Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) regarding how he was delivering against his Road Safety Priority in the Police and Crime Plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

In presenting the report it was explained that the two graphs at paragraph 43 of the report were incorrect, and the correct versions had been circulated at the start of the meeting. A copy of the amended graphs is filed with these minutes. It was explained that the first graph showed the total casualties in LLR and the second graph related to the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           Leicestershire Police in conjunction with partners undertook a number of road safety initiatives to encourage safe road use. These were split into school-based interventions and road use interventions.

(ii)         The PCC had launched the Community Action Programme in August 2025 which was intended to advise community organisations regarding what actions they could take with regards to crime and community safety. The Programme would help target different areas of the Police and Crime Plan and for a while would focus on Road Safety before moving onto other areas of the Plan.

(iii)        Members raised concerns regarding the difficulties in getting speed limits on particular roads reduced and the length of the process. There was a lack of understanding amongst parish councils about how the process worked and what evidence was required to get a limit lowered. In response the PCC acknowledged the difficulties that parish councils were having and advised that Parish Councils should contact the Road Safety Partnership for advice in the first instance. The PCC also asked that Police and Crime Panel members pass onto the OPCC any parish council queries relating to speeding so they could be covered by the Community Action Programme. It was explained that some of the guidelines relating to speed limits were set nationally and therefore there were restrictions on how much speed limits could be amended locally. It was requested that further guidance on the process be provided to members after the meeting. It was suggested that Highways officers at the relevant local authorities could be invited to a future meeting to help the Panel scrutinise the PCC on road safety issues. The Chairman agreed to consider this after the meeting.

(iv)       E-scooters were an issue regularly raised by the public at the community days attended by the PCC. The PCC had requested a conversation with the Chief Constable on the Force’s activity to crack down on the illegal use of E-Scooters and E-Bikes to ensure that activity was reducing. Both the PCC and Panel members agreed that further regulation was required from central government regarding E-scooters and E-bikes. ‘Operation Pedalfast’ was the name given by Leicestershire Police to their activity to target E-scooters and E-bikes. Tackling the use of E-bikes was resource intensive and required specific strategies. Over time Leicestershire Police had become more adept at running these operations and learnt from experience. The locations for Operation Pedalfast were chosen based on where the Police would have the ability to prevent offenders from escaping. A member welcomed the reduction in the use of E-bikes in the Harborough area.

(v)         A member raised concerns that parents were bringing E-bikes to schools and therefore schools were at risk of litigation as a result. It was suggested that there needed to be education programmes at schools regarding E-vehicles particularly in relation to safety and wearing bright clothing whilst on the vehicles.

(vi)       The OPCC was carrying out a research project regarding the main causes of road collisions known as the Fatal 4 – speeding, driving under the influence of drink or drugs, distractions (like mobile phones) and not wearing a seatbelt. When the research project was completed, a report would be put together with the findings.

(vii)      As part of the capital programme, a provision for the rolling out of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) had been included by the PCC. The technology would be used by the Force, sometimes in static locations and sometimes mounted within Police vehicles, to catch vehicles being driven without insurance or MOT. A member queried whether the ANPR in Police vehicles should be paid for out of Leicestershire Police capital funding rather than OPCC capital. A member also raised concerns about the amount of data sharing between different organisations that would be required.

(viii)    An OPCC arranged residents meeting had taken place in Castle Donnington on 4 September 2025 where the issue of ‘car cruising’ had been discussed and particularly high speeds on the local roads. It had been found that some of the people involved in the car cruising were not from the local area and had come from far away to take part. Efforts by the Police to tackle the problem in Castle Donington did have an impact in the short term but the problem kept coming back. The PCC offered to write to Cllr. A. Woodman with more details about what was discussed at the meeting.

(ix)       Members raised concerns that district councils were not aware of some of the road safety initiatives taking place in their districts, and if they were aware they could offer assistance.

(x)         Data showed that the number of people killed and seriously injured due to road accidents was falling. The Commissioner wanted to see partners across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland work together towards a ‘Vision Zero’ aim, as other areas had adopted. The PCC suggested that this should be led by the Road Safety Partnership, but the PCC was willing to engage with the Road Safety Partnership on this and attend Partnership meetings.

(xi)       The PCC funded the Pathfinder project, a one week driving course which was aimed at Young Drivers aged 15-17 and their guardians. A member raised concerns that taking part in the project required the guardian to take the time off work and let the young person have use of their car. In response the PCC submitted that these were the right types of people that should be undertaking the course. In response to a question about the impact of the course and whether behavioural change occurred as a result, it was explained that participation was monitored and an evaluation would be undertaken by the commissioning team at the OPCC.

RESOLVED:

That the update regarding the Road Safety Priority be noted.