Reports:

Permitting 44 tonne lorries for general use in the UK: Final report

5. Enforcement

5.1. CfIT made a number of recommendations on improving enforcement activity. Better enforcement was a key component of the sustainable distribution package put forward as part of CfIT's recommendation to introduce 44 tonne lorries. During consultation a number of organisations considered that the level of enforcement activity was inadequate and this contributed to the argument that the road haulage industry does not pay its full environmental costs. In summary, CfIT's recommendations referred to providing increased enforcement activity and regulations, and resources to support this work.

5.2. CfIT's objective for better enforcement is to re-balance the playing field, which has tilted in favour of the haulier. As set out below, CFIT believes there is a useful package of measures which the Government should consider to ensure this happens.

Inspection activity / roadside checks

5.3. Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) data shows that:

• 15% of HGVs on the road have a defect which risks causing injury
• 3.3% of HGVs on the road could involve a serious tachograph or drivers' hours offence.

5.4. The scale of the potential problem contrasts with the level of enforcement activity undertaken. To put these values in perspective, there are over 420,000 HGVs registered in Great Britain. Around one-third of HGVs (excluding foreign vehicles) are examined each year.

5.5. However, these vehicles together probably undertake over 100 million trips per annum, and the inspection only provides a "snapshot" of vehicle condition on a particular day. To this should be added the million foreign vehicles which entered the UK last year, noting that the number of foreign vehicles examined is no longer one of VI's performance measures. On this basis, the level of enforcement activity is minuscule by comparison, accounting for less than 0.1% of total vehicle trips undertaken in Britain.

5.6. Government and VI recognise the need to expand enforcement activity and the intelligence gathering, which supports it. There was an additional £6m over 3 years for enforcement announced by the Chancellor in 2000 and the new measures to impound illegally operated HGVs are to be welcomed. However, recent Government statements on raising enforcement activity and the current VI Business Plan proposals do not suggest the significant increase in activity and resourcing required or properly address the scale of the problems identified above.

5.7. In view of the scale of HGV activity to be policed (approaching half a million HGV trips per day), two types of measure are needed:

• Firstly, to prevent dangerous or illegally operated vehicles from entering the road network in the first place. This could be achieved by a combination of site-based checks (i.e. self-certification) and "gateway" checks (i.e. at ports).
• Secondly, to provide "24/7" monitoring of all HGVs along key routes, using telemetric solutions linked to vehicle databases, as proposed in part by VI and the Traffic Area Network's TAN21 project, which will ensure better targeting of non-compliant operators.

5.8. The Government should significantly increase enforcement activity and resources, particularly in relation to inspection activity and roadside checks.

Checks at ports

5.9. The current enforcement regime places unfair competition on UK hauliers. It is not perceived as even-handed as foreign vehicles are not subject to the same checks. For example, overweight foreign vehicles have little chance of detection and can have a great impact on road and bridge wear. Such vehicles do not pay towards the cost of maintaining the road infrastructure, unlike UK hauliers.

5.10. Therefore, there should be increased enforcement checks at ports, particularly to capture foreign drivers attempting to enter the UK with potential overloading, vehicle or drivers' hours offences. To date, administration of such checks has largely been a matter for the respective port authorities (including Eurotunnel). Some ports are reported to have sought to discourage such activities, either for fear that operators will use other ports with less stringent checks, and/or through concerns that checking vehicles will slow down the flow of vehicles through the port, leading to congestion and greater space requirements.

5.11. Nevertheless, such checks would help prevent illegal or badly maintained vehicles from gaining access to the UK road network. Sufficient precedents exist with Passport and Customs activities to enable enforcement checks to be included. In particular, the Channel Tunnel operations, where a degree of UK Customs, Immigration and Police activities can take place at the French terminal, could be usefully replicated for some or all of the main continental ports, to help keep unsuitable vehicles from gaining entry to the UK in the first place. Government has recently announced greater enforcement checks will be undertaken at ports.

5.12. In view of the significant and growing level of foreign vehicles entering the UK each year, and the relatively small amount of foreign vehicles examined by VI, the Government should increase in port-related enforcement activity. Subject to a cost-benefit analysis, CfIT believe stepping up port enforcement with increased manpower would help ensure that vehicles entering the UK road network are legally operated and would ensure a more even-handed enforcement regime.

Traffic Area Network (TAN21)

5.13. The Traffic Area Network (TAN) is responsible for licensing operators of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and public service vehicles (PSVs), such as buses and coaches, as well as for the registration of local bus services. It also takes disciplinary action against drivers of HGVs and PSVs where necessary. Its TAN21 project will enable it:

• To improve its services to operators.
• To increase co-operation with other enforcement agencies.
• To target enforcement activities more efficiently.

5.14. The result will be better targeting of non compliant operators and an easier to use, more efficient service to the road transport industry.

5.15. Measures such as TAN 21 would help address a need for improved co-ordination of data between local authorities, police, DVLA and VI. It was intended that the TAN 21 Programme would be completed by 1 April 2001, but this date has not been met and the completion date remains unclear at present. There should be an early completion of the TAN 2I programme.

Telematics

5.16. Given the vast volumes of traffic generated each day on the UK road network, the use of an automated enforcement measure with sufficiently large national coverage would be welcome. Particularly if it has the potential to provide an effective means of providing round the clock capture of offending vehicles, and providing a physical roadside presence to act as a deterrent. Such a system would need to be cost-effective and offer a payback in terms of safety.

5.17. For a range of enforcement activities, various "off the shelf" technologies are available which, combined with the current TAN21 investment, could enable automatic enforcement systems to be set up as with the speed camera network. Typical "network" applications could include:

• Roadside / carriageway sensors check axle weights, passing speed and emissions to determine potential offending vehicles
• Intelligent cameras (such as those used by TrafficMaster network, pictured left) automatically capture vehicle registration number (and picture of vehicle if required), transmitting data to central database
• Data processing compares results from the camera network to:
• Identify speeding vehicles (based on passing speeds and/or time between cameras)
• Track offending vehicles to enable police interception if necessary
• Automatically detect vehicles operating illegally - DVLA will be using roadside cameras to detect VED offences, whilst VI is exploring use of cameras to detect other offences, for example, drivers' hours, no operators' licence, etc. VI have already trialled these cameras to detect HGVs used on the road without a current test certificate, the results of which were reported to be "very promising".

5.18. Government should explore with vigour the use of telematics to significantly increase enforcement activity. A programme of technology based enforcement should be developed that is cost-effective and offers payback in terms of safety.

Prohibited routes

5.19. CfIT's previous report noted the problems of enforcing HGV route prohibitions. It suggested means of improving the situation, through more involvement from Traffic Commissioners, and regulations placing duty on drivers to provide evidence if required as to the legitimacy of a route. The Government has not acted on this.

5.20. The Government should amend regulations accordingly and improve enforcement procedures to clamp down on goods vehicles transversing prohibited routes without authority.

Resources and revenue hypothecation

5.21. The scale of the enforcement problem contrast starkly with the relatively small level of enforcement activity currently undertaken. This also applies to resources. For example, VI propose to increase the number of VI inspectors by 40 and to provide 7 roller brake testers nation-wide. Government announced in July 2001 that an extra £3 million (3% of total annual funding) would be made available to the Vehicle Inspectorate for increased enforcement activity.

5.22. From a national perspective, where a fraction of annual HGV trips is likely to be subjected to testing, these increases in resources are an order or magnitude below that required.

5.23. To provide round-the-clock, nationwide HGV enforcement requires more automated systems, such as used for speed enforcement.

5.24. Hypothecation of revenue from fines should be introduced. The money could support greater use of such automated systems, to produce a self-sustaining system.

5.25. The current VI enforcement activities generate around 17,000 convictions each year, with an average fine in each case of £163 (about £2.8m per year). This figure seems very low against a "reasonableness" test, given the impact on road safety (a fatal road traffic accident has been estimated to "cost" around £1.5 million) and the need for a strong deterrent. On a purely administrative basis, such a low level of average fine cannot possibly cover the costs of capturing, processing and prosecuting offending operators / drivers.

5.26. There are three potential options to consider for improved funding:

• Increase the average level of fine
• Increase the level of enforcement activity
• Increase both the level of fines and enforcement activity

5.27. Hypothecation should be introduced together with a significant increase in fines for enforcement offences, both to increase the deterrent factor and to support investment in enforcement activities.

5.28. When viewed against the sheer scale of domestic and foreign HGV operations in the UK, the corresponding level of enforcement activity and resourcing is significantly below that required to catch the bulk of the offending vehicles and act as a suitable deterrent to others. Given the scale of the problem, and the positive impact of improved enforcement on road safety, raising industry standards and further levelling the playing field between road and rail, there are a number of measures to be considered.

5.29. CfIT does not believe there is sufficient enforcement activity or resources and that its original recommendation has not been met. Therefore, we recommend that the Government significantly increases resources to allow more enforcement.

In particular we recommend the following specific measures

• Increased enforcement and resources for inspection activity/roadside checks.
• An increase in port-related enforcement activity in view of the growing level of foreign vehicles entering the UK and the small amount examined by the VI.
• An early completion of the TAN 2I programme.
• Government should explore with vigour the use of telematics to significantly increase enforcement activity. A programme of technology based enforcement should be developed that is cost-effective and offers payback in terms of safety.
• Immediate action on prohibited routes to amend regulations to place a duty on drivers to provide evidence if required as to the legitimacy of a route. Improved enforcement procedures to clamp down on goods vehicles transversing prohibited routes without authority.
• Hypothecation should be introduced together with a significant increase in fines for enforcement offences, both to increase the deterrent factor and to support investment in enforcement activities.

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]