Since 7th February 2011, all new EU cars and small vans must have dedicated daytime running lights (DRLs), to improve road safety but a survey by the RAC shows these lights cause unintended confusion for some drivers.

While all new vehicles must have daytime running lights at the front, they aren’t mandatory at the rear and this issue is what appears to be causing confusion and annoyance for road users.

Illuminating facts

Daytime running lights are lights fitted into a car’s existing headlights and taillights. The lights shine white at the front and red at the rear. These lights began in Nordic countries with low light levels during winter and, in 1977, Sweden was the first country to make them mandatory. Seven years later, the Volvo 240 became the first vehicle on UK roads with DRLs.

Studies show that DRLs can reduce the risk of road accidents; a 2008 American study on the effectiveness of DRLs on road safety reported only a 0.3% reduction in collisions while a 2003 EU investigation suggested a reduction in multi-party collisions of between 5% and 15%.

Research by the RAC now shows that many drivers don’t turn on their dipped lights or sidelights in dull driving conditions, perhaps assuming, because they have DRLs on at the front, the same applies to the rear lights.

In a RAC Opinion Panel survey of 2,061 motorists, 62% said they saw cars and vans driving around in dull overcast conditions with lights on at the front of their vehicles, but with unlit rear lights.

When asked whether the car they drive most often had DRLs, and if so, were they fitted to the front and/or back of the vehicle, survey respondents answered in the following ways:

Vehicle has no DRLs: 47%
Vehicle has front DRLs only: 29%
Vehicle has both front and rear DRLs: 14%
Vehicle has front DRLs, but driver uncertain if the car had rear DRLs: 8%

‘A very worrying finding’

Head of PR and External Affairs at RAC, Pete Williams said of the Opinion Panel survey results:

“This is potentially a very worrying finding as it implies that many drivers are driving without any rear lights believing that because they have running lights that switch on automatically at the front, they are also on at the rear.

“Alternatively, and arguably just as concerning, these drivers could simply have decided the light conditions were not bad enough to merit turning on their dipped lights or sidelights.

“While daytime running lights are clearly bringing a very valuable safety benefit to the UK’s roads, it would be good for every driver to take just a few minutes to make sure they know whether the vehicles they drive have them or not. And if they do, then check to see if they have them at the rear as well as the front. That way those that don’t have them at the back will be far more likely in poor daylight visibility to switch on their dipped lights to make their vehicle more easily seen from behind.

“We strongly urge everyone to carry out this check as those few minutes could make an important road safety difference.”

Dazzled by science

Fitting DRLs isn’t essential—vehicles produced before February 2011 do not need retrofitting—but fitting them may prevent an accident. If you want to fit DRLs in your car, you can choose from various aftermarket kits—look for an embossed approval mark on the lamp containing the letters ‘RL’. If you’re fitting DRLs, install them, so they come on with the engine and go off when you switch on the headlights. The lamps should come with fitting instructions but contact a qualified auto electrician if you’re in any doubt about fitting them. You might, instead, use your car’s existing sidelights during the daytime although they won’t be as bright as DRLs.

It is becoming more common for DRLs to contain light-emitting diodes (LEDs). LED lights consume little energy, which helps keep fuel consumption as low as possible. Using DRLs instead of driving with headlights or sidelights also means that rear lights and instrument lights aren’t on during the day.

LED DRLs are brighter, making them easier to spot in daylight. Manufacturers designed DRLs to make cars more obvious to other road users in daylight conditions, not to illuminate the road ahead.

Daytime running lights switch on when the engine is running. They should usually switch off when you turn off the main headlights but if yours don’t, make sure you turn your DRLs off when it’s dark, or they will dazzle other road users.

Although the UK has never brought in a rule requiring daytime use of headlights, your lights are an important part of your visibility on the road. By checking your car’s bulbs often you protect yourself and other road users.

Does your car have daytime running lights? Are you aware if your vehicle has them fitted at the rear, too? Are DRLs a problem? Share your opinion in the comments.

A review by the car insurance comparison website, MoneySupermarket has found that Hereford is the drink and drug drive capital of the UK, with 2.30 convictions for every 1,000 drivers.

Overall, the drink or drug driving rates are on the decline – almost a third down from 2017, but there are exceptions.

Data analysis

Traditionally, December always sees a spike in drink and drug driving offences; figures released for 2017 shows that 179 motorists were caught for the offence each day in December, but across the last twelve months, convictions have fallen from 1.47 per 1,000 drivers to just 1.05.

The figure for Hereford sits at 2.30 per 1,000 drivers, well over double the average.

MoneySupermarket has analysed the data from over 6 million insurance quotes for the last twelve months, along with the country’s highest area, it also shows the most at risk profession – plumbers rate at 17.26 per 1,000 and the lowest drink and drug drive area – London (between 0.45 & 0.67).

The data analysis also shows that the 17-24-year-old age group who drink or drug drive has increased by around 10% and that men are five times more likely to risk drink or drug driving than women.

While these statistics paint a colourful picture as to just how prevalent drink or drug driving is, there’s no evidence regarding the reasoning; it’s thought that London has the lowest rate purely due to the better public transport infrastructure.

Identifying the limit

A further study by Swinton Insurance may hold some of the answers; their study shows that nine out of ten drivers couldn’t identify the legal driving limit for alcohol, even when given a list of options. And with Scotland having a further reduced limit than the rest of the UK, it can be quite confusing.

Rebecca Ashton, head of driving behaviour at IAM RoadSmart states: “The problem with these limits is that no one can translate them into how many drinks or units they can have, and still be legal to drive. It varies substantially from person to person, depending on things such as age, weight and metabolism”.

With that said, alcohol is one of the most predictable reactions when it comes to leaving the body – an almost exact rate of .016 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) per hour, which is roughly one unit; three pints of strong beer, 3 large glasses of wine will take around 11 hours to completely leave your system.

The penalties

Alcohol can severely impact your driving ability – even just one glass or one pint can dull your reaction times, lower your ability to process information and slow your hand-eye coordination, so penalties are harsh. You could face imprisonment, a ban and an unlimited fine, depending on the severity of your offence.

Being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
3 months’ imprisonment
Up to £2,500 fine
Possible driving ban

Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year (3 years if convicted twice in ten years)

Refusing to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year

Along with the legal repercussions, a driving ban for drink or drugs will affect your insurance – most insurance companies will want to know for ten years and could weight your insurance premium by as much as 121%, while some companies will refuse to insure you.

It’s worth noting that drug driving carries similarly harsh penalties, and it isn’t just contained to illegal drugs, some medicinal drugs can also see you being prosecuted for the offence, these include: Clonazepam, Diazepam, Flunitrazepam, Lorazepam, Methadone, Morphine, Oxazepam, Temazepam and Amphetamine, although the limit for these prescription drugs is set higher than a regularly prescribed dosage, if there’s any doubt, you should take advice from your pharmacist or doctor.

Drink or drug driving is illegal for good reason, the general advice is that if you’re going to be drinking, no matter how small an amount, you should leave the car at home and not risk it. Be aware that the offence of ‘Being in charge of a vehicle’ doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be driving it.

What do you think of drink drivers? Should they face tougher penalties? Have you ever been convicted of the offence? Is it fair that prescription drug users face prosecution? Let us know in the comments.

To improve road safety, the Department for Transport (DfT) is bringing in new rules, which mean drivers face fines if they’re caught parking in cycle lanes—and the penalty could be a whopping £130. Not only that, but cyclists using helmet cameras will aid police to charge motorists with dangerous driving.

The Highway Code is also under review to offer more protection to cyclists in a crackdown by authorities who want to get drivers out of their vehicles and, instead, onto bicycles, but cycling organisations say the new measures aren’t enough.

Bikes, camera, action!

As part of a two-year action plan involving measures ‘to combat road rage, encourage greater mutual respect between road users and protect the most vulnerable’, the DfT said that, for the first time, local councils would have the power to use CCTV cameras to monitor mandatory cycle lanes. London drivers found breaching cycle lanes face a fine of £130. Elsewhere in the UK, councils can issue fines of up to £70.

Together with the DfT appointing a new Cycling and Walking Champion to promote ‘active travel’, police will get a bespoke new back-office unit—using a £100,000 grant at first—to examine and share footage captured by dash-cams and cyclists’ helmet cameras.

It won’t be the first time the public has helped prosecute motorists for careless or dangerous driving. North Wales created ‘Operation Snap’ in 2016, which gives people the ability to upload personal footage of motorists breaking the law. This strategy saves around 14 hours of work per case compared with traditional investigative methods.

Further key measures of the plan include a Highway Code review, on how drivers should behave towards vulnerable road users—such as maintaining their distance when passing cyclists—and encouragement for local authorities to increase their total transport infrastructure spending to 15%.

On your bike

The government has rejected calls from certain members of the public, for cyclists to undergo cycling tests, have licences, insurance, and number plates for their bikes.

Extra safety gear won’t be mandatory for cyclists, either. The DfT stated that they believe wearing helmets and high-vis clothing should be an individual’s choice and they did not want to impose more regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

In his announcement last week, Minister of State for Transport, Jesse Norman MP said:

“Greater road safety—and especially the protection of vulnerable road users such as cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders—is essential. We want to improve air quality, encourage healthy exercise, reduce obesity, and boost our high streets and economic productivity. That means more support for cycling and walking, and that’s why [sic] these new measures are designed to deliver.”

Walking and cycling organisations gave their support for the changes to the Highway Code but showed disappointment that the action plan didn’t tackle speed reduction.

Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK Chief Executive said lowering vehicle speeds around people walking, cycling, and horse riding doesn’t just reduce the danger to them, but also their perception of the danger.

“While the DfT’s proposals for amendments to the Highway Code will help save lives, ignoring the threat and dangers of speeding is disappointing,” he said.

In 2017, 101 cyclists died on the UK’s roads and there were 18,220 injured. 2017 also saw a 5% rise in pedestrian deaths. In the years 2007 to 2016, around three pedestrian fatalities each year and 82 serious injuries involved cycles—or 0.6% of pedestrians. Yet, 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died involved motor vehicles (e.g. cars, motorbikes, lorries, vans, etc.).

Do you know the code?

In case your knowledge of the Highway Code is rusty, here’s how things stand on cycle lanes and cyclist waiting boxes:

Motorists—and motorcyclists unless the signs dictate otherwise—mustn’t drive or park in cycle lanes with a solid white line running down their right side. These are mandatory cycle lanes.

Other cycle lanes have a broken white line running down the right side. Drivers shouldn’t drive or park in these either unless unavoidable. An example might mean a large vehicle is approaching on the opposite side of the road, which may need more road space, or a vehicle parked inappropriately on the opposite side of the road prompts traffic to drive around it.

Advanced stop lines (ASL), also known as cyclist waiting boxes, are another area motor vehicles mustn’t enter. If you’re found doing this, you might receive up to a £100 fine and three penalty points on your licence. To lessen the chance of having to stop in the cyclist waiting box when in slow-moving traffic, pause at the first white line and make sure there’s ample space for your vehicle to clear the junction safely before moving onto the box. If your vehicle has crossed the first solid white line and the traffic lights turn red, you must stop before the second white line and wait in the cyclist waiting area. You’re not committing an offence if you drive onto the box while the traffic light is green and can’t clear it before the light changes to red. For you to risk prosecution, a police officer or camera would have to witness you crawl along onto the box while the traffic light is already red.

How do you feel about cameras policing cycle lanes? Are you a cyclist and/or motorist who is looking forward to capturing footage of bad driving? Do these changes worry you? Tell us in the comments.

Across the country, 500 number plates are stolen every week leaving many motorists facing penalty notices and boxing in for crimes they haven’t committed. The ordeal of recovery and the fines and penalty notices that have to be contested has been described as “incredibly upset[ting]” by one person involved.

Last year 25,000 numberplates were taken from cars, and the figure this year has already reached 22,000 as released by the AA under a Freedom of Information request. Police are now urging drivers to report stolen plates immediately in order to aid investigation and to prevent further accusation of innocent drivers.

Technology increasing theft

Motorists across the country have received numerous penalty notices, fines and more for crimes they haven’t committed as criminal gangs steal and use the number plates to avoid getting convicted for crimes.

Criminals, both individuals and organised gangs, have taken numberplates to conceal crimes such as stealing petrol from forecourts, known as bilking, or reckless driving. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras only pick up the number plate, as suggested by the name, so any theft, even if its only one plate, should be reported to police.

Advances in ANPR technology mean that numberplate theft is on the rise, Sheffield County noted an increase of 36% from 2013 to 2017 in theft, taking it from 501 thefts in 2013 to 680 in 2017.

Since the introduction and national adoption of ANPR technologies, starting in 2005, stolen number plates value has increased drastically as criminals try to avoid prosecution. Nationwide thefts have risen by 76% since 2005 when the BBC reported a rise in number plate theft, and since then theft has increased risen by approximately 800 thefts annually. Back in 2005, 14,176 number plate thefts were recorded, and the figure of near 25,000 this year is a monumental increase over time.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA said; “While a small percentage of the UK’s national vehicles suffer the inconvenience and frustration of having their number plate stolen, it is an incredibly serious issue.

Stolen plates are often cloned and put onto other vehicles. These are then used to cover up further criminal activity, such as selling stolen cars or burglary. Other instances of criminality under stolen plates include ram raids and even not paying congestion charges.

More than a quarter (28%) of drivers say that if one plate were missing from their vehicle, they wouldn’t report it to the police. Drivers should report any number plate theft as the innocent victim could end up receiving speeding tickets and other traffic fines.”

“A horrible experience”

One driver who was the victim of plate cloning had her car boxed in, while driving on the M1. Tia Kinnard from Dunstable described the ordeal as “a horrible experience.” After the mishap was cleared up, it came to light that a gang had cloned her number plates and used them for numerous burglaries in and around London.

Meanwhile, in Brighton and Hove, Mariam Castle was the victim of number plate theft when the plates were stolen off her VW Polo. While she reported the stolen plates to the police immediately, she received two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for driving in bus lanes and had to contest the fines in a lengthy process.

She said: ‘It really shook me up, receiving those penalty notices. Finally, they were dropped, but it was a lot of hassle, and the whole ordeal left me incredibly upset.’

What can you do?

In some cases, there is very little that the motorist can do.

In older cars where the number plate is stuck on with double-sided tape, it is best to add in anti-theft screws to put off thieves initially, as they will be less likely to steal plates that are more secured, the risk of them being noticed is much higher.

Anti-theft number plates are also available to buy. Launched back in 2006 by the then Transport Minister, Stephen Ladyman, they are designed to shatter into pieces upon removal, making them unusable by criminals.

Inspector Craig Clifton, from South Yorkshire Police’s Roads Policing Group, said: “The reason criminals steal number plates, and quite possibly the reason numbers of reported thefts have risen, is because of the advancement in ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) technology. Number plates are stolen for a variety of reasons to mask criminality.

In order to protect your number plate, if it isn’t permanently affixed to the vehicle then it’s vulnerable and because we change plates generally they are not a permanent fixture.

All people can do is make the plates harder to remove, so ensure they are screwed on with anti-theft screws rather than affixed with double-sided tape.

You could also use anti-theft number plates which break upon removal. It’s worth trying to park in less conspicuous areas to make it harder for criminals to hide while removing the plates.”

Have you ever been affected by stolen number plates? Do you think more should be done to protect drivers from this? Let us know below

A report for the Department for Transport has concluded that 20mph zones have made no impact on road safety and that drivers have reduced their speed by just 0.7mph within those zones.

The study has been carried out over four years, in twelve different areas. One of the main findings is that up to 94% of drivers break the speed limit if they usually drove above 24mph before the 20mph zone was introduced.

Revenue raising

Before we jump on the revenue-raising bandwagon, which undoubtedly will be an issue, a close look at the report will perhaps reveal a more political nature to the introduction of 20mph zones.

While there is an argument for road safety, there are three main factors in the decision for a 20mph zone; these are broken down as: transport related, community or politically driven, and health-related. Within these three categories are three weak answers – to reduce the negative impact of cars in urban centres (such as parking space pressures and congestion), a low-cost way to ‘improve’ the lives of residents, and as a way to tackle the perceived quality of the environment.

It would seem that road safety was the intended by-product, rather than the driving force behind implementation.

Speed kills

Twelve areas took part in the study, including parts of Winchester, Liverpool, Brighton, Portsmouth and Middlesbrough, where data could be collected before and after implementation of the 20mph zone. The cost for each zone ranged from £10,000 through to £1.7m and focused solely on zones with no other traffic calming measures such as chicanes, speed humps or directional rights of way.

It was found that typically, drivers ignored the signage, believing that the risk of being caught speeding was minimal, which led to just a 0.7mph reduction in speeding through the zone, with an overall reduction of 0.9mph in the surrounding areas approaching the zone. 47% of drivers admitted to regularly breaking the 20mph limit, that figure increased to 94% of drivers where the road was previously faster than an average of 24mph.

Edmund King, president of the AA, says: “We believe that targeted 20mph limits work best where they’re needed – outside schools or hospitals, or places where other vulnerable road users may be encountered. Speed limits need to reflect the nature of the road, and this report has vindicated the reservations of motorists with regard to 20mph zones”.

Road safety

Within the study, it was found that the biggest contributing factor to an accident was ‘failure to observe’, either as a pedestrian (17%) or motorist (37%), but the lower speeds should mean that a road user has more time to react to an incident – which in theory means a lessened chance of injury.

However, it’s that very reason that could also cause a problem – with road users having more time to react, it seems that complacency is increasing. Further still, and perhaps the biggest takeaway from the study is that there is a small amount of evidence that shows an increase in driver frustration and distraction.

The frustration part is purely from learned behaviour – that can change with time, but the distraction part could be down to the need for constant checking of the speedometer; ensuring that you’re driving below a 20mph limit takes concentration and a certain amount of skill, and with the influx of silent-running electric vehicles, that could be made worse – there will be no engine note as guidance.

With no significant change in accident rates, and no benefit to the environment, can the local authorities justifiably continue to spend the amount of money required to create such folly? It would seem that these 20mph zones are now purely about the perceived perception of a neighbourhood, rather than offering any benefit whatsoever, and in a time when councils are going bust, surely the money is better spent elsewhere?

Of course, there is always a need to back causes that improve road safety, including reduced speed limits where there is proven benefit, but an inappropriate blanket 20mph zone isn’t that. Perhaps we should be thankful that currently, many of these reduced speed zones aren’t enforced with speed cameras as a simple money-making hotspot, but the cynics amongst us would ask how long it will be before that happens?

What do you think of this latest report? Are the findings a revelation? Or just as you’ve suspected all along? Will local authorities view them as a quick way to raise revenue? Let us know in the comments.

Parking charges and penalties have been labelled as a stealth tax by motoring organisations after councils have made record profit of £867m in the 2017/18 financial year.

London councils topped the charts, averaging £1m per day. Just 39 of the 353 councils failed to make a profit or break even.

Record charges

A recent report has found that parking charges (on & off-street parking) and fines have raised over £1.6bn in revenue for local councils between 2017/18, of which, £867m is pure profit – an increase of over £50m from the previous financial year.

The law states that any surplus monies made from parking have to be reinvested in the local transport infrastructure, which includes the running of subsidised buses – it can’t just be added to the council’s coffers, to be used where they see fit.

The RAC Foundation carried out a similar study seven years ago, the latest findings show that the profit made by councils has increased by around 70% in those seven years; this is no longer about covering running costs, this is pure profit.

Stealth tax

We’re used to hearing the phrase ‘stealth tax’ being associated with the motorist, many of the large motoring organisations have argued that the parking charges are just that – a stealth tax – and are partly responsible for the closing of the high street as a commercial destination; drivers are voting with their wheels and preferring to shop at out-of-town retail parks, where parking is often free.

It may be no surprise that Westminster council topped the charts with parking charges and fines, raking in just over £1m per week, outside of London, it’s Brighton and Hove that top the list – pulling in £23.4m profit each year.

Councillor Martin Tett, the spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “Councils are on the side of the motorist and shoppers, they have to try and strike a balance when setting parking policy, for both on and off-street parking to make sure that there are spaces available for residents, and that high streets are kept vibrant, and that traffic is kept moving”.

But, Edmund King, President of the AA is clear: “At a time when the high street is under intense pressure, more parking incentives are needed to attract, not deter, potential customers. The cost of parking should cover the cost of providing the service, not become a stealth tax paid by a few thousand in each town”.

1 in 10

It would seem that statistics give credence to King’s argument; over the last few years, footfall in town centres has dropped by around 1.6%, while the out-of-town retail parks have seen a 1.5% increase in usage, and the high street is suffering as a direct result – over 10% of shops in town centres are currently vacant. With customers having to find more money to spend on parking, retail spend will be reduced, leading to further cuts on the high street.

While some councils are offering reduced or even free parking for certain vehicles, it’s worth remembering that a number of councils are hitting the diesel motorist even harder – adding a 50% surcharge to any parking rate.

Back in July of this year, we published a report of the most expensive places to park in the UK, and as part of that, we suggested that an investigation should be held to justify the differing amounts and parking charge policies – how can it be that some councils are trying to develop business interest on the high street – charging as little as £0.15 to park, while others can charge up to £8 for a single hour?

It would seem that with the publication of this report on ‘record profits’ that the councils are doing exactly as was suspected – propping up their ailing budget with a little help from the motorist, and yet with the money supposedly ringfenced for transportation needs, there seems little evidence that these profits are finding their way back to transportation.

How about you?

It seems that there is little that can be done regarding the parking charges. Yes, you could try an alternative form of transport, but that’s not viable for millions of motorists, and it isn’t addressing the bigger issue – that the motorist is all but virtually banned from driving in the city centre.

With councils clearing nearly £2.5m of profit each day from parking charges, it’s time that the motorist was given credit where it’s due, rather than continuing punishment for having the audacity to rely on the internal combustion engine. For some drivers who are disabled, they have no choice but to drive, and while most of the time they are able to park for free, it still seems unfair that all motorists should be punished for shopping and contributing to smaller high street shops.

What do you think about these record profits? Should something be done at a national level to curb the charges? Let us know how you feel in the comments.

A new police camera that can catch motorists from over half a mile away unveiled by Gloucestershire police last week as part of Operation Indemnis, a pilot project designed to help reduce the number of accidents caused by dangerous driving.

The new camera, affectionately dubbed “The Long Ranger,” not only catches drivers who are speeding but also those who are tailgating, not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone at the wheel. The culmination of all of the above makes this camera a truly powerful tool for the police, enabling them to identify number plates and drivers from over a kilometre away.

Aims and hopes

One of the main ways the camera will be used is the education and awareness of drivers. It is part of a collaborative scheme to police the A417 and A419, a major route link between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. This road is a major accident hotspot, and so police hope that the new camera will help not only to reduce collisions but help to reduce the dangerous, and sometimes collision causing driving.

Those who are driving in a potentially dangerous manner will be educated, while those who are driving illegally will be prosecuted.

Martin Surl, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire, is hopeful that the camera will help to not only reduce the number of accidents in the area but also educate drivers on practices such as using a mobile phone behind the wheel.

Mr Surl said “This is one of the county’s busiest roads which also has one of the worst accident records due to the way it’s used.

Many people have come to me with their concerns about speeding and other safety issues along this road.

We now have a chance to test a new model of collaborative road policing which, if it proves a success, can be put into practice elsewhere.

The aim is not just to penalise motorists but to uphold the law by creating a change in people’s behaviour. But the police will enforce the law when necessary.”

Repeated across the country

If successful, more of these cameras could be rolled out across the country to help with more dangerous roads.

As seen at the top of this article, the person in the red car is driving at speed and incredibly dangerous. The police camera video footage, given to GlouscteshireLive by Mr Surl’s office, is from an incident on the A417 in January this year, captured by the new super camera, and was released to demonstrate it’s effectiveness. The driver of the red car, who was later prosecuted and fined for speeding, comes into view (top left of screen) in the outside lane and ‘shunts’ the car in front into the middle lane. You can see the red car driver remonstrate with the driver that he has just forced over In the top right corner you can see his speed is recorded at 93mph. The red car then begins to tailgate a second car, which crosses into its path.

At the end of this year, this ‘super speed camera’ along with other safety inducing methods, will be reviewed to determine their effectiveness along with their investment costs.

Safety reasons

As released in the latest Department for Transport documents, it was shown that over a quarter of people who died in road traffic collisions were not wearing a seatbelt, so the concern is well founded.

The number of people killed on the roads due to not wearing a seatbelt increased by 7% from 20% in 2016 to 27% in 2017. While not wearing a seatbelt carries a £100 fine, or £500 if taken to court, it places no points on a driving licence, unlike those who use a mobile phone behind the wheel or speed.

Just last week, we wrote an article showing that 46% of journeys conducted in the UK broke the speed limit last year, with 86% of 20mph limits broken.

Collaboration with both other forces and government bodies is the answer for Chief Inspector Mark Soderland, who believes that while the roads in England are some of the safest, there is always an opportunity to improve safety.

Mr Soderland said: “A core aim of the approach is collaborating wherever possible with other road safety stakeholders. The team has started with Highways England and the county council and is now approaching groups such as the Motor Insurers Bureau, The Institute of Advanced Motorists and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority to explore what opportunities there might be to work together and improve safety.

Criminality is also important to the operation. Having a police presence on a strategic road such as the A417 is also an excellent opportunity to prevent and disrupt criminals from entering the county. Hence the use of ANPR and intelligence briefings.

Officers have been instructed to stop any vehicle they deem appropriate to do so whether it is because of poor standard of driving, the condition of a vehicle, criminal intelligence-led enquiries or other intelligence like missing persons.”

Do you think that this is the right thing for the police to do? Would you like one of these cameras near you? Let us know below