The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit: An Evaluation · Police Services Division – Road...

TThhee FFrraasseerr VVaalllleeyy

IInntteeggrraatteedd RRooaadd SSaaffeettyy UUnniitt::

AAnn EEvvaalluuaattiioonn

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Policing and Community Safety Branch Road Safety Unit September, 2009

PSSG10-002

1

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Police Services Division – Road Safety Unit

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS ............................................................................ 1 EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY ........................................................................... 2 CCHHAAPPTTEERR 11:: IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN ................................................................. 7

The purpose of the evaluation as well as an overview of both the Enhanced Traffic Safety Memorandum of Understanding and the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit's mandate, structure and jurisdictional boundaries

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 22:: MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY .............................................................. 13

Methodology used to assess the FV IRSU's effectiveness in delivering enhanced traffic to BC's Fraser Valley Region

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33:: PPOOLLIICCEE AACCTTIIVVIITTYY ((OOUUTTPPUUTT)) ......................................... 22

Comparative analysis of the FV IRSU's enforcement activity as compared to the previous overtime based traffic enforcement model

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 44:: IIMMPPAACCTT OONN CCRRAASSHHEESS ((OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS)) ............................ 44

Crash analysis results and a longitudinal overview of both injury crashes and dangerous driving behaviours in the Fraser Valley Region before and after the implementation of the current model

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 55:: EESSTTIIMMAATTIINNGG EECCOONNOOMMIICC BBEENNEEFFIITT ............................... 66

Economic benefit analysis of the FV IRSU compared to the previous overtime model

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 66:: IINNTTEERRVVIIEEWWSS .................................................................... 72

Summary of the qualitative results stemming from 28 interviews conducted with FV IRSU members and Joint Management Team

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 77:: RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS ..................................................... 98

2


EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) evaluation has three primary

objectives:

1. assess whether the change in model/delivery of enhanced traffic in British

Columbia has altered both police traffic enforcement activity levels in the Fraser

Valley Region. It compares 2003 when ICBC directly funded enhanced traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley though the CounterAttack program and the

Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership with 2008 when the Integrated Road

Safety Unit model was fully implemented in the region.

2. assess corresponding changes to crash volumes in that same geographical area

3. evaluate the Unit’s operations, management, communications and strategic

direction by interviewing all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team

(both current and former members).

The subsequent analysis of the interviews led to 18 recommendations for improvement in

7 operational and administrative areas.

The FV IRSU enforcement area covers 19 jurisdictions throughout the Fraser Valley

Region of B.C. The majority of enforcement time is spent in the areas listed in Table 1

based on high population counts and high crash volumes. Collectively, this area spans

2,576 square kilometres and has seen a 9% increase in population in 2008 compared to

2003. These jurisdictions make up 23% of the province’s total population (2008).

The evaluation also provides an analysis of the economic benefit of the FV IRSU both in

terms of social costs to the BC taxpayer and claims costs to ICBC. This was not part of the

original mandate but the data collected lends itself to this type of analysis and it is also

useful to demonstrate value for money wherever possible. It is, however, important to

recognize that the data collected can only provide estimates given that it was beyond the

scope of this study to account for other factors (weather patterns, vehicle safety

requirements, demographics, etc.) that may have affected the frequency of crashes and

ultimately the associated economic benefit. While there is a significant downward trend in

rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the region corresponding to the establishment of the

3


IRSU program, the results at this point should be viewed as contributory as opposed to

causal.

The key performance indicators defining the ‘effectiveness’ of the Fraser Valley IRSU

program are:

Police activity generated through the number of violation tickets and Criminal Code charges issued.

The number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash victims at the Fraser Valley’s top crash locations and throughout the region as a whole.

The interview responses by members regarding integration, operations, data collection, equipment, communications, officer safety and overall effectiveness.

The overall return on investment to the Province of B.C. and B.C.’s Municipalities. .

Police Activity Overall, the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008:

Wrote over 30,000 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined.

Focused enforcement efforts on speeding (49% of tickets issued), seatbelt violations (18%), intersection offences (11%), and impaired driving enforcement (3%).

Averaged 1 violation ticket per working hour.

When comparing the 2003 CounterAttack (CA) and Targeted Traffic Enforcement

Partnership (TTEP) enhanced traffic enforcement programs to the 2008 FV IRSU:

The FV IRSU worked double the amount of hours, and was over 4 times more productive in police activity. In 2003, CA and TTEP worked 15,322 hours and issued a total of 7,377 violations and charges. In 2008, FV IRSU worked 35,635 hours and issued a total of 31,331 violations and charges.

The FV IRSU generated approximately $2.7 million more in traffic fine revenue. In 2003 CA and TTEP generated over $600,000 in traffic fine revenue while in 2008 FV IRSU generated $3.3 million in traffic fine revenue.

The FV IRSU issued 8 times more Criminal Code charges than CA and TTEP combined; in 2003 CA and TTEP issued 24 Criminal Code charges and in 2008 FV IRSU issued 192 Criminal Code charges.

The FV IRSU issued double the violation tickets and Criminal Code charges per working hour from 0.48 tickets per working hour in 2003 to 0.88 tickets per working hour in 2008.

The FV IRSU was 24% more cost effective in terms of cost per ticket; in 2003 the cost per ticket was $92.35 in comparison to $70.51 in 2008.

4


Impact on Crashes When comparing the 2002/2003 average to the 2007/2008 average, throughout the top

105 intersections targeted by the Fraser Valley IRSU, the results showed:

4% decrease in the number of injured and fatal victims 7% increase in the number of casualty crashes

When comparing the 2002/2003 average to the 2007/2008 average, the Fraser Valley

Region showed:

14% decrease in motor vehicle fatalities 17% decrease in the number of injured victims 12% decrease in the number of casualty crashes 23% decrease in the rate of injured victims per 100,000 population

Interview Results

96% of respondents thought that the IRSU traffic model is an improvement compared to past non-integrated traffic units

93% felt that the integration was working well at the Fraser Valley IRSU 45% of members actively applied for positions at the Fraser Valley IRSU, whereas

41% were either involuntarily assigned or transferred into the unit 73% of members were satisfied with how the IRSU was functioning 77% responded that they had enjoyed their time working for the Fraser Valley

IRSU 100% of members said they felt safe on the job

Recommendations The interviews also led to 18 recommendations for improvement in seven key areas:

IRSU Program – That government communicate with participating police departments regarding

the importance of maintaining staffing levels prior to the MOU being signed. More ongoing and regular communication between participating police

departments, IRSU management, the Road Safety Advisory Committee, and Police Services Division regarding maintaining required IRSU staffing levels.

Bi-weekly communication with participating police departments, following the distribution of the enforcement calendar.

Follow-up with participating police departments, following each local Joint Force Operation (JFO).

Staffing Policies and Procedures All members, whether coming from Independent or RCMP departments, should

have to apply for positions with the IRSU.

5


All members should arrive at the Integrated Road Safety Unit with an

experienced background in traffic enforcement. The Staff Sergeant and Sergeant of the Fraser Valley IRSU should have more

influence over who is seconded into the unit.

Communications The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop a formal strategic plan, including a

specification of a mandate, goals, performance indicators and strategic expectations of all members.

The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop an information package for all new members arriving to the unit.

Data Driven Enforcement

ICBC should provide the Fraser Valley IRSU with quarterly reports on the number of injured, seriously injured and fatal victims involved in motor vehicle incidents at all top crash locations throughout the jurisdictions they serve.

The Fraser Valley IRSU should present this information to all members on a quarterly basis and provide a hard copy to all members.

The Fraser Valley IRSU Senior Management should make it clear to members that the targeting the identified ‘high crash locations’ is the primary strategic priority and the production of a violations ticket volume is secondary.

Senior Management should provide direction to members on which ‘high crash locations” to target.

Senior Management should regularly follow-up on that “targeting”.

Administrative Issues Shortages of public servant staff should be addressed immediately by Senior

Management. Administrative set-up processes for new members of the Fraser Valley IRSU

should begin 3 months prior to their arrival in order to ensure that they can be fully operational at the beginning of their tour of duty.

Equipment

The Fraser Valley IRSU should budget for the purchase of 4 unconventional vehicles.

Governance

The Joint Management Team, Staff Sergeant and Police Services Division meet on a quarterly basis to review the unit’s performance indicators (i.e. police activity and crash statistics), discuss operational challenges, public awareness efforts and/or any other pertinent issues.

6


Estimated Economic Benefit: The data clearly demonstrates that there is a reduction in serious injuries and fatalities

between 2003 and 2008 in both Fraser Valley high crash locations as well as the region as

a whole. Those reductions can be translated into dollar savings for the BC taxpayer. For

instance, in terms of the high crash locations there is an estimated social cost benefit of

$29,385,364. This figure does not include other positive financial benefits including the

increase in traffic fine revenue, the 30% federal benefit attached to integrated initiatives or

ICBC claims costs saving. Again this report was not equipped to factor out other variables

which may have contributed to these savings and must remain estimates for the purposes

of this document.

7


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 11:: IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit evaluation has three primary objectives:

1. assess whether the change in model/delivery of enhanced traffic in British

Columbia has altered both police traffic enforcement activity levels in the Fraser

Valley Region It compares 2003 when ICBC directly funded enhanced traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley though the CounterAttack program and the

Targeted Enforcement Partnership with 2008 when the Integrated Road Safety Unit

model was fully implemented in the region.

2. assess any corresponding changes to crash volumes in that same geographical

area.

3. evaluate the Unit’s operations, management, communications and strategic

direction by interviewing all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team

(both current and former members). The subsequent analysis of the interviews led

to 18 recommendations for improvement in 7 operational and administrative areas.

The evaluation also provides an analysis of the economic benefit of the FV IRSU both in

terms of social costs to the BC taxpayer and claims costs to ICBC. This was not part of the

original mandate but the data collected lends itself to this type of analysis and it is also

useful to demonstrate value for money wherever possible. It is, however, important to

recognize that the data collected can only provide estimates given that it was beyond the

scope of this study to account for other factors (weather patterns, vehicle safety

requirements, demographics, etc.) that may have affected the frequency of crashes and

ultimately the associated economic benefit. While there is a significant downward trend in

rate of serious injuries and fatalities in the region corresponding to the establishment of the

IRSU program, the results at this point should be viewed as contributory as opposed to

causal.

Background: The Enhanced Road Safety Program In partnership with the provincial government, ICBC has been involved in funding

enhanced road safety and auto theft programs since 1996. From 1996 to 2002 ICBC

provided funding directly to individual police agencies in support of traffic safety programs

8


than including CounterAttack, Photo Radar, Intersection Safety Camera Program, auto

crime enforcement, Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP) and the Enhanced

Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI).

In 2003, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (MPSSG) and ICBC signed a

five year Memorandum of Understanding to fund the Enhanced Road Safety Program

(ERSP). Through the ERSP, ICBC funds dedicated road safety police positions (including

both RCMP and independent police agencies), Counterattack overtime, the

IMPACT/BaitCar unit and the Integrated Intersection Safety Camera Unit. That funding is

directed to Police Services Division which, through the Road Safety Administration Unit,

oversees those enhanced road safety initiatives. The MOU reflects the need to direct

funding for law enforcement activities through the Ministry to avoid the perception that

outside agencies can influence police activities for their own interests. Additionally, the

Road Safety Unit serves as the liaison between police operations and ICBC.

As the funding for enhanced traffic enforcement is delivered through the Provincial Policing

Contract, an additional 30 percent is invested by the Federal Government. For the term of

the MOU, this has led to an addition of approximately $5 million per year in extra funding

for the enhanced enforcement initiatives. The MOU also established the ‘Road Safety

Advisory Committee’ which provides strategic advice and direction on policy as well as the

development and implementation of the program. The committee is comprised of

representatives from Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the police and ICBC.

The ‘Integrated Road Safety Unit’ Model With the new model, 110 full-time, dedicated traffic enforcement positions drawn from both

the RCMP and independent police agencies were formed into Integrated Road Safety

Units (IRSU’s) and strategically placed throughout B.C. in the Lower Mainland, Fraser

Valley, Vancouver Island, North and Southeast Districts. The mandate of the IRSU

program is to deliver targeted road safety enforcement through the use of crash data to

decrease serious injuries and fatalities related to crashes. The program’s priorities include

impaired driving, aggressive driving, seatbelt compliance and intersection violations.

These units are not responsible for first response calls or accident investigations which

remain the responsibility of regular traffic units; IRSUs are an enhancement to baseline

9


policing. All local police departments and RCMP detachments are still responsible for

providing baseline traffic enforcement within their municipalities.

The IRSU model requires that operational decisions be based on data collection indicating

the most frequent days, times and locations for vehicle related serious injury and fatality

crashes. Resources are then focused on those areas to more effectively manage road

safety enforcement and reduce dangerous driving behaviour and crashes.

The IRSU model is strategically linked to Canada’s road safety strategy, ‘Road Safety

Vision 2010’ (RSV 2010).That strategy calls for a 30% decrease in the average number of

road users fatally or seriously injured during the 2008-2010 period (compared to 1996-

2001) as well as a 40% decrease in the number of unbelted fatally or seriously injured

occupants and a 40% decrease in the percentage of road users fatally or seriously injured

in crashes involving drinking drivers. B.C.’s Integrated Road Safety Units incorporate the

RSV 2010 targets into their strategic operational planning to more effectively target

dangerous driving behaviours within their region. Road Safety Vision 2010 is officially

endorsed nationwide by all Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highways.

Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU)

The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit was established in 2005, through a

Memorandum of Understanding signed between the RCMP “E” Division, Abbotsford Police

Department, Delta Police Department and Police Services Division, Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General.

Its mandate is to deliver targeted road safety enforcement through the use of crash data to

reduce the incidence of serious injury and fatalities related to vehicle crashes. Its priorities

include impaired driving, aggressive driving, low seatbelt compliance and controlled

intersection violations. Under the MOU, the FV IRSU is comprised of the following Unit

member authorized strength:

Abbotsford Police Department 4 members

Delta Police Department 2 members

RCMP 15 members

Total 21 members

10


Included in that complement are two supervisory positions: an independent Police member

(Abbotsford) serves as the Staff Sergeant of the Unit assisted by a 2nd Office in Charge

from the RCMP who serves as the Unit’s Sergeant. There are also two public service

administrative positions; however, during this evaluation only one position was staffed.

Strategic and operational direction for the FV IRSU is provided by the ‘Joint Management

Team’ (JMT) in conjunction with the Road Safety Advisory Committee.

The JMT is tasked with:

Appointing the Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCO i/c) Reviewing the Unit’s budget Dealing with matters of concern regarding the MOU Appointing one member as Chair for a two year term Meeting at least twice a year and meeting with the Greater Vancouver JMT at least

once a year Selecting one of their Members to represent the FV IRSU on the Road Safety

Advisory Committee The Joint Management Team is comprised of an RCMP Member as Chair, a member from

the Abbotsford Police and a member from the Delta Police.

Road Safety Advisory Committee

Joint Management Team

Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge

FV IRSU

2nd NCO i/c FV IRSU

19 Police Officer Positions

2 Public Service Positions

RCMP Financial Agent

11


The FV IRSU enforcement area covers 19 jurisdictions throughout the Fraser Valley

Region of B.C. The majority of enforcement time is spent in the areas listed in Table 1

based on high population counts and high crash volumes. Collectively, this area spans

2,576 square kilometres and has seen a 9% increase in population (approximately 79,000

more people) in 2008 compared to 2003 (see Table 1). These jurisdictions make up 23%

of the Province’s total population (2008). The map below in Figure 1, illustrates the

location of the Fraser Valley Region in comparison to the Greater Vancouver Region. Figure1

12


Table 1. Fraser Valley Statistics (2003 and 2008)

2003* 2008**

City/District Area (sq. km) Population Area (sq. km) Population

Abbotsford 375.00 115,463 375.20 123,864

Chilliwack 266.45 62,927 268.72 69,217

Delta 364.33 96,950 364.33 96,723

Harrison 6.79 1,343 6.79 1,573

Hope 45.75 6,184 45.75 6,185

Kent 193.74 4,926 193.74 4,738

Langley 327.83 110,539 327.83 117,332

Maple Ridge 267.10 63,169 267.10 68,949

Mission 253.34 31,272 253.34 34,505

Pitt Meadows 88.25 14,670 88.25 15,623

Surrey 371.40 347,825 371.40 394,976

White Rock 14.02 18,250 14.02 18,755

Total FV 2,574.01 873,518 2,576.00 952,440

Total BC*** 926,492.48 3,907,738 924,815.43 4,113,487 *2003: area and population as of December 31, 2002 from Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in BC 2003; area in square kilometres and population excluding people residing on Indian Reserves. **2008: area and population as of December 31, 2006 from Ministry of Community Development Statistics Relating to Regional and Municipal Governments in BC 2008; area in square kilometres and population excluding people residing on Indian Reserves. ***BC area and population from BC Stats 2001 and 2006 Census Profiles. The Fraser Valley driver and vehicle populations have also grown considerably over the past few years. Specifically, by 2008 the number of insured vehicles in the region has increased by almost 14% since 2003 and the number of active drivers has increased by 10%. Table 2 below displays these figures. Table 2. Fraser Valley Driving Statistics (2003 and 2008) 2003 2008 % change

(2003-2008) City/District Insured

Vehicles* Active

Drivers** Insured

Vehicles* Active

Drivers** Insured

Vehicles* Active

Drivers** Total FV 615,000 700,000 698,000 773,000 +13.5% +10.4% Total BC 2,435,000 2,838,000 2,729,000 3,063,000 +12.1% +7.9% *Insured vehicles totals for BC and FV from ICBC Actively Insured Vehicles and Active Drivers as of December 31 each year; insured vehicle count not including trailers. **Active drivers totals for BC and FV from ICBC Actively Insured Vehicles and Active Drivers as of December 31 each year

13


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 22:: MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY

The FV IRSU Evaluation is comprised of both quantitative and qualitative methods. The

quantitative methods were utilized to assess police activity in terms of enhanced traffic

enforcement violations (outputs) and crash volumes in the Fraser Valley region

(outcomes).

The qualitative methods were utilized to assess the operational structure and efficiency of

the policing unit. This chapter will provide a detailed overview of both sets of

methodologies, variables examined and limitations to the overall research design.

Quantitative Methods Research Design Overview

A trend analysis was conducted using existing statistical data for a ‘before-after’ design.

This was implemented to assess two dependent variables as a function of one

independent variable in this evaluation:

• Dependent Variables: (1) police activity (outputs) and (2) crash volumes

(outcomes) • Independent Variable: (1) the change in the delivery/model of enhanced traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley.

The dependent variables were assessed at the following two different points in time:

Time 1 - Pre-IRSU (2003): this period of time represents the historical model of enhanced

traffic enforcement delivery through CounterAttack and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement

Partnership

Time 2 - Post-IRSU (2008): this period of time represents the full implementation of the FV

IRSU in the Fraser Valley Region through the Integrated Road Safety Unit Model

The graphic below illustrates the overall research design as described above. The same

two dependent variables, outputs (Y1) and outcomes (Y2) were assessed at two different

points in time (2003 and 2008). The change in the delivery of enhanced traffic

enforcement serves as the independent variable or intervention distinguishing the ‘pre-

14


IRSU’ time period from the ‘post-IRSU’ time period. The section below will detail the

overall sample and units of analyses assessed in this research design.

Sample

A specific sample was selected for both time periods (time 1 and time 2) to examine the

effects of the change in enhanced traffic enforcement on both police activity and crash

volumes in the FV Region of B.C.

Police Activity in the Fraser Valley (Outputs)

In order to assess how the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement (X)

affected the volume and nature of police activity (Y1), existing statistical data was

analyzed. For time 1, the ‘pre-IRSU’ period of analysis, data from the Insurance

Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) was examined which showed the number of violation tickets

written by police officers in the Fraser Valley in 2003 who participated in both

CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP). Both these

programs represented overtime traffic enforcement and the historical delivery of enhanced

road safety initiatives in 2003. This sample was purposely selected to examine the

amount of Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets written (ex. seatbelt tickets and speeding

tickets) and Criminal Code impaired driving, driving and non-driving charges laid by this

group of police officers in that specific region during time 1.

For time 2, the ‘post-IRSU’ period of analysis, existing data from the RCMP “E” Division

Traffic Services was assessed which showed the number of violation tickets written and

15


Criminal Code Impaired and Non-Driving charges laid by the Fraser Valley Integrated

Road Safety Unit throughout 2008. The RCMP “E” Division Traffic Services is the fiscal

agent for the IRSU and also collects all police output data for all Integrated Road Safety

Units throughout the province. Police Services Division, MPSSG, receives this

disaggregate data quarterly in excel spreadsheet format. This sample was purposely

selected to examine the amount of Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets written (ex. seatbelt

tickets and speeding tickets) and Criminal Code impaired driving (and other) charges laid

by this group of police officers in that specific region during time 2. This sample

represents all enhanced traffic police output for the Fraser Valley Region and includes

IRSU baseline enforcement activity, IRSU overtime enforcement activity and output in the

Fraser Valley from the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI).

Collectively, these three sources of outputs constitute enhanced traffic enforcement

activity in the Fraser Valley for time 2 (2008).

Frequency of Crashes in the Fraser Valley (Outcomes)

In order to assess how the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement (X)

affected the frequency of motor vehicle crashes in the Fraser Valley (Y2), existing

statistical data was analyzed. The sample was deliberately chosen to ensure specific

crash types at specific locations were sampled and analyzed for both time 1 (2002/2003)

and time 2 (2007/2008).

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. receives all data for police attended and unattended

motor vehicle incidents and collates this information in the Traffic Accident System (TAS)

database. In B.C., police are required to complete a prescribed collision investigation form

when attending/investigating a crash (i.e. the MV6020). The MV6020 requires the police

officer to detail the nature of the crash, whether an injury, serious injury or fatality was

involved and any contributing factors that may have led to the incident (ex. excessive

speed, impairment by alcohol or drugs, etc). All MV6020’s are submitted to ICBC for data

entry into the TAS database. Police Services Division specifically examined injury, serious

injury and fatality crash counts from the TAS database in the Fraser Valley Region for both

time 1 and time 2 in order to assess whether the change in the delivery of enhanced traffic

enforcement in this region has led to a change in the overall crash volume and types of

crashes indicative of dangerous driving behaviour.

16


Units of Analysis

This section will provide a detailed overview of how the independent variable and

dependent variables were operationalized in this Evaluation.

Independent Variable (X): Model of Enhanced Traffic Enforcement in the Fraser

Valley Region of B.C.

The purpose of the Fraser Valley IRSU Evaluation was to assess whether the change in

the model/delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement in B.C. has affected police activity

levels in road safety enforcement and crash volumes in the Fraser Valley Region. The

independent variable of ‘model of enhanced traffic enforcement’ was treated as an

intervention separating time (1) and time (2). Time 1, measured during 2003, represents

the period of time when the ICBC was directly funding enhanced traffic enforcement in the

Fraser Valley Region in the form of CounterAttack and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement

Partnership. Both road safety initiatives were conducted by police on an overtime basis

throughout the calendar year and are considered the ‘pre-IRSU’ period prior to the

Integrated Road Safety Unit model being implemented in this Region. Time 2, measured

during 2008, represents the ‘post-IRSU’ period time during which the IRSU model had

been fully established between the Abbotsford and Delta Police Departments, the RCMP

“E” Division Traffic Services and MPSSG. The FV IRSU was provided with component of

21 full time traffic enforcement officers whose sole responsibility was to conduct traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley Region and was exempt from responding to general duty

calls, responding to motor vehicle incidents and from conducting crash investigations.

Thus, the independent variable (X) was used as a qualitative unit of analysis representing

a program change in the Fraser Valley in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement to

that Region.

Dependent Variable (Y1): Police Activity in the Fraser Valley (Outputs)

The first dependent variable in the evaluation was the amount and type of enhanced traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley, or ‘police outputs’. This was applied by looking at similar

types of traffic enforcement activity by police in the FV Region at both time (1) and time

(2). Specifically, the number of Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets written and

17


Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) charges laid were added and compared between both

groups of police officers.

Main Categories of MVA offences analyzed at both time (1) and time (2):

• Speeding

• Seatbelts

• Intersections

• Impaired Driving

• Commercial Vehicles

• Criminal Interdiction

• Other (vehicle impoundments, wanted persons, seizure of liquor, etc)

Main Categories of CCC offences analyzed at both time (1) and time (2):

• Impaired Driving

• Driving Offences

• Non-Driving Offences

It is important to note that the total counts of both MVA and CCC charges for both groups

of police officers from time (1) and time (2) included both traffic and non-traffic related

police activity. Despite the fact that enhanced traffic enforcement is designed to target

traffic and road safety issues; the reality often involves various other types of enforcement

that are required of those who work in traffic. It was important that all types of

enforcement conducted by both groups of police were captured and included as a

representative total of cumulative enforcement efforts.

These results are discussed in Chapter 3.

Dependent Variable (Y2): Frequency of Crashes in the Fraser Valley (Outcomes)

The second dependent variable in the evaluation was the frequency of crashes in the

Fraser Valley Region or ‘outcomes’. This was operationalized by looking at the volume of

crashes and specific crash types between both time (1) and time (2). This unit of analysis

was a quantitative variable. The crash data was obtained through ICBC’s Traffic Accident

System (TAS) database comprised of police reported motor vehicle incidents. Specifically,

18


the unit of analysis for crash outcomes were the following for both time periods in this

Evaluation:

• Number of injury crashes and injured victims

• Number of serious injury crashes and seriously injured victims

• Number of fatality crashes and fatal victims

The above unit of analysis were observed for two sets of crash outcomes in both time (1)

and time (2). The first set of crash frequencies came from a set of 105 intersections

targeted by the FV IRSU. Police Services Division obtained a list of these top injury crash

intersections that the unit targeted operationally, which are spread throughout 10

jurisdictions:

• Abbotsford

• Delta

• Chilliwack

• Langley

• Mission

• White Rock

• Hope

• Maple Ridge

• Surrey

• Pitt Meadows

These 10 jurisdictions represent the vast majority of the FV IRSU’s enforcement efforts.

Police Services Division (PSD) requested the injury, serious injury and fatality crash

counts at these 105 intersections from 2000-2008 from police reported motor vehicle

incidents in the TAS database. It was decided that an average of 2002-2003 would

constitute time (1) for this particular analysis and an average of 2007-2008 would

constitute time (2).

The second set of victim and crash frequencies came from the entire Fraser Valley Region

as a whole. PSD requested the injury, serious injury and fatality victim and crash counts

for the entire region from 2000-2008 from police reported motor vehicle incidents in the

19


TAS database. It was decided that the same time periods would constitute time (1) for this

particular analysis (an average of 2002-2003) and an average of 2007-2008 would

constitute time (2). This second set of crash frequencies was observed to supplement the

analysis conducted at the top 105 intersections targeted specifically by the FV IRSU. This

was due to the fact that the FV IRSU has enforcement jurisdiction over the entire FV

Region and provides enhanced enforcement to all policing jurisdictions throughout those

areas. It was seen as beneficial to not only observe the targeted enforcement efforts of

the FV IRSU through the top 105 intersections, but also to observe the crash frequency of

the entire region served.

Lastly, PSD requested the victim and crash counts for the entire Fraser Valley Region from

ICBC for all police-attended motor vehicle incidents from the TAS database representing

dangerous driving behaviours. Specifically, the frequency of crashes in the FV Region

relating to alcohol impairment, seatbelt use, speed and intersections were analyzed for the

same periods between time (1) and time (2).

These results are discussed in Chapter 4.

Qualitative Methods In order to examine the structure, function and operations of the Fraser Valley IRSU in-

depth, a series of interviews were conducted with all current and former members of the

unit (n= 28). The interviews and the subsequent analysis of the results constitute the

qualitative component of this Evaluation.

Specifically, structured interviews with open-ended questions were designed to examine

the following issues within the FV IRSU:

• IRSU Model (ex. ‘Do you think the IRSU enforcement model is an improvement compared to past non-integrated models? Why or why not?’)

• IRSU Operations (ex. ‘Does the FV IRSU have an enforcement strategy that you are aware of’?)

• IRSU Effectiveness (ex. ‘Do you think the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes’?)

• Enforcement (ex. ‘How does this unit differ from the way other traffic units operate?’) • Intelligence-led Enforcement (ex. ‘Is collision data used to focus enforcement

operations?’)

20


• Data Collection and Intelligence-led policing (ex. ‘Is the enforcement output recorded? If yes, how?’)

• Communication (ex. ‘How often do you communicate with the Staff Sergeant and Sergeant’?)

• Integration (ex. ‘Do you think integration is working well? Why or why not?’) • Perception of IRSU (ex. ‘How do you think the IRSU is viewed by non-IRSU traffic

members’?) • Tools (ex. ‘Are there any tools, technology or equipment that would make the IRSU

more effective’?) • Training (ex. ‘Do IRSU members receive any special training’?) • Officer Safety (ex. ‘During the time you have served with the IRSU, has there been

any officer injuries on the job’?) • Additional questions regarding staffing issues, budgetary issues and the MOU were

also posed to Senior Officers within the IRSU and the Joint Management Team.

Three groups of police officers were interviewed for the qualitative analysis. Twenty-two

current and former FV IRSU Constables, Corporals and public service staff were

interviewed individually during the Spring of 2009. Each interview was comprised of 37

questions and took approximately 2 hours in length. Representing the Senior police

members, the current and former Staff Sergeant and current Sergeant were also

interviewed. These interviews were comprised of 38 questions and also took

approximately 2 hours. Finally, 3 members from the Joint Management Team and Lower

Mainland District Traffic Services were interviewed, representing the oversight body of the

FV IRSU. These interviews were comprised of 26 questions and took approximately 1.5

hours. All together, 28 interviews were conducted over approximately 55 hours during the

Spring of 2009, and represented the population of both current and former FV IRSU

members and staff.

Qualitative Analysis

All responses were collated and analyzed in two ways. First, each respondent was coded

as responding either ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘not applicable’. These responses were summed and

are presented as summary statistics in Chapter 6. Secondly, respondent’s answers to the

long answer questions were analyzed to capture any patterns or themes. These results

contributed to 20 recommendations for improvement, which are presented in Chapter 7.

21


Limitations There exist limitations towards the inference that a change in the delivery of enhanced

traffic enforcement throughout the Fraser Valley (X) has affected the crash volumes in that

region over time (Y2).

As this evaluation was not a controlled, randomized experimental design, there are factors

beyond the scope of the study that may have affected the frequency of crash volumes in

the Fraser Valley aside from the presence and activity of the FV IRSU. As the selection of

the unit of analysis (i.e. the intersection location and crash counts analyzed and the cities

constituting the Fraser Valley Region) was not random in nature, one cannot infer that

100% of any change observed in the frequency of crash volumes is due to the introduction

of the new enhanced traffic enforcement program. For example, from time (1) in 2002-

2003 to time (2) in 2007-2008, there may have been safety features developed in motor

vehicles that decrease the likelihood that a crash may result in injuries or fatalities.

Additionally, it can be assumed that changes in number of drivers, insured vehicles and

population increases overall may also affect crash trends. Other factors such as weather

can also affect crash frequencies, with particularly inclement weather increasing the

number of overall crashes and extent of injuries at any given time. These potential threats

to the internal validity of the findings were not statistically controlled for. Therefore, the

effect of the independent variable on crash volumes in the Fraser Valley should be viewed

as contributory as opposed to causal in nature.

The change in the delivery of enhanced traffic enforcement is, however, directly

attributable to the change in police activity stemming from the FV IRSU. When measuring

police activity (outputs), this evaluation included the entire population from both groups of

police officers at both time (1) and time (2). As such, the affect of (X) on (Y1) is causal and

will not be discussed in this section. However, the following section describes the

limitations of causal inference between (X) and (Y2) in detail.

22


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33:: PPOOLLIICCEE AACCTTIIVVIITTYY ((OOUUTTPPUUTT))

This chapter examines the FV IRSU’s 2008 enhanced traffic enforcement activity (time 2)

and compares these outputs to the previous enhanced enforcement model in the Fraser

Valley – the Counter Attack (CA) and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership (TTEP)

during 2003 (time 1).

Overall, the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008:

• Wrote over 30,000 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code

charges combined

• Generated approximately $3.3 million in traffic fine revenue

• Targeted the enhanced traffic enforcement priority areas of speeding, seatbelt,

intersection and impaired driving offences

• Averaged 1 violation ticket per working hour

When comparing the 2003 CA and TTEP enhanced traffic enforcement programs to the 2008 FV IRSU:

• The FV IRSU worked double the amount of hours, however, wrote over 4 times more

Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges combined

• The FV IRSU generated approximately $2.7 million more in traffic fine revenue

• The FV IRSU issued double the VT’s and CC’s per working hour

• The FV IRSU issued 8 times more Criminal Code impaired driving charges.

23


2008 Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU)

In 2008, the FV IRSU functioned at its highest baseline member capacity since the IRSU

began in 2005. On average, the unit employed 12.7 full-time officers and wrote 2,611

violation tickets and CC charges per month. The enhanced traffic enforcement program in

the FV included the full-time IRSU baseline members, the overtime hours performed by

these members (FV IRSU-OT) and overtime traffic enforcement performed by non-IRSU

officers throughout the FV region, as funded by the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement

Initiative (ERSEI). Collectively, these three categories of police activity constitute the

enhanced traffic enforcement activity in the Fraser Valley during 2008.

Figure 2 shows that in total, the FV IRSU wrote 31,331 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation

tickets and Criminal Code charges combined, with the baseline members writing 75% of

these (23,616) during regular enforcement hours or on overtime. The ERSEI program in

the Fraser Valley generated 25% (7,715) of the police activity during 2008.

24


Figure 2.

7,715

8,376

15,240

31,331

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

# activity

FV ERSEI

FV IRSU_OT

FV IRSU

Total FV IRSU

FV IRSU Output Activity by Unit (2008)

The FV IRSU’s enhanced traffic enforcement activity during 2008 varied by month.

Specifically, police activity peaked during May, 2009 (3,671 violation tickets written) and

was lowest during December, 2009 (1,474 violation tickets written). The drop in police

activity during the month of December may have been due to extreme weather conditions

experienced in the Southern portion of British Columbia during this time, with the Fraser

Valley experiencing over 80 cm of snow. On average, FV IRSU program wrote 2,611

tickets per month. Figure 3 shows the monthly variation in police activity for all 3

components of the FV’s enhanced traffic enforcement program and compares this to the

monthly average. Figure 3.

FV IRSU Output Activity by Month (2008)

average=2611

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

FV ERSEIFV IRSU_OTFV IRSUaverageTotal FV IRSU

25


Further analysis was conducted that examined the breakdown in the types of violation

tickets written by the FV IRSU as well as the breakdown in the type of impaired driving

sanctions issued by the unit. This was done in order to assess whether the FV IRSU was

meeting its strategic priorities as outlined in the 2007 FV IRSU Memorandum of

Understanding. The results show that the top 5 categories of police activity for the FV

IRSU mirror those of the enhanced traffic enforcement priorities and show a dedicated

focus on dangerous driving behaviours that often lead to injury or fatality crashes.

Figure 4 shows the breakdown of the top 4 enforcement categories targeted by the FV

IRSU in 2008, per quarter. For the year in total, violation tickets for speeding constituted

49% of the IRSU’s enforcement activity (15,565 violation tickets), with seatbelt violations

generating 18% of the tickets written (5,558), intersection offences generating 11% of the

violation tickets written (3,402) and impaired driving enforcement constituting 3% of the

unit’s overall enforcement activity (1,050).

26


Figure 4.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

# activity

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

2008

Total FV IRSU Output Activity by Quarter (2008)

intersectionseatbeltspeedimpaired

When looking at impaired driving enforcement, the FV IRSU Program issued a significant

number of infractions. Specifically, during 2008, the Unit issued 711 24-hour prohibitions,

192 Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges and 147 Administrative Driving Prohibitions.

In total, 1,050 impaired driving infractions were issued with an average of 16 Criminal

Code charges per month during 2008. Figure 5 displays the impaired driving activity

generated by the Unit in 2008.

Figure 5.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

# activity

FV ERSEI

FV IRSU_OT

FV IRSU

FV IRSU, IRSU_OT, ERSEI Impaired Activity by Type (2008)

ADP24HourCC Impaired

27


The FV IRSU baseline member strength varied over 2008 with 12.7 full-time members on

average per month. The Unit experienced variability in membership due to difficulty in

obtaining police members from participating departments, retirements, secondments to the

IRSU expiring and members returning to their primary police department and various

transfers that took place. Figure 6 shows the monthly variation of the Unit’s baseline

membership over 2008 along with the vacancies in positions.

Figure 6.

FV IRSU Baseline Members by Month (2008)

11.88.8

12.09.0

10.813.013.8

12.0

16.017.3

13.314.8average=12.7

02468

101214161820

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# m

embe

rs

VacanciesBaseline Membersaverage baseline

During 2008, the FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours. These were conducted by the

FV IRSU and their overtime shifts as well as through other members working in the Fraser

Valley Region through the Enhanced Road Safety Enforcement Initiative (ERSEI).

Specifically, members of the FV IRSU performed 25,343 hours on shift and 4,698.5 hours

on overtime shifts. Additional detachments participating in ERSEI in the Fraser Valley

during 2008 performed 5,593.5 hours. Figure 7 below displays these results.

28


Figure 7.

FV IRSU member hours by unit (2008)

ERSEI avg=466.2

IRSU_OTavg=391.5

IRSU avg=2112

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# m

embe

r hou

rsFV IRSUFV IRSU_OTFV ERSEIaverage

When analyzing the level of activity for each type of enhanced enforcement per hour

worked (see Figure 8), the results indicate that FV IRSU members are most active during

their overtime shifts. Additionally, it appears that FV IRSU members working baseline

shifts display the lowest level of output compared to when working overtime or compared

to other members working ERSEI. This may be explained by the fact that during baseline

shifts, members are required to follow specific operational guidelines; one of which is to

focus on the more serious sanctions for impaired driving. Figure 5 shows that FV IRSU

members issue a larger number of overall impaired driving sanctions, and Criminal Code

Impaired Driving charges compared to when they are working overtime shifts. These

sanctions are particularly time consuming. They require the police officer to escort the

suspected impaired driver back to the nearest detachment to administer the breathalyser

test to establish whether the driver was operating the vehicle while being above the legal

limit for alcohol consumption. It may that due to the lengthy amount of time that impaired

driving investigations take, that FV IRSU members issue less overall violation tickets per

hour than other categories of enhanced enforcement. Lastly, Figure 8 demonstrates that

members performing ERSEI functions also have lower levels of productivity overall per

working hour. Figure 5 shows that these members also issued the largest proportion of

Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges in 2008; perhaps explaining the lower activity in

other areas of traffic enforcement.

29


Figure 8.

FV IRSU Activity/Member Hour by Unit (2008)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

January

Febru

ary

March

AprilMay

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

/mem

ber h

our

FV IRSU FV IRSU_OTFV ERSEI

When looking at the level of activity funded by the FV IRSU overall, the results indicate

that on average, members wrote 0.89 violation tickets per hour. This varied per month,

with May and August 2009 being the months where the largest number of violation tickets

were issued per hour (1.3 respectively), and February and December 2009 being the

months of lowest enforcement activity per hour (0.5 violation tickets issued per hour for

both months). Both May and August 2009 encompass Spring-Summertime long

weekends; Victoria Day takes place in May and B.C. Day takes place in August. These

long weekends traditionally see a high volume of enforcement activity and police

presence, perhaps explaining why those are the most active enforcement months. (See

Figure 9)

30


Figure 9.

Total FV IRSU Activity/Member Hour (2008)

0.60.5

1.0

0.7

1.21.1 1.1

1.3

0.90.8

0.5

0.8average=0.89

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

/mem

ber h

our

average

Total FV IRSU

31


2003 Fraser Valley CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement

Partnership

Prior to the Integrated Road Safety Unit operating in the Fraser Valley, enhanced traffic

enforcement was conducted on an overtime basis through two primary programs, directly

funded by the ICBC. These were CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic

Enforcement Partnership (TTEP). During 2003, these programs operated throughout the

Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, Delta, Hope, Langley, Mission and in conjunction with the

RCMP’s Fraser Valley Traffic Services. This form of enhanced traffic enforcement was not

operational throughout the entire calendar year; rather, it was performed during designated

police campaigns for high visibility purposes and to emphasize the road safety message to

the public during high crash times of the year. TTEP was the primary enhanced

enforcement program in the FV during 2003 and resulted in over twice as many violation

tickets being written compared to the CounterAttack program during the same time period.

All together, police officers conducting CA and TTEP in the Fraser Valley during 2003

generated 7,377 Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets and Criminal Code charges

combined. This generated approximately $617,528 in traffic fine revenue. Figure 10

shows the breakdown of for each enhanced road safety program during time (1). Figure 10.

5,134

2,243

7,377

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

# activity

FV TTEP

FV CA

Total FV TTEP+CA

FV CA and TTEP Output Activity by Unit (2003)

32


Figure 11 shows the monthly variation in both the CA and TTEP programs throughout

2003. One can see that there was no enhanced traffic enforcement performed in the

Fraser Valley in 2003 from February to April; the majority of enforcement was conducted in

the latter months of the year. This illustrates a significant advantage in the IRSU model in

that full-time dedicated enhanced traffic enforcement officers are in place throughout the

year in the Fraser Valley. Figure 11.

FV CA and TTEP Output Activity by Month (2003)

average= 615

0200400600800

1000120014001600

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

FV CAFV TTEPaverageTotal FV CA+TTEP

In 2003, officers in the Fraser Valley participating in the TTEP, conducted 10,242 hours of

enforcement and generated 5,134 violation tickets. Those participating in the CA program

conducted 5,080 hours and generated 2,243 violation tickets. Figure 12 shows the

breakdown of hour worked in both programs during the 2003, and indicates that on

average, officers participating in the TTEP conducted 853 hours of enforcement per month

whereas those participating in CA conducted an average of 423 hours of enforcement per

month. In total, the CA and TTEP program involved 15,322 officer hours in 2003.

33


Figure 12.

FV CA and TTEP Member Hours (2003)

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# m

embe

r hou

rs

FV CA FV TTEP

Figure 13 shows the monthly level of enhanced enforcement activity generated by both the

TTEP and CA programs in the Fraser Valley during 2003 as a function of the working

hours performed. Enhanced enforcement officers wrote an average of 0.48 violation

tickets per working hour in 2003. This represents less than half of the FV IRSU’s activity

level per month based on that Unit’s working hours. Figure 13.

FV CA and TTEP Output Activity/Member Hour (2003)

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril May

June

July

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

/hou

r

FV CA FV TTEP

Although the TTEP was the primary source of enhanced enforcement in the Fraser Valley

during 2003, it was the CA program that generated the majority of the impaired driving

34


enforcement to that Region. During 2003, police officers participating in the CA program in

the Fraser Valley issued 499 24-hour prohibitions, 23 of Administrative Driving Prohibitions

(ADP) and 10 of Criminal Code impaired Driving charges. This represented a much larger

portion of impaired driving enforcement compared to the TTEP which issued only 12 of 24-

hour prohibitions, and 14 Criminal Code impaired driving charges. All together, enhanced

enforcement issued 558 impaired driving sanctions in the FV Region in 2003; 92% of

which were 24-hour prohibitions, 4% were ADP’s and 4% were Criminal Code impaired

driving charges. Figure 14 shows this breakdown in detail. Figure 14.

0 200 400 600

# activity

FV TTEP

FV CA

FV CA and TTEP Impaired Activity by Type (2003)


35


Comparing the 2008 FV IRSU and the 2003 CA/TTEP

This section will provide a comparative analysis between the levels of police activity at

time (1) in 2003 when enhanced enforcement in the Fraser Valley was performed on an

overtime basis through CounterAttack (CA) and the Targeted Traffic Enforcement

Partnership (TTEP) and time (2) in 2008 when the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety

Unit (FV IRSU) was operational, providing full-time dedicated traffic enforcement officers.

Figure 15 shows the total number of Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) violation tickets issued

(including Criminal Code charges laid) by police officers at both time periods. The CA and

TTEP programs in the Fraser Valley generated a total of 7,377 violation tickets in 2003

compared to 31,331 by the FV IRSU in 2008. The FV IRSU, providing full-time enhanced

traffic enforcement throughout the entire year issued over 4 times the amount of violation

tickets, representing a 325% increase in police activity over the CA and TTEP programs.

If one considers that the CA and TTEP programs were functioning for only 9 months

during 2003 (there was no enhanced enforcement performed during February, March or

April of that year), the comparative analysis still remains significant. On average, the FV

IRSU issued 2,611 violation tickets per month in 2008 (12 month time period), compared

to an average of 615 violation tickets per month in 2003 (9 month time frame). Figure 15.

7,377

31,331

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

# activity

2003

2008

FV Total Enhanced Enforcement Output Activity (2003 and 2008)

36


Figure 16 details the monthly amounts of police activity for both groups. One can see that

May and August, 2008 were the most productive for the FV IRSU, whereas July and

September, 2003 were most productive for the CA and TTEP programs. Once again, the

advantage of the IRSU program is evident in the significantly higher amount of traffic

enforcement provided to the FV Region and secondly in the fact that the IRSU was

operational throughout the entire calendar year. This is in opposite to the historical

overtime model of enhanced enforcement where police activity was sporadic throughout

year, with inconsistent amounts of police presence and MVA enforcement. Figure 16 also

displays the average number of violation tickets issued by each group of officers as a

function of the entire calendar year (2,611 for the FV IRSU compared to 615 for the CA

and TTEP programs).

Figure 16.

FV Enhanced Enforcement Output Activity by Month

(2003 and 2008)

avg 2008=2611

avg 2003=6150

5001000150020002500300035004000

Janu

ary

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivity

20082003average

The FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours in 2008 which represents more than double

the amount of enforcement provided to that Region compared to the 15,322 hours

performed by the CA and TTEP programs in 2003. Figure 17 shows that the average

number of working hours performed by the FV IRSU in 2008 was 2,970 per month

compared to 1,277 hours per month by CA and TTEP in 2003. This represents over a

100% increase in the average monthly hours spent on enhanced enforcement in the

Fraser Valley Region of B.C. It is notable that the number of hours worked are

comparable between the two groups at both time periods in the month of December. The

37


significantly high levels of enhanced enforcement for the CA and TTEP programs in

December of 2003 may represent traditional roadside check operations often performed

during the Christmas Holiday Season which focused on impaired driving enforcement. In

opposite, for the FV IRSU, December of 2008 may have been a lower activity month due

to extreme and anomalous weather conditions throughout B.C., making vehicle travel

extremely challenging. Figure 17 displays the monthly working hours performed by each

group in time (1) and time (2). Figure 17.

FV Enhanced Enforcement Member Hours by Month (2003 and 2008)

2008 avg=2970

2003 avg=1277

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# m

embe

r hou

rs

2008 Total Hrs2003 Total Hrsaverage

The FV IRSU worked a total of 35,635 hours in 2008 and wrote 31,331 violation tickets. In

comparison, members working in the CA and TTEP programs in the Fraser Valley during

2003 worked a total of 15,322 hours and wrote a total of 7,377 violation tickets. Figure 18

displays these comparisons.

38


Figure 18.

7,377

15,322

31,331

35,635

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

2003 FV CA+TTEP

2008 FV IRSU

Total FV Output Activity and Member Hours (2003 and 2008)

member Hrsactivity

When looking at the level of police activity per working hour, the FV IRSU demonstrates a

significantly higher level of productivity. In 2008, the FV IRSU issued an average of 0.88

violation tickets per working hour compared to 0.48 for the 2003 CA and TTEP programs.

Therefore, the IRSU program generated 2 times more violation tickets per hour compared

to the historical overtime enhanced enforcement model. Figure 19 shows the significant

difference between the two models of enhanced traffic enforcement activity as a function

of working hours. Figure 19.

Total FV Activity/Member Hour (2003 and 2008)

2008 avg=0.88

2003 avg=0.48

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

January

Febru

aryMarc

hApril

MayJu

neJu

ly

August

Septem

ber

October

November

Decem

ber

# ac

tivty

/mem

ber h

our

average20032008

39


When looking at the vast geographic area constituting the Fraser Valley Region, it is

notable that the FV IRSU appeared more productive throughout the Region compared to

the historical overtime enhanced enforcement program. Specifically, Figure 20 shows that

the FV IRSU issued an average 12.2 violation tickets per square kilometre throughout the

FV Region in 2008, compared to 2.8 by the CA and TTEP programs in 2003. This

indicates that the FV IRSU may have been better equipped to provide traffic enforcement

throughout this region or that the Unit was more productive in the areas targeted

compared to their historical counterpart. Figure 20.

2.8

12.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

# activity/square km

2003

2008

FV Total Output Activity/Square km (2003 and 2008)

FV 2008 FV 2003

Lastly, impaired driving enforcement is a primary mandate for enhanced traffic

enforcement in B.C. During the historical overtime model of enhanced enforcement,

catching and sanctioning drivers impaired by alcohol or drugs was a significant priority; this

remains so with the FV IRSU. When comparing the level of impaired driving enforcement

activity by the CA and TTEP programs in 2003 versus that of the FV IRSU in 2008, it is

notable that the IRSU model has generated a significantly higher level of enforcement

overall and a greater proportion of severe sanctions for those caught driving impaired.

Figure 21 shows that the FV IRSU issued 200 more 24-hour prohibitions in 2008

compared to the CA and TTEP programs in 2003, 124 more Administrative Driving

40


Prohibitions (ADP) and 168 more Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges compared to

the 2003 enhanced enforcement program in the Fraser Valley. Specifically, the FV IRSU

issued 711 24-hour prohibitions, 147 ADP’s and 192 Criminal Code Impaired Driving

charges in 2008, whereas the 2003 enhanced enforcement program generated 511 24-

hour prohibitions, 23 ADP’s and 24 Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges. Additionally,

the FV IRSU was more likely to issue more severe sanctions to impaired drivers. Out of

the total number of impaired driving sanctions issued by the FV IRSU in 2008 (1,050), 18%

were Criminal Code Impaired Driving charges compared to only 4% with the 2003 CA and

TTEP programs. This represents a 350% increase in the proportion of Criminal Code

Impaired Driving charges issued between the two models of enhanced traffic enforcement.

Figure 21.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

# activity

2003

2008

FV Impaired Output Activity by Type (2003 and 2008)


Next, the salary costs associated with the overtime traffic enforcement performed in the

Fraser Valley in 2003 and IRSU salary costs in 2008 were compared based on violation

ticket output. For the purpose of this evaluation, salary costs were estimated by

establishing an average hourly rate and multiplying this by the number of hours worked. In

2003, the CounterAttack and TTEP program salary cost was approximately $837,812.

This was for the 2002/2003 fiscal year where ICBC directly funded overtime traffic

enforcement through a Memorandum of Understanding. For the Fraser Valley IRSU in

2008, the approximate salary costs were $1.5 million. When examining the salary costs

associated with these programs compared to the violation ticket output, in 2003 the cost

41


per ticket was $92.35 in comparison to $70.51per ticket in 2008. One can see that that

Fraser Valley IRSU was 24% more cost efficient in terms of violation ticket output per hour

worked compared to the historical overtime program. Figure 22 shows these results. Figure 22.

$1,494,465

31,331 violation tickets

$837,812

7,377 violation tickets

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000

2008

2003

Total Activty and Cost (2003 and 2008)

Total ActivityTotal Cost

FV IRSU and Joint Force Operations (JFO) The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (FV IRSU) often works in tandem with other

traffic sections/general duty patrols to conduct enhanced traffic enforcement through joint

operations. These operations are strategically planned events representing a joint effort

by both the FV IRSU and the participating agency to provide traffic enforcement through a

highly visible and targeted approach. During 2007 and 2008, the FV IRSU conducted 29

joint force operations, which resulted in a total of 7,273 violation tickets being issued

(including Criminal Code impaired driving charges). These JFO’s were conducted with the

Abbotsford, Langley, Port Mann, Delta, Ridge Meadows, Richmond, White Rock, Surrey

and Squamish Traffic Sections, as well as with the Greater Vancouver IRSU, Fraser Valley

Traffic Services (RCMP, Deas Island Freeway Patrol (RCMP), and the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority. Often, the JFO’s involved the use of automated license plate

reader technology (ALPR) and many resulted in the seizure of drugs and the issuing of

driving prohibitions and impaired driving sanctions. The main focus of many JFO’s

conducted with the FV IRSU was aggressive driving, commercial vehicle, seatbelt and

impaired driving enforcement.

42


For example, one JFO between the FV IRSU and the Langley RCMP Traffic Unit on March

31, 2007 resulted in 2 Criminal Code impaired driving charges and the seizure of $26,000

stemming from 2 drug investigations. Another JFO between the FV IRSU and the Fraser

Valley Traffic Services (RCMP) between October 18-19, 2007 resulted in a Criminal Code

impaired driving charge, 3 prohibited drivers being caught, 3 24-hour prohibitions being

issued, 5 violations under the Liquor Act and 16 pounds of marijuana being seized. In

October 2008, the FV IRSU conducted a JFO with the GV IRSU; within an 8 hour shift, the

two units laid 2 Criminal Code impaired driving charges, 6 24-hour prohibitions, caught 4

prohibited drivers, issued 7 vehicle impoundments and laid 1 Criminal Code drug charge.

The joint force operations result in high visibility traffic enforcement with almost twice as

many officers in one location at any given time sending a strong message to the driving

public that police are active in their area. Appendix B includes a table summarizing the FV

IRSU’s Joint Force Operation (JFO) activity during 2007 and 2008.

43


Enforcement Calendar 2008 The Fraser Valley IRSU generates an enforcement calendar each month showing the

jurisdictions that the IRSU will be targeting for each day per shift. For example, in January

2008, the enforcement calendar shows that the IRSU was serving in Maple Ridge for the

morning of January 7th and Langley for the afternoon shift. This enforcement calendar is

distributed to the participating jurisdictions in advance to allow the traffic sections time to

facilitate local joint operations with the IRSU.

For the purposes of this evaluation, the entire enforcement calendar for 2008 was

analyzed to observe the percent of time the Fraser Valley IRSU spent in each of the

jurisdictions they serve. The results showed that during 2008, the IRSU spent the majority

of time (28%) in the city of Surrey, followed by 18% of time in Langley and 17% of time in

Abbotsford. A significant amount of enforcement time was also spent in Mission,

Chilliwack and Maple Ridge. It was explained that larger jurisdictions such as Surrey,

Abbotsford and Langley receive the majority of IRSU enforcement time due to the size of

their population and higher crash volumes. Below, figure 23 displays these results.

Figure 23.

FV IRSU regions (2008)

28%

17%

8%

9%

3%3% 2%

3%1%

8%

18%

SurreyLangleyAbbotsfordMissionChilliwackHopeDeltaMaple RidgeWhite RockOtherGV

44


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 44:: IIMMPPAACCTT OONN CCRRAASSHHEESS ((OOUUTTCCOOMMEESS))

This chapter examines the number of injury and fatality crashes (Y2) to determine the

effect of the change in the enhanced traffic enforcement program in the Fraser Valley

Region of B.C. (X). The exception is regarding the analysis of specific crash types (ex.

speed related victims) where ‘total crashes’ was used due to sample size.

When comparing the 2002-2003 average to the 2007-2008 average, the FV Region

showed:

14% decrease in motor vehicle fatalities

17% decrease in the number of injured victims

46% decrease in total seatbelt related victims

18% decrease in total speed related victims

20% decrease in intersection related victims

6% decrease in commercial vehicle related victims

12% decrease in casualty crashes

22% decrease in casualty crashes in Surrey

16% decrease in casualty crashes in Delta

12% decrease in casualty crashes in Chilliwack

6% decrease in casualty crashes in Abbotsford

23% decrease in the number of injured victims per 100,000 population

When comparing the 2002-2003 average to the 2007-2008 average throughout the top

105 intersections targeted by the FV IRSU, the results showed:

4% decrease in the number of injured and fatal victims

7% increase in the number of casualty crashes

In this chapter, two groups of locations were assessed:

1. The entire Fraser Valley Region

2. Key high crash locations targeted by the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit

(FV IRSU)

45


1. Fraser Valley Region

Police Services Division obtained two sets of data from the Traffic Accident System (TAS)

database, specific to the Fraser Valley Region of B.C.:

• Total number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts

• A subtotal of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts for the following

contributing factors:

Alcohol Impairment

Speeding Offences

Seatbelts Offences

Intersection Offences

Commercial Vehicle Offences

For the purposes of this Evaluation, the Fraser Valley Region was defined as:

• Abbotsford

• Agassiz

• Boston Bar

• Cheam IR

• Chilliwack

• Cultus Lake

• Delta

• Dogwood Valley

• Harrison Hot Springs

• Hope

• Langley

• Lindell Beach

• Maple Ridge

• Mission

• Pitt Meadows

• Spuzzum

• Surrey

• White Rock

• Yale

Police Services Division examined the frequency of police-attended injury, serious injury

and fatality crash and victim counts from 2002-2003 through to 2007-2008 in the Fraser

Valley. The crash and victim count data was drawn from the Traffic Accident System

(TAS) database.

In order to examine the effect of the change in enhanced traffic enforcement in the FV

Region on crashes, the following time frames were used to define time (1) and time (2):

• Time 1 (‘pre-IRSU’) = The average of 2002 and 2003

• Time 2 (‘post-IRSU’) = The average of 2007 and 2008

Time 1 represents a period where enhanced enforcement was solely provided on an

overtime basis through the CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnerships.

This is being termed the ‘pre-IRSU’ period and represents a historical time prior to when

the ‘Traffic and Road Safety Law Enforcement Funding MOU’ was established. Time 2

represents a period where the FV IRSU was fully operational and the enhanced traffic

Enforcement Partnership was delivered under the new MOU through full-time dedicated

officers through the IRSU as well as through the ERSEI program in the Fraser Valley. This

is being termed the ‘post-IRSU’ period.

2. Key High Crash Locations

The Fraser Valley IRSU was given a list of ‘top injury crash locations’ in their Region

according to the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC). These key high crash locations

formed the basis for the Unit’s targeted enforcement efforts throughout 2008. In total, 105

intersections throughout the following jurisdictions represented the Unit’s strategic priority

locations:

• Abbotsford

• Chilliwack

• Delta

• Hope

• Langley

• Maple Ridge

• Mission

• Pitt Meadows

47


• Surrey

• White Rock

Police Services Division obtained this list of high crash locations from the FV IRSU and

examined the following data drawn from the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database for

the same time periods as specified in the above section:

• Total number of injury, serious injury and fatality crash and victim counts

The FV IRSU represents an intelligence-led, targeted policing program that focuses on

high crash locations in their Region to reduce dangerous driving behaviours that lead to

serious crashes. As such, it was imperative to assess the crash frequency at the strategic

locations saturated by the FV IRSU. This analysis represents a direct examination of the

Unit’s operational impact at those specific intersections during 2007 and 2008.

For the purposes of Chapter 4, the term ‘casualty crashes’ refers to a total of injury,

serious injury and fatality crashes. The TAS database represents police-attended motor

vehicle incidents and defines a ‘serious injury crash’ by the police officer noting that the

victim is likely to need to stay in the hospital overnight. Therefore, ‘injury crashes’ are

defined as non-serious injuries where the victim is injured but not requiring an overnight

stay at a hospital. Fatalities are defined as motor vehicle incidents that police are able to

enforce/target under the Motor Vehicle Act. As such, the following fatal crash types are

excluded from the data (although small in number):

• Those occurring on forest-service roads, industrial roads (on or after 2004), private-

driveways, off-highway snowmobile crashes, suicides and homicides.

48


Crashes in the Fraser Valley Region A. Casualty Crashes and Victims

This section compares the casualty crash counts and number of victims involved in motor

vehicle incidents in the Fraser Valley Region between time (1) and time (2). This analysis

examines whether the change in the delivery of enhanced enforcement to the Fraser

Valley Region has had an impact on either the frequency of crashes overall and/or

dangerous driving behaviour that leads to injury and fatality crashes (i.e. the contributing

factors described in the above section).

Figure 24 shows both the casualty crash counts and number of victims for years spanning

2003 to 2008. It is notable that the most significant decrease in both measures is evident

during 2007 and 2008. These years represent the period of time in which the FV IRSU

was fully operational. Specifically, in 2003 there was an average of 392 casualty crashes

in the Fraser Valley per month. Five years later in 2008, this had decreased to an average

of 296 casualty crashes per month, demonstrating a 24% decline. Similarly, in 2003, there

was an average of 593 motor vehicle victims in the Fraser Valley per month and by the

end of 2008; this had decreased to 423 victims per month- evidencing a 29% decrease.

Figure 24.

FV Region Casualty Crashes and Victims (2003-2008)

7117 7228 7193 70906445

50814705 4791 4951 4948 45473561

010002000300040005000600070008000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# ca

sual

ties

victimscrashes

When comparing time (1) to time (2), both measures showed significant decreases. Both

casualty crash counts and the number of motor vehicle victims decreased when examining

the average of 2003-2003 versus the average of 2007-2008. Specifically, in time (1), there

49


was an average 6,921 motor vehicle victims involved in an average of 4,579 casualty

crashes in the Fraser Valley Region. During 2007-2008 (time 2), there were 5,763 motor

vehicle victims involved in an average of 4,054 casualty crashes in the Fraser Valley. That

represents 524 fewer casualty crashes and 1,157 fewer injured victims in that Region of

B.C. Figure 25 shows the difference between these measures from time (1) to time (2).

Figure 25.

4054

5763

4579

6921

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

# casualties

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Region Casualty Victims and Crashes (2002-2003 avg and 2007-2008 avg)

Casualty VictimsCasualty Crashes

50


Comparing time (1) to time (2), the data showed significant decreases in the percent of

fatal, injury and total casualty victims as well as crashes. Specifically, between the

average of 2002/2003 to the average of 2007-2008, the number of motor vehicle fatalities

decreased 14%, while the number of fatal crashes decreased by 7%. Additionally, the

number injured victims decreased by 17% and the number of injury crashes decreased by

12%. In total, when one examines the casualty totals for time (1) versus time (2) in the

Fraser Valley Region, the data shows a 17% decrease in the number of victims injured or

killed in motor vehicle incidents and a 12% decrease in the number of casualty crashes

overall. Figure 26 shows these trends. It appears that since the implementation of the FV

IRSU, both casualty crashes and the number of victims has decreased significantly. This

is encouraging towards the Unit’s mandate of decreasing serious injury crashes in the

Fraser Valley. Figure 26.

-14.3%

-7.3%

-16.8%

-11.5%

-16.7%

-11.5%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

% c

hang

e

fatal injury total casualties

FV Region Percent Change in Victims and Crashes (2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victimscrashes

Next an examination of the casualty crash counts for the top 5 regions within the Fraser

Valley was conducted for both time (1) and time (2). This involved looking at the number

of injury, serious injury and fatality crashes occurring in Surrey, Abbotsford, Langley, Delta

and Chilliwack for both 2002-2003 and 2007-2008 (in addition to the ‘other’ jurisdictions

within the Fraser Valley Region). Figure 27 shows the results of this analysis. The

average number of casualty crashes decreased 22% in the city of Surrey between time (1)

and time (2), 6% Abbotsford, 16% in Delta and 12% in Chilliwack. Casualty crashes in the

other jurisdictions in the Fraser Valley decreased by 3% between time (1) and time (2).

The city of Langley was an exception, seeing an 11% increase in casualty crashes

between the two time periods. Excluding the category of ‘other’, the top 5 jurisdictions

51


targeted by the FV IRSU saw a 13% total decrease in the number of injury, serious injury

and fatality crashes in 2007-2008 compared to 2002-2003. Figure 27.

Similar to casualty crashes, the number of victims involved in injury, serious injury and

fatality crashes also declined significantly in 4 out of the 5 jurisdictions targeted by the FV

IRSU between time (1) and time (2). Figure 28 shows that the number of victims involved

in casualty crashes decreased by 24% in Surrey, 13% in Abbotsford, 22% in Delta and

12% in Chilliwack. The other jurisdictions also saw a 13% decrease while the city of

Langley saw a 0.89%. Collectively (excluding the ‘other’ category), the FV IRSU’s top 5

jurisdictions saw a 17% reduction in the number of motor vehicle victims involved in

casualty crashes between 2002-2003 versus 2007-2008. Figure 28.

52


In order to provide a standardized examination of both casualty crash counts and the

number of victims in motor vehicle incidents, the data for both time (1) and time (2) was

calculated as a rate per 100,000 population of the Fraser Valley Region of B.C. When

doing this, the results continue to evidence significant decreases. Figure 29 shows that

the average number of victims in the Fraser Valley per population in that Region was

792.3 in time (1) and decreased to 605.1 in time (2). This represents a 23% decrease. In

terms of casualty crashes, there were an average of 524.1 injuries, serious injury and

fatality crashes in the Fraser Valley per 100,000 population in that Region during time (1)

compared to 425.6 during time (2). This represents a 19% decrease. Thus, the significant

declines in both casualty crashes and victims in the Fraser Valley since the

implementation of the IRSU remain evident when using the standardized measure of

population within that Region.

Figure 29.

425.6

605.1

524.1792.3

0 200 400 600 800

casualty rate per 100,000 population

07/08 rate

02/03 rate

FV Region Casualty Crashes and Victims Rate by Population (2002-2003 and 2007-2008)

casualty victimscasualty crashes

B. Specific Crash Types

This section will focus on the dangerous driving behaviours that lead to specific crash

types: alcohol, speeding, intersection, commercial vehicle and seatbelt related crashes.

These categories represent the strategic priorities of the FV IRSU and are a key

performance indicator of whether the targeted enforcement performed by the IRSU is

impacting these types of crashes and victims counts for motor vehicle incidents in the

Fraser Valley Region.

53


This data was obtained through the Traffic Accident System (TAS) database and

represents all police reported motor vehicle incidents in the Fraser Valley Region. The

following categories were included for both crash counts and victim counts of motor

vehicle incidents to provide a ‘total’ crash picture:

• Property Damage Only, Injury, Serious Injury and Fatalities

This data focuses on ‘total crashes’ unlike the other crash analysis in this Chapter due to

the small numbers involved with subsets of crash types (ex. alcohol and speed related

crashes).

This section will present these findings in three ways: • Yearly totals of victim counts and crash counts for each crash type

• The percent change of victim counts and crash counts for each crash type between

time (1) and time (2)

• The total numbers for victim counts and crash counts for each crash type between

time (1) and time (2)

Yearly Totals

For both total victim counts and total crash counts, the yearly analysis revealed a decrease

in all crash types from earlier years compared to the years where the FV IRSU was

operational. For example, Figure 30 shows that in 2003, alcohol related victim counts in

the Fraser Valley were 817 and decreased to 732 by 2008. Similarly, speed, intersection,

commercial vehicle and seatbelt related victim counts all decreased from 2003 to 2008.

Particularly notable is the significant decrease in intersection victim counts from 3,464 in

2003 to 2,349 in 2008. Also, seatbelt related victim counts decreased substantially: there

were 637 victims involved in seatbelt related crashes in 2003 and this decreased to 317 by

2008.

54


Figure 30.

FV Region Total Victims by Crash Type (2003-2008)

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# ca

sual

ties Alcohol

SpeedIntersectionCommercial VehicleSeatbelt

Figure 31 shows the same analysis, however, looking at total crash counts for the Fraser

Valley for each crash type. Similar to the total victim count, total crashes for each crash

type also showed declines from the earlier years compared to those where the FV IRSU

was fully operational. The analysis shows that intersection related crashes decreased the

most in 2008 (2,800) from the year 2003 (4,177) with 1,377 fewer of these crash types.

Speed related crashes also decreased particularly after the FV IRSU was fully operational.

In 2003, the FV saw 1,575 speed related crashes and this decreased to 1,337 by 2008.

Figure 31.

FV Region Total Crashes by Crash Type (2003-2008)

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# ca

sual

ties Alcohol

SpeedIntersectionCommercial Vehicle

55


Percent Change from Time (1) to Time (2)

This section compares the number of total victims and total crashes for each crash type

between time (1) in 2002-2003 and time (2) in 2007-2008. This provides a comparative

analysis of the same crash types (alcohol, speed, intersection, commercial vehicle and

seatbelt related) from a time when enhanced traffic enforcement was performed solely on

an overtime basis to when the FV IRSU was operational and providing enhanced traffic

enforcement on a full-time basis to the Region. The comparisons are presented as a

percent change between these two time periods.

The analysis reveal that total victim counts decreased for the following crash types

between time (1) and time (2):

• Seatbelt Related (-46%)

• Speed (-18%)

• Intersections (-20%)

• Commercial Vehicles (-6%)

In opposite, alcohol related victim counts increased between time (1) and time (2) by 1.6%.

This represented an increase in 12 victims involved in alcohol related crashes in the FV

Region from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008. The results are displayed in Figure 32 below. Figure 32.

+1.6%

-17.9% -20.4%

-5.6%

-45.9%-50

-40

-30-20

-10

0

10

% c

hang

e

Alcohol Intersection Seatbelt

FV Region Total Victims by Crash Type (% change 2002-2003 vs 2007-2008)

56


When looking at total crash counts for each of the above crash types between time (1) and

time (2), the following showed decreases:

• Speed (-3%) • Intersections (-18%)

The following crash types showed increases in the total crash count:

• Alcohol (+12%) • Commercial Vehicles (+11%)

Figure 33 below displays these results. Figure 33.

+11.7%

-3.0%

-17.7%

+11.2%

-20-15-10-505

1015

% c

hang

e

Alcohol Speed Intersection CommercialVehicle

FV Region Total Crashes by Crash Type(% change 2002-2003 vs 2007-2008)

The increase in alcohol related crashes (and victim counts) may be related to the increase

in overall alcohol consumption. The Provincial Health Officer’s Report (2008) describes

the following indicators of alcohol consumption:

• As of 2007, alcohol consumption per capita has increased by 8% throughout B.C.

since 2002

• Self-reported rates of drinking at hazardous levels have increased since 2003,

particularly in women age 12-34 and men age 12-34 and 65-74.

• Several indicators suggest that the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving may have

increased since 2000.

• Direct government revenue from the control and sale of alcohol has increased 4% per

year from 2003 to 2007.

57


As alcohol consumption continues to increase alongside impaired driving, it may take a

lengthier period time before a decrease in this dangerous driving behaviour is seen. With

respect to commercial vehicle crashes, it is notable that the number of total crashes

attributable to commercial vehicles has increased, yet the number of victims involved in

motor vehicle incidents involving commercial vehicles decreased by 6% between time (1)

and time (2). It is promising that in the Fraser Valley Region, where there exists many

high volume commercial vehicle routes, that the number of victims involved in these

crashes has decreased, despite more total crashes of this type.

58


Total Number of victims and crashes between Time (1) and Time (2)

This section will discuss the total number of victims and crashes for each crash type

between time (1) and time (2) in the Fraser Valley Region.

Beginning with alcohol related crashes, both analyses of total victim counts and total crash

counts show an increase between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, in 2002-2003, there

were 728 victims involved in alcohol related motor vehicle incidents and this increased to

740 in 2007-2008. In 2002-2003 there were 1,108 alcohol related crashes in the Fraser

Valley and this also increased to 1,238 by 2007/2008. Figure 34 displays these results.

Alcohol related crashes and impaired driving is a particularly challenging area of

enforcement. This is due to the difficulties in curbing such social behaviours and deterring

people from drinking and driving. Police activity analysis in Chapter 3 of this evaluation

revealed that the FV IRSU issued a total of 1,050 violation tickets and Criminal Code

Impaired Driving charges in 2008 compared to 558 of the same infractions issued by the

CounterAttack and Targeted Traffic Enforcement Partnership in the Fraser Valley in 2003.

Thus, despite the fact that the FV IRSU has actively targeted impaired driving, this crash

type continues to be a challenge for this Region. Figure 34.

1238.5740

1108.5728

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

# of total victims

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Region: Alcohol Related MVI(2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victimscrashes

59


When looking at commercial vehicle related total victims and total crashes, the analysis

reveals that the number of victims has decreased whereas the total number of crashes in

the Fraser Valley has increased. Specifically, in 2002-2003, there were 392 victims

involved in commercial vehicle related crashes and this decreased to 370 in time (2) or

2007-2008. This translates into 22 fewer victims. However, at time (1) there were 618

commercial vehicle related total crashes which increased to 687 at time (2). This

translates into 69 more commercial vehicle related total crashes in the Fraser Valley

Region. Although it is very promising the victim counts for commercial vehicle incidents

have decreased, the increase in the total number of crashes may be indicative of

increased commercial vehicle use throughout the Fraser Valley Region overall. Figure 35

displays these results. Figure 35.

687370

618392

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

# of total victims

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Region: Commercial Vehicle Related MVI (2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victimscrashes

One of the highest priorities for the FV IRSU is seatbelt related enforcement. Unrestrained

drivers and passengers are far more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those

wearing their seatbelts. Analysis reveals that the number of total unrestrained victims

involved in crashes in the Fraser Valley (i.e. those not wearing a seatbelt) has significantly

decreased from time (1) to time (2). Specifically, in 2002-2003, 595 people were involved

in crashes where they were not wearing a seatbelt. By 2007-2008, this decreased to 322

and signifies a 46% decrease. This significant decline in unrestrained victims of motor

vehicle incidents is encouraging towards the public safety of road users in the Fraser

Valley Region. Figure 36 displays these results.

60


Figure 36.

322

595

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

# of total victims

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Region: Seatbelt Related MVI (2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victims

Another area of significant improvement is intersection related crashes – both total victims

involved in these types of crashes and the total number of intersection related crashes

have decreased between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, in 2002/2003 there were

3,337 victims involved in intersection related crashes in the FV Region. This decreased to

2,655 (20% decrease) in 2007/2008. Similarly, the total number of intersection related

crashes decreased from 4,005 in time (1) to 3,298 in time (2). Figure 37 displays the

results. The FV IRSU’s operational strategy involves targeting high crash intersections

throughout the FV Region. The decreases in both intersection related crashes and total

victims counts may be an encouraging indicator that the Unit’s strategic operations are

making a difference in these performance measures throughout the FV.

Figure 37.

32982,655

4005.53,337

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

# of total victims

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Region: Intersection Related MVI(2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victimscrashes

61


Lastly, when looking at speed related crashes and victims; the analysis revealed

significant decreases between time (1) and time (2). Specifically, the data shows 1,196

victims of speed related crashes in the FV Region in 2002-2003. This declines to 983

victims of speed related crashes in 2007-2008. Total speed related crashes also

decreased by 3% between time (1) and time (2). Figure 38 displays these results. Figure 38.

1478.5983

1524.51,196

0 500 1000 1500 2000

# of total victims

07/08 avg

02/03 vg

FV Region: Speed Related MVI(2002-2003 avg vs 2007-2008 avg)

victimscrashes

62


High Crash Locations

This section examines the frequency of casualty crashes and victims of motor vehicle

incidents at the top 105 intersections targeted by the FV IRSU. These locations represent

top injury intersections in the FV Region that formed the Unit’s strategic enforcement

priorities.

Figure 39 shows a steady decline in both casualty crashes and motor vehicle victims at the

high crash sites, after the FV IRSU was fully implemented in 2007. It is interesting to note

that in earlier years (i.e. 2003), both measures were also comparatively low, however,

began to increase significantly, until a sharp decline is visible in 2007 and 2008. Figure 39.

FV Top Locations Casualty Crashes and Victims (2003-2008)

624705 726 753

621 599

408455 491 524

442 425

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# ca

sual

ties

victimscrashes

63


Of particular note is the decrease seen in fatal crashes and fatalities at the high crash sites

in recent years. Figure 40 shows that the fatality measures declined significantly as of

2007 and 2008, at the high crash locations targeted by the FV IRSU. Figure 40.

FV Top Locations Fatal Victims and Crashes (2003-2008)

01234567

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

# fa

talit

ies

Fatal VictimsFatal Crashes

When comparing time (1) to time (2), analysis reveals that casualty crashes actually

increased by 7% at the high crash locations from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008; however the

average number of victims in motor vehicle incidents decreased by 4% at these sites

during the same time frame. This represents 24 fewer injured victims at the locations

targeted by the FV IRSU. Figure 41 displays these results. Figure 41.

434

610

405

634

0 200 400 600 800

# casualties

07/08 avg

02/03 avg

FV Top Locations Casualty Victims and Crashes (2002-2003 avg and 2007-2008 avg)

Casualty VictimsCasualty Crashes

64


Next, an analysis comparing the average of 2002-2003 casualty crashes and victims to

each individual year (2002 – 2008) was conducted (see Figure 42). When looking at this

measure on a year-to-year basis, the analysis reveals a sharp drop in both the number of

casualty crashes and victims in 2007 and 2008 compared to previous years. In particular,

these measures show a particular increase in the years 2004-2006 when compared to the

2002-2003 average. However, most notable is that during the two years when the FV

IRSU had its highest staffing levels (2007 and 2008); these measures saw a sharp

decrease. Despite the fact that casualty crashes during 2007 and 2008 remain higher

than the 2002-2003 average, they do show a significant decline after 2006, at a time

where the FV IRSU was well organized and providing enhanced traffic enforcement on a

regular basis to the FV Region. Additionally, during 2007 and 2008, the number of victims

involved in motor vehicle casualty crashes is significantly lower than the 2002-2003

average. Figure 42.

FV Top Locations Casualty Crashes and Victims Compared to 2002-2003 Average (2000-2008)

-10%-5%0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

% c

hang

e Casualty VictimsCasualty Crashes

Fraser Valley IRSU ‘High Crash Locations’: 2006 vs. 2007 The FV IRSU receives a list of high injury crash locations from ICBC each year. This list is

divided into jurisdictions to assist the Unit in directing strategic operations for targeted

traffic enforcement. The data provides both a list of the high injury crash locations for each

region targeted by the FV IRSU (Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Delta, Langley, Surrey, Mission,

65


Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and White Rock) as well as the crash count for that particular

location and year. The data comes from ICBC’s Claims Database and is based on injury

crash counts. The FV IRSU concentrates on the top 10 locations specified by the data for

each jurisdiction for operational planning. An analysis was conducted comparing the 2006

‘top 10 locations’ for each jurisdiction to the 2007 ‘top 10 locations’ for each jurisdiction in

order to assess any movement of these high injury crash sites from one year to the next.

The results revealed the following patterns between the 2006 list versus the 2007 list:

The number of locations that were removed off the top 10 list = 28 (31%)

The number of locations that were reduced in ranking on the top 10 list = 22 (24%)

The number of locations with the same in ranking on the top 10 list = 8 (8%)

The number of locations increasing in ranking on the top 10 list = 12 (13%)

This shows that 31% of locations that were identified by ICBC as part of the 2006 top 10

injury crash locations in the above specified jurisdictions were no longer in the 2007 top 10

list provided to the FV IRSU and that 24% were reduced in ranking. This may indicate that

the FV IRSU’s targeted enforcement efforts positively affected the volume of injury crashes

at these sites, reducing their total number and overall ranking in the FV Region.

66


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 55:: EESSTTIIMMAATTIINNGG EECCOONNOOMMIICC BBEENNEEFFIITT

This chapter discusses the estimated economic benefits to both the Insurance Corporation

of B.C. (ICBC) and the Province overall that are attributed in whole or in part to the

operations of the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008.

Costs

The total operations cost of the Fraser Valley IRSU in 2008 is estimated to be

$2,866,8871.

Benefits

The estimated economic benefits realized by the operations of the FV IRSU in 2008 were

determined by four sources:

1. Amount of Traffic Fine Revenue generated by the FV IRSU in 2008.

2. Estimated Claims Cost Savings for the ICBC

3. Estimated Social Cost Savings for the Province of British Columbia

4. The Federal Contribution provided to the Province for the operations of the FV

IRSU in 2008, under the Provincial Police Services Agreement

Individual Estimated Economic Benefits

A. Traffic Fine Revenue

To estimate the economic benefit of the FV IRSU in 2008 to the Province through the

Traffic Fine Revenue (TRF) Sharing Program, calculations included an average traffic fine

amount compared to the number of violation tickets issued by the FV IRSU.

According to the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, Local Government Policy

and Research Branch, the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program distributed $61,122,898

to B.C. Municipalities in 2008. According to ICBC, police issued a total of 566,764

violation tickets in B.C. in 2008. Therefore, to estimate an average traffic fine amount, the

following calculation was conducted:

1 Provided by “E” Division RCMP Traffic Services.

67


Average Traffic Fine Amount = 2008 Traffic Fine Revenue Total ($61,122,898) /

2008 Total Violation Tickets Issued (566,764)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

$107.84 Next, the total number of violation tickets issued by the FV IRSU in 2008 was multiplied by

the average traffic fine amount to estimate the economic benefit of the FV IRSU to the

Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program. Specifically, the number of violation tickets issued

under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) was considered in isolation from Criminal Code

Impaired Driving Charges, Administrative Driving Prohibitions and 24-hour Prohibitions,

which do not have Provincial fines associated with them.

Therefore the estimated economic benefit of the FV IRSU’s 2008 police activity through

the Traffic Fine Revenue Sharing Program was $3,265,666.97:

FV IRSU TFR 2008 Total = Average traffic fine amount ($107.84) *

Number of MVA violation tickets issued (30,281)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

$3,265,666.97

B. Federal Contribution

Based on a federal-provincial cost sharing arrangement under the Provincial Police

Services Agreement, the federal government provides a 30% contribution for each dollar

invested in police operations in the province.

During the 2008/09 fiscal year, the federal government invested an additional $866,066

(30% of the total operations and maintenance budget) into the FV IRSU. This represents

a significant economic benefit realized for the Province in operating and maintaining the

FV IRSU during the 2008/09 fiscal year.

68


C. ICBC Claims Cost Savings

Claims cost savings to the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) observed between time

(1) and time (2) were calculated for the FV IRSU High Crash Locations targeted by the unit

and for the FV Region as a whole2.

1. ICBC Claims Cost Savings with the FV IRSU High Crash Locations

Table 5. Crash Statistics and Estimated Claims Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1)

2002/2003 AVERAGE

TIME (2) 2007/2008 AVERAGE

DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC

CLAIMS COST

SAVINGS3

Fatality 5.5 1 -4.5 $999,000

Injury 597 576 -21 $609,000

Total Benefit $1,608,000

Table 5 shows the following crash patterns and associated claims cost savings for the

ICBC:

• 4.5 fewer motor vehicle fatalities, saving ICBC an estimated $999,000 in claims costs

• 21 fewer motor vehicle injuries, saving ICBC an estimated $609,000 in claims costs.

• In total, this amounts to $1.6 million in overall claims costs savings for the Insurance

Corporation of B.C.

2 Claims costs were provided by ICBC in June, 2009 and represent the average claims cost associated with a fatal, serious injury and injury crash. 3 Average cost of a fatal crash is estimated at $222,000. Average cost of an injury crash is estimated at $29,000. All claims cost estimates provided by ICBC, June 8, 2009.

69


2. ICBC Claims Cost Savings with the Fraser Valley Region Table 6. Crash Statistics and Estimated Claims Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1)

2002/2003 AVERAGE


DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC

CLAIMS COST

SAVINGS

Fatality 98 84 -14 $3,108,000

Serious Injury 484 476.5 -7.5 $2,640,000

Injury 6335 5202.2 -1132.8 $32,851,200


Table 6 shows the following crash patterns and associated claims cost savings for the

ICBC:

• 14 fewer fatalities saving ICBC an estimated $3.1 million in claims costs,

• 7.5 fewer serious injuries, saving ICBC an estimated $2.6 million in claims costs

• 1,132.8 fewer injuries in motor vehicle incidents, saving ICBC an estimated $32.8

million.

• An overall, savings of $38.5 million in claims costs.

Social Cost Savings

Social cost savings observed between time (1) and time (2) were calculated for the FV

IRSU High Crash Locations targeted by the unit and for the FV Region as a whole4.

Social costs provide an inclusive picture of the effects of motor vehicle incidents to society

as a whole. For example, time lost from work, health care costs and claims costs are all

represented in social cost estimates. According to B.C.’s Ministry of Transportation

(2007), the total cost associated with a fatal crash is $6,063,419 and the total cost

associated with a non-fatal injury crash is $99,999.

4 Social costs were provided by B.C.’s Ministry of Transportation and represent the average social cost associated with a fatal, serious injury and injury crash from 2007.

70


1. Social Cost Savings with FV IRSU High Crash Locations

Table 7. Crash Statistics and Estimated Social Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1)

2002/2003 AVERAGE


DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED SOCIAL COST

SAVINGS

Fatality 5.5 1 -4.5 $27,285,385

Injury 31.5 33 -21 $2,099,979


Table 7 shows the following crash patterns and associated social cost savings for the

Province of B.C.:

4.5 fewer fatalities, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of $27.3 million

21 fewer motor vehicle injuries, resulting in an estimated $2.1 million cost savings.

A total of $29.4 million was saved through the observed crash reductions at these

targeted intersections.

2. Social Cost Savings with the Fraser Valley Region

Table 8. Crash Statistics and Estimated Social Cost Savings VICTIM TYPE TIME (1)

2002/2003 AVERAGE


DIFFERENCE ESTIMATED ICBC CLAIMS

COST SAVINGS

Fatality 98 84 -14 $84,887,866

Serious Injury 484 476.5 -7.5 $749,992.5

Injury 6335 5202.2 -1132.8 $113,278,867

Total Benefit $198,916,725.7

Table 8 shows the following crash patterns and associated social cost savings for the

Province of B.C.:

• 14 fewer fatalities, resulting in a social cost savings of $84.9 million

• 7.5 fewer serious injuries, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of $749,992

71


• 1140.3 fewer motor vehicle injuries, resulting in an estimated social cost savings of

$113.2 million

• In total, the crash reductions observed throughout the FV Region between these

two time periods has reduced the social costs associated with motor vehicle

incidents in B.C. by almost $200 million.

72


CHAPTER 6: INTERVIEWS

This chapter provides a summary of the qualitative results stemming from 28 interviews

conducted with all members of the FV IRSU and Joint Management Team (both current

and former members). These interviews provided significant insight into the unit’s

operations, management, communications and strategic direction. Each interview took

approximately 2 hours in length. Core questions were asked to all respondents, while

other specific questions were directed at individual groups. Structured interviews with

open-ended questions were asked on the following issues:

• IRSU Model • Operations • Integration • Effectiveness • Enforcement • Data-driven/Intelligence-led policing • Data Collection • Tools • Training • Communication • Perception of IRSU • Officer Safety • Additional questions regarding staffing issues, budgetary issues and the MOU were

also posed to senior non-commissioned officers in charge (NCO i/c) within the IRSU and the Joint Management Team (JMT).

Responses were coded as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘not applicable’ and presented as summary

statistics. Further patterns or themes were generated from high-level open-ended

responses without identifying any individuals.

A. Core Questions The following questions were asked of all respondents regardless of rank (n=28).

IRSU Model Responses were quite positive towards the IRSU model. An integrated unit dedicated to

traffic enforcement was found to be an improvement and have many advantages over

previous models of traffic enforcement.

73


Figure 44.

2

19

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Has the approach to traffic enforcement changed in the Fraser Valley since the development of the IRSU? (n=21)

90% of respondents believed the approach to traffic enforcement had changed in the

Fraser Valley since the development of the IRSU. The biggest changes noted were the

IRSU’s mandate of dedicated traffic enforcement, allowing time to focus on enforcement

without having to attending calls for service or crashes. The focus on Road Safety Vision

2010’s targeted enforcement of high crash areas and road safety priorities was also seen

as a beneficial component. Figure 45.

1

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Do you think the IRSU traffic enforcement model is an improvement on the past non-integrated models? (n=25)

96% of respondents thought the IRSU traffic enforcement model was an improvement on

the past non-integrated models.

74


Figure 46.

4

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Does an integrated policing unit provide any advantages? (n=26)

85% felt an integrated policing unit provided advantages. Some of these advantages

were: better relationships with agencies involved, the fact that RCMP and Municipal Police

Departments learn from each other’s expertise and experience, the sharing of best

practices and new ideas, removal of boundaries between jurisdictions and members

bringing knowledge of the community and areas they work in. Figure 47.

2

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Do you think the IRSU has an impact on motor vehicle injuries and fatalities in the Fraser Valley? (n=24)

92% thought the IRSU had an impact on motor vehicle injuries and fatalities in the Fraser

Valley, although this was mostly based on perception. Many responded that they heard

75


positive feed back from people in the community or felt they must have made a difference

with the significant amount of enforcement and visibility, while some referred to statistics.

Operations

All respondents were asked about the FV IRSU’s enforcement strategy. The FV IRSU’s

enforcement strategy was found to be informal goals and guidelines rather than a

formalized strategic plan. Figure 48.

4

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Does the FV IRSU have an enforcement strategy that you are aware of? (n=28)

86% of respondents were aware of the FV IRSU’s enforcement strategy, although in an

informal manner. The responses varied, however, the majority of the respondents

described the enforcement strategy as targeting high crash areas, enforcing the traffic

priorities (seatbelts, impaired driving, intersections, and speed/aggressive driving), and

reducing injuries and deaths.

Integration The feedback regarding integration was also positive. Some of the successes of

integration noted by respondents were the larger Joint Force Operations (ex. with the

Greater Vancouver IRSU), impaired driving enforcement, reducing crashes, and working

well together. Some of the challenges to integration included needing more members with

traffic experience and more communication.

76


Figure 49.

2

26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# responses

No

Yes

Do you think integration is working well? (n=28)

93% of respondents thought integration was working well. Figure 50.

22

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Have there been any issues with respect to integration? (n=28)

79% said there had not been any issues with respect to integration. Many responded they

were all police officers out there to do the same job.

77


Figure 51.

17

11

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Are you aware of any inter-agency conflicts? (n=28)

61% of respondents were not aware of any inter-agency conflicts. Of those who did note

inter-agency conflicts some of these were: the use of municipal police resources for

fingerprinting and access to the communication center’s radio channels and dispatchers.

Effectiveness While the majority of respondents felt the FV IRSU was effective, they also had

suggestions on how the IRSU could be improved. Figure 52.

5

21

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Do you think the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes? (n=26)

78


81% thought the FV IRSU targets the best locations to reduce serious crashes. Some

respondents commented that although the unit tried to target the most dangerous locations

to reduce crashes, that they relied on crash data made available to them which was a year

old and some of the locations were difficult to enforce. They also needed to maintain a

minimum amount violation ticket output which sometimes required going to locations not

specified as ‘high crash sites’ to obtain a higher volume of violation tickets. These were

termed, “fishing holes”. Figure 53.

12

2

2

3

3

3

7

8

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 # responses

*other includes directing resources, mandate, revenue, JFOs, overtime, aggressive driving enforcement, seatbelt enforcement, ALPR, management, public awareness, time/dedication, no calls.

other*

speed enforcement

teamwork

equipment

visibility/high profile

decrease crashes

target areas

violation tickets

enforcement (general)

impaired enforcement

What do you think the FV IRSU does best and why? (n=28)up to 3 responses

When asked what the FV IRSU did best, the most respondents answered impaired driving

enforcement, followed by traffic enforcement in general, issuing violation tickets, and

targeting high crash areas. Some also answered decreasing crashes, visibility/high profile

enforcement, equipment, team work, and speed enforcement.

79


Figure 54.

2

25

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Are there any changes you would make for IRSU to be more effective? (n=27)

93% of respondents listed changes they would make for IRSU to be more effective. Some

of these changes were: ability to choose IRSU members with motivation and traffic

experience, more administrative staff to fix backlog, more resources, filling positions, and

better equipment such as unconventional unmarked police cars.

B. Constable and NCO i/c Questions The following questions were asked of all 22 constables and 3 NCO i/cs (n=25). Enforcement Respondents were asked about FV IRSU’s enforcement strategy and how the unit

conducted enforcement. Figure 55.

3

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Are you aware of how enforcement operations/strategies are determined? (n=25)

80


88% of respondents were aware of how enforcement operations/strategies were

determined. When asked how the FV IRSU targeted enforcement activities – which days,

what time, what sites and what types of enforcement they carried out –respondents said a

team meeting was held at the beginning of each shift to discuss enforcement. They

needed to issue a minimum of 10 violation tickets per day, 20% of those being for

seatbelts, and 12 impaired driving charges per year and focused on priorities at high crash

locations and intersections. Larger joint Force Operations (JFOs) were conducted on long

weekends with local detachments on an overtime basis and Friday and Saturday nights

focused on impaired driving enforcement. They took turns in jurisdictions according to the

enforcement calendar and attended special events in the communities. Figure 56.

2

19

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

From your own experience, does this differ from how the other traffic units operate? (n=21)

90% of respondents believed the FV IRSU differed from how the other traffic units

operated. Some of the reasons for the difference were the fenced funding for the program

and more resources, dedicated enforcement (not tied to dispatch calls and crash

investigations), more members working as a group for high visibility and greater

productivity.

Data-driven/Intelligence-led policing The majority of respondents were aware of how data was used by the FV IRSU to target

enforcement. There were also very positive results regarding the use of larger joint force

operations.

81


Figure 57.

2

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Is collision data used to focus enforcement operations? (n=24)

92% of respondents said collision data was used to focus enforcement operations. Many

described the collision data as the “top 10 crash locations” provided from ICBC annually.

Others noted that personal knowledge of the area from member’s experience was also

used to focus enforcement. Figure 58.

15

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Is there political pressure to go to areas that are not determined by data? (n=22)

68% said there was no political pressure to go to areas that were not determined by data.

82


Figure 59.

0

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Do you conduct joint operations with neighbouring traffic sections? (n=24)

All respondents said they did conduct joint operations with neighbouring traffic sections.

The majority of respondents described monthly larger JFOs with GV IRSU as well as

various smaller JFOs with municipal traffic units when they were in the area (ex. Surrey

Municipal Traffic Section). Many respondents indicated that an enforcement calendar was

sent out about three months in advance to each municipal traffic section showing when

they would be in the area and available for JFOs, although neither FV IRSU or other

municipal traffic sections followed up on these regularly.

Data Collection

Results to the questions about data collection were mixed. The majority of respondents

felt it was important to record enforcement output but were not trained in the proper

method to do so which may have led to some issues in data collection.

83


Figure 60.

1

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Is the enforcement output (VTs) recorded? (n=25)

96% of respondents were aware that enforcement output (violation tickets) was recorded. Figure 61.

1

24

0 5 10 15 20 25

# responses

No

Yes

Are officers aware of the above procedure? (n=25)

96% were aware of the procedure for recording violation ticket output. Almost all of the

respondents indicated that enforcement output (the number of violation tickets issued)

were recorded each day at the end of a shift on a statistics sheet and given to the Corporal

for a monthly total for the team/unit. The majority of respondents felt recording

enforcement output was important for accountability and demonstrating productivity,

indicating that the unit was “stat-driven” and violation tickets were their “bread and butter”.

84


Figure 62.

20

3

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Have officers been trained regarding data collection? (n=24)

83% of respondents had not been trained regarding data collection. Many respondents

stated that data collection was self explanatory and did not require training. Figure 63.

9

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Are you aware of any issues with the data collection? (n=25)

64% were aware of issues with the data collection process. Some of these issues were

pressure to maintain statistics, lack of consistency in format, lack of training on data

collection, accuracy problems, double counting tickets (ex. a speed violation at an

intersection was counted as two tickets, one for speed and one for intersection, instead of

a single ticket) and administrative backlog in the entering of data.

85


Figure 64.

6

19

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Do you know how this data used by the unit itself? (n=25)

76% of respondents knew how the data was used by the unit.

The NCO i/cs were specifically asked if there had been any issues with accessing

necessary data or timeliness of data and interpretation. Some responded yes; ICBC data

was about one year behind and they were waiting for the Traffic System Management

Information Tool (TSMIT), but there had not been any issues with interpreting the data.

Tools Although many respondents indicated the FV IRSU had better tools, technology and

equipment than other traffic units, they still hoped for the latest and most up to date tools

and technology (ex. laser and radar equipment). Figure 65.

8

17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

# responses

No

Yes

Are there any tools, technology or equipment that would make IRSU more effective? (n=25)

86


68% of respondents indicated there were tools, technology or equipment that would make

IRSU more effective. The most popular responses were: unconventional unmarked cars,

more motorcycles, lasers, hand-held radars, Automated License Plate Recognition

(ALPR), in-car cameras, and automated speed enforcement.

Training There were mixed opinions in regards to training. Many respondents felt general traffic

training from previous experience was sufficient to work in the IRSU, although not all

members had previous traffic experience and traffic equipment training. Figure 66.

16

9

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Do IRSU members receive any special training? (n=25)

64% of respondents said IRSU members did not receive any special training. Most

responded that they did not receive training specific to the IRSU, just general traffic

training and updated certification as needed.

87


Figure 67.

6

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

# responses

No

Yes

Do all members receive this training? (n=24)

75% indicated that there was training all members received as a group. Some training

received by all IRSU members included: commercial vehicle inspection impaired driving

investigation and prosecution, search and seizure, advanced driver training, PRIME, and

pipeline training for recognizing people and vehicles involved in criminal activity on

roadways. Figure 68.

13

12

11.4 11.6 11.8 12 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13

# responses

No

Yes

Are there other areas that need to be addressed by training? (n=25)

88


52% of respondents did not believe there were other areas that need to be addressed by

training. Of those who did note some additional training may be required, some of these

training areas were: impaired driving, SFSD, DRE and data master training, and refresher

courses on traffic skills.

C: Constable Questions The following questions were asked to constables and administrative staff only (n=22).

Communication Communication results were positive with some areas for improvement. Figure 69.

15

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Were you provided with any policy/procedures document for how the following would you be handled at the IRSU?

(n=20)

75% of respondents said they were not provided with any policy/procedures document for

how the following would be handled at the IRSU: pay, overtime, expenses, leave

entitlements, complaints, use of force and pursuits, and other human resource issues.

Most responded that the unit followed normal RCMP policy and procedures and used

RCMP forms, although Independent Municipal members followed their union rules for

human resource procedures.

The NCO i/cs were asked specifically about how is integration is handled for these issues,

and responded that RCMP policy was mainly followed by the unit.

89


Figure 70.

5

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Were you informed of the IRSU’s strategic and enforcement plan? (n=21)

76% were informed of the IRSU’s strategic and enforcement plan. Many respondents

noted this was done informally when they first arrived at the unit regarding the FV IRSU’s

mandate and expectations but could have been provided with more information. Figure 71.

4

18

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Are you notified of decisions made by the NCOIC and 2 i/c or the JMT? (n=22)

82% said they were notified of decisions made by the NCO i/cs or JMT, although some did

not know who they JMT were or what their function was.

90


Figure 72.

5

9

1

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

# responses

Open Door

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Rarely

How often do you communicate with the NCOIC and 2 i/c? (n=21)

When asked how often the constables and staff communicate with the NCO i/cs, many

respondents answered daily and the FV IRSU had an open door policy; although others

answered rarely or quarterly as well.

Perception of IRSU Perception of the FV IRSU was found to be favourable and for many the unit had been a

good experience. Figure 73.

10

3

7

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

# responses

applied

recruited

assigned

transfer

How did you become an IRSU member? (n=22)

91


When asked how they became an IRSU member, responses varied. 45% of members

had actively applied for the IRSU position, whereas 41% were either transferred into the

IRSU or assigned the position involuntarily. Figure 74.

0

11

3

1

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

# responses

elite

desirable

boring

same

other

How do you think the IRSU is viewed by non-IRSU members? (n=18)

When constables were asked how they thought the IRSU is viewed by non-IRSU

members, the majority of respondents said they thought the IRSU was viewed as a

desirable position.

When the NOC i/cs were asked how they thought the IRSU was viewed by non-IRSU

members, they believed it was viewed positively as well. Figure 75.

6

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

# responses

No

Yes

Are you satisfied with how the IRSU is functioning? (n=22)

73% of respondents were satisfied with how the IRSU was functioning.

92


Figure 76.

5

17

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Have you enjoyed your time working for/with the FV IRSU? (n=22)

77% enjoyed working with the FV IRSU.

Officer Safety Officer safety is a high priority to the Province as traffic enforcement can be dangerous. It

was found that although there were some injuries and motor vehicle incidents at the FV

IRSU, all members felt safe. Figure 77.

0

20

0 5 10 15 20

# responses

No

Yes

Do you feel safe on the job? (n=20)

All respondents indicated they felt safe on the job.

93


Both constables and NOC i/c were asked if officers received training or support regarding

safety procedures. The majority of respondents answered, no. They reiterated that they

all received general training at depot (or the Independent Police equivalent) and that block

training provided the basic traffic safety skills. Some respondents did feel some safety

training could be beneficial such as driver training, firearm training, and refresher courses

and policy updates. Most respondents felt reminders on how to do traffic stops safely

would also be beneficial.

D. Management Questions The following questions were asked of NCO i/cs (Staff Sgts/NCO i/cs and Sgts/2ic) (n=3). Staffing When the NOC i/cs were asked if there had been any staffing issues in the FV IRSU they

responded yes. They had difficulty filling vacancies from participating

detachments/departments, and they also stressed the need to ensure that the unit was

receiving experienced traffic members.

MOU When asked if they thought the MOU provides the appropriate level of detail regarding

managing/running the unit, the NCO i/cs responded no. The MOU did not mention the

Sergeant position or the agreement to have one RCMP and one Independent Municipal

member in supervisor positions.

When asked if they thought there should be any amendments to MOU to improve the

running of the IRSU, they responded it should include the length of time members should

be posted in positions rather than different policies for RCMP and Independent Municipal

members and supervisors should be given the option of keeping members for the third

optional year.

The following questions were asked of JMT members (n=3).

94


Roles and responsibility of JMT The JMT described their role as providing guiding principles and direction and acting as a

governing body to the FV IRSU. When asked the difference between JMT and NCO i/c

decisions, the JMT responded a JMT decision would be selecting personnel and setting

targets for the unit such as increased enforcement of impaired driving while an NCO i/c

decision would be deployment and directing the unit on how to achieve that target such as

location, time, shifts etc.

The JMT indicated their governance model was the MOU. The JMT described managing

and overseeing the IRSU through regular meetings and emails, decision making based on

statistics and personnel issues, and reported no difficulties.

Communication The JMT said that decisions from JMT meetings were communicated to the FV IRSU

through direct communication with the Staff Sgt and Sgt. The JMT said they

communicated mainly through email with the Staff Sgt weekly.

The FV IRSU provides the JMT with reports on progress or road safety statistics in excel

spreadsheet format monthly and a power-point presentation at the JMT meeting twice a

year. The JMT felt these reports were sufficient.

Operations The JMT discussed the strategic direction of the FV IRSU. The FV IRSU’s enforcement

strategy is to target priority offences which contribute to fatal and injury collisions as

determined by RSV 2010. The strategic direction of the unit has not changed since its

inception.

The JMT described how the FV IRSU targets enforcement activities through the units

strategic framework and ICBC collision data. The FV IRSU balances the community

needs within the large geographic area it enforces by identifying the percent of collisions

that occur in each jurisdiction, the number of members participating from the area, and the

population of that area and then provides enforcement proportional to these criteria.

95


The JMT does not have a role in overseeing the budget of the IRSU. When asked if they

had any concerns in terms of the FV IRSU’s operations, management or effectiveness,

they responded that the IRSU was going well and would like to see more impaired driving

enforcement, a focus on harm reduction rather than ticket production and maintaining

good people in key positions.

E. What the Fraser Valley IRSU does best… The Fraser Valley IRSU represents a team of highly skilled police officers who are

dedicated to road safety enforcement. Throughout the evaluation process, there were

innumerable impressive achievements discussed and positive commentaries shared. The

following section will highlight these and showcase what the Fraser Valley IRSU does

best.

“We’re good at getting impaired drivers” Overwhelmingly, when asked what the Fraser Valley IRSU does best, members were

proud to state that impaired driving enforcement and investigations were a strongpoint for

their unit. Members discussed the high number of impaired drivers they would catch and

arrest, the enforcement techniques used, and how skilled their members were at

conducting such highly technical investigations. The Fraser Valley IRSU should be

commended on their dedication toward this road safety priority.

“We write a lot of tickets” Many members reiterated how productive the Fraser Valley IRSU was in issuing violation

tickets to offending motorists. The unit is said to include ‘high producers’ who are

extremely effective in catching drivers engaged in aggressive or dangerous behaviours

and administering sanctions. Due to the high volume of traffic enforcement coming from

the Fraser Valley IRSU, the unit has undoubtedly played a significant role in road safety

throughout the region.

96


“Drivers who are pulled over will say, ‘You guys are everywhere’ Due to the fact that IRSU members are able to concentrate on traffic enforcement without

being called away to conduct crash investigations, their ability to saturate an area and

provide high visibility enforcement for long periods of time is highly effective and seems to

be gaining notice amongst drivers in the region. Members commented that many

motorists, when pulled over, will comment that the IRSU officers are “everywhere”,

indicating that the Fraser Valley IRSU has had a measurable impact on the community

and is providing a deterrent effect. This is a significantly positive development towards

road safety in the Fraser Valley region.

Openness, Integration, Satisfaction and Safety… Four additional areas were identified as strong points within the Fraser Valley IRSU.

“Open Door” First, when asked how often members communicated with the Staff Sergeant or Sergeant,

67% reported either that they felt there was an ‘open door’ policy with Senior Management

or that they communicated ‘daily’. This is very encouraging and should be commended as

it indicates the majority of IRSU members perceived the communication between

themselves and the Staff Sergeant or Sergeant to be favourable.

“We’re all the same – we just wear different uniforms” Second, when members were asked whether they thought integration was working ‘well’,

93% said yes. Additionally, the vast majority of members (79%) did not see any issues

pertaining to the integrated aspect of the unit and many commented that all members were

97


the same, with the same focus; they just ‘wear different uniforms’. Many members

commented on how they enjoyed working with police officers from either a different police

force or a different jurisdiction as they would learn from one another and that this

enhanced their ability to do the job.

“Satisfied with the IRSU” Approximately 73% of respondents stated they were currently satisfied with how the IRSU

was functioning. This is very encouraging and speaks positively to the overall issue of job

satisfaction, enjoyment of the unit and being an IRSU officer.

“I am enjoying my time at the Fraser Valley IRSU” When asked whether they had enjoyed their time working for the Fraser Valley IRSU so

far, 77% of members said ‘yes’. The unit should be commended for such a positive

response rate with this question as it speaks highly of the member’s overall job

satisfaction. Additionally, members noted that being an IRSU officer engenders job

satisfaction with the absence of crash investigation work and significantly more time to

conduct traffic enforcement.

“I feel safe on the job” When asked whether they felt safe on the job, 100% of Fraser Valley IRSU officers

responded ‘yes’. As police officer safety is a top priority for the Province, this result is

extremely encouraging. It is imperative that the unit continues to support its members in

their traffic enforcement endeavours and monitors their level of safety on the job. It would

be advisable that the unit continue to ask this question of its members to ensure that

officer’s perception of safety remains 100% positive at all times.

98


CCHHAAPPTTEERR 77:: RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

All members of the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU) and the Joint

Management Team (JMT) were asked to comment on the operations of the IRSU and to

offer recommendations to increase the unit’s effectiveness overall. This Chapter,

“Recommendations” provides a summary of the feedback given and also includes

additional recommendations formed by the evaluators conducting the interviews.

The recommendations can be organized into the following 7 topic areas:

The IRSU Program

Staffing Protocols

Communications

Data driven traffic enforcement

Administrative Issues

Equipment

Governance

A. The IRSU Program 1. Maintaining required staffing levels

Participating police departments are required to provide their full complement of members

to the IRSU in a timely fashion, as per the Memorandum of Understanding. This issue

remains a challenge for the Fraser Valley IRSU program.

Recommendation:

That government communicate with participating police departments regarding the importance of maintaining staffing levels prior to the MOU being signed.

In order for a jurisdiction to participate in the IRSU program, there must be a

reasonable expectation that they will be able to provide the unit with the specified

99


number of qualified traffic members for at least 2 years. Should it be the case that the

police department’s staffing/resource levels preclude participation in the IRSU, all

parties should be aware of the circumstances prior to the signing of the MOU.

Recommendation:

More ongoing and regular communication between participating police departments, IRSU management, the Road Safety Advisory Committee, and Police Services Division regarding maintaining required IRSU staffing levels.

2. More coordination between the FV IRSU and its participating police agencies There is an expectation that the individual IRSU’s will coordinate their activities where

appropriate with the regular traffic operations of the participating police agencies. To

help ensure that full advantage is taken of this opportunity, the Fraser Valley IRSU

should generate an enforcement calendar each month. The calendar would indicate

when the unit will be in which jurisdiction, for how long (ex. 1 day or 3 days) and

whether the shift is daytime or night-time. It would be distributed with enough advance

notice to allow participating jurisdictions to effectively plan its participation.

Recommendation:

Bi-weekly communication with participating police departments, following the distribution of the enforcement calendar.

3. Follow-Up

After each month’s enforcement calendar is distributed to the participating traffic units,

the Fraser Valley IRSU should continue contact with these police departments every

two weeks. Regular communication with the participating traffic units will engender

confidence in the mandate of the program, and will allow the IRSU to best assist traffic

enforcement in the Fraser Valley in reaching their road safety priorities. Also after each

JFO the Fraser Valley IRSU should follow up to discuss how the operations

proceeded, any issues that arose, any feedback the other unit may have for the IRSU

and to discuss any police activity statistics gathered from the operation.

100


Recommendation:

Follow-up with participating police departments, following each local Joint Force Operation (JFO).

B. Staffing Policies and Procedures

1. Varying experience levels of member officers The Fraser Valley IRSU consists of not only experienced traffic enforcement officers

but also a significant number of members who did not have any expertise or

experience in traffic enforcement or were in fact new to policing. The expectation is

that officers working in Integrated Road Safety Units come equipped with both the

sufficient experience and expertise. At the same time they should also be screened to

ensure that they have the appropriate level of interest in traffic enforcement. The FV

IRSU evaluation, however, found too many incidences of the arbitrary assignment of

members who lacked the necessary experience or commitment or in some cases

both. This has significant implications on the productivity of the unit.

Recommendations:

All members, whether coming from Independent or RCMP departments, should have to apply for positions with the IRSU.

All members should arrive at the Integrated Road Safety Unit with an experienced background in traffic enforcement.

2. Larger role for the Unit’s Staff Sergeant and Sergeant in hiring As the head of operations for the unit, the Staff Sergeant and Sergeant of the IRSU

should manage the application process and interviews for all applicants. As with most

large organizations, senior management most often play a direct role in the hiring of

new employees; it is advisable that this traditional acquisition process be implemented

for the Fraser Valley IRSU. Both the Staff Sergeant and the Sergeant have in-depth

knowledge of the ground level operations of the unit and its challenges and

requirements. In order to ensure that the IRSU is staffed with members who can

101


contribute to enhancing its overall efficiency and effectiveness, it is advisable that the

Staff Sergeant and Sergeant retain control over the hiring of new IRSU members.

Recommendation: The Staff Sergeant and Sergeant of the Fraser Valley IRSU should have more

influence over who is seconded into the unit.

C. Communication Develop a communications package When asked whether they were informed of the Fraser Valley IRSU’s strategic plan at

the start of their service with the unit, 24% of members responded no. As the IRSU

represents a specialized enforcement team with the mandate of reducing serious injury

and fatality crashes with specific expectations of members (ex. issuing 10 violation

tickets per day and obtaining 12 impaired driving charges per year), it is advisable that

new members be officially informed of the purpose behind the unit, its goals and key

strategic plans. The Strategic Plan should also be developed in concert with the Joint

Management Team, the Fraser Valley IRSU and with advice from the Road Safety

Advisory Committee.

Recommendation:

The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop a formal strategic plan, including a specification of a mandate, goals, performance indicators and strategic expectations of all members.

The Fraser Valley IRSU should develop an information package for all new members arriving to the unit.

102


D. Data Driven Enforcement

1. More timely data The Fraser Valley IRSU receives annual crash statistics from the Insurance

Corporation of B.C. (ICBC). These reports inform the IRSU of the locations in the

Fraser Valley where the most serious injury crashes occur. These statistics and the

locations they reveal form the unit’s targeted enforcement operations. The most recent

crash report was received in the summer of 2008 and was based on 2007 data. This

report included the top high crash intersections for each of the 10 jurisdictions the

IRSU serves. Due to the fact that the IRSU receives this information only on an annual

basis and that it is based on data that is one year behind, it has limited the extent to

which the unit is able to utilize crash data for their strategic operations.

In addition, the majority of members reported that it is difficult to comment on whether

their enforcement efforts are making a difference as they rarely receive updates on

crash statistics in the jurisdictions they serve. As the mandate of the IRSU is to

decrease serious injury and fatality crashes in the Fraser Valley Region, it would

significantly benefit members to be regularly informed of any changes (positive or

negative) in the prevalence of these crash types throughout the areas they are

targeting.

Recommendations:

ICBC should provide the Fraser Valley IRSU with quarterly reports on the number of injured, seriously injured and fatal victims involved in motor vehicle incidents at all top crash locations throughout the jurisdictions they serve.

The Fraser Valley IRSU should present this information to all members on a quarterly basis and provides a hard copy to all members.

2. Ticket volume versus targeted enforcement The interviews clearly indicate that there is far too much emphasis in the Fraser Valley

IRSU on the generation of violation tickets and not enough on “targeted” enforcement

at high crash locations. For example, members are expected to issue 10 violation

103


tickets a day, with 20% of those coming from seat belt infractions. As well, members

must submit a summary breakdown of the number of violation tickets (and Criminal

Code charges) issued to the Corporal at the end of every shift and that these statistics

are summarized into ‘Group’ totals and eventually into an ‘IRSU total’. Senior

management of the IRSU monitors output levels for individual members and these

serve as the most important performance measure for all Constables. Additionally, it

was found that members are not given direction on which sites to target per shift.

They are told which jurisdictions to enforce (ex. Abbotsford or Chilliwack), however,

are not held accountable as to whether the ‘top injury’ crash locations within those

jurisdictions were enforced during the shifts. Thus, the Fraser Valley IRSU currently

does not track the extent to which members are targeting high crash locations.

The emphasis on tickets adversely effects the unit’s ability to target high crash

intersections and deliver on the program’s mandate of reducing serious injuries and

fatalities.

It is understood that high crash locations may be more difficult to enforce (e.g.

difficulties in pulling over motorists), and don’t generate the same volume of tickets but

the mandate as expressed in the MOU must be the primary consideration. The

emphasis on ticket generation also leads to a focus on sites that are commonly called

“fishing holes.” These sites produce large numbers violation tickets and may pad

performance measures but have little to do with the priorities of the Enhanced Road

Safety Program.

Recommendations:

The Fraser Valley IRSU Senior Management should make it clear to members that the targeting the identified ‘high crash locations’ is the primary strategic priority and the production of a violations ticket volume is secondary.

Senior Management provide direction to members on which ‘high crash locations” to target.

Senior Management should regularly follow-up on that “targeting”.

104


E. Administrative Issues

1. Administrative challenges affect the operational efficiency of the unit.

During the 2008/09 fiscal year, the Fraser Valley IRSU’s budget included 2 full time

public servant staff members. The public servant positions are an essential

component of the IRSU and their duties entail entering all violation tickets and notice

and orders into the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database, forwarding

member’s recommendations for Criminal Code charges to Crown Counsel, filing

violation tickets for easy access when members attend traffic court, handling all phone

and email inquiries, organizing all administrative and logistical issues for members and

Senior Management, amongst many other responsibilities. However, during this time,

the unit experienced difficulty in maintaining these two positions and was often left with

one public servant or at various times throughout the year, none at all. The staff

shortage led to significant backlogs in violation ticket entry, data entry of enforcement

initiatives, the production of Crown Counsel documents etc. All of which ultimately

affected the operational efficiency of the unit.

Recommendation:

Shortages of public servant staff should be addressed immediately by Senior Management.

2. Administrative checklist for new members

New Fraser Valley IRSU members arriving at the unit experienced significant and

unnecessary delays before they were able to access the computer systems, receive

identification to operate the IRSU vehicles or even enter the premises, etc. As this

affected their ability to conduct enforcement upon their arrival at the unit, it led to a

delay in which these members were fully operational.

105


Recommendation:

Administrative set-up processes for new members of the Fraser Valley IRSU should begin 3 months prior to their arrival in order to ensure that they can be fully operational at the beginning of their tour of duty.

F. Equipment

Request for “unconventional” unmarked cars When asked about equipment, the Fraser Valley IRSU was very pleased with the

number and quality of the laser and radar equipment in the unit as well as many other

tools used by members for traffic enforcement. However, when asked if there were

any other tools or technology that the unit could benefit from, the overwhelming

response was in favour of ‘more unconventional vehicles’.

Members were of the view that in traffic enforcement, catching drivers can be difficult

when an identified police car is on the road as drivers will immediately slow down,

buckle up or change their driving behaviour for the better. As such, traditional

enforcement makes it difficult to catch drivers engaged in dangerous or aggressive

behaviours as police are highly visible. For an IRSU unit, tasked with solely

conducting traffic enforcement, having access to vehicles not normally associated with

traffic enforcement would be highly advantageous to target and sanction dangerous

drivers.

Recommendation:

The Fraser Valley IRSU should budget for the purchase of 4 unconventional vehicles.

G. Governance Regular oversight meetings It is advisable that the JMT, the Staff Sergeant of the IRSU and Police Services

Division meet regularly to keep up to date on the Unit’s performance and to discuss

any challenges or issues that may have arisen. These meetings will ensure that

106


stakeholders are kept abreast of various issues that can arise within an integrated

policing unit such as difficulty with staffing, member performance, MOU or contract

issues, funding issues, and or public awareness plans/ideas. They will also ensure that

decisions regarding the functioning and strategic planning of the Fraser Valley IRSU

are made with input from all stakeholders.

Recommendation:

The Joint Management Team, Staff Sergeant and Police Services Division meet on a quarterly basis to review the unit’s performance indicators (i.e. police activity and crash statistics), discuss operational challenges, public awareness efforts and/or any other pertinent issues.

Appendix A FV IRSU Joint Force Operations and Special Projects

January – December 2008 *Provided by the Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit

Operation

Name

Date

Location

Time at

location (hrs)

Joint Traffic

Section/Detachment

Mandate/

Target

# of VT’s

issued

Media

Involved (yes/no)

Additional

Info

Agri-Fair 2007 Abbotsford (approx. 24 hours

enforcement over 3 night

shifts)

Abbotsford PD Traffic and General Duty

Aggressive Drivers and

Impaired Drivers

398 No 1 x Impaired charge, and 2 x 24 hour suspension

s No name 30

March 2007

Abbotsford Friday night (8 hours

enforcement)

Abbotsford PD Traffic Aggressive Drivers, and

Impaired Drivers

335 Local 1 x Impaired 2 x VI, 2 x Prohibited Drivers, 1 x PSP charge

No name 31 March 2007

Langley Saturday night ( 8 hours of

enforcement)

Langley RCMP Traffic Aggressive Drivers, and

Impaired Drivers

224 Local 2 x Impaired 2 x Drug

cases (inc. $26,000.00

seized No name 30

May 2007

Abbotsford and Langley

(split)

8 hours of enforcement

Abbotsford PD Traffic and Langley RCMP

Traffic

Aggressive Drivers /

Intersections

167 ICBC

CounterAttack 05 Dec 2008

Abbotsford 8 hours of enforcement

Abbotsford PD Traffic and General Duty

Impaired Drivers

43 ICBC ALPR scans 1101, 2 x

Impaired, 3 x 24 hour

prohibitions, 1 x VI

Operation Swamp

15 Feb 2008

Burnaby (south)


GV IRSU, Burnaby RCMP Traffic


Intersections / Impaired

Drivers

287 Yes 1 x Impaired 1 x

Prohibited Driver, 1 x

VI No name 29

June 2008

Coquitlam 8 hours of enforcement

GV IRSU, Port Mann Freeway (RCMP)

Aggressive Drivers, Impaired Drivers

26 No ALPR scans 4738, 1 x

Impaired, 2 x 24 hour

prohibitions, 2 x

Prohibited Drivers, 1 x ADP, 1 x VI

No name 12-15 March 2007

Delta 24 hours of enforcement

Delta PD Traffic, Deas Freeway (RCMP),

CVE, GVTAPS

Commercial Truck checks / Aggressive

Drivers

402 Yes 17 Commercial

Vehicles placed OOS

Never Say Never

11 April 2008


Delta PD Traffic, Deas Freeway (RCMP)


Intersection

132 Yes 1 x Impaired 2 x 24 hour prohibitions

No name 17-18 Dec 2008


Delta PD Traffic Impaired Driving Counter Attack

76 No 4 x Impaired 15 x 24

hour prohibitions, 5 x ADP’s

No name 12 March 2009


Delta PD Traffic Commercial Vehicles

10 No 20 Level-1 inspections completed

No name 18-19 March 2009


Delta PD Traffic Aggressive Drivers

n/k No

Canada Road Safety Week

15-21 May 2007

Hope and Highways


Fraser Valley Traffic Services (RCMP)


Seatbelt Enf

721 Yes (CBC

National

1 x Impaired 8 x 24 hour prohibitions,

108


Operation Name

Date

Location

Time at

location (hrs)

Joint Traffic

Section/Detachment

Mandate/

Target

# of VT’s

issued

Media

Involved (yes/no)

Additional

Info

News) 4 x Prohibited

Drivers No name 18-19

Oct 2007

Hope and Highways



Commercial Vehicles / Pipeline

Enforcement

15 No 1 x Impaired 3 x

Prohibited Drivers, 3 x

24 hour prohibitions, 5 x Liquor Act, 16

pounds of marihuana

seized. MMMF 12-15

Jul 2007

Hope and Highways



Aggressive Drivers

657 Yes

No name 16-19 May 2008

Hope and Highways



Aggressive Drivers

1033 Yes 2 x 24 hour prohibitions,

MMMF 10-13 July 2008

Hope and Highways



Aggressive Drivers

849 Yes 1 x 24 hour prohibition

No name 06 May 2008

Langley 8 hours of enforcement

Langley RCMP Traffic, GV IRSU

Aggressive Drivers,

Seatbelts, Intersections

306 Local 1 x drug seizure, 1 x

24 hour prohibition

No name 17 June 2008

Langley 8 hours of enforcement

Langley RCMP Traffic Aggressive Drivers,

Seatbelts, Intersections

178 No 1 x Prohibited Driver, 1 x

VI No name 06

Nov 2008

Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows


Ridge Meadows RCMP Traffic


Intersections

95 Yes 1 x Impaired Driver

No name 28 April 2008

Richmond 6 hours of enforcement

Richmond RCMP Traffic, GV IRSU


Intersections

91 Local 1 x Prohibited Driver, 1 x

VI No name 18

March 2008

Surrey 8 hours of enforcement

Surrey RCMP Traffic, GV IRSU


Intersections

263 Yes 20 x Commercial

Vehicles inspected, 1 x Prohibited Driver, 1 x

drug seizure, 3 x

VI’s No name 10

Aug 2008


GV IRSU, Surrey RCMP Traffic

Aggressive Drivers

n/k No n/k

No name 06 Sept 2008


GV IRSU Impaired Drivers

n/k No n/k

No name 13 Oct 2008


GV IRSU Impaired Drivers,

Seatbelts

48 No 2 x Impaired Drivers, 6 x

24 hour prohibitions,

4 x Prohibited Drivers, 7 x

Vehicle Impounds (VI), 1 x

109


Operation Name

Date

Location

Time at

location (hrs)

Joint Traffic

Section/Detachment

Mandate/

Target

# of VT’s

issued

Media

Involved (yes/no)

Additional

Info

drug charge.

No name 24 April 2008

White Rock 8 hours of enforcement

White Rock RCMP Impaired Drivers

39 No 2 x Impaired Drivers

No name 20-22 Nov 2007

Pemberton and

Squamish


GV IRSU, Squamish RCMP


245 Yes 1 x Impaired driver, 6 x 24 hour

prohibitions, 1 x

Prohibited Driver

No name 27 Sep 2008

Tri-Cities 8 hours of enforcement

GV IRSU Impaired Drivers,

Aggressive Drivers

113 No 2 x Impaired Drivers, 17 x 24 hour

prohibitions, 3 x drug

seizures, 3 x ADP’s

No name 01 Dec 2007

Abbotsford 6 hours of enforcement

Abbotsford PD Traffic Impaired Drivers

51 Yes 1 x Impaired Driver, 11 x

24 hour prohibitions,

1 x Prohibited

Driver Operation

Impact 05-08 Oct

2007

Surrey, Abbotsford,

Langley


Abbotsford PD Traffic, Surrey RCMP Traffic, Langley RCMP Traffic


469 Yes 5 x Impaired Drivers, 15 x 24 hour

prohibitions, 8 x ADP’s, 1

x VI

The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit: An Evaluation · Police Services Division – Road...

Documents

Transcript of The Fraser Valley Integrated Road Safety Unit: An Evaluation · Police Services Division – Road...