10 Minute Leeway

It is reported that the Government will announce today that it will order local authorities to give 10 minutes leeway for those who overstay on council car parks.  This really isn't much of a surprise as the proposal has been trailed for quite some time and the intentions of government were made clear last year in its response to the Transport Committee's report on Local authority parking enforcement.  Although originally the government intended to order a 5 minute grace period.

The need for such a rule is unknown at present, I am not aware how many PCN's (Penalty Charge Notices, or parking tickets) nationally are issued for this particular transgression.  This Government in 2010 removed any central monitoring of local authority statistics on car parking (and litter!) which in my view was a clear retrograde step in obtaining data on trends and patterns.  Instead one is forced to rely on the Freedom of Information Act and to make applications to the 350+ local authorities to gain any great insight.

It is thus hard to assess the extent of the overstay problem.  Some local authorities do, in their annual reports, breakdown the number of PCN's issued by the nature of the transgression.  From a brief perusal of some of these reports there is some variation, in Brighton less than 1% of PCN's issued were for overstay (10 PCNs in 2012/13) whereas South Gloucestershire runs at about 10% (595 PCNs in 2012/13).  Of course the extent to which the local authority uses barrier entries for its car parks will have an effect on this problem.  Indeed perhaps this new proposal is something of a nudge to local authorities towards using barrier entry systems (or who knows complete privatisation).

In fact looking at this as an incentive scheme it should incentivise drivers away from barrier exit car parks unless local authorities operate differential fees for barrier exit.  Put simply you get more time for your money in non-barrier car parks (assuming price parity).  Thus we have a nudge in one direction that is countered by an incentive in the other (although barrier exit does generally allow a period of grace to leave the car park so perhaps this will counter the incentive (although not in cases of minimum parking assuming price parity)).  Perhaps local authorities will hold off on barrier car parks until they have some data on the effect of the incentive.

Looking at a number of local authority annual reports that actually breakdown the number of penalty notices by type, about 10% of all PCNs seems to be the general figure for overstay.  Of course this still doesn't help to explain why the 10 minute grace period may be necessary since all overstays (5 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 hours or n hours) are lumped within this one category.  So do we need the extra 10 minutes? Possibly, possibly not there is no evidence either way.

Despite the lack of evidence my personal opinion is that this proposal should probably be welcomed as a necessary injection of common sense into a sometimes inflexible system.  I have no doubt that certain drivers in future will be railing against the inflexibility of issuing a notice when they are 11 minutes late, but one has to draw the line somewhere.

There are no doubt concerns that local authorities will have, more so those who run an efficient operation with sensitivity to supply and demand.  In effect the 10 minute grace period is a price reduction, outside large cities this may not have much effect, but in large cities then there is potential for a clear impact on traffic management priorities, particularly in short stay car parks and meter parking.

As the regulations have yet to be published it is unknown whether the 10 minute grace period applies to on street parking, particularly short stay meter parking.  Take for instance in the City of London where parking is £4 per hour.  The 10 minute grace period means it will now be £4 per 70 minutes, or 5.7p per minute (currently 6.6p per minute).  In Islington the maximum is £6 per hour at the new rate that will be 8.6p per minute (currently 10p per minute).

Islington also offer stays as short as 5 minutes (40p), with these parking spaces allowing a 10 minute grace period is equivalent to offering a buy one get two free deal.  Surely the announcement won't apply to these transactions (here the price drop is from 8p per minute (current) to 2.6p per minute (new)).

In the time it has taken to write the blog the announcement has been published and it would seem that all pay and display and free parking bays are included, thus good luck Islington!

The question now for those authorities that do operate on a supply and demand service that is sensitive to pricing changes is whether they will seek to increase the initial cost to offset any potential traffic management issues as a result of this announcement.  For example will Islington increase its top price to £7 per hour to maintain the status quo (assuming that the relationship between pricing and demand is linear, which is by no means a safe assumption).

The announcement once again trots out the nonsense phrase 'war on motorists', if it is a war then clearly the motorists have been winning for quite some time.   Parking is never free the only question is who pays, with rhetoric that talks of the 'war on motorists' those who end up paying unfairly are those who do not have cars (the general tax payer).  In other words talk of a 'war on motorists' could easily be described as a 'subsidy for motorists' or 'a war on non motorists'.  As a motorist myself I enjoy this subsidy, but I do recognize it is a subsidy paid for by everyone.

With the growing influence of polluter pays principles in public environmental policy (and sentencing policy) and the stress on responsibilisation across great swathes of public policy one does wonder why motoring seems exempt from this.  Any exception to this rule really needs to have some basis in reality, at present there isn't the evidence to suggest a skirmish let alone a battle and certainly not a war on motorists.  Yes running a vehicle is expensive but so are many other activities that don't require (and don't receive) a subsidy.  I enjoy playing the piano and lessons are expensive, but I don't believe there is a war on pianists (we'd probably lose anyway because we have to look after our fingers!).

The above analogy may not be perfect but it does highlight one particular solution for some local authorities, withdraw from providing public car parks and let the private sector take over.  As a motorist I would not welcome such a move and as a citizen I do believe that provision of parking is a social service that authorities should provide, particularly to disabled drivers (which is why I think this decision by Stoke on Trent City Council is nasty and an egregious injustice to the more vulnerable members of society.  Perhaps this is an example of a local authority firing an opening volley on a certain section of motoring society, after all they do justify the charges on the basis of maximizing income).

In any event the move should be cautiously welcomed as a common sense reflection of the essentially minor nature of a parking transgression in the most minor circumstances. Although this may be a common sense solution we shouldn't think it won't have some negative consequences, what those are will no doubt play out over the coming months.

Day Fines, Speeding and Finland

Every so often, if one follows the criminal justice system, the current fines handed out to offenders will be subjected to critical attack.  How can it be fair, the statement will go, that footballers like Ashley Young can be fined £1350 for speeding which is such a small proportion of his income that it makes very little difference to his lifestyle.   

Well today I have come across the ultimate fine for speeding courtesy of the BBC:  A driver in Finland has been fined the equivalent of £39,000 for driving at 62 mph in a 50mph limit.  This represented 2 days income for the man in question.  Ashley Young is rumored to be on a broadly similar salary and yet the fine represented approximately 2.5 hours salary.

Is it time again to look at proportional earnings fines?  Probably not but no doubt this case could fuel some interesting questions in that regard.

Mobile Phones and Enforcement Retreat

According to reports out today we are in the midst of a retreat from road policing enforcement of mobile phone use behind the wheel, although some novel ideas (ironic font) are being used.  I leave aside the serious claim made by Suzette Davenport, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, that enforcement is being back peddled due to the upcoming election.  If true this a very serious accusation and one that shouldn't be ignored given the person making the accusation.

I wondered, being a curious type and someone who is interested in road policing, whether there is evidence of a regulatory retreat (for want of a better word).

I am used to hearing claims made about speeding enforcement of a retreat, or lowering of police / partnership interest in speeding enforcement.  Those claims are largely false based on incomplete data, since generally such claims fail to take into account the spectacular rise of Speed Awareness Courses, which are now the most common form of "punishment" for speeding motorists.  Overall speeding enforcement hasn't reduced if one factors speed awareness courses in.

Unfortunately there are no statistics on the number of driver awareness courses in respect of mobile phone use.  Certainly they are used but we have no data to understand the extent to which they are used.  Looking at fixed penalty and prosecution data we can see that such enforcement action is reducing.  

One can see from this chart that there has been a reduction in official actions in respect of mobile phone driving since 2010.  Unfortunately 2013 statistics have yet to be published on FPNs, quite why this is so is beyond me, we are now approaching the end of the 2014/15 financial year and are still waiting 2013 statistics!  Over the period 2009-2012 prosecutions ran at an average of 21.5% to FPNs, giving an estimated  number of FPNs of 91,395 (based on actual 19,650 prosecutions in 2013).  This gives a grand total of 111,045 a total reduction of 1270 or 1.23% reduction.   Hardly a great reduction on the previous year, although the reduction over the lifetime of this parliament appears to be a 30.6% reduction over all.

This reduction comes at a time of increasing use of mobile phones behind the wheel according to a DFT survey.  Sadly what we still don't know is what reduction in prosecutions and fixed penalty notices is accounted for by driver awareness courses.  Certainly it would be in the government's interest to collect and publish this data in order to counter the claims of the Chief Constable, without doing so it risks creating a perception that roads policing is not a priority, as evidenced by recent claims that the government were undermining road traffic policing.

Once this data is made available then we can begin to ask, and answer, some of the more interesting questions about the efficacy of such courses, and whether road policing really is a priority at present.  Come on the Home Office get your data published!

Drug Driving

A new law has come into effect that means police officers can now test for, and prosecute, drug diving offences.  ACPO have welcomed the developments  as all of us should really.

The sky news report inevitably raises the idea of zero tolerance, of which I have spoken before.  This got me thinking about one particular drug, cannabis.  If this policy is to be truly a zero tolerance policy, which I seriously doubt for most police force areas, then I have been thinking about the dangers of passive smoking.

Now many will already be thinking  'this doesn't apply to me' I'm a respectable person who doesn't know anyone who smokes cannabis, and perhaps for some this is true.  However, many of us though have been walking down the street and all of a sudden an 'interesting smell' (makes me think of very sweet garlic combined with basil, how middle class!) assaults our nostrils.  Perhaps it's a reflection of where I live, but it is not infrequent round my way.  (Indeed a small cannabis factory was closed by police just a few weeks back round the corner from me).

So I do wonder what effect walking past someone who is actively smoking a spliff (or whatever they are called nowadays) would have on my driving ability.  Would it put me over the drug driving limit? how long should I leave it before getting in my car?  (These are all equally valid questions for the drink driving issue when a zero limit is proposed, although obviously one can't passively ingest alcohol!). I have asked a couple of police twitter accounts and the DFT twitter account this morning but haven't received an answer (hardly surprising they probably get such requests daily) so I thought I would do a bit of looking.

There is evidence to suggest that zero tolerance should be adopted when considering the effect even small levels of cannabis can have on driving performance, although the new laws have not adopted this approach.

The regulations prohibit driving with a limit of 2 microgrammes per litre of blood for THC (Active ingredient in cannabis).  According to a study in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology in 1987 high cannabis use in enclosed environments can lead to high THC levels in urine of passive smokers, although as the authors point out it would be quite uncomfortable in such an environment given the level of pot that was likely to be swirling round the room.  With lower exposure (4 passive cigarettes) there was  infrequent positive testing and generally tests were neutral, make of that what one will (inconclusive I would say and unlucky for some in the current context).  Although it is worth pointing out that the subjects in the experiment were still in an un-ventilated room with the smoker

A study in 2011 examining the inhalation of passive cannabis smoke in dutch coffee shops showed that THC was present in saliva above the legal limit (proposed in the current law) in most participants at 40 minutes exposure.  It is worth pointing out in this study that two locations were used, a larger cafe with more smokers, and a smaller one with less smokers, both produced positive results, although it seems that the smaller the environment the higher the THC levels (with lesser active smokers).

A similar study in 2010  also found levels of THC about 2ng/ml (the drug driving legal limit) from passive cannabis inhalation in a dutch coffee shop at 3 hour exposure, although the authors accepted that the study did not note (unlike the 2011 one) how much cannabis was smoked by other users of the coffee shop.

So it would appear that it is possible to be above the legal limit from passive smoking of cannabis, however unless you are friends with some pretty heavy users it is unlikely you will fall foul of the legislation.  I for one am not too worried now about the funny smells in my neighbourhood giving a false positive.

So what have we learned from this?  Firstly the law is not, despite what policy makers may claim or newspapers report, zero tolerance, there is a tolerance of up-to 2 microgrammes per litre of blood.  You are unlikely to be over this level unless you have spent a bit of time in a Dutch coffee shop, caught an immediate flight home and then decided to drive from the airport (perhaps a taxi might be in order).  Alternatively if you know people who are heavy users then please for everyone's sake do not drive and do not let your friends drive.

Secondly I have also learnt that if you want the thrill of cannabis use without actually buying it yourself Dutch coffee shops seem a good place to visit!