Cover Page

Research Report

Autoglass - Motorist Safety Report Prepared for: Bright Consultancy

Autoglass - Motorist Safety Report

Prepared for: Bright Consultancy

Prepared by: BMG Research

December 2009

Produced by BMG Research

© Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, 2009

www.bmgresearch.co.uk

Project:

Registered in England No. 2841970

Registered office:

7 Holt Court North Heneage Street West Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX UK

Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006

UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626

Market Research Society Company Partner

ESOMAR Member (The World Association of Research Professionals)

British Quality Foundation Member

Market Research Quality Standards Association (British Standards Institute) BS7911 for Market Research - Certificate No. FS76713

Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614

Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company

Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z5081943

Autoglass - Motorist Safety Report

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2

2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 3

3 Definition and Charges .................................................................................................... 5

4 How Big is the Problem? ................................................................................................. 7

5 Is it getting worse or not? ............................................................................................... 10

6 Who are causing the problem and why do they do it? ................................................... 18

7 The Hotspots ................................................................................................................. 20

8 Police Responses to the issue ....................................................................................... 23

9 Agency Responses to the Issue .................................................................................... 27

10 Pulling it together - what could be done to stop the problem? ................................... 31

11 Appendix 1 - Online Survey Questionnaire ................................................................ 34

12 Appendix 2 - Respondent Profiles ............................................................................. 36

2

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose The overall purpose of the report is to investigate the actual and perceived safety threat to motorists caused by stones or other objects being thrown from bridges on to car windscreens.

In investigating this issue the report looks at how three different stakeholder groups view the issue and what they think should be done about it.

• Motorists • Police Forces • Road Safety Agencies

1.2 Background The research for this report consisted of extensive desk research, to examine the available literature pertaining to the problem of stones and other objects being thrown into the highways, qualitative interviews with police and other relevant agencies to discover their views of the extent and seriousness of the problem and a survey among motorists themselves.

The motorists’ survey was conducted online among a sample of 1,891 motorists with samples spread across all age ranges and geographical locations. Motorists were also asked their typical mileage per annum. Most drove between 5,000 and 9,999 miles (41%) with almost a third driving 10,000 to 19,999 miles (32%). Just under a fifth (19%) drove less than 5,000 miles per annum, with 8% driving 20,000 miles or more.

The motorist sample was taken from Toluna UK’s highly profiled, responsive and rigorously maintained online market research panel of over 700,000 participants. Whilst an online sample cannot be fully representative of the UK motorist population, there is no reason to believe that the responses of the large and varied sample achieved would differ significantly from the general motorist population.

Respondent information the survey questionnaire and can be found in the report appendix.

2 Executive Summary

The desk research revealed that there are no statistics available on the number of reported incidents and that most evidence is anecdotal. We also found that there is an inconsistency in the way requests for information from police are handled, with some constabularies willing to allow police officers to be interviewed but others unwilling. Many constabularies required requests for information to be made under the Freedom of Information Act, and where this was done it was revealed that the amount of work involved in checking through police logs to find information on this particular issue was too time consuming and costly under the terms of the act.

Some agencies, most notably the Highways Agency, agreed that the lack of statistical information is a problem. Some respondents, including the Automobile Association and one or two police officers, felt that any campaign that highlighted the problem might exacerbate it by drawing attention to it. There seems to be a tendency to downplay the problem for this reason with many police officers claiming that there have been no problems of this nature in recent months, or that where there have been incidents they are isolated or one-off occasions. Most of the people interviewed for the qualitative research were of the opinion that the perpetrators are primarily schoolchildren and most incidents occur during school breaks and the lighter evenings in the summer.

Some police officers felt that the way they handle these incidents, with increased patrols for example, is sufficient, but their biggest frustration is their inability to catch the culprits who flee on the approach of police. Indeed for some youngsters this is part of the game.

The motorists’ survey, however, revealed that the problem is much bigger, and more widespread, than many police and other agencies might believe. One of the reasons for this is motorists tend not to report the incidents they witness: nearly nine out of ten motorists do not report incidents which they or people they know, have experienced and just over half (51%) of motorists interviewed believe the problem to be very or quite widespread.

Motorists have different views on how the problem should be handled, with nearly three quarters believing that the maximum penalty for the offence should be higher than the statutory seven years imprisonment. Motorists are also more inclined than police or other agencies to believe that priority should be given to installing CCTV cameras on overbridges, followed by fencing them with 65% of respondents in total citing these measures. A fifth (20%) stated that they would prioritise educational programmes in schools.

The desk research revealed that the Highways Agency is already running schools educational programmes: “Just a Stone’s Throw” aimed at children up to the age of 11 and “Throwing it All Away” aimed at older children and teenagers. However, interviews with police officers revealed that the police who are called out to deal with such incidents are unaware of these programmes.

4

There appears to be no consistent way of dealing with these incidents where police are able to catch the culprits, ranging from a restorative justice approach with the children made to apologise for their crime to the victim to criminal damage charges brought. Where fatalities have resulted the culprits have received custodial sentences.

3 Definition and Charges

3.1 General Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, ‘A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause, causes anything to be on or over a road’.

(Road Traffic Act 1991, Danger to Road-Users)

The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment and/or a fine.

When caught, culprits may be charged with “criminal damage with intent to endanger life” or “criminal damage and endangering road users”.

In Scotland the situation is slightly different: in June this year two children were arrested and charged with “culpable and reckless conduct” following a stone throwing incident from a footbridge onto the M74 near Larkhall. Inspector Munro of Strathclyde Police explained that as the children were under the age of 16 they were then passed to the Children’s Reporter, where, with this being their first offence, they were given a warning. In Scotland this crime is classed as anti-social behaviour and repeat offenders are then likely to be placed in secure children’s homes.

3.2 Police and other Agency views The problem reported by most police officers or police representatives interviewed is either catching offenders or finding enough evidence to charge them:

“We had ideas who we thought was responsible, but after they were arrested no charges were brought because they were never 100% identified”. (West Midlands Police)

“The problem is we get there and they’ve gone or they run off in the opposite carriageway to the one we arrive on”. (Avon and Somerset Constabulary)

“Most of the time kids have gone by the time we attend.” (South Wales Police)

3.3 Motorist views When told of the penalty under the Road Traffic Act, motorists were asked how heavy a penalty they considered this to be for this kind of offence. Almost three quarters of motorists (73%) stated that the maximum penalty should be higher if casualties are caused; with just under a quarter (24%) believing the maximum penalty is about right.

This suggests that motorists regard this as a very serious problem and when asked what form of action would be most appropriate if casualties result from objects being thrown into highways, the majority, 54%, cited imprisonment or detention as the most appropriate action:

Figure approp

1,891 mo

Capsc

Tfoopfono

Let locth

1: Which opriate for yo

otorists

Compulsory ppropriate chools as a

here are seor the Prepportunity t

or youngsteot) within th

Impr

Compulsory

cal communitye case as they

of the followoungsters

road safetypunishmenn appropria

everal road vention of to create a

ers caught this.

risonment or d

Communi

y road safety e

y safety officey think approp

A h

wing formscommitting

y educationt, but a fift

ate preventa

safety scheAccidents

specific prthrowing ob

0%

detention

ty Service

education

ers handle priate

heavy fine

s of action g offences

n was citedth (20%) viative measu

emes in opes Laser Sarogramme fbjects which

11%

9%

8%

% 10% 2

do you this if they res

d by just ovew funding

ure (see Se

eration in thafety schemfor some kih do not res

18%

%

20% 30%

nk would bsult in casu

ver a tenth g educationction 10).

he UK undeme and thnd of educsult in casu

40% 50%

be most ualities? (Q

B

of motoristal program

r the Royalhere could cational progualties (as m

54%

% 60%

Q12)

Base:

ts as an mmes for

Society be an

gramme many do

6

4 How Big is the Problem?

4.1 General There is no ready measurement available of the number of incidents which are reported each year. Although police log all reports that come into them, police logs are only available by request under the Freedom of Information Act and such requests may fall beyond the statutory time of 20 days to process as each log has to be manually examined for this particular offence. However one such request, referring to incidents in 2004/05, is available from the Merseyside Police Log having been previously requested and publicly available. This lists 16 stone-throwing incidents between 23rd November 2004 and 30th October 2005 although most of these concerned stones thrown at property and stationery vehicles.

Police and Agency evidence is therefore anecdotal, a finding confirmed by the Highways Authority who stated that most police don’t keep records of the number of incidents and there can be five or six people reporting the same incident. The Highways Agency itself finds difficulty on obtaining this information.

The Home Office and the Department for Transport also confirmed that there is no statistical evidence of the number of incidents each year.

4.2 Police and Agency views Police officers interviewed for this report give varying accounts of the size of the problem with many keen to downplay the size of the problem:

“Can’t remember the last time we had to attend anything like that” (South Somerset Police)

“We often get sent to kids on overbridges throwing stones but I cannot recall a job where a) we’ve located them and b) an accident or damage has been caused.” (Almonds bury Police, Bristol)

“No ongoing issues. Recurs every couple of months, so many bridges go over the M65…” (Lancashire Constabulary)

“We have had reports about this in the past, but not recently. That footbridge is a magnet to kids” . (Norfolk Constabulary)

“…this is not a particular problem in S. Yorkshire; no more than anywhere else.” (South Yorkshire Police)

“Not many incidents and our area is crisscrossed by major roads. But there were incidents on the 5th, 9th and 10th June and these were the first this year. (Staffordshire Police)

It can be assumed that there is no consistency across police forces in either the number of incidents or the seriousness of them. With no central records police forces are unable to provide statistical data on the number of incidents in their region and unless individual police officers are called out to an incident, they may not know of any

inac

TprfeN

InHot

4.3 MAthau

Whaqu

Figure the roa

Base: 1,8

Tmth

Insh

T(1th

Limite

ncidents thaccident.

here also roblem is tr

enced and Corfolk rema

n the West Mighways Agther police f

Motorist vApproachinghe police wuthorities an

When askedalf (51%) ouite widesp

2: How wad to be, wo

891 motorists

he motorismissiles at oheir vehicle

n Northern howing high

he East of14%), unsurhan many o

Ve

Qu

Not ve

ed to just a few

at occur on

appears toreated, withCCTV instaaining unfen

Midlands thgency becoforces take

views g nine in tenwhich suggnd road saf

d about howof those interead:

idespread ould you sa

sts’ survey ne time or awhen drivin

Ireland thisher than ave

f England srprising giveother areas

ery widesprea

ite widesprea

ery widesprea

w trouble spot

a different

o be a lackh a particulalled whilst a

nced with a

e police foroming involva different

n (89%) of gests the fety agencie

w widespreerviewed s

a problemay it is ...(Q

revealed tanother. Wng, over a fi

s rose to aerage perce

showed theen that the s of the cou

0% 5%

ad

ad

ad

ts

t shift unles

k of consisar bridge in another footrestorative

rce adoptedved and beapproach a

motorists dproblem is

es believe.

ead motoristated that t

m do you cQ8)

that a surpWhen asked

fth (22%) a

a third withentages (29

e least higharea has feuntry. The

12%

14%

10% 15% 2

ss those inc

stency acrothe West M

tbridge, conjustice app

d an inter-agearing the cand do not i

do not repos more wi

ts believedthey believe

consider pe

prisingly higif they hadnswered th

h motorists 9% and 24%

hest numbeewer motorwe A12 and

20% 25% 30

cidents resu

oss police Midlands clonsidered “a roach taken

gency way ocost of fencnvolve the H

ort stone-thidespread

the probleed the prob

eople thro

gh number ever sufferat they had

in Scotlan% respective

er of driverways and AA14 in Ess

39

35%

% 35% 40%

ult in some

forces in hosed until itmagnet for

n instead.

of working, cing the briHighways A

rowing incidthan many

em to be, jublem to be

wing objec

r had beenred a missil

d.

nd and Waely).

rs having bA roads travsex has ha

9%

% 45%

e kind of

how the t can be r kids” in

with the idge but

Agency.

dents to y police

ust over very or

cts into

n hit by e hitting

les also

been hit versing it ad some

8

trouble, but these tended to be deliberate and malicious in intent. The South West showed the next lowest number of drivers having been hit, with 17%, and this is borne out by the interview with the police officer in South Somerset who claimed it is “not a huge issue” there.

10

5 Is it getting worse or not?

5.1 Published Statistics It is likely that most instances of stone or object throwing at vehicles do not result in casualties. There have been very few instances where this behaviour has resulted in fatalities in recent years, all of which have been widely reported in the Press. Car user casualties are far more likely to result from other driving offences and overall the number of car user casualties has decreased over the past few years.

Table 1: All Reported Car User Causalities 2004-2008 (Updated October 2009) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Great Britain 183,858 178,302 171,000 161,433 149,188

Northern Ireland 7,234 6,158 6,970 7,190 7,232

UK 191,092 184,460 177,970 168,623 156,420

% change - -3 -4 -5 -7

Source: Department for Transport, STATS19 forms (GB) PSNI (NI),

The Home Office provides annual statistics: Crime in England and Wales, with quarterly updates. Information is provided by the annual British Crime Survey (BCS) and police records. The crime of intentionally causing anything to be on or over a road is included under vandalism in the BCS and criminal damage by the police. The number of incidents of both vandalism and criminal damage fell by -6% and -5% respectively in 2009 over 2008. As the data does not provide further details it is not possible to say whether the number of incidents of stone or other object throwing also fell or whether these incidents went against the trend and rose during the year.

Table 2: Percentage change in BCS crime based on interviews in the 12 months to June 2009 compared with the previous 12 months Crime % Change

Vandalism -6

Burglary -5

Vehicle-related theft -4

Bicycle theft -2

Other household theft +1

Theft from the person +5

Other theft of personal property +4

All violence -4

All BSC crime -3

Source: Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to June 2009, 22 October 2009, Statistics Office (Crown Copyright 2009)

Figure 3: Percentage change in numbers of recorded crimes, April to June 2009 compared with the same quarter a year earlier Crime % Change

Criminal damage -5

Domestic burglary +3

Other burglary +1

Offences against vehicles* -12

Other theft offences -3

Robbery +1

Violence against the person -1

Sexual offences -2

Drug offences -4

Fraud and forgery -10

Total recorded crime -4

* Includes aggravated vehicle taking, theft of and from a vehicle and interfering with a motor vehicle.

Source: Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to June 2009, 22 October 2009, Statistics Office (Crown Copyright 2009)

Vandalism has fallen by ten per cent according to the BCS. The amount of criminal damage recorded by the police fell by 13 per cent in 2007/08.

Both reports show vandalism and criminal damage decreasing: by -6% in the 12 months to June 2009 (BCS) and by -5% April - June 2009 compared with April – June 2008.

The Reported Road Casualties Report for Great Britain: 2008 published by the Department for Transport show that there is a downward trend in the number of road casualties (inc. deaths) in recent years, with a -7% decrease in 2008 over 2007 of all types of road casualties.

However, there are no published statistics to show whether the number of incidents of stone-throwing have increased or decreased within these over the period.

5.2 Anecdotal Evidence Anecdotal evidence suggests that the problems are more likely to occur on footpaths than on roadways crossing motorways and other major roads. Some footpaths have been enclosed or fenced or have had CCTV cameras installed as a result of the more serious incidents which have occurred on them although, as evidenced by the South Wales police, the problem is likely to shift to other overbridges:

“There were incidents prior to that [ the incident in July 2008 in which John Wells died] which were dealt with and the youths involved arrested. Since then not many at that location, but it does happen elsewhere on other major roads, and B roads”

Inpoa brpoofwthov“…PAisrepa

Aprfowadar

5.3 MMob

Jua fo

Figure driving

Base: 1,8

Thre

More 

n the West Mossible aftetoddler in t

ridge and toolice forcesf intense ac

would suggehere have bverbridges …. If we ideolice). Th

Automobile As not particuemedial actatrols, are c

Although noroblem for o

or bus comwhereby a b

dditional poreas where

Motorist VMotorists we

bjects into t

ust over fouthird (34%

our years. J

4: Have yog or a passe

891 motorists

Once or twi

ee or four tim

than four tim

Nev

Midlands a er a series othe passengo install CCs and agencctions are nest that the pbeen problesafer, eithe

entified thatis, and othAssociationularly a proions taken fconsidered

ot examinedoperators opanies is to

bus fitted wiolice followin

the schem

Views ere asked hthe road wh

ur fifths of m) once or tw

Just under a

ou ever seeenger in a

0% 5%

ce

es

es

ver

footpath croof incidentsger seat of CTV. In addcies to highot taken in problem woems, in soer because t as a potenher comme which com

oblem to avfollowing a sufficient.

d for the pof public trao operate ath extra prong, successe operated.

how often inhilst they we

motorists hawice and aa fifth (19%

en people tcar? (Q4)

% 10%

ossing the M, the most ra vehicle bedition the p

hlight the daall areas. W

ould graduaome cases it has been

ntial blackspents from pmmented: “Itvoid sowingspate of st

purposes onsport vehia ‘trojan buotection to sfully reduce.

n the past fiere driving,

ad seen sucgain a third) had never

throwing o

14%

19%

15% 20%

M6 near Corecent of wheing hurt. T

police liaisedangers of stWhere thes

ally lessen inno action

n deemed upot we wou

police and t is best notg the seed one throwin

of this repoicles, on bo

us’ scheme.its windowsed the num

ive years thor a passen

ch incidentsd (33%) mor seen such

bjects into

%

25% 30%

oventry washich, in Jun

There are pld with localtone-throwinse kinds of n these arehas been

unnecessaryuld look at tother agent to draw atof an idea.ng, such as

ort, stone-toth road and. This wass and occupber of these

hey had seenger in a ca

s in the pastore than fouh incidents.

o the road w

34%

33%

% 35%

s closed as ne 2009, reslans to encll schools anng, but thesactions areas, but evetaken to my or too expthat…” (Strancies (suchttention to it”) suggest stepping u

throwing isd rail. One s done in Lpied by polie incidents

en people tar.

t five years,ur times in t

while you w

40%

soon as sulted in lose this nd other se kinds taken it n where

make the pensive: athclyde

h as the t when it that the

up police

also a solution

Liverpool ice, with in those

throwing

, around the past

were

12

Whilst this doesn’t necessarily suggest that the problem is getting worse, these figures do suggest that the problem is more widespread than the anecdotal evidence given by the police and in news stories suggests.

We wanted to discover how prevalent the fear of objects being thrown into the road was. The Highways Agency suggested that motorists may think that objects are being thrown into the road if they see people on an overbridge, but the fear may be unfounded.

The motorist survey asked: Are you afraid of driving under a bridge if people are standing on it? (Q9) and while just 5% said that they were very afraid, over a fifth said that they were ‘a little afraid’ with almost half, 46% saying that they were ‘slightly worried’ when driving under a bridge if they see people on it. Just over a quarter of motorists (27%) are not at all worried by this.

In England it is motorists in the North East and East Midlands who are more likely than the average to be a slightly worried (50% of motorists in each area) and 56% of motorists in Northern Ireland are also slightly worried.

To examine further the fears that motorists have, we asked motorists if they glance up when driving under bridges to see if there is anyone standing on them.

Just under a fifth of drivers (19%) don’t worry about people standing on bridges when driving under them, but all other motorists either ‘always glance up’ (21%), ‘often glance up’ (24%) or ‘occasionally feel a slight concern’ when driving under bridges (37%).

This suggests that the fear of something being thrown is very real to most motorists, especially as the fatalities that have occurred in the past few years received widespread publicity in the press, as detailed below.

5.4 Fatalities Major incidents, resulting in death, are widely reported. In recent years there have been four such cases:

Michael Little (53) suffered a heart attack after a brick thrown at his 40-tonne lorry from an overhead bridge smashed through his windscreen in March 2003. Craig Harman, 20, was sentenced to six years imprisonment on a charge of manslaughter.

Laurence McCourt (68), died after his windscreen was hit by a breeze block dropped from a bridge near Great Doddington, Northamptonshire in July 2007. Dean Ingram, (15), received three years and four months after admitting manslaughter. Jamie Winter (15). Winter received a 12-month detention and training order after admitting causing danger to road users. The third boy involved cannot be named for legal reasons.

Suzanne Singer (40) died after her Vauxhall Corsa veered into a tree on emerging from under a bridge on the A127 at Dunton near Basildon Essex, in December 2007. It was reported at the time: “An Essex Police spokesman said: ‘We are getting various people phoning us saying their cars have been struck with stones, pellets and branches along the A127 between Basildon and the M25 on the days preceding this incident’”. However police found no evidence to suggest the smash was caused by a missile and no-one was charged.

14

John Wells was killed and six injured after school children threw stones at cars on the A465 near to Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales in July 2008. John Wells swerved and crashed as a consequence. Three youths were convicted: a girl aged 12 at the time who cannot be named but who received 2 years detention, Luke Cotter, aged 15 at the time who received four years detention and his half-brother Alan Type, aged14 at the time, who received three years detention. They said they did it “for a laugh”.

5.5 Anecdotal Reports Most of the respondents interviewed for this report regard the problem as seasonal, occurring primarily during the summer months and primarily during school breaks or after school.

5.6 Summary of a selection of news reports from 2009 There appeared to be as many newspaper reports of incidents in 2009 as there were for 2008. In years where a fatality has occurred it is likely that the number of newspaper reports will increase. Newspapers tend only to report such incidents when an accident, or dramatic damage which could have resulted in a fatality, occurred. Police appeals for witnesses are also recorded on police websites with some reports appearing at a very local ‘neighbourhood news’ level. Research undertaken for this report revealed no records of incidents in some areas, either in the local press or on the police websites.

The following are summaries from a selection of news reports from 2009. This is not an exhaustive list. Incidents of stone throwing at public transport vehicles (notably trains and buses) have not been included.

5.6.1 January

Youngsters throwing stones on to passing vehicles from an Ilkeston bridge are putting people's lives at risk, according to a police inspector. Officers have stepped up police patrols on and around the bridge, in Chalons Way, after receiving calls about the problem from worried residents. Inspector Pete Szabo said that, over the past two months, there had been about four complaints a week.

Source: www. thisisderbyshire.co.uk

5.6.2 February

Spelthorne Police are appealing for witnesses after criminal damage was caused to a vehicle in Sunbury-on-Thames last week……The incident took place at the A316 roadworks in Hanworth Road at around 9pm on Thursday 19 February……Witnesses saw a group of youths on the bridge over the road around the time of the incident and it is believed an object was deliberately thrown at the vehicle.

Source: www. surrey.police.uk/media/news

Police officers from Stechford operational command unit have joined forces with Birmingham City Council to protect motorists travelling on Small Heath Highway. Police had received fifteen reports of stones being thrown at passing motorists, some of which had shattered their windscreens. Police believe that young people had been

using the footbridge, which crosses Small Heath Highway at the end of Oldknow Road and Waverley Road, as a platform from which to target motorists.

Source: www. west-midlands.police.uk/np/stechford/news

5.6.3 April

Police are keen to trace a group of youths who were seen throwing stones at passing cars and pedestrians near Dumfries Museum on Rotchell Road at around 16.00hrs on Saturday 25 April. The youths were around 15 years old and five foot tall. One of the youths was described as wearing a luminous green tracksuit top, blue tracksuit bottoms and trainers.

Source: www. dumfriesandgalloway.police.uk/news

Police in Guildford are appealing for information after an object was thrown from a bridge over the A3. The incident happened at around 2pm on Thursday, 30 April as a man was driving northbound on the A3. The driver noticed some children on the bridge at the Compton turn off and as he drove underneath an object fell on to the bonnet of his Peugeot van causing a large dent.

Source: www. surrey.police.uk/media/news

Youths throwing objects from the bridge onto the M6 motorway below, close to the Jolly Collier public house. These dangerous actions have the potential to cause a serious traffic accident.

Source: www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/stoneystantonroad/n07.asp

5.6.4 May

Police in Limavady (N. Ireland) are appealing for information following a report of youths throwing large rocks from the bridge that runs over the bypass on Monday night (25 May). A car belonging to one motorist was struck at approximately 9.30pm. Fortunately the driver was not hurt however the consequences could have been fatal.

Source: www. psni.police.uk

5.6.5 June

Tamworth Police are hunting youngsters who were throwing stones at cars near Ventura Park last night (Tuesday 9 June), warning that they could have caused a serious incident.

Source: www. tamworthblog.co.uk

A 28-year-old mum and her toddler had a lucky escape after children hurled bricks at her car while she was travelling along the M74 near Larkhall. The vandals were standing on a footbridge over the motorway on Saturday, June 6 and were hurling stones at passing vehicles below. This is just the latest in spate of stone-throwing incidents at the footbridge over the motorway. Another incident took place there over the Easter holiday weekend when a terrified coachload of travellers were targeted by

16

vandals. Passengers were left shaken after a bus was pelted with stones and left badly damaged.

Source: www. hamiltonadvertiser.co.uk/news

5.6.6 July

Three children have been caught throwing bricks from an M65 motorway bridge. Police said the youngsters’ antics had put motorists’ lives at risk. The three children, aged between 10 and 12, were caught throwing bricks off the bridge at Altham. Passers by reported the incident to the police and patrols were sent out.

Source: lancashiretelegraph.co.uk

Four people have been charged after objects were thrown from bridges over the M25 and A12 at Brentwood. The three men, aged 24, 25 and 30 and woman, aged 18, have been charged with criminal damage and endangering road users, following an incident on Thursday, July 9.

Source: www. thisistotalessex.co.uk

5.6.7 September

There has been an increase in calls to the police about youths congregating on the motorway footbridge over the M6. This is located between The Oval and Shevington Golf club, and young people have also been seen throwing stones at cars driving on the motorway. The area is now being given extra attention by the Neighbourhood Policing Team who are trying to catch those responsible.

Source: Greater Manchester Police Neighbourhood News

Motorists are being warned after concrete blocks were thrown from a bridge on to the A12 in mid Essex. And those responsible have been warned they could face a possible attempted murder charge when caught. In November last year, two motorists escaped serious injury after a number of concrete blocks were thrown from bridges between Chelmsford and Ingatestone.

Source: www. Chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk

5.6.8 November

A gang of yobs put motorists' lives at risk by throwing stones off a bridge onto the M1 motorway. Police are appealing for witnesses after the windscreen of a lorry was smashed when an object was hurled off a bridge at the vehicle. Although the lorry driver was not seriously injured, officers have warned he could have been killed in the stunt, which has already claimed the life of one motorist in the county.

Source: Northants Evening Telegraph

The windscreen of a Hyundai car was chipped after it was hit by a shower of stones coming from the bridge over the A14 eastbound at Trimley around 11.30pm on

Saturday (7th November). The car was being driven by a man in his 70s when it was hit by the stones that were thrown from the footbridge above.

Source: www. felixstowetv.co.uk

Stone-throwing yobs could spark road tragedies, police warned today. There has been a spate of attacks on vehicles travelling along Fellgate Avenue, in Hedworth, Jarrow. In the latest incidents, drivers reported youths throwing objects at passing cars earlier this month.

Source: www.shieldsgazette.com/news

18

6 Who are causing the problem and why do they do it?

6.1 Police and Agency views In 2006 the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) published its findings from a commission by the Highways Agency (HA) into understanding why objects are thrown at traffic. The report, ‘Understanding why objects are thrown at traffic’ is available for purchase through both TRL and the HA.

In summary, the findings showed that there is a significant problem with stone throwing but it is not easy to understand because of the difficulty in catching and apprehending the culprits. Very similar observations were made by respondents for this report. The perception is that these acts are generally unplanned and likely to be committed by youngsters under the age of 16 and in groups, often in the school holidays and in the summer months.

However, as seen in the section above of this report, there were no newspaper reports of stone throwing during the month of August. This does not necessarily mean that no incidents occurred as not all incidents are reported in the Press and incidents where there have been no resulting accidents, or the police were unable to attend, may not necessarily be reported in police newsletters.

Where there have been fatalities with convictions of perpetrators, the ages of the culprits ranged from 12 to 20. However, in Essex those charged with criminal damage and endangering road users following incidents of stone throwing onto the M25 and A12 at Brentwood were three men, aged 24, 25 and 30 and a woman, aged 18. Those contacted for this reported generally believed that older offenders were more likely to have malicious intent whilst younger offenders, especially the very young, had little understanding of the consequences of their actions and it is younger offenders who commit the vast majority of these crimes.

In some cases it appears that the stone throwing incidents form part of a game played by youngsters who enjoy the game of ‘cat and mouse’ as police attempt to give chase, or who try to get a reaction from lorry drivers (by getting them to toot their horns). Many police and other agencies felt that the youngsters have no idea of the consequences of their actions:

It is a crime that has no set pattern and is usually attributed to young children who have ‘nothing better to do’ and find this activity ‘exciting’.

Source: Highways Agency

“They don’t realise the consequences of their actions half the time, they just think it’s a laugh”.

Norfolk Constabulary

6.2 MTthunthgiav(1dithdo

Figure into the

Base: 1,8

Tcosais

Don't 

Don

Motorist Vhe survey

hrow objectnderstand t

han the aveiving this reverage. Fe14%) agreeifferent in N

heir actionson’t really s

5: Motorise road (Q14

891 motorists

he majoritonsequenceafety agenc

s not what m

understand co

n't really view

Dared to do

Views asked motts into the the consequerage to ageason. A thew (16%) ageing that theNI where fe, lower tha

see it as a c

ts' opinion4)

ty of respes of their cies. This smotorists the

onsequences

Boredom

w it as a crime

o it by friends

Other

orists for throad. Mo

uences of three with 38ird of 21-30

gree that thee youngsteewer than aan averagecrime and th

n of the mo

pondents bactions – a

suggests thaemselves w

6%

0% 10%

heir opinionost motorisheir actions8% of 17-200 year olds ey are darers don’t reaaverage agcite bored

hey are dare

tivations fo

believe thaa view heldat education

would prioriti

2

14%

16%

% 20%

n on what sts (43%) bs, although 0 year oldscite boredo

ed to do it byally view it reed don’t om but higed to do it b

or youngst

at youngsted also by mn might be tise (see Se

21%

30%

might motivbelieve thayounger dr

s and 36% om, slightly y their friendas a crimeunderstand

gher than aby their frien

ters throwi

ers do nomany policethe best solction 10).

43%

40% 5

vate youngt youngsteivers are leof 21-30 yemore than tds, with eve

e. Situationd consequeaverage agrnds.

ng objectiv

ot understae officers alution, altho

50%

gsters to rs don’t

ess likely ear olds the 21% en fewer n slightly ences of ree they

ves

and the nd road

ough this

20

7 The Hotspots

7.1 General If younger children are ignorant of the effects their actions might cause, older teenagers and adults committing these offences are more likely to do so from a malicious motivation. It could be argued that in areas where a higher number of young people are issued with Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), incidents of malicious stone-throwing might also be likely to occur. The following table shows the top ten districts where the number of ASBOs issued in 2007 (the latest year for which statistics are available) is highest, along with the total number of ASBOs issued between April 1999 to December 2007:

Table 3: Top 10 Districts by no. of ASBOs issued 1999-2007 Area No. of ASBOs

Greater London 1,808

West Yorkshire 1,122

West Midlands 1,168

Greater Manchester 1,642

Lancashire 580

Hampshire 430

Merseyside 489

Nottinghamshire 410

Humberside 430

North Wales 333

Source: Home Office, Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) Evidence & Analysis Unit

However, as has been discussed, most incidents of stone-throwing are not malicious but opportunistic.

There are several conditions which provide these opportunities:

• The presence of an overbridge across a busy road. • The absence of CCTV or fencing. • Access to stones, bricks or other objects near the overbridge. • Access to the overbridge by children or young people. • Lack of education regarding the seriousness of their actions.

In geographical areas where there are a greater number of highways and overbridges, especially overbridges which form part of a route to or from schools there is a higher chance of stone-throwing incidents occurring.

With no statistical evidence available to show the number and location of incidents it is not possible to provide a ‘league table’ of areas where stone-throwing is highest.

7.2 Anecdotal Evidence From anecdotal evidence, it can be seen that Surrey, with three major motorways, the M3, the M23 and the M25, as well as several major A roads has suffered a higher number of reported incidents than most. The M3, which is the road where Michael Little died, seems particularly vulnerable to these incidents.

The Highways Agency named the M25 as a particular hotspot, with “an incident almost every other day”.

Lancashire too is criss-crossed with motorways, from the M65 in the north to the M56 in the south, with the M6 also passing through the area and there have been incidents reported on all of these roads in 2009.

Incidents tend to be in areas in or around major conurbations and research for this report revealed high numbers of incidents on roads around Bristol, Birmingham, Chelmsford, Manchester and Nottingham.

The research also revealed that a while a fatality on a particular road may deter youngsters from throwing stones on that particular road in the months following the incident, it does not deter them from throwing stones in other parts of the area, as evidenced by South Wales Police, where John Wells died. (See Summary of Police Responses).

Where an overbridge has been particularly troublesome, remedial action has been taken, but it could be argued that it is the very randomness of these incidents that make them so disturbing. Many motorists are wary when driving under overbridges if they see anyone on them and the very presence of persons on an overbridge may cause a momentary distraction.

7.3 Motorist Views In terms of motorists stating in the survey that have actually been hit by a thrown missile, this is least likely to occur in the East of England (14% against 22% average), and most likely in Northern Ireland (33%), and Scotland (29%). The North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside have a higher than average percentage of motorists reporting being hit by missiles. The South East has a lower than average percentage (19%) and the South West has the lowest percentage (17%).

Four fifths of drivers/passengers stated that they had seen at least one incident of people throwing objects into the road in the past five years.

In Northern Ireland this rose to three quarters with over half (54%) having seen over four incidents in the last five years. This was followed by drivers/passengers in the North East, where 44% had seen over four incidents. In the South East, which includes Surrey where many incidents have been reported, drivers/passengers were slightly below the 19% average, at 18%, to have never seen such an incident.

Figure

Base: 1,8

Tththtoag‘h

All

N

N

Yorks &

West

East

S

S

East o

6: Have yo

891 motorists

he survey rhe road is there is little o contradicgency resp

hotspots’ for

0%

 Motorists

N. Ireland

Scotland

North West

North East

& Humber

Wales

t Midlands

London

t Midlands

South East

outh West

of England

ou ever suf

results indicthe North Wstatistical d

ct the anecpondents wr these incid

% 5%

ffered from

cate that in West, with tdifference bcdotal evidhich suggedents.

10%

m a missile

England thethe safest abetween theence deriv

est that the

14%

15%

hitting you

e worst areaarea being e English aed from neSouth Eas

22

22

20%

19%

17%

20%

ur vehicle w

a for objectthe East o

areas the finewspaper rst and the

2%

26%

24%

24%

24%

23%

2%

25% 3

when drivin

ts being throof England.ndings woureports, polM25 are p

33%

29%

30% 35

ng (Q5)

own into Whilst ld seem lice and articular

%

5%

22

8 Police Responses to the issue

8.1 Summary Many police forces approached for this survey were reluctant to express their opinions and referred researchers instead to their information offices to request information according to the Freedom of Information Act. Such requests need to be very specific and two requests were made in this way, asking for the number of instances of stone throwing at traffic reported for both the most recent year for which statistics might be available and the year before, to gauge if there had been an increase. However, there are no central records of information at this level of detail and Information Officers were unable to supply this information.

In addition, such figures could be misleading as several motorists might report the same incident. Those police forces covering areas where there had been press reports of stone throwing incidents, or reports of stone throwing incidents on the police websites were prioritised for contact.

Below is the most relevant feedback from the police forces contacted during the research.

8.2 Qualitative feedback from police forces Not a huge issue, a rarer call than a regular one, happens more on the overbridges close to towns or villages. Can’t remember the last time we had to attend anything like that. Unless it comes to anything fairly serious, I wouldn’t know about it anyway. If just a report of stone throwing and no trace of offenders, written off as a low level incident. If it resulted in major incident I would know about it. This is normally quite a rare incident. Happens more in the Bristol area I think, not in the bottom half of Somerset.

Yes, it is a problem, but maybe more of a perceived problem. We often get sent to kids on overbridges throwing stones but I cannot recall a job where a) we’ve located them and b) an accident or damage has been caused. None of my team have attended an accident caused by stones being thrown. It happens on some bridges more than others: Rainbow Bridge at Junction 17 of the M5 accessed from the Cribs Causeway area plus some on the M32, such as the Hawthorn Lane overbridge. The problem is we get there and they’ve gone or they run off in the opposite carriageway to the one we arrive on. It does tend to be kids, all calls associated with kids, girls and boys, from 10 - 16. We get called out a couple of times a month but if we cannot attend because we are dealing with a major accident it would get called out to Highways, I don’t get to know about all the calls that come in. Another problem is that cars going under bridges at 60mph or 70mph may think the kids are throwing stones, but they may not actually see them throwing stones. A campaign into schools wouldn’t do any harm: perhaps it should be linked in with British Transport Police where there is an enormous problem with lots of damage caused by kids putting themselves and others at risk.

Source: Avon and Somerset Constabulary

24

There have been few incidents on the A12 and there have been some arrests in connection with that, over the past year or so. It happens around Brentwood, Chelmsford, north of Chelmsford – but not near schools. In our case it has been older teenagers and adults doing it. All the incidents concerned large blocks of concrete, all malicious.

Source Avon and Somerset Constabulary

It would be great if the teachers could advise youngsters regarding the dangers of throwing stones in particular throwing them onto vehicles onto the motorway.

The incidents (youths congregating on the motorway footbridge over the M6) happened last year as well, but died down until recently when there were a number of calls from residents stating that youths had been gathering near the motorway again.

The ages range from 10-18 and there tends to be two groups who congregate in the area - a younger group and also older teenagers. Since the last newsletter (September 2009) there have been no more calls regarding similar incidents.

Source: Greater Manchester Police

No ongoing issues. Recurs every couple of months, so many bridges go over the M65.

Source: Lancashire Constabulary

We take a restorative approach. The wrongdoers meet the harmed to account for their actions. This way they have to confront the harmed party. We involve the parents who get to hear what’s happened. The harmed person says how he feels which an appropriate way of dealing with this is. The outcomes include writing a letter of apology and some other actions tasked to do such as cleaning up things. We find it a very effective way of dealing with incidents like this and many others, juveniles and young adults, are made to face harmed parties.

That footbridge is a magnet to kids. There have been suggestions as a result of this to the owners of the footbridge to put Perspex up, but I don’t know the outcome of this. In the past we’ve just given advice to kids; the restorative process is a fairly new process within policing. Not dealt with this way before. All the details are taken and the kids are visited at home. On this occasion they were caught when a call came in, happened to be an off duty police officer who found them, happened to be in the right place at the right time. Generally people call us who pull up. By the time we get there they have gone. There are younger children coming up and it would be a good idea to have the campaign [Just a Stone’s Throw] resurrected, Education is the way forward - they can’t say they didn’t know, not about ignorance then. If given this input in schools. Always err on the side of education first.

Source: Norfolk Constabulary

There were incidents prior to that (the incident in July 2008 in which John Wells died) which were dealt with and the youths involved arrested. Since then not many at that location, but it does happen elsewhere on other major roads, and B roads. It is predominantly when the kids are on half term and breaks from school and it happens generally across the area. Most of the time kids have gone by the time we attend. If they are caught I always arrest them because the behaviour is so dangerous. I arrest under the charge ‘criminal damage with intent to endanger life’. It is all ages - up to about 17, as young as and below 9.

When you try to educate them about something the more they do it. It’s like pouring petrol on the flames. Just show them what can happen to them if they take that course of conduct. Education packages should use shock tactics appropriate to age: show them result of what happens and what happens to them. It’s a game of cat and mouse; kids get a kick out of getting chased by drivers and police. One good example of a shock campaign was the one where you see a deceased child coming back to life with her broken bones; that was quite impactful.

Source: South Wales Police

There isn’t a particular problem just with the A57, do get problems here and there, occasionally get one all over the Rotherham area and at Sheffield Parkway. Can’t comment on whether getting worse or not. From what I remember round about 2004/05 had heavy falls of snow, lots of snowballing off bridges and there was a push on crime recording - some of these incidents may have got crime recorded then. But this is not a particular problem in S. Yorkshire; no more than anywhere else.

Source: South Yorkshire Police

Not many incidents and our area is crisscrossed by major roads. But there were incidents on the 5th, 9th and 10th June and these were the first this year. There have been the odd incidents with kids in the last year, but these are isolated, not commonplace. We stepped up patrols quickly using high visibility policing and stop and search by the side of the road and it died down”.

When asked whether a campaign highlighting the dangers might be a good idea he replied: “If you draw attention to it, it could start it up again.”

Source: Staffordshire Police

The incident in June was a one-off but we did take it seriously as it was on a motorway and there was a risk of it being a more dangerous incident. This bridge goes from a Local Authority housing estate onto wasteland. We’ve been fortunate recently, not many incidents at all. In total we had about three incidents last year where kids were throwing stones and bricks and other debris onto the motorway. No accidents caused. Two youngsters were arrested for culpable and reckless conduct. They were charged but due to their age they went the Children’s Reporter and because they were under the age of 16 they were given a warning. If it had been more serious would be put into secure homes, or if they were repeat offenders. At the time we issued press releases, broadcast it on the local radio, and used high visibility police patrols and inter-agency working to make other agencies aware.

26

We went to 2 of local primary schools and talked with the kids although at the time we couldn’t prove it was schoolchildren who were doing it. There has been nothing since the June incident this year.

We have thought about CCTV but the low number of incidents and the issue of power cables meant out experts decided it was not a feasible option. Higher fencing was also considered but not progressed. If we identified that as a potential blackspot we would look at that, but our road safety department and road traffic officers also patrolled there. It’s usually the summer nights and is more prominent during school holidays.

We would support anything that highlights the dangers of what youngsters are up to. That would be beneficial; we would support anything that combats anti-social behaviour and injury. We would be keen to get involved with a partner agency approach and already work with AMEY who are responsible for highway maintenance here.

Strathclyde Police

We don’t really have a problem with stone throwing here. We haven’t seen anything when we’ve been out on patrol – just some sweet wrappers on the bridge. I can only think of three reports of stone throwing this year. It’s mainly in the summer holidays when the kids break up from school. We patrol the area regularly, by foot or by bike or in marked patrol cars. We have a police officer who liaises with the schools and she may know more (about the Just a Stone’s Throw campaign).

We had a couple of incidents where youths were throwing things from the overbridge over the M6 motorway, but one day in April they threw boulders over which caused 2 or 3 cars to be damaged and one little boy in a passenger seat was hurt. We had ideas who we thought was responsible, but after they were arrested no charges were brought because they were never 100% identified. We’ve not had any further incidents there, nor on nearby bridges. But we had an emergency closure put on the bridge whilst the Highways Agency do some amendments which make it impossible to throw anything off and we had a police community support officer permanently posted on the bridge until it was physically closed. The Highways Agency procedures take an awful long time which is quite frustrating but they are funding the amendments to this bridge as well as installing CCTV.

The closure of the bridge hasn’t been popular with residents and businesses. The pub has lost trade from those who used to walk across the bridge to get to it and some residents used to cross it to walk their dogs. But we had to be proactive as we knew the incidents were on the up and it was lucky someone wasn’t killed on that occasion [in April].

I don’t know about their schools campaign (delivered by the Highways Agency) but we held an emergency meeting and our Community Safety Officer liaised with the Community Officer of the Local Authority to deliver a single input programme into all the local schools.

Source: West Midlands Police

9 Agency Responses to the Issue

9.1 General A number of agencies approached for this report indicated that in addition to giving feedback they would be in support of any potential action to help reduce the problem, although some would require endorsement from the Highways Agency in the first place.

9.2 The Automobile Association Paul Watters, Head of Roads Policy (by phone): “This is something that comes up rarely. [Cited the M3 incident.] Seems to be mostly during the school holidays. It is best not to draw attention to it when it is not particularly a problem to avoid sowing the seed of an idea. The AA promote the idea that motorways are covered by CCTV which acts as a deterrent. Since the M3 incident some of the more vulnerable bridges, including that one, have been encased.

If a campaign were to be backed by the Highways Agency it would be worth making contact with the AA as we would then support it.”

9.3 The Highways Agency David Brown, Senior Technical Advisor (by email): “In the last few years, there have been a considerable number of incidents involving people throwing objects at traffic. This type of vandalism is particularly dangerous and potentially can result in a serious road traffic accident. It is a crime that has no set pattern and is usually attributed to young children who have ‘nothing better to do’ and find this activity ‘exciting’. Not a lot of information is available from any literature review about characteristics of and reasons for throwing objects at traffic.

“A number of incidents where objects have been thrown at traffic have been reported by the media. While news reports could not be considered as direct ‘hard’ evidence relating to the scale of the problem, they do highlight the fact that this form of vandalism occurs. Moreover, news reports can show what consequences these acts can have and provide some insight into the locations where it is done, and who does it. Evidence from the Police is likely to be the best source of information available relating to the scale and nature of the problem of throwing objects at traffic. Police data can give an indication of when and how often incidents of throwing objects occur, where it is done (‘hot spots’) and who does it (e.g. age and sex of offenders).

(NB: No such police data was obtainable).

“Education was seen as a key method of reducing the problems of objects thrown onto roads. A number of programmes have been tried but there is little monitoring of effectiveness. The types of education processes used include local press campaigns, public exhibitions, community events and education in schools. Education to inform young people about the potential consequences of their actions was thought to be key in reducing the incidence of throwing objects.

28

CCTV cameras on high risk overbridges have been used. They are assumed to have a deterrent effect, an assumption which is substantiated by comments from offenders.

Police activity near high risk overbridges seems to have an effect. Since offenders do not generally plan ahead then removal of possible ‘ammunition’ (rubbish, stones etc) was viewed as a key factor in reducing the incidence of the offence. Some practitioners also advocated clearance of foliage etc to open up the sight lines on the bridge to make potential offenders feel they are more likely to be seen and apprehended.

The enclosing of bridges would seem, at first sight, to be the way to eliminate throwing of objects from them. However, the issue of cost effectiveness was raised by several of those consulted and there were varying views on the suitability of this measure because it may make the bridge unattractive to pedestrians, who may be more fearful of crime on an enclosed bridge. It was also noted that the structure of some bridges may make them unsuitable because the enclosure may weaken the bridge. Average enclosure cost is estimated at £1m.”

Felicity Drewett, Project Sponsor for Stone’s Throw, Deputy Team Leader and area safety coordinator for Kent and Sussex (by phone): “There has been a big and positive take-up. [of the ‘Just a Stone’s Throw campaign] Bigger than we envisaged in the first instance.

200 packs of the Key Stage 2 – Just a Stones Throw - pack given to ROSPER across the Laser programme.

Every LEA in England received a minimum of 10 packs when the Throwing it all Away pack was launched.

It is not a protected copyright so we don’t have a figure of how many additional CDs have been copied.

Just a Stones Throw is about to be relaunched in a new DVD format, based on the same material but goes a step further for older children.

The CD contains a story relating to two children who like experimenting with things, the science behind it, and gives the real life stories of Micky Little and Ricky Atwell with the message: think again if you are near a bridge or subway – don’t play around near a motorway”.

Most police don’t keep records of the number. of incidents and there can be 5 or 6 people reporting the same incident. The Highways Agency is battling to try and get this information.

The M25 is a particular hotspot – we are looking at the equivalent of virtually some sort of incident almost every other day.

Surrey is a problem area – there are lot of overbridges and footbridges to and from schools which dissect the M25. Key time seems to be after school to tea time. I am finding the same in Kent and Sussex.

Longer evenings provide more opportunity for mischief. There are mitigating actions – we can put up some meshing but people don’t like it, it feels like a tunnel. If you enclose the mesh you offer the kids opportunity to get up to more mischief – like riding BMX bikes on top of enclosed bridges!

Most bridges were built before this became an established problem. Wind loading factors not factored in. No-one expected this. Enmeshing a bridge cost between £70k-100k to enmesh per bridge.

LA [Local Authority] budgets and a large chunk of Highways Agency funding are used for enclosing bridges but LA funding can’t be done on all bridges. We’ve tried CCTV, but many bridges are isolated and there is more vandalism to the cameras. And then you have to pay someone to watch the screens.

We have carried out some remedial work such as a bridge in East Sussex, which fitted all the criteria: it was a footbridge, between 2 schools and there was throwing and walking on the parapet here. We used education, Key Stage 2 [Just a Stone’s Throw] in the local primary school, and found then that local primary children reported all the children doing it and we also put up mesh.

It is important to keep the area around bridges well maintained so there is nothing to throw. We find these incidents are spur of the moment, exploratory behaviour. It is not wilful, or malicious in intent – just childhood curiosity. Very few go along armed with bricks. They have no appreciation of the damage that they will cause, or the impact. The average offenders are 9-15 years old, predominantly male, but not exclusively.

Our approach is all about prevention – even if you just wave at a car driver from a bridge you are distracting them. We find there are three grades of children: those who never do such a thing, those who could go either way and a small minority who will do it, no matter how much education or enforcement is applied. Our primary group targets are those that are impressionable, who might go either way.

9.4 Road Haulage Association Kate Gibbs, Press Officer (by phone): “It is a tremendous problem. Sadly we see more and more of it and the more we see the less it becomes news. It does make drivers nervous, especially on the M4 around the airport area. But if you ring the police, by the time they get there the kids will have gone. There are measures that can be taken to help this. For example, when a new housing estate goes up, part of the infrastructure includes a bridge or access road, with a building site at the other end of the bridge – this is a source of ammunition. And if roundabouts are landscaped with rocks, these make perfect missiles. Any new safety campaign would get tremendous support from us.”

9.5 Road Safety GB (formerly LARSOA) This organisation would support initiatives in this area but would need more information about the project.

30

9.6 The Institute of Road Safety Officers (ISRO) Darren Divall, the public relations officer for ISRO said: “The way we all try to work is by developing and delivering intelligence led schemes and I am unaware of any research undertaken that suggests that this is a particular problem.

9.7 Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) John Vallender said: “I would be interested in discussing initiatives in the future.

I am now managing a project for DCSF [Department for Children Schools and Families] called the ‘Child Safety Education Coalition’ (CSEC). www.csec.org.uk

Part of the work for CSEC is to identify and describe the effectiveness of the many ‘Safety Resources and Services’ currently on shelves, in use and in planning”.

9.8 Mersey Travel Dr. Julian Westwood CMILT, TravelSafe Policy Officer (by email): “In answer to your question - we have run many Trojan bus operations and variants and continue to do so.

While our hotspots tend to be in familiar locations and communities, they are significantly less "hot" than they used to be.

Since 2006 to the present day we have reduced the number of smashed windows by around 66% using this tactic. The message has become clear that it’s not ok and it’s not an easy target with little chance of detection”.

10 Pulling it together - what could be done to stop the problem?

10.1 Police and Agency Views

10.1.1 Education

There is support for an educational programme, warning children of the consequences of their actions, but there is also some thinking that drawing attention to the problem through any kind of publicity could exacerbate it by giving children ideas they might otherwise not have had.

The Highways Agency, whilst recognising that this might be the case, decided to take that risk when launching its educational programme, Just A Stone’s Throw, into schools in 2005.

This programme has been gathering momentum and the Highways Agency now believe that where the programme has been delivered, incidents in those areas have reduced.

Just a Stone’s Throw is aimed at younger children, 9-11 years with another campaign, Throwing it All Away, launched at older children and younger teenagers. Just a Stone’s Throw is being relaunched in a DVD format in 2010. Throwing it All Away is in CD format. A link to the Just A Stone’s Throw teaching pack is annexed to this report.

"Just A Stones Throw" explains the science behind the actions, how an object’s mass increases as it is subject to the forces of gravity, for example, and encouraging pupils to think of the consequences of their actions.

“Throwing It All Away”, is in CD format with a range of teaching resources supporting it, involving role play, debate and media discussion. It is built around the concept of a teasing game that goes wrong and designed to be part of the PSHE/Citizenship curriculum.

In addition to the resources provided by the Highways Agency, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) sponsors a programme of ‘Learning About Safety by Experiencing Risk’ (LASER) which offers experiential learning through a number of resource centres across the UK. Whilst these are aimed more at more general safety issues, at home, at work and at leisure as well as on the road, ROSPA does carry the Home Office ‘Stone’s Throw’ teaching resources.

There are around 200 LASER schemes and LASER affiliated schemes operating in the UK. Schemes are designated as:

'Permanent' (or Regional) - open all through the year at a fixed venue and

'Annual Events' - open for 2 to 4 weeks at a variety of venues.

In order to be included, schemes must be:

• Committed to the principles and practice of learning about safety through activity based learning

• Registered with the forum • Working towards or have achieved accreditation

32

At least one police authority (West Midlands) has run its own educational programme in local schools, following a spate of stone-throwing incidents, in conjunction with the local authority, but this programme was of their own design, rather than the Home Office’s ‘Just a Stone’s Throw’ campaign. Most police officers interviewed for this report were unaware of the ‘Just a Stone’s Throw’ campaign and more could be done to make local police forces aware of this campaign, with perhaps community liaison officers trained to deliver it.

10.1.2 A restorative justice approach

This is a relatively new approach in dealing with wrongdoing by children and ties in with the concept of ‘community payback’. It is an alternative to criminal prosecution, bringing together offenders of low level crime and their victims to achieve resolution.

A recent case was in October 2009, at Attleborough in Norfolk, where children were caught throwing stones at traffic from a footbridge across the A11 at West Carr Road. The children were apprehended and, with their parents, brought to apologise for the distress caused to the driver of the vehicle. The potential consequences of their actions were explained to them and they were tasked with also writing a letter of apology. (See Summary of Police Responses).

Restorative justice however, can only be effective where culprits are caught and may not necessarily act as a deterrent to others.

10.1.3 Enclosing/fencing overbridges

In some areas this has been done, but the Highways Agency explained that the construction of many overbridges does not allow for enclosure. Overbridges which are completely enclosed, says the Highways Agency, are not popular with users as they feel the tunnel effect is a personal safety issue. In addition, they invite children to climb on top of the structure, creating another safety problem.

A further deterrent to fencing overbridges is the cost – between £70,000 and £100,000 per bridge. Complete enclosure could cost up to £1m. This cost would have to be borne by the local authorities.

10.1.4 CCTV

Many overbridges are covered by CCTV. However, the remoteness of many overbridges, according to the Highways Agency, precludes the installation of CCTV as the cameras themselves become subject to vandalism.

Again, a further drawback to CCTV is the cost of both installing and then monitoring the cameras.

10.1.5 Increased police patrols

Police often step up patrols in areas where reports of stone throwing are received. However the chances of catching the culprits are remote as often the youngsters have fled before the police arrive. In addition, police do not necessarily have the resources to attend every instance of stone throwing when reported (usually by motorists).

Wth

10.2 MWauofw

Figure authori

Base: 1,8

10.3 NLiprasD

Liastobu

Mre

Insta

Fundin

Pe

Nothi

When policehe local poli

Motorist VWhen asked

uthorities af youngster

with just und

7: Which oities and go

891 motorists

Next Stepsiaise with Hrogramme, ssociations/

DVD.

ittle mileages impossibl

oo costly foudgets (drin

Most anecdespondents

alling more CCspots o

Fencing all mcarria

ng educationa

Providing policenable more p

ng ‐ there is aon th

e issue presce or Crime

Views in the survnd governm

rs throwing er a third (3

one of the fovernment

s? Highways A

perhaps /youth club

e in lobbyinle to identif

or LAs whicnk driving, s

dotal evidefeel educa

CTV cameras aon motorway

motorway andageway road b

al programme

ce with more patrols at vuln

already too grehe taxpayer

ss releasesestoppers w

vey which oment departobjects into

32%) of resp

following pt departme

Agency and an HA

bs. Perhap

g local authfy which brch, without speeding ca

ence pointsting youngs

at vulnerable ys

d other main bridges

es for schools

resources to nerable spots

eat a burden 

regarding with evidenc

ne of a sugtments shoo the highwpondents g

preventativents should

other agenapproved

ps sponsor

horities to feidges to enstatistical e

ause more a

s to oldersters on the

6%

0% 5% 1

incidents, tce.

gested list uld be takin

way, CCTV wiving this as

ve measured be taking

ncies to devposter c

the relaun

ence/enclosnclose, bridevidence, haccidents, fo

r children/ye consequen

%

10% 15% 2

the public is

of preventang first to cwas the mos their answ

es do you t first? (Q13

vise an addcampaign ch of the H

se overbridgge design have higheror example

young teences as the

23%

20%

20%

0% 25% 30

s invited to

ative measuombat the

ost popular wer.

hink local 3)

ditional eduaimed at

HA ‘Stones

ges or instamay not ber priorities ).

nagers an best way fo

32%

0% 35%

contact

ure local problem answer,

ucational t youth s Throw’

all CCTV e viable, for their

d most orward.

34

11 Appendix 1 - Online Survey Questionnaire

This is a survey about the safety of drivers when making journeys by car.

Q1: Have you driven a car on the roads in the UK in the previous 3 months? Yes - Continue No - Filter out of survey

Q2: Roughly how many miles do you drive in a year on roads in the UK? Less than 5,000 miles 5,000 to 9,999 miles 10,000 to 19,999 miles 20,000 to 29,999 miles 30,000 to 50,000 miles More than 50,000 miles

Q3: Is the main car that you drive on UK roads owned privately or is it owned by a company or an organisation?

Owned privately Owned by a company or an organisation Not sure

Q4: Have you ever seen people throwing objects into the road while you were driving or a passenger in a car?

Never Once or Twice in the past five years Three or four times in the past five years More than four times in the past five years

Q5: Have you ever suffered from a missile hitting your vehicle when driving? (If yes please give details)

Yes No

Q6: Do you know someone else who has experienced/seen people throwing objects into the road while they were driving or a passenger in a car?

Yes No

Q7: (If yes to any except never) Did you/they report the incident/incidents to the police? Yes No

Q8: How widespread a problem do you consider people throwing objects into the road to be, would you say it is …

Very widespread Quite widespread Not very widespread Limited to just a few trouble spots

Q9: Are you afraid of driving under a bridge if people are standing on it? Yes very afraid Yes a little afraid Yes slightly worried No not at all

Q10: With which of the following statements do you most agree? I always glance up to see if there is anyone on the bridge when driving underneath one in

case they throw something I often glance up to see if there is anyone on the bridge when driving underneath one in case

they throw something I occasionally feel a slight concern driving under a bridge that someone might throw

something when I’m driving I don’t worry about people standing on bridges and throwing things onto the road while I am

driving.

Q11: Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, ‘A person is guilty of an offence if he/she intentionally and without lawful authority or reasonable cause, causes anything to be thrown onto a road. The maximum penalty for this is up to seven years imprisonment and or a fine.

How heavy a penalty do you consider this to be for this kind of offence, would you say?: The maximum penalty should be higher if casualties are caused The maximum penalty is about right if casualties are caused Some other penalty should be given for this kind of offence, even if casualties are caused

Q12: In many of the reported cases, offenders have been found to be youngsters. Which of the following forms of action do you think would be most appropriate for youngsters committing offences if they result in casualties?

Imprisonment or detention A heavy fine Community Service Compulsory road safety education Let local community safety officers handle the case as they think appropriate

Q13: Which one of the following preventative measures do you think local authorities and government departments should be taking first?

Installing more CCTV cameras at vulnerable spots on the major highways Fencing all motorway and other main carriageway road bridges Funding educational programmes for schools Providing police with more resources to enable more patrols at vulnerable spots Nothing – there is already too great a burden on the taxpayer

Q14: Why do you think youngsters are most likely to throw objects onto the road? Boredom They don’t really view it as a crime Don’t understand the consequences of their actions Dared to do it by friends Other (please give examples)

12 Ap

Gender

Base: 1,8

Age Ra

Base: 1,8

Geogra

Base: 1,8

17 to 2

21 to 3

31 to 4

41 to 5

51 to 6

61 pl

SN

Yorks &S

East oN

WestEast

ppendix

r

891 motorists

ange

891 motorists

aphic Loca

891 motorists

Fe

0

20 years old

30 years old

40 years old

50 years old

60 years old

us years old

0%

South EastNorth West& Humberouth WestScotlandLondon

of EnglandNorth Eastt Midlandst Midlands

WalesN. Ireland

2 - Resp

ation

emale, 58%

1%

0% 5%

32%

% 2%

pondent

M

1

11%

10%

6%6%6%

3%

4% 6%

Profiles

Male, 42%

12%

%

15% 20

9%8%

%%%

8% 10

24%

0% 25%

11%11%11%

10%%

% 12%

26%

26%

%

30%

14% 16%

17%

18%

36

Because people matter, we listen. With some 20 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy.

Our business is about understanding people; because they matter. Finding out what they really need; from the type of information they use to the type of services they require. In short, finding out about the kind of world people want to live in tomorrow.

BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance.

Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of technologies such as portals and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.

38