Parking Complaints Online

This could come to a spot near you!

Six Initial Challenges for developing an enforcement regime

A local authority is examining its plans to start enforcement against moving traffic offences. Consultations with the police, road safety pressure groups, parents associations, head teachers, motorists’ organisations and the motorists themselves have produced a list of locations where enforcement will be necessary and justified. Challenge: In what way and to what extent will local authority parking services consult with similar sources and others not mentioned here?

Let us assume that traffic planners have taken into account the patterns of traffic flow, the local bottlenecks, the spots which will give the road users their “referred pain”- not physically but where action in one location will trigger chaos in other places! Challenge: what criteria will local authorities use for selecting enforcement points?

How does the local authority plan to alert the motorists when they approach an enforcement point or area? Challenge: There are two points of view – a) that motorists do not need to be warned about the location of a camera. They should be following road signs and the Highway Code anyway and at all times, and b) that providing advance warnings against locations with new cameras is a fair way of treating motorists especially those who use local roads for commuter runs.

Assuming that a local authority has done its homework in selecting the most important locations for enforcement, how does it prioritise its decisions to place cameras? Challenge: This decision is likely to attract the most criticism from motorists. If ease of enforcement and recovery of cost is their chosen criterion, the authority can select the busiest yellow box-junctions and conditional 'right-turns'. The cameras will click ‘furiously’ and generate steady and predictable revenue streams. The motorists will soon be saying “ Ah! We told you so, they only want to make money”.

There are likely to be residents who are conscious about road safety and may ask for cameras to be installed to deal with a local hazard, such as a ‘no entry’ point, a ‘no u turn’ or a school crossing point.  Challenge: how will the local authority aim to provide equitable and fair enforcement where the temptation is to install cameras at least cost for maximum return? Road crossing points outside schools are a periodic hazard and may not warrant extra measures, according to some authorities.

There will be key decisions relating to concentration and dispersal of cameras. Where a local authority uses its entire budget to place cameras in the busiest parts of the city, they run the risk of exposing the less congested areas to regular contraventions. Challenge: what criteria will local authorities use to select the right technology and the mix of cameras in order to ensure that a sense of balance should prevail?

Finally, there is a solution. The local authority should invest in developing a ‘DTE Business Plan’, that is, a Decriminalised Traffic Enforcement Business Plan. The local authority will have to seriously look into its assumptions, prepare a cost-benefit-analysis on the one hand and weigh its decisions relating to equity, spread or concentration of cameras, educating the road user and choice of technology on the other. There is a problem though. Does the authority have a business plan for the rest of parking provision? Many parking services which are driven by regulatory pressures will not want to spend money on business planning. The money they save will be miniscule compared the the money they stand to lose.

Enforcement against moving traffic offences

Opportunity lost

I think the Press has lost a good opportunity to educate the public on the implications of enforcement of these so called 'new' offences. I did not hear anyone say that these contraventions have always been the responsibility of the police. I do not remember reading anywhere what 'decriminalising' means in this context.

In one London borough where cameras have been tested for piloting enforcement, drivers ignored a    'No Entry' point during the school runs on a regular basis, bringing danger to the road. It was not so much about saving themselves a long detour if they were to follow the road signs - it was more about the fact they were consistently late in dropping their children. The police turned up and fined or cautioned a few motorists each day and that was the end of the matter. There is a problem here.

No one has responded publicly to my challenge in the last but one post about the logistics and economics of enforcement against moving traffic offences. I have had a few private emails. I respect the fact that public sector staff are not allowed to write to the Press. As a result, I have to offer free advice on what I see as the principal challenges for local authorities in enforcing against moving traffic offences.

Watch this space - the challenges are not about technical solutions relating to cameras or how to produce reliable evidence. The challenge lies in how a local authority treats its residents and other motorists driving through their boundaries.

BBC has a field day!

BBC's Breakfast claims to have broken a new story...

This morning's Breakfast has enjoyed itself claiming to have broken a new story on the the use of special traffic cameras to monitor moving vehicles. It reports on the existence of a secret Government working group, how the proposed enforcement will raise millions in revenue for local authorities and how the evidence from the pilot testing schemes only show a marginal benefit. The BBC seems to have a problem in containing itself - it seems to be saying that all revenue proceeds will be used to fill the coffers of the local authorities.

Well, it is not a new story. The tests have been going on for at least one year when a number of authorities were selected for testing. Several local authorities also self-nominated themselves. Secondly, there are over 25 offences which are to be included in the scheme - the BBC is overemphasising box junctions and 'u turns'.

What the BBC is not telling us is how much the cameras will cost, how long will it take for the investment to be recovered and how the public needs to be aware of a range of offences that the cameras may or may not cover depending on the area and its traffic flows. What the BBC also does not realise that cameras can be requisitioned by the Police at short notice to monitor crime or carry out any urgent investigations into developing incidents.

Is this yet another case of excitement leading to willful misreporting? Or is it just that BBC journalists have not carried out enough research to acquire a balanced view. Only the BBC can answer these questions. The outcome of repeated misreporting this morning is that many viewers will be getting unnecessarily angry and reinforcing their prejudices, to say the least.