A trial of road safety technology being deployed in the UK for the first time has led to hundreds of motorists being caught breaking traffic laws, with a senior roads policing officer saying he is “shocked” at the number of offences recorded.
The trial, using equipment developed by the consultancy AECOM and run jointly by National Highways and Warwickshire Police on the M40 and A46, involved a “sensor test vehicle” equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI) software that is able to recognise, for example, a motorist using a handheld mobile phone.
During the initial 64-hour period in which the van was deployed, it detected motorists breaking the law on average once every six minutes.
Warwickshire Police says it identified 152 drivers using a mobile phone illegally and 512 people not wearing a seatbelt – the latter, according to recent DfT casualty statistics, now a factor in a higher proportion of deaths of vehicle occupants than at any time since records began.
The force says that more than 216 Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) were issued as a result of the initiative.
National Highways Road Safety Team leader Jamie Hassall said: “Safety remains our top priority and we want everyone to get to their destination safely.
“Sadly, the results of this trial have shown that some drivers do not feel the need to wear a seatbelt or become distracted by their phones.
“Using any phone while driving is dangerous – driving is a highly complex task requiring a person’s full attention, as any error can be catastrophic.
“Drivers who talk on phones, both hands-free and hand-held, are four times more likely to be in a crash resulting in injuries.
“We want to see if we can change driver behaviour and therefore improve road safety for everyone. Our advice is clear; buckle up and give the road your full attention.”
Inspector Jem Mountford of Warwickshire Police commented: “Whilst we prefer to educate drivers and passengers of cars, vans, HGVs and other vehicles first, the new van is a fantastic tool to support officers in changing driver behaviour and enforcing the legislation for those reluctant to comply.
“Over 216 drivers have received Notices of Intended Prosecution and we have been shocked at what we have seen during the trial.
“We have seen one driver with his phone to his ear and his other hand to his face so none on the steering wheel, and two separate drivers with no seatbelts on who were also using handheld phones.
“As well as fines, points and their job, drivers risk their own safety, the safety of passengers – often young children and the safety of everyone else using the road around them,” Inspector Mountford added.
> Warwickshire man jailed after stealing police bait bike
“That is not acceptable and we will continue our proactive operations to address these dangerous behaviours.”
The trial will continue throughout the rest of this month, following which National Highways and AECOM will review the results ahead of a decision being made on whether to roll the technology out across the country’s strategic road network.
AECOM’s Technical Director – Strategic Consultancy, Transportation, Dr Jamie Uff, said: “The data drawn from this trial has really indicated how vital it is that we have new technologies capable of detecting driving offences.
“The pioneering artificial intelligence is being utilised alongside confirmatory human assessment to make sure that the process is as efficient and accurate as possible.
“The data, which is being analysed solely in the UK, is allowing us to gain a huge amount of vital insight into driving habits.
“The trial is allowing us to differentiate between actual behaviour and reported/expected behaviour – meaning different conclusions or clarifications can be drawn.”
“It’s important to remember that every single incident of dangerous driving could potentially cause death or serious injury, and that is ultimately what we’re trying to prevent with this trial,” he added.
News of the trial comes during the annual Week of Action for the road safety initiative Project EDWARD, the acronym standing for “Every Day Without A Road Death,” further details of which can be found here.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
60 thoughts on “New safety tech trial catches hundreds of drivers breaking law”
Article quotes 664 offences
Article quotes 664 offences but only 216 NIP’s, why not 664? An offence is an offence and they should all be sent NIP’s, otherwise the message will never get across if some poeple are still getting off scott free
Duh. Not all offences
Duh. Not all offences warrant a NIP. See also 90% of close passes (rightly or wrongly)
Sending NIP’s would have a
Sending NIP’s would have a better positive effect and make people think twice even if no prosecution followed rather thn not sending out any and therefore giving the impression that you can “get away with it”
I imagine they were not
I imagine they were not taking action for the majority of the seatbelt cases at present. If they are, I think it would be the first time they have ever been prosecuted by camera and would be a policy shift not appropriate to take during a trial of tech. Not sure what they would have decided to prosecute though – maybe child passengers not wearing a belt, or certain high-risk vehicles?
Any vehicle is “high risk£
Any vehicle is “high risk£ and no vehicle and or occupant should be above the law
Methinks the proposed penalty
Methinks the proposed penalty above is somewhat soft. I would make it 10,000 and ban for proof of using a phone. Same with speeding. The two offences would fund the policing surely.
The seat belt thing I am ambiguous about. The thought that some one else has any say in my safety is immoral to me Eg helmets so why seat belts?
That goes back to the
That goes back to the original campaigns. It became obvious that inspite of it being a no brainer to wear a seatbelt, many people had no brains. The vanishingly rare cases where a seatbelt was a negative seemed to hold more sway than sights of the likes of Gordon Banks and Stuart Milburn being blinded and careers destroyed having been launched through the front window. Of course, any accident also does not just impact the victim, but the people who are left to scrape up the bits and put the victim back together, We really don’t want to go back to that. My mum was definitely one who claimed she was better off being thrown clear of an accident rather than being trapped in a car by her seat belt, she really didn’t get the idea that being bruised and battered was likely to be better than being a crumpled, potentially brain damaged mush on the road.
Second point is that now cars are fitted with airbags, you have to wear a seatbelt, because airbags are designed to work in conjuction with seatbelts. Airbags aren’t soft cosy things, they are things that will do you injury to protect you from a fatality but in combination with an unconstrained adult, they can actually cause far more serious injuries.
Quote:
What’s shocking to me is the distance between the view of even “experts” and reality when it comes to motoring and active travel. Unfortunately far too many people think they’re experts on the roads and driving because “I do it every day”…
So we have police “shocked” at the scale of rule and law breaking on the roads. I bet that opinion would be shared by most politicians. Even many of the general public – or maybe they think “yeah but everyone does it’s not policed it’s not really illegal then”.
Equally we have the flip side – “many / most cyclists are breaking the law”. Normally confidently expressed by those who have no idea of the rules apply to them. And the opinion of many people that “if you hit a pedestrian / cyclist you get the book thrown at you!” Sadly you probably don’t even get a Notice of Intended Prosecution through your door. And that’s a long way from “and got sent down for years”.
Also:
Also:
Well it’s good knowing obvs … but I think more importantly it indicates how vital it is that we should care more about the scale of driving offenses. Maybe also put some new police resources into detecting and then doing something about these offenses? But while we’re doing that some cameras on sticks might be useful. As long as spending the cash there doesn’t allow us to fob off concerns about actual enforcement all over the UK. Enforcement which leads to actual convictions not notes saying “do that again and we will send you another note”.
If I was Mr Loophole I’d be
If I was Mr Loophole I’d be battering the hell out of this on GDPR grounds, Im not fully comfortable with it TBH – however worthy the cause.. Is machine learning and mass surveillance proportionate? Is it biased for example black/brown skin tones?
See also City center & football facial recognition tech.
I think the machine learning
I think the machine learning aspect makes it proportionate.
If you had a human operator examining the interior of every vehicle that went past, you might think that was an invasion of privacy. But with the first pass being done by an algorithm, nobody is going to cast an eye over the majority of law abiding drivers.
As long as they don’t keep the imaging/data longer than necessary, they’ll be fine with the GDPR.
As long as they don’t keep
As long as they don’t keep the imaging/data longer than necessary, they’ll be fine with the GDPR
That’s the national GDPR. The one that Lancashire Constabulary claims to believe applies in Lancashire is different! This is what the hopeless duffers at LC think is necessary for ‘dashcams’ to be legal- from the OpSnap Lancs submissions page.
I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR
Have you ever seen any such ‘form of notification’ on any mode of transport and does your local force insist on you having such on your bike before your video of an offending driver is ‘legal’?
Dear me, Lancs are truely
Dear me, Lancs are truely inept!
The legalities of dashcams get a bit shady with ‘parking mode’, where they continue to record whilst you are away from the vehicle. That is tantamount to erecting a CCTV camera wherever you so desire; which is definately dubious.
But videoing what you can see in person, in a public place, does not come under the GDPR at all. There can be no expectation of privacy in a public place, with somebody looking at you!!
Dear me, Lancs are truly
Dear me, Lancs are truly inept!
It’s difficult to believe that even Lancashire officers are dim enough to think that they can get away with insisting all videos that they
throw in the binsee at OpSnapLancs have been taken while the ‘video-er’ has a ‘you are being filmed’ notice on motor vehicle or cycle when nobody has even seen anybody on the road with such a notification. It’s just a dodge so that they can disown any submission later ‘because the complainant swore he had a notice about filming on his bike when he didn’t’ (you have to or the submission is rejected). I solve this conundrum by inserting in my statement a denial about any such notice.Is it any different to CCTV
Is it any different to CCTV for bus lanes, blocking box junctions and illegal turns ? most London councils use that tech and I dont think any have been dismissed on GDPR grounds.
All the machine is looking for is patterns in the video it’s been taught to recognise as seatbelt on or off, or holding mobile phone, it no doubt flags those images for review and a police officer checks them before issuing a warning or tor
Not sure why they claim to be
Not sure why they claim to be “shocked”, unless it’s internet meme type of shocked (shocked, I tell you). Just look at how many infractions one guy on a bike manages to record – whatever you may think of Cycling Mikey. If the police are not aware of the scale of the problem it’s because they don’t want to know.
Been wondering when Project
Been wondering when Project Edward would be mentioned.
As for seatbelts well Suffolk police prosecuted 120 drivers of hgvs and Van’s here for that https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/over-250-offences-detected-during-operation-using-hgv-supercab
I’m shocked that they’re
I’m shocked that they’re shocked by these results.
That was also one of my
That was also one of my initial thoughts!
Kinda like “no shit, Sherlock
Kinda like “no shit, Sherlock”
In their defence: if they
In their defence: if they were intelligent people, they probably wouldn’t be police officers.
Doesn’t seem particularly
Doesn’t seem particularly sensitive or accurate if it’s only detecting one driver every six minutes. One every minute would be rather more realistic.
That was my thought too. And
That was my thought too. And the figures don’t seem to add up for prosecutions based on the numbers caught.
I could do this, nationally,
I could do this, nationally, without any AI. Frankly, without any I at all. Just send an automated letter to everyone with a driving license in the UK each day, saying we know you have been speeding, close passing, parking illegally, letting your engine idle just to keep warm, using your phone, passing traffic lights on amber, etc.
It would be approximately correct, and then we could have the usual enforcement swing into action (ie do nothing).
And were surprised? I say
And were surprised? I say this as someone who drives 20,000 miles/yr and cycles 3,000miles in a good year. Quite simply other than speed cameras, the roads are no longer policed.
You are correct. When I
You are correct. When I passed my driving test in the early 80s, traffic police were everywhere, and they had a fearsone reputation. If you did wrong, they gave you a ticket. No ifs, no buts. But they were respected, and the standard of driving was much, much better.
Today the standard of driving is below shit. Cars are too easy to drive, some drive themselves. They have all controls via a touchcreen, even controlling the heating. Factor in mobiles, which people are unable to tear their eyes away from. Too many people go through red lights, safe in the knowledge there are no police to stop them.
And factor in people are not taught how to drive these dys, they are taught how to pass the driving test only.
It’s a shitshow.
.
.
Police ‘surprised’? What, they’ve been in Outer Mongolia for the last twenty years?
.
Well said.
Well said.
But, but, but, cyclists!
But, but, but, cyclists!
I commute to and from work on my bike, 90% on shared paths through a nature trail. The 10% I ride on the road I always see people on their phones. Either looking down at their lap whilst driving or holding the phones. I even saw one driver on his phone coming up the slip road of the M6, I was crossing at the top and he didn’t see me as he was so engrossed in his phone. Pretty much every week I have to take evasive action due to someone on their phone not paying attention.
I think it should be a mandatory 12 month ban, instantly, a £1000 fine and 6 points. Take away the idiots liberty, that’ll hurt them.
Take away their phones.
Take away their phones.
Make them go cold turkey.
Give them a large hammer and
Give them a large hammer and instruct them to smash their phones to pieces.
Oh… and if they are on a contract, ensure that the contract remains in force so they are paying for something they can’t use. Replacement phone…nah, not for 12 months: if you are found with a phone on your person, then it should be a further ban and removal. If someone needs you, get a pager and find a public phone box to call them back…..
As my 7 year old nephew says: “That’ll learn them.”
Nothing really surprises me
Nothing really surprises me any more when it comes to driving standards.
I quite often take a
I quite often take a lunchtime walk and just for fun do a spot survey of driver behaviours. Out of every 100 I’d estimate the following.
1 blatantly using a phone (held to ear)
1 blatantly using a phone (held in front, facetime or on speaker style)
2 paying a lot of attention to something on their lap
1 reading paperwork
3 smoking
5 eating or drinking
Near the flashing speed signs around 40% are getting the red unhappy face.
At the lights, I see a driver going through a red around 1 in 10 signal cycles.
Presumably also the standard percentages of untaxed, uninsured, unlicensed, eyesight impaired, drunk or drugged.
Every time there is any kind of crackdown, principally mobile speed cameras in town there is Facebook outrage on the local groups about motorists being persecuted cash cows.
For reference, in the 20 years I have lived here, there have been 3 road collision fatalities, at least 5 serious injuries, as well as many minor injury incidents, non injury collisions and uncountable squashed pets all within the 30mph town boundary. The tally for the national speed limit partial ring road and major roads within 5 miles of town must be in the region of 50 deaths over the same period.
I’m sure in all that time, somebody on a bicycle or electric scooter must have hurt someone else through negligence and stupidity but I cannot recall or find via search engine a single reported incident. The nearest I can find is a story about a local lady injured by a skateboarder….whilst on holiday in Athens.
Drivers (direct quote from
Drivers (direct quote from local Facebook): but we are taxed insured to drive on the roads and dont drive 3 abreast and speed through our village
I do the same when cycling to
I do the same when cycling to and from work. I estimate at least 50% of vehicles, the driver is blatantly on the phone. Not so on my weekend rides, it must be a commuting thing.
Poor time poor drivers.
Poor time poor drivers.
Doesn’t everyone drive a 67 or newer – surely they all have integrated Bluetooth, if you really must?
I estimate at least 50% of
I estimate at least 50% of vehicles, the driver is blatantly on the phone
It’s nothing like this around Garstang, even at the traffic lights on the A6. There’s the odd one who I will video when I’ve finished the RLJ campaign- this is Porsche DS 6972 crossing a red light yesterday
“Whilst we prefer to educate
“Whilst we prefer to educate drivers..”
This is total bull. There is no process in place to educate drivers. Our driver training system consists of an easy to pass theory and practical test, then nothing. Ever. There is no encouragement for drivers to improve their skills. There is no mandated form of skills development and testing. Safe driving is seen by many as compliance with a number on a sign. The whole thing is upside down. If drivers are properly trained then the other problems are mitigated. For example, it’s not possible to drive at an inappropriate speed in a residential street because there is too much to take in if you are competent. Obviously it’s a very good thing to be catching distracted drivers, but it’s part of a much wider skills and attitudes problem which is not being addressed.
Yes there is. It’s called
Yes there is. It’s called driver awareness courses for those who opt to take them as opposed to fine and points. Usually run by ex traffic officers with a lot of experience dealing with some horrific fatal collisions, usually caused by speed.
I find 512 people not wearing
I find 512 people not wearing a seatbelt hard to believe. The mobile phone use not so hard to believe. Never in all my cycling have I seen anyone without a seatbelt on. Plenty on the phone though. It makes me question the accuracy of the AI tech. This was a trial of the tech after all. I think they’d have to be a clear photograph of the offence to even consider a prosecution, remember the Post-Office fiasco.
Does anyone have a link to an academic article describing the trial?
I would expect a lot of those
I would expect a lot of those to be false positives even with a human eyeball check. Suspect many of the captures will not be of evidentiary standard.
I would expect a lot of the
I would expect a lot of the no seat belt to be hgv drivers. Large fleet operators have checks in place, but smaller companies and sole operators probably don’t.
My only other comment would be is if the Police are shocked by the results they really need to spend more time out on the road observing the behaviour of road users.
VIPcyclist wrote:
Roughly 5% of drivers don’t wear a seat belt. A motorway or trunk road will have 10’s of thousands of vehicles per day, so if anything 500 seems quite low.
Edit: reference – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/seatbelt-and-mobile-phone-use-surveys-2021/seatbelt-wearing-rates-great-britain-2021#:~:text=In%202021%20in%20Great%20Britain,compared%20to%2090.7%25%20in%202017
We are shocked at the results
We are shocked at the results therefore we will not be proceeding with trail once it has finished as the results are obviously wrong. Cyclists are to be blame for all the false results etc.
Please just go out and do some proper police work and prosecute some motorists.
This is good news. I hope the
This is good news. I hope the trial is deemed a success and this gets rolled out across the country, leading to many many convictions.
Christopher TR1 wrote:
My cynicism suggests that it’ll be thwarted by political interference (c.f. War on Motorists).
That, and hopefully eventual
That, and hopefully eventual compliance.
The police could make serious
The police could make serious revenue from this investment.
By catching all those mobile phone jockey’s that drive whilst distracted will save the lives of vulnerable road users.
I do hope the machines are rolled out on every A road in the land. The sooner the better.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Unfortunately, the police don’t get to keep the revenue.
I have it on good authority
I have it on good authority from drivers that they do keep it, and that they are also corrupt, blinkered and should be out catching burglars not preying on innocent motorists.
Otherwise law abiding…
Otherwise law abiding…
David9694 wrote:
Burglers are a lot harder to catch though as the police are unlikely to know where they’re going to strike next and unless they get caught in the act or in possession of stolen goods, then it’s a tough case to prove. With dangerous driving, it’s just a matter of the police waiting and watching at a main road and they’ll easily catch drivers in the act.
There’s also the issue that burglars don’t usually threaten lives (certainly the KSIs from drivers are much higher than from burglaries) and usually items can be replaced with the help of insurance. Obviously, victims of burglaries can feel traumatised and violated, but that also applies to victims of road crime.
Another point to consider is that by stopping dodgy vehicles/drivers, the police may well find evidence of other criminality (c.f. Yorkshire Ripper), so there’s a small chance that they can prevent some burglars just by focussing on dangerous drivers.
You only need to watch Police
You only need to watch Police Interceptors to see how many speeding drivers they catch who don’t have a license, insurance, MOT etc, and have a boot full of stolen gear. Usually, those who treat the roads as a racetrack are not fully legal.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Unfortunately, the police don’t get to keep the revenue.— Fignon's ghost
No, but it will save them the not inconsiderable costs of attending any number of RTCs and KSIs. Far cheaper to prevent than to clear up.
Sriracha wrote:
You’re right. Unfortunately, the costs of public services usually don’t account for external benefits such as also reducing costs for the NHS.
The cost of the emergency
The cost of the emergency services to attend, investigate, clean up, hospital treatment etc each serious or fatal collision has been put at around £1 million. So, every dangerous driver they catch is potentially a big saving.
Yes they do keep it. It goes
Yes they do keep it. It goes into a pot which funds the camera vans and the wages of the staff employed on the vans. They are not supposed to make any profit from it, the money also goes into running the driver awareness courses too.
This from someone who used to be a police volunteer, who’s relative works for the police.
AFAIK, they don’t keep it
AFAIK, they don’t keep it anymore, the original camera schemes from 2002 onwards did, and as you say, the fines were used for funding the scheme itself, but that stopped in 2010, since then the revenue now goes straight to the Exchequer. I think it’s slightly different for the awareness courses in that the “fee” for the course directly funds them.
Presumably this technology
Presumably this technology could be built in to every new car? And why not – I’d love to hear all the reasons; why it’s too expensive (but never mind the leather seats), or isn’t “appropriate”, yada yada, SMIDSY.
It’s a pity that there is no
It’s a pity that there is no stat for re-education courses, or account of what happened to the other 60%.