Martyn Harriss looks at what we can do to simplify the type approval of enforcement equipment in Europe. I doubt that there are many who can remember the days when policemen hid in the bushes with stopwatches and flags to catch speeding motorists - and I'd suggest that back then there were few who were caught who would have dared question the accuracy of those watches or those who operated them. Probably, fewer still here in Europe could have dreamt that a supranational body such as the European Union (EU)
Some type approval processes would almost seem to have been designed to guarantee obsolescence and the situation needs to change, says Harriss.
Martyn Harriss looks at what we can do to simplify the type approval of enforcement equipment in Europe.
I doubt that there are many who can remember the days when policemen hid in the bushes with stopwatches and flags to catch speeding motorists - and I'd suggest that back then there were few who were caught who would have dared question the accuracy of those watches or those who operated them. Probably, fewer still here in Europe could have dreamt that a supranational body such as the European Union (EU) could come to influence so radically the daily workings of Member States' national policing organisations.Things have moved on and there is now a huge range (of which speed cameras are just a part) of automated systems available for traffic law enforcement purposes. But modern motorists are a sceptical bunch. They expect the equipment used to have been tested extensively and even then they remain eager to dispute its accuracy or the way in which it has been used.
Lisbon - the effects
On a higher level, however, the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon has the potential to fundamentally change, perhaps for good, the way in which laws are passed in Europe.The mainstream media have whipped themselves into a collective frenzy over ratification. Alongside the debate over who would be the 'President of Europe' there is concern over the loss of national vetoes on all manner of legal and other processes. These are fundamental questions and the subsequent fall-out of ratification will keep political commentators busy for months, if not years, to come. The logical (perhaps slightly cynical) view is that the European juggernaut will in time inflict its will upon the members of the Union. But why are we in the transport and ITS industry so interested? Compared with the answers to the other questions that's easy: one of the key aims of the Lisbon Treaty is to deliver a unification of national transport strategies right across the EU Member States, meaning that authorities will have to effectively implement transport policies, including how we treat and deal with drivers, in the same manner across the Eurozone. The Treaty will also ensure that, broadly, we will have to use the same technologies approved to the same standard to enforce standardised rules.
Type approvals So if we are to treat drivers the same and use the same standard of equipment, what sort of approvals process should be adopted to ensure that the equipment does what it is supposed to? Currently, across Europe there is a wide variety of approvals or standards set by the various authorities. Equipment manufacturers have to conform to these before they can supply their goods for use on individual states' roads. Indeed, the laws of each country place different requirements upon their law enforcement agencies. For example, in several countries in Continental Europe speed enforcement is performed using devices that produce a single black-and-white image of an offence. In the UK, by contrast, at least two images are taken, normally in colour, and there are secondary checks performed to ensure that the type-approved device was working correctly for each individual case. Whether a particular system or legal procedure is right, wrong or more effective is open to debate but as the various European partners become ever-closer, and we approach a possible situation whereby offences are detected in one country and the administrative task of collecting the penalty fines generated is carried out in another, might now be a good time to take a good look at the way in which we approve and ultimately use our equipment?
Testing facilities
There are a number of testing organisations across Europe which have enviable reputations for testing and verifying that equipment does what the manufacturers say that it does and that it is safe to use.In the UK, the Home Office is well-regarded as the upholder of systems' integrity. Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) carries a lot of cachet internationally; once a system achieves it, that system's manufacturer has the backing of something of a 'Gold Standard' which can be used worldwide (although some countries may still require further testing). That would seem to make HOTA a must-have item, however there are manufacturers who have become reluctant to put their equipment through the testing process due to the time it takes and the red tape involved.
The process in the UK is quite involved. Firstly the manufacturer writes an application letter to the secretary of the
If it has been successful thus far, it is then arranged for the company to demonstrate the equipment to the ACPO RPET Committee, which meets three times a year. At this meeting it is usual for the manufacturer to give a presentation and produce its product for the committee to view. The RPET Committee then decides whether UK police forces would want the product made available to them for enforcement purposes. If agreeable, the manufacturer is advised that it is accepted into the process and notified that it is to install two or three sets of equipment in different geographic locations for testing by different police forces. That testing happens after the HOSDB has undertaken laboratory and, usually, track testing and satisfied itself that the equipment is safe to use. The selected police forces then test the equipment and report back to the ACPO RPET Committee and, if successful, the Committee then recommends that the device is awarded the coveted HOTA status.
Slow and costly
This process can take up to two years to complete from the date of application, which in these days of rapid progress in technology virtually guarantees that the product is out of date before it is used on the street.Then there are the associated costs to factor into the equation: the manufacturing company's research and development costs, combined with the capital outlay for installation, maintenance and track testing; and the costs borne by the testing police forces (which cannot reclaim their manpower, vehicle and equipment expenses). In these days of cost cutting and budget restraints it is not surprising that some companies will think twice before committing themselves to the expensive and time-consuming process of HOTA. I would not be surprised if there were some companies that consider walking away from the process and decide to sell their products in countries that have less red tape to comply with.
Time to reconsider
So is it now time to consider taking a new look at the type approval systems employed by the nations of the Euro-zone? Will the European Commission, strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty, consider recommending a standardised approach? If so, how will they achieve it? In the UK, we have already seen some local authorities introduce equipment to deal with civil enforcement offences. The equipment used does not have to be type-approved by the Home Office but must have satisfied the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) and have been awarded an accreditation certificate.I think that employing a testing system which would enhance existing rules and maintain the integrity of equipment used for enforcement would be a good place to start. We could not allow a system to be introduced that would encourage those caught for potentially serious offences to have the option of getting away with it because of substandard equipment or because testing wasn't carried out properly.
The UK police officer giving evidence today has the luxury of informing the court that the device was "approved for such use by the Secretary of State for the Home Office". That statement is enough for the court to consider that the equipment used is absolutely to be relied upon. The various authorities across Europe must be able to convince their respective legal systems that this is also the case and any new testing regime must be able to live up to that reputation.
Any new test regime would also have to satisfy the current stakeholders, such as (in the UK) the Home Office and ACPO. This would mean that those stakeholders would of necessity have to remain somewhere in the loop. They would probably be the gatekeeper for any new scheme, with companies producing a piece of equipment having to submit their goods to at least two independent test houses which would carry out appropriate tests to ensure that the kit was safe to use and up to the job that it was built for.
Test houses would then report back to the relevant home authority, which would then inspect the results and either accept the device onto its books or order further tests.
This would result in a system very much the same as the UK's existing one, except that the police forces would not incur costs for testing. The producing company would bear the costs incurred for using the test houses and in return they would have a system that would allow them access to the broader European market place much quicker. I would anticipate that a testing procedure such as this would take six months to complete from start to finish. The host home authority would then circulate the test house data to its partners around Europe, who would then have the opportunity of inspecting it and then allowing the equipment to be used in their countries.
It's a far-fetched proposition, in some respects. I cannot imagine that one country's approvals authority could easily accept the data produced by another, independent testing organisation - no matter how well-respected that partner organisation might be. However, the enforcement equipment used across Europe (and, indeed, around the world) uses broadly similar technology and the same scientific formulae. We must maintain standards but equally we shouldn't act to deter and disadvantage those who create innovative technology for use by our law enforcement agencies.
What we in Europe do need to do now is work together to establish a new standard of cooperation, backed up by highly respected testing. Could we possibly see a new approvals scheme introduced, overseen by a European Commissioner, which would be responsible for approval standards across state borders? We could see some serious and negative safety and economic effects if we don't.
The author is a Director of Advanced Camera Systems Ltd. He is a former police officer, member of ACPO RPET and Operations Manager of the London Safety Camera Partnership.
