Agenda item

40.    The Panelreceiveda report fromthe Commissioner regardingroadsafety (copyappended to the signed versionof the minutes) whichoutlined the role of SussexPolice in relation to roadsafetyand how the Force was held to accountfor the reductionof KilledandSeriouslyInjured(KSIs) statistics on the roads of Sussex.The report was introduced by the Commissioner’s Office and the Panelwas informed that: a recentincrease in thelevelof KSIs was attributable to the

increase incycling rates; the roadsafetyperformance of the Police was scrutinised

bythe Commissionerduring Performance andAccountability Meetings (PAMs) with the ChiefConstable;and the SussexSaferRoads Partnership(SSRP) was the local oversight body for roadsafety inSussexandits membershipincluded the Commissioner and LocalAuthoritiesincludinghighways authorities.

41.    ValTurnerjoined themeeting at 10.43a.m.

42.    The Panelraised the followingissues withthe Commissioner:

•    Ina numberof communities across Sussexthere was a desire to see the introductionof 20mph zones howeversuchzones were often notsupported by SussexPolice as the speedlimits were felt to be unenforceable.Although

20mphlimits were considered unenforceable insome areas the Police should take accountof the wishes oflocalcommunities.The Commissioner confirmed thatlocal views were takenintoaccount by the Police and the SSRPcouldconsiderconsistentenforcement within20mph zones.The

Commissioner would be prepared to raise this issue at a forthcoming meeting

of the SSRP.Where 20mph zones were introduced there was an assumption that the local highway network wouldensure that the speedlimit was self- enforcing; OperationCrackdown andSpeedwatchgroups could assist with

enforcement.Speedingissues in 20mph zones could be raised with the districtcommander andenforcementin these zones was a decision forlocal policing.

•    The involvementof localresidentsinspeedsafety.Speedwatch groups across Sussexcouldoperate where an assessmentof suitable enforcement areas had occurred and after appropriate training had been provided.

•    How the Commissioner would monitor the effectiveness of the £24,090 passported fromthe SaferinSussexCommunityFund to the SSRP to support roadsafety initiatives?The SSRPwould decide how to allocate the funding andmonitorits use. The Partnership had recently been subject to an audit.

•    InKentspeedcameras were introducedinareas where there were persistent reports of speedingissues,the Commissioner was askedifshe supported the introductionof cameras in problemareas. The sitingof speedcameras was partof the responsibilities ofthe SSRPand the Commissioner did support the sitingof cameras in problem areas.

•    Concern regarding the increase in KSIs relatingto cyclists.The enforcement of the use of cyclelanes by cyclists andifstatistics were available for the occurrence of accidents involvingcyclistsinareas where theywas infrastructure provision.There was no provision to enforce the use ofcycle lanes.A Cycle SafetyCampaign would be taking place inNovember to educate localcyclistsaroundsafetyissues.The SSRPwould have statistics relating to accidents involvingcyclists.

•    It was queriedwhether the police hadsufficientcapacity to undertake effective roads policing particularly atnight.The issuecould be raised with the ChiefConstable; the allocationof funding for road policingwas the decisionof the ChiefConstable.

•    Previous concerns regarding the operationof the SSRPin the Commissioner’s AnnualReportconsidered at the previous Panelmeetingon 31July.Had the Commissioner been reassured about the performance of the Partnership

sincethe meeting?An audit report had beenconductedon theSSRP which focusedon Governance arrangements; thereport had produced an opinionof satisfactory assurance on the controlenvironmentof the Partnership.

•     Some members of the Panelexpressedconcern regardingthe emphasis placed upon theimportance of the SSRPwhich was an unaccountable body; it was suggested thata memberof the Partnership attenda forthcoming meetingof the Panel which wouldinclude discussions relatingtoroadsafety. It was the responsibilityof the constituentlocal authorities to the SSRP to hold the body to account.Furtherscrutinyof the Partnership would be conducted by the CSPs and three Strategic Boards.

•     The increase in the use of mini-motorbikeswas raised as aconcern.The incidence of anti-social drivingof minimotorbikes should be reported to OperationCrackdown.

•     The suitability of sites forspeedcameras was raised andtheimportance of usinglocalintelligence to target problemareaseffectively.TheSSRP would be able to provide advice on the policy for the locationof speedcameras in Sussex.

•     It was noted thata balance was necessarybetweeneducation and enforcementin relation to roadsafety.Enforcement was onlya small

elementof roadsafety; ofgreaterimportance was education and road engineering.

•    Facilities to report dangerous and anti-social drivingneeded to be made easier to use.

43.    Resolved– That the Panelnotes the Commissioner’s RoadSafetyreport.