NRSPP Australia » ‘Complex environments’: A different take on vehicles as a workplace

Technology is changing the way traffic enforcement is conducted. This blog looks at the police vehicle as a workplace, how the hazard of distraction needs to be managed in that workplace, and why the challenge of autonomous vehicles (AVs) involves more than determining who is to blame in a crash.

The police vehicle as a workplace

Police highway patrol vehicles in Australia contain an array of modern technology, with the equipment list usually including:

Encrypted digital police radio, civilian UHF radio, and public address system
L.E.D. flashing warning lights and variable message bar
Speed measuring devices (checked speedometer, mobile radar)
Roadside alcohol and drug screening devices
Electronic penalty notice-enabled mobile devices
Mobile data terminal and NUC (Next Unit of Computing)
Wi-Fi enabled in-car video, complimented by the officer’s body-worn video, and
Automatic number plate recognition.

Almost everything officers do at a police station can now be done in the field. Highway patrol members in particular can head out at the start of a shift to complete pre-assigned intelligence-based tasks and not return until the end.

The vehicle has truly become a workplace for these officers. But is it a risk-free workplace?

A real-world example

The awarding by a U.S. Court of USD$12 million in damages against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over the death of a cyclist has had repercussions for law enforcement and other emergency services globally.

The Court was told a Sherriff’s Deputy was texting and using a mobile data terminal (MDT) when his police vehicle struck the cyclist, who was riding in a bicycle lane.

In addition to tightening of departmental policies covering use of MDTs, University of California San Diego’s Training, Research and Education for Driving Safely (TREDS) launched a project with California Highway Patrol to provide a one-hour training program on distraction overload. The program has since been adapted to police and emergency services in other U.S. states.

“Electronic devices in the complex environment of a modern patrol vehicle is a growing problem, increasing the risk for injuries, fatalities and liability resulting from collisions,” according to the TREDS website.[1]

The same applies

As discussed, the modern patrol vehicle operated in Australia could also be considered a “complex environment”.

While access to police departmental driving policies can be restricted, these policies would contain administrative directives, such as the non-use of MDTs while driving. However, the hierarchy of controls within the Australian work health safety (WHS) environment considers “administrative actions” the least reliable form of control[2].

Legal proceedings before a Queensland Court show that WHS regulators are prepared to prosecute police agencies for allegedly failing to comply with a WHS duty[3].

The risks of distracted driving are foreseeable. Indeed these risks are regularly highlighted by senior police and relevant ministers in media statements:

“If safety truly is our number one priority, we can’t allow our police to drive whilst distracted.” – Mr Darren Grondel, Washington State Traffic Safety Commission[4]

Road policing and autonomous vehicles (AVs)

Much of the discussion around the introduction of AVs centres on determining who is to blame in the event of a crash. For operational police, however, there is much more at stake.

Operational police officers at a Rand Corporation workshop in Washington DC identified priority areas in regard to their interactions with AVs:

“Many seemingly simple interactions, such as traffic stops, are actually quite complex…law enforcement should begin proactive preparations to address longer-term challenges before being forced into reactive changes.” Rand Corporation, 2019[5]

Regardless of whether a person or a computer is driving, police will require AVs to pull over and stop for police or to allow emergency vehicles to pass; slow down, stop, change lanes, alter course, or take a detour; and comply with directions given by hand or via activation of blue/red flashing warning lights.

The requirement for police to stop vehicles extends beyond traffic offences. Consider criminal investigations and drug, contraband, and human trafficking as well as terrorist attacks where a vehicle is used as a weapon or to escape.

Police forces globally need to proactively develop work health safety policy and training to deal with the foreseeable hazards posed by AVs.

Another real-world example

In 2018, California Highway Patrol observed a Tesla Model S on a freeway travelling at 70mph (112kmh), with the driver asleep at the wheel[6]. Police activated lights and sirens to stop the vehicle, via a conventional traffic stop, but the vehicle continued.

Police manoeuvred in front of the Tesla and began to reduce their speed, in the hope that the Tesla’s automated systems would slowly bring it to a stop, which it eventually did (albeit in a running lane of the freeway which presented another operational danger). Police were eventually able to wake the driver, who was charged with driving under the influence.

Intercepting a vehicle using this technique is not something police have trained for or practised.

Remember, the current WHS prosecution[3] of Queensland Police Service centres on an allegation of inadequate training. Vigilance is needed so operational police here are not forced into the type of reactive changes feared by their U.S. counterparts.

About the author

Michael Timms retired from New South Wales Police Force (NSWPF) in 2020 following a 33-year career specialising in road policing.

He holds a Bachelor of Professional Studies (Policing/Road Safety) UNE and in 2016 completed the Monash University Road Safety Leadership Program. Shortly after leaving NSWPF, he formalised decades of on-road expertise by gaining accreditation as a road safety auditor through CARRS-Q (QUT).

As a member of the Executive Committee, NSW Chapter, Australasian College of Road Safety since 2000, he has written chapter submissions and given evidence to NSW Parliamentary inquiries.

Also in 2000, he established RTS Zero, providing road safety and strategic media advice, with his wife Sonia Roberts, formerly of NSW Police Media Unit.