnership could claim back its expenditure in order to fund the speed cameras, therefore the scheme operated on a no cost/no profit, cost neutral basis. The aim of cameras was not to make money, but to fund more cameras and increase safety on the roads.

Reference was made to Target 2010, where the aim was for a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents; a 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured and a 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate, expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres. This was in comparison to the average figures for 1994-1998.

Members were advised that sites for safety cameras were chosen carefully, based on positive proof or evidence that a camera was required. Permanent or core camera sites were those which had a high number of injury collisions together with a speed problem, whereas temporary or complaint sites were those on roads with a confirmed speed problem identified by residents and/or councillors, but not yet showing a collision problem. Decisions on core site selection were through discussions with the appropriate local authority and the Partnership and the outcome could be based on casualty data provided by the LA. Speed cameras were now used as a preventative measure rather than as a result of a high number of fatal or serious casualties at a particular site.

Tables were included which indicated the performance levels of camera monitored roads and all other roads, in the four local authority areas of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland, including before and after figures following the placing of safety cameras. Further details were also included on Camera Activity, including the number of hours of camera deployment and the number of offences detected, for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The average number of hours the cameras were deployed increased from 1,222 hours per month in 2005 to 2278 hours per month in 2007. However, the number of detections fell, from an average of 1,466 in 2005 to 1,207 per month in 2007. Officers felt that this was because drivers were finally listening and being aware of road safety. A table indicating levels of public perception was also included in the report.

Members were advised that 96% of all speed enforcement in the UK was by Camera Partnerships, leaving the Road Policing Units to concentrate on road crime and anti social behaviour. This resulted in a drop of injury collisions on camera monitored roads from 293 in 2000, to 130 in 2007, a reduction of 56%, and the value to society of preventing these collisions was estimated at £78.9 million over 7 years.

In the same 7-year period, the number of speeding tickets also fell, from 33,789 in 2000 to 16,200 (projected) in 2007, a fall of 52%. This was during a period when hours of camera deployment rose from 14,664 hours in 2000, to 25,058 hours in 2007, an increase of 71%. A table entitled ‘Casualty Reduction by Police Authority Area’ was also included for the Panel’s information.

Independent research, undertaken by the University College, London, concluded that, in terms of speed and casualty reduction, public acceptability and funding arrangements, the safety camera scheme had successfully achieved these four main objectives.

Value for money had also been achieved. As indicated above, the partnership had cost £7m to operate, over a 7-year period, funded by money clawed back from the government. During that time, there had been a 56% reduction in the number of injury collisions on camera monitored roads, and this represented 1,141 fewer crashed and people being injured. Measured in monetary terms, this reduction represented a saving of £78.9 million, a return of 11:1 on the investment made, which was much better that the 5:1 expected when the scheme was established.

Changes to funding had been introduced in April 2007. Local authorities now received funding for road safety through the Local Transport Plan process, allocated in the form of a Specific Road Safety Grant. The amount granted to each authority was based on the road safety formula already built into the LTP, based on road safety need (the number of casualties in the area), and road quality safety plans and delivery. Details of the allocation of additional Road Safety Grant for 2007/2008 was also included, along with other budget information.

During the discussion, the Panel was advised that most of the public perception that safety cameras were solely to generate income was attributed to the amount of bad publicity published on this topic and supported by campaigns led by two national daily papers. In addition, it was stated that there were local newspapers who also criticised safety cameras and refused to publish any evidence that contradicted that standpoint. The panel was also advised that a ‘wrap around’ newspaper item had been produced by the Camera Partnership, at a cost of £16,000 on the value of safety cameras and there had been excellent feedback from the public. It was suggested that this Scrutiny Panel could generate publicity on safety cameras, depending on the Panel’s conclusion in its Final Report.

In conclusion, the factors highlighted to indicate the success of the Camera Partnership were:-

• Injury collisions reduced by 56%
• 14% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured
• 29% reduction in all classes of injury (against the 1994 baseline)
• a financial saving of £78.9 million over 7 years
• a 2.4 mph reduction in average traffic speeds
• a 96% compliance with speed limits
• less than 1% of injury collisions were caused by speed
• a 52% decrease in the number of tickets issued from 2000 – 2007
• the average number of camera hours deployed per months almost doubled, from 1,222 hours to 2,278 hours)
• public support of safety cameras was running at 78%
• all this was achieved at no cost to the Partners.

CLEVELAND POLICE PERSEPECTIVE

Inspector Eric Robinson was present to address the panel on the perspective of Cleveland Police on safety cameras. After outlining his background in the police service, he advised the panel that his main focus regarding safety cameras was to reduce the number of collisions. The role of the Road Policing Unit, using Armed Response vehicles round the clock as well as a motor cycle section and an Accident Investigation Unit was not to address safety camera issues or number plate recognition but to address the following five priorities: -

(i)denying criminal access to the road and/or driving

(ii)reduction of road casualties

(iii)tackling the threat of terrorism

(iv)tackling anti social use of the road (such as the use of ‘community vehicles, not taxed or insured of ‘owned’ by anyone, or off road motorbikes, public nuisance matters)

(v)enhancing public confidence, by ensuring police presence in ‘hot spots’.

The aim was to deny criminals the use of the road, based on intelligence led information and there was a strict protocol to follow. All fatal and serious collisions were attended and their main other target was aimed at drink and drugs influenced drivers. His cars also had to ability to catch and prosecute speeding drivers, as all the cars carried equipment on board to record and video offenders, including seat belt, tinted window and mobile phone use offenders. His team also had the power to seize vehicles, if they had no tax or insurance or if the vehicle was used in an anti-social manner, with the issuing of a Section 59 notice.

Inspector Robinson informed that Panel that in 2004, there had been 34 fatalities on Cleveland roads, but that this had been reduced to 15 fatalities in 2007, which was a big reduction. Other motoring crimes in 2007 included 478 arrests for driving under the influence of drink and/or drugs, 134 arrests for driving whilst disqualified and over 200 arrests for public order motoring offences.

Safety Cameras, in his opinion, were of great value, in that he believed that the majority of collisions had excessive speed as a factor, especially where vehicles were taking a left or right-hand bend and lost control of the vehicle, left the road and hit a tree or lamppost. He said he would have to support all campaigns that targeted road safety, especially as road safety depended on enforcement, engineering and education. Every speeding complaint received by his section was investigated and a police vehicle deployed to the area to observe the situation and catch speeding vehicles, as necessary. For some persistent offenders, enforcement was the only way to control their driving behaviour. He added, however, that most of his vehicles that were parked up in some location were usually tracking other criminal activity than speeding motorists.

He said he fully supported speed information cameras, but felt that motorists soon became aware that there was no prosecution and then tended to ignore the signs. However, persistent speeding offenders were offered a Speed Awareness Court for those offending at 35-39 mph, as an alternative to going to court and there was a charge for attending this court. Inspector Robinson concluded that there had been a great deal of progress in addressing speed awareness over the last three years, resulting in a great reduction in the number of casualties.

‘STREETSAFE – FIGHTING THE FEAR OF CRIME – ROAD CASUALTY REDUCTION’

A representative from Durham Police, PC Dave Nixon was present to inform the Panel of the approach taken by Durham Police with regard to speed/safety cameras. He advised the Panel that he covered two local authority areas, Durham and Darlington, which was an 80% rural area and the main urban area being Darlington town itself, and this involved covering 4,012 km of public roads. He said his Road Policing Strategy, based on Target 2010, was to address the four main causes of road casualties, namely, speed, drink driving, non-use of restraints and driver fatigue.

It was confirmed that Durham did not have any speed/safety cameras nor a Camera Partnership and this was based on the type of roads and the characterisation of the population within the area. He confirmed that when expressions of interest were requested for the pilot scheme, back in 2000, his force had estimated that the initial cost and other disadvantages of the scheme and the decision was taken not to pursue the setting up of a Safety Camera Partnership. He confirmed that Durham Police was the only force to take this path.

However, he stated that Durham Police force and controlled speed by methods other than cameras. He showed a map of where fatal accidents had occurred throughout Durham area and it was shown that there was no pattern of hot spots, which was where safety cameras would be targeted. He estimated that most accidents were caused by excessive speed, and this was supported by data received from the government Stats 19 form, which was completed by the police after every accident. Officers who completed this form has 27 choices of contributory factors to the accident to consider.

He said that in 2002, there were 38 fatalities of which 60% were due to speed factors, of which 18% were due to excessive speed, which equated to 7 accidents. He added that 40% of accidents were caused by drivers under the influence of drugs, so he felt it was too simplistic to say accidents were all about speed. He said that only 3.5% of accidents were drivers exceeding the speed limit, making a total of 60 accidents. Of the 5 accident hot spots he could identify, police had concluded that they were caused by engineering factors, which had since been identified and rectified, for example by changing a junction, or road markings or by improving street lighting.

It was noted that Durham Police were not against speed cameras, as they already had 17 in place before the 2000 initiative was launched, but they did not meet the criteria for that scheme. Also, Durham Police thought the problem could be tackled in other, more flexible ways, than cameras. This included intelligence led tactics, problem solving, thoughtful tackling and via partnerships. Durham also offered a Speed Awareness Scheme for speeding offenders in addition to a course for careless drivers. Durham Police were not soft on speeding motorists, but offered alternative solutions to the problem.