How can digital evidence submissions from the public be used more effectively to reduce road offending and improve road safety?

Organisation
Keele University
& Lincolnshire Police

Amount awarded
£148,506

Completed
2024

Uploaded to Knowledge Centre
25 April 2024

This is the final report from the The Road Safety Trust funded ‘journey cam’ project, conducted by Keele University in partnership with Lincolnshire Police and the National Road Crime Reporting Working Group.

The project’s aims were as follows:

  • Mapping current delivery in UK forces to establish: the volume and type of submissions; the range of processes; the challenges and opportunities facing this new area of business.
  • Filling a critical gap in understanding of the public engagement with the approach, including vulnerable road users.
  • Engaging with those receiving an outcome, seeking to understand their experiences and perceptions of the legitimacy of the approach to maximise its deterrent effects.
  • Contributing to understanding the current and future policing landscape, its challenges and opportunities, to produce recommendations for sustainable future delivery.

The research took an inclusive view of technologies in this context, including head cams, helmet
cams, handlebar cams, body cams and mobile phones with recording capabilities, referring to
‘journey cams’ to include all forms of reporting.

A mixed-methods approach was taken, involving interviews, a national survey, visits to and
observations in forces, test footage submissions, and a media and communications review.

The research found that all except one UK force now offers some kind of bespoke reporting system, but that there are significant inconsistencies including in relation to: the ‘shopfront’ and submission
process; what is required from submitters; the initial feedback; the communication of outcomes; the
use of different types of disposal.

Data from the police surveys indicates a high percentage of submissions from cyclists, including ‘close
passes’. Therefore referring to these developments by the shorthand ‘dash cam’ is inaccurate and risks
misrepresenting the end user population and its needs.

Meanwhile, forces report a wide variation in the use of different disposal options with differing use of warning letters and education courses, for example. Some forces report much higher percentages of ‘No Further Action’ decisions than others.

Interviews with police participants reveal a generally positive view of the approach, a perception that
it has road safety benefits, and that demand is going to continue to grow.

From the road-user perspective, submitters reported a range of motivations for owning and using dash cams and helmet cams, including: a perception that the roads had become more dangerous; the absence of police officers from the roads; specific incidents in which they had been involved; the need to prove liability in the event of an incident; the need to capture everyday experiences of endangerment; a general sense of civic duty/desire to improve road safety.

Submitters were keen to distance themselves from any notion of ‘vigilantism’ or any suggestion that
they were deliberately setting out to ‘catch’ other road users.

A series of short reports have been produced which explore some key areas in more detail.

Further materials have also been produced to assist UK policing in delivering journey cam processes
that will represent best practice.

Click here to read the full report:
https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/funded-projects/lincolnshire-police