Why not private companies to police roads?

[james01]

Controversial topic warning!
If we accept that road safety policing has become less effective, and will probably get even worse, why not employ "bounty hunters", a bit like private wheel-clamping companies?
1. If speed cameras were installed and operated by private companies who could then receive a commission on fines collected I reckon there would be an immediate and devastating effect on speeding drivers. The taxpayer would gain because fines, at least in the short term, would skyrocket (partly because so many of the cameras presently installed don't seem to be active).
2. The technology is available to identify instantly uninsured drivers; yet some estimates reckon that 1 in 10 drivers are uninsured in certain hotspots, and we know that the police do very little about it. Private companies could clamp and remove uninsured cars, these would be released after payment of a large fine plus proof of insurance being taken out. Unclaimed cars could be auctioned off/ crushed after a certain period, proceeds to taxpayer less a commission to the bounty hunter.
3. Texting/phoning at the wheel: private companies with sealed tamper-proof cameras would catch offenders red-handed (I've seen regular police walk straight past blatant offenders) with irrefutable timed evidence. Offenders would receive postal notification of the fine and endorsement.

All of the above would be subject to rigorous government regulation, and there would be a fair appeal system, but with severe penalties for time-wasting appeals where appellant is found clearly guilty.
None of the above should be necessary, but does anyone honestly think that current traffic policing is going to get any better?
Discuss.

[meic]

All of the above would be subject to rigorous government regulation, and there would be a fair appeal system, but with severe penalties for time-wasting appeals where appellant is found clearly guilty.

That sort of thing is easy to promise but impossible to deliver, there is the first problem.

I do agree that in theory it is a good idea but why should the income be sought by private companies for private profit instead of by the councils for the councils?

[axel_knutt]

I don't see the connection between the measures proposed and the need for private investment, if the measures are self-financing why does the public sector not have the resources? The obvious problem with private policing is that it increases inequality.

[Psamathe]

I would worry that Private Companies operate for profit. Either a commission payment or meeting targets for payments would mean they set their working practice to catch maximum offences with minimum staff/minimum costs. e.g. for speeding would it be better to catch a driver doing 25 in a 20 limit past a school or doing 75 on a open motorway - because a private company looking for high speeding tickets numbers with minimum effort would go to the motorway and ignore the occasional 25mph driver part a primary school at school run time ...

I'd be hoping the Police would target situations to give the best safety impacts NOT the most profitable returns.

Ian

[pete75]

Personally I don't think any law enforcement should be carried out to provide gain for the business enforcing the law. You only need to look at private parking enforcement to see why it's not a good idea. For example http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/car-p ... story.html The sort of company employed to run the system would be one like Serco or G4S both of which have been less than honest on public sector contracts like tagging and prisoner transport in the past . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25448944 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26541375 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 88614.html

The idea of punitive costs for unsuccessful appeals stinks. Say someone is charged a fixed penalty of £75 for an alleged misdemeanor which they know they didn't commit. They have to balance paying up a relatively small sum against the time, cost and stress of an appeal and a having to pay a punitive amount if it fails - and remember the odds will be stacked in favour of the state and the large, wealthy company it employs to run the system.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it - an appeal system so you can say things are fair and strong measures to deter people from using it.

[thirdcrank]

Private wheel-clamping is hardly a good example of something that worked, at least to the extent that the practice was outlawed by s 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. IMO, a much better example would be the enforcement of the TV licensing legislation: the BBC's company police are empowered to enforce what are essentially civil debts through the criminal justice system. AFAIK, something like 10% of the cases heard by magistrates' courts are related to not having a TV licence. One strange aspect of this is that the only influential voices raised against this are those of other media interests who don't like the BBC getting all that dosh. I suspect that there are a lot of people who would in other circumstances be protesting, who are directly or indirectly dependent on the BBC.

Quite a substantial part of the cost of enforcing road traffic offences is the training of the enforcers: the less serious the offence, the greater the rembered knowledge required. By that I mean if it's something really serious it's largely a matter of getting them back to the nick and then looking at the finer points. (To avoid any red herrings, that's an obvious simplification.) Issuing a fixed penalty notice requires immediate knowlege of all the points to prove before starting writing. (Anybody who doubts this need only look at the legislation for, say pedestrian crossings and then appreciate that every little phrase is a "point to prove.") In addition to the formal training there's the experience of things like court procedure.

An example of some apparently simple non-police enforcement which failed, at least initially, was the fines for putting the wrong stuff in a bin. What could be simpler than looking in a bin to see what had been put in it? An early prosecution failed because there was no evidence that the householder had put the stuff in the bin.

These proposals wouldn't need any new appeals process because courts are suspicious of witnesses who may have a finacial interest in the outcome.

Historically, I think the main reason bounty hunters have not been seen as a a viable method is that the close connection of prosecution and profit means their evidence is unreliable. With privatised parking enforcement, there have been allegations of wrongly-issued tickets to improve bonuses. (Again to avoid red herrings, I'm not suggesting that the police are beyond reproach, but if somebody's not on performance-related bonus, it's hard to attack their evidence on those grounds, although some try.)

I could see room for something in item 2 - uninsured vehicles. With increasing frequency, we hear reports of the substantial cost of uninsured drivers. I'm surprised that the way this is worked out is never clearly spelled out so I fancy a lot of drivers assume it's just more statistical spin. I presume the figure is the annual payout by the Motor Insurers' Bureau under the uninsured and untraced drivers' agreements. Basically, the insurance companies meet these claims and recoup the cost through premiums. Put another way the mugs who buy motor insurance pay into a pool for the wide guys who don't. If policy quotes contained something like "£72-50 of this is the cost of paying the compensation incurred by uninsured drivers," minds would soon be concentrated.

AFAIK, the Motor Insurers' Bureau was set up as part of the deal when third party motor insurance was made compulsory: something in return for all that guaranteed business. Perhaps there's some mileage in the MIB being given a duty along with some robust powers to get rid of uninsured vehicles. It's only an idea triggered by this thread so there may be some obvious pitfalls but I can't think of anybody who would suffer, other than uninsured drivers and they have no lobby. Road users of every type would be better-served and if it wasn't self-financing, I'd prefer a part of my premium going to this and less going to defraying the cost of uninsured drivers.

[BakfietsUK]

I think the idea discards the philosophy that the Police ARE responsible for enforcement and seems to assume the Police are not committed to road traffic law enforcement. The traffic Police seem to have been reduced with Government cuts, but it does not mean that the Police have no interest in enforcement. It must be deeply frustrating to be a Road Police Officer nowadays. I think the real issue is the funding and if the Government is not willing to finance the Police fully then maybe there are ways private industry can account for the shortfall.

In the climate of what some would call needless austerity, the insurance companies may have an appetite to underwrite the detection of road traffic crime. Maybe they could be encouraged to sponsor measures to assist the Police in their work with the objective of reducing incidents and saving on pay outs. I think direct sponsorship of the Police may be unconstitutional, but insurance companies could extend the use of in car measures some have been using to monitor drivers. In short, every vehicle has a data recorder which would be examined after every collision. This could be a means of detection and a deterrent.

This is ok if drivers insure themselves in the first place, but it won't help with those who break the law by not having insurance. So the issue is then how to ensure drivers insure. If there is an objective to reduce further the number of uninsured drivers then more co-ordination between agencies would be desirable. The relationship between tax, MOT, DVLA and insurance could be more solidly applied. Having said that, it seems the Police have many more powers to remove uninsured drivers than before. However, I am sure they would like to do more.

Software licensing, gives me an idea to this objective. What if every time you put your key in the ignition, the car communicated with all the necessary agencies and gave a virtual license to operate the vehicle. If the necessary authority was not available on a database then the car would not start. Tampering with the device would need to be made detectable and if well thought out this information could be available to the Police at the roadside. The Police would then seize the car under their existing powers. This could be linked to a sat-nav possibly and a data recorder. The insurance companies could contribute to costs as it would be in their interests to maximise their potential customer base.

[Flinders]

It was mentioned in another thread that when the police pull someone over for a traffic offence, they not infrequently find other matters of concern, sometimes very serious ones, which they are trained as police officers to spot (drugs, involvement with other serious crimes, etc.). Sometimes this has even led to violence against the police officers.
I doubt any private company would be able to deal with all that, they certainly won't be trained to.

Incidentally, private provision in prisons has been a disaster, as has private transport for prisoners. I can't see road policing being anything but much worse.

[pete75]

Software licensing, gives me an idea to this objective. What if every time you put your key in the ignition, the car communicated with all the necessary agencies and gave a virtual license to operate the vehicle. If the necessary authority was not available on a database then the car would not start.

This would only be possible using the mobile phone network for the communications. Assuming you have a cas you'd soon start complaining if you stopped in an area with no coverage and then couldn't restart it. What's your solution - have it towed to somewhere there is coverage perhaps?

[Vorpal]

Any prosecutions (including FPNs and equivalents) that result in profit for someone is a system created for abuse.

In the US, many local governments began using traffic tickets as a mean to pay for policing (and sometimes other things). This has resulted in:
-no incentive to improve the roads environment (they need bad driving to meet targets, make money for the city, etc.)
-a cycle of repeated and minor offences that disproportionately affects poor and minority citizens
-a effective 'tax' that doesn't require approval by anyone democratically elected

[Annoying Twit]

This would only be possible using the mobile phone network for the communications. Assuming you have a cas you'd soon start complaining if you stopped in an area with no coverage and then couldn't restart it. What's your solution - have it towed to somewhere there is coverage perhaps?

It's not very hard to come up with a solution to that. If the car can't confirm the licence status within a short time, then it allows the driver to drive. When communications become possible again, if the driver shouldn't have been allowed to drive then authorities are notified including being able to track the car.

I wonder how long it is before it's required for cars to communicate digitally, including reporting illegal speeds.

[thirdcrank]

I felt rather please with my suggestion that the MIB should be given more responsibility for dealing with uninsured motor vehicles and I'm a bit disappointed it didn't seem to interest anybody.

I've made another unsuccessful search for the typical total annual payout of the MIB, which would broadly quantify the problem. While doing that, I came across estimates of the number of people annually convicted of no insurance = approx half a million and the extra annual cost on the typical motor insurance premium as £33.

It's not surprising, then that the MIB is already active in this connection. Here's their page about what they are doing.

https://www.mib.org.uk/reducing-uninsur ... hat-we-do/

Working in partnership with insurers, Police and DVLA, the level of uninsured driving has dropped by some 50% in the last 10 years. This has economic and social benefits - the honest motorist carries less of the cost burden through motor premiums and our roads are safer.

— Ashton West, Chief Executive at MIB

They are already on the case! Whether the cup is half full or half empty, there is still the other 50% to sort out, who will typically be the harder cases. As far as I can see, what they are currently doing is helping the police with their inquiries. To the extent that the police may no longer be making enquiries in the first place, that may not be the most effective approach. When the police enforce this, seizing the vehicle is a side effect, a by product of a criminal charge which will have to be proved to the criminal standard. In the meantime, the police are stuck messing about with a car, probably a banger and a PITA rigmarole. - a real disincentive to do anything, especially as traffic policing is hardly a priority. This is just to seize a vehicle:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... ction/165B
I'm not suggesting that the police should stop dealing with this completely, just that there should be a shift of emphasis, so that the MIB takes a lead role. There will be cases where the insurance status of a vehicle or its driver will be disputed but the MIB would be in far a better position to resolve this than anybody. It would mean putting more of an onus on the driver to show they were insured but so what? Since disqualified drivers cannot obtain insurance, it might detect a few of them also.

One of the other problems with the criminal justice system is that the penalty imposed for using a vehicle without insurance is typically so low as to make it cheaper than buying insurance. It's a similar effect to the exceptional hardship rules. Driver who can't afford the cost of driving cuts corners including not bothering with insurance. If convicted, their low income etc = mitigated fine.

http://www.octagoninsurance.com/guide/t ... -motorist/

[pete75]

This would only be possible using the mobile phone network for the communications. Assuming you have a cas you'd soon start complaining if you stopped in an area with no coverage and then couldn't restart it. What's your solution - have it towed to somewhere there is coverage perhaps?

It's not very hard to come up with a solution to that. If the car can't confirm the licence status within a short time, then it allows the driver to drive. When communications become possible again, if the driver shouldn't have been allowed to drive then authorities are notified including being able to track the car.

I wonder how long it is before it's required for cars to communicate digitally, including reporting illegal speeds.

So whoever wants to avoid the system puts a shield around the transmitting antennae meaning it can never communicate. That's the crude solution. Of course hackers would come up with a way to spoof the system on the first day it's implemented if not before.
I doubt it'd be politically acceptable either, the idea of the authorities tracking all people's vehicle movements which would likely be a prerequisite of such a system.

[Psamathe]

... the insurance companies may have an appetite to underwrite the detection of road traffic crime. Maybe they could be encouraged to sponsor measures to assist the Police in their work with the objective of reducing incidents and saving on pay outs. I think direct sponsorship of the Police may be unconstitutional, but insurance companies could extend the use of in car measures some have been using to monitor drivers. In short, every vehicle has a data recorder which would be examined after every collision. This could be a means of detection and a deterrent....

But we pay the insurance companies, they will always make a profit so in effect the insurance companies paying for enforcement means we (those buying insurance) will effectively be paying for enforcement (in addition to our taxes which are meant to be paying for enforcement).

It would in effect be turning insurance in part into another form of tax. And I'm sure there would be interesting and very debatable effects where in effect those paying highest insurance are also making most contribution to enforcement, those living in higher risk areas making higher contribution to enforcement, etc.

Ian

[mercalia]

havent we all heard about the traffics wardens who have targets to reach? The moment profit comes into it, that will follow and road users wil be clobbered