Wider use of mobile safety cameras is good news for road safety says IAM RoadSmart
An investigation by IAM RoadSmart, the UK’s biggest independent road safety charity has found that more than a third-of police forces are using their mobile safety camera vans to prosecute drivers not wearing seatbelts or using a handheld mobile phone.
The information comes from a Freedom of Information request submitted to 44 police forces which found that 16 of them use the pictures from the cameras in their vans to pursue these offences as a matter of routine, and a further four do so occasionally.
With 80% of drivers telling us that driver distraction from phones has got worse in the last three years this can only be good news for road safety. IAM RoadSmart surveys also show that drivers put enforcing mobile phone laws in second place behind drink and drug driving as a road traffic policing priority. Seatbelt use is in sixth place but it is well established that those not wearing a seatbelt are much more likely to die or be seriously injured in a crash.
IAM RoadSmart’s Freedom of Information research found that the 16 police forces that routinely use their safety cameras to seek out other offences recorded more than 8,000 unbelted drivers between them and around 1,000 with a mobile in their hand in 2016 (three police forces provided a category called “other offences” which totalled about 500 in 2016).
Some police forces had reservations about using safety cameras or camera vans to record non-speeding offences. Questions still need to be resolved completely around Home Office Type and image quality for successful prosecution.
Sarah Sillars, IAM RoadSmart Chief Executive Officer, said: “Drivers should be reassured that the police are using all the tools in their road safety toolkit to address their top worries. For too many drivers it is only the fear of being caught that will stop them putting themselves and others at risk from smartphone distraction. Not wearing a seatbelt also puts an unfair burden on our emergency services who have to deal with the aftermath of such selfish behaviour. If drivers don’t know about this added enforcement technique then its impact will be reduced so the police should have no hesitation in publicising its use.”
She added: “Our research shows that the use of mobile safety camera vans to pursue phone users and seatbelt offenders varies from one force to another. What we need are clear and consistent guidelines on what the cameras are being used for, what training staff are being given and how the images are being used as evidence. The last thing we want to see are resources being wasted or the road safety message being diluted by careless drivers being acquitted.”
ENDS
Notes to editors:
1. The data for this survey was compiled by IAM RoadSmart following a Freedom of Information request made to 44 police forces in August-September 2017
2. In-car offences recorded or not recorded by mobile camera or vans, by force name
In-car offences recorded or recorded occasionally
Cumbria (occasionally)
Derbyshire
Dyfed Powys
Gloucestershire (occasionally)
Greater Manchester (occasionally)
Hampshire
Humberside
Kent
Lancashire
Lincolnshire
Norfolk
North Wales
North Yorkshire
Northamptonshire
Northumbria
South Wales
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey (occasionally)
West Midlands
In-car offences NOT recorded
Avon and Somerset
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
City of London (no mobile camera vans)
Cleveland (but under review)
Devon and Cornwall
Dorset
Durham
Essex (no mobile camera vans)
Hertfordshire
Leicestershire
Merseyside
Metropolitan Police (no mobile camera vans)
Nottinghamshire
Police Scotland
Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI)
South Yorks
Sussex
Thames Valley
Warwickshire
West Mercia
West Yorkshire
Wiltshire (no safety cameras)
3. In evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee in 2016, the National Police Chiefs’ Council described their road policing priorities as The Fatal 4, the four biggest contributory factors in road deaths and serious injuries:
- Drink and drug driving:a factor in 174 road deaths in 2014, eight per cent of all fatals
- Speed:driving too fast for conditions (inappropriate speed), a contributory factor in 169 deaths, eleven per cent of all fatalities; exceeding the speed limit, a contributory factor in 254 fatalities, 16 per cent of deaths
- Unbelted: 336 car occupants killed in 2014 were not wearing a seatbelt, 21 per cent of all car occupant deaths
- Driving while distracted: 21 deaths involved a driver using a mobile phone/device, while “distraction in vehicle” was a contributory factor in 68 deaths
Further information from:
IAM RoadSmart press office – 020 8996 9777 – press.office@iam.org.uk
ISDN broadcast lines available
Follow us:
On Facebook: www.facebook.com/IAMRoadSmart
On Twitter: @IAMRoadSmart
IAM RoadSmart has a mission to make better drivers and riders in order to improve road safety, inspire confidence and make driving and riding enjoyable. It does this through a range of courses for all road users, from online assessments through to the advanced driving and riding tests. IAM RoadSmart is the trading name of all businesses operated by the UK’s largest road safety charity, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) and was formed in April 2016 combining the IAM, IAM Drive & Survive, PDS and IAM Driver Retraining Academy. The organisation has 92,000 members and campaigns on road safety on their behalf. At any one time there are over 7,000 drivers and riders actively engaged with IAM RoadSmart’s courses, from members of the public to company drivers, while our Driver Retraining Academy has helped 2,500 drivers to shorten their bans through education and support programmes.
To find out more about IAM RoadSmart products and services visit the new website www.iamroadsmart.com
To find out more about IAM RoadSmart’s Driver Retraining Academy visit www.iamdra.org.uk
To find out the name of your own local IAM RoadSmart group please visit: https://wwwiamroadsmart.com/local-groups
ENDS ALL
