Minimum National Standards in Road Crash Investigations
Presentation by Amy Aeron-Thomas at 21 April Parliamentary Lobby
meeting
Background
Ten years ago, the Support for Families of Road Death Victims
Report was published. It presented the findings of a two year
Independent Working Group that included representatives of the
police, victims, coroners, CPS, insurers, motoring organisations
and emergency medicine. Recommendations were based on the 150 case
studies provided by RoadPeace and included:
- Standardised approach to fatal road crash
investigations
- Specialists to be used in witness interviews as
well as forensic analysis and witness statements to be taken as
soon as possible.
We wanted consistency and quality/expertise.
Four years later and after surveying hundreds more victims for a
European study that highlighted the widespread dissatisfaction of
British families with the response to a road crash, RoadPeace's
Justice Campaign was launched. A key objective was the adoption of
national standards in road crash investigation and called for
- Increased funding for training and personnel
- Crash scene to be treated as homicide scene
- Drivers to be as fully investigated as victims
(i.e. mandatory alcohol and drug tests)
- Interviews to take place without delay at police
station (unless medically unfit)
- Improve/replace inquests
In 2001, the Road Death Investigation Manual was launched by
ACPO. Although there are more than 4 times as many police
investigations into road deaths than murders, the Murder
Investigation Manual had come out some 8 years earlier. One of
RDIM's aims was to investigate all incidents as 'Unlawful killings'
until the contrary is proved. Unfortunately, this Manual is only
advisory and no monitoring is being undertaken to identify the
impact it has had on the quality of investigation or the legal
outcome. A lack of accountability remains the rule with police
investigations. The govt can tell you what percent of fatal road
crashes occurred on a Wednesday, when the road was wet, when one of
the vehicles was turning right but it does not know how many
involved a driver being charged or convicted -This despite 95% of
road crashes being attributed to driver error.
In our recent submission to the Transport Select Committee
Inquiry on Traffic Law Enforcement, we argued that insufficient
priority has been given to road crash investigation. We believe the
government's own statistics prove this. The government currently
estimates the average cost of the police investigation into a fatal
road death to be less than £1,500 (0.1% of the total value of
prevention for a fatal crash), and only £200 for a serious
injury crash (the equivalent of no more than a few hours of police
time) (DfT, 2003). In London there are over 1000 murder detectives
and although there are approximately twice as many road deaths
investigated as there are murder investigations, last year the Met
Police reported having only 46 specialist collision investigators,
about 5 % of what would be required if the investigation of road
deaths and murders were given equal priority. This does not take
into consideration the 1000 near fatal cases, which the collision
investigators also investigate each year!
We raised our concerns about the quality of investigation - both
of fatal and injury investigation at a road safety workshop with
the Metropolitan Police Authority in February 2002 and the Met
Police agreed to establish a working group and include RoadPeace.
To date, this has yet to happen.
We have mentioned London here for several reasons:
- It reports two times as many road deaths and serious injuries
than any other police service.
- It will have the greatest share of crashes involving vulnerable
road users, the pedestrians and cyclists who are too often still
seen as second - class road users. Through our 12 years of helpline
calls and working with the Living Streets, CTC, and LCC
Associations, we know pedestrians and cyclists have the hardest
time getting a proper investigation.
Last year and for the first time, the Met Police reported that
in 20% of fatal crashes, a charge was laid against a
driver/rider.
We have proposed to the Home Office and ACPO that a code of
practice be introduced and we are working to get individual police
forces to commit to providing a minimum level of investigation.
Today
Ten years on from the 1994 report and after the first five years
of our Justice Campaign, we vow to renew our campaign for justice,
calling for an improved investigation of road crashes and adding to
it the call for monitoring.
Improvements are being made. We know that some police forces are
using outside experts to estimate vehicle and impact speeds, others
are trying to video key interviews but we do not believe these
improvements are consistent or sufficient/adequate. We will seek to
work with the police on shared objectives, as well as continue in
our thankless and un-funded role of collision investigation
watchdog.
Based on our recent experiences summarised by Zoe Stow, we do
fear the government is more concerned with providing emotional
support than justice to road traffic victims. This explains why the
Government funded literature for bereaved families does not even
include a chapter on investigation - it has chapters on criminal
prosecution and civil compensation.
Our members would tell you these priorities are wrong. Losing a
loved one is tragic but it isn't the worst thing that can happen to
you - that is when Governemnt and society accept the death of your
loved one as the cost of motorisation and do not treat it with the
same respect and priority they would if it occurred on the railways
or been caused by a stranger who happened to be outside a car as
opposed to inside driving one.
Please remember
Sympathy is no substitute for justice - justice requires better
investigations
|
