PFD report

Louise Theresa Bailey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Jun 2022•South London

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to provide drivers with information about whether other units are closer for emergency-call risk assessment
  2. Lack of training on when officers should assign themselves over the radio
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Procure and replace the CAD command-and-control system with OnCall, enabling deployment decisions based on vehicle distance and officer skill set.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 September 2022.
  2. Action

    Amend the Airwave manual to instruct officers not to use the radio to self-assign to emergency incidents.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 September 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Vehicle mapping cannot reliably support fast-time driver decisions because legal restrictions limit in-car display use to speeds below five miles per hour.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide drivers with information about whether other units are closer for emergency-call risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“Chapter 13 of Roadcraft, the Police Driver’s Handbook, provides that before officers begin their response to an emergency call, they should go through a process of risk assessment. That includes consideration of whether other units are closer. However, in this case the driver and operator did not know the answer to that question. In part that was due to the fact that officers are encouraged to avoid assigning themselves over the radio during an ongoing incident to prevent clogging up of airwaves. However, I heard evidence that several units did in fact assign themselves over the radio, though not all with their location, and that no training is provided as to when to assign over the radio and when not to. Moreover, there is an emergency button which allows the originating officer to override other broadcasts if needed mitigating any risk of clogging up airwaves. My concern is that the current system and training does not facilitate drivers being provided with the information they need to answer the question “are other units closer?” which means they are unable to complete a full risk assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of training on when officers should assign themselves over the radio

Wider context from the report

“Chapter 13 of Roadcraft, the Police Driver’s Handbook, provides that before officers begin their response to an emergency call, they should go through a process of risk assessment. That includes consideration of whether other units are closer. However, in this case the driver and operator did not know the answer to that question. In part that was due to the fact that officers are encouraged to avoid assigning themselves over the radio during an ongoing incident to prevent clogging up of airwaves. However, I heard evidence that several units did in fact assign themselves over the radio, though not all with their location, and that no training is provided as to when to assign over the radio and when not to. Moreover, there is an emergency button which allows the originating officer to override other broadcasts if needed mitigating any risk of clogging up airwaves. My concern is that the current system and training does not facilitate drivers being provided with the information they need to answer the question “are other units closer?” which means they are unable to complete a full risk assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Procure and replace the CAD command-and-control system with OnCall, enabling deployment decisions based on vehicle distance and officer skill set.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS is currently in the process of procuring a replacement Command and Control system to replace the current CAD system. The proposed replacement, “OnCall” is a map based despatch programme which is designed to drive efficiency in deployment of officers to incidents. The function of the OnCall system means that more control and responsibility will be given to MetCC Despatch Operators.”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Amend the Airwave manual to instruct officers not to use the radio to self-assign to emergency incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The CAD mapping system is accessed and monitored in the MetCC control rooms. Its use is encouraged when dispatching incidents and is widely used by MetCC operators to ensure efficiency and to limit travel time. It is acknowledged that there is a lack of formal instruction around self-assignment with regards to what is deemed an urgent assistance CAD. To resolve this issue and ensure a consistent approach across the organisation, the MPS is in the process of amending the “Standards of Radio Procedure” section of the Airwave manual to state that the radio should not be used as a tool for officers to assign themselves to emergency incidents. This will ensure a consistent and corporate approach across all 12 BCU’s and reduce unnecessary radio traffic in the event of an emergency assistance”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Vehicle mapping cannot reliably support fast-time driver decisions because legal restrictions limit in-car display use to speeds below five miles per hour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is a facility within the IVMA in-car system which allows supervisors to view where local resources are, however, the accuracy of this depends on the signal strength received by the vehicle and its consistency is location dependent. However, Regulation 109 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 makes it unlawful for display screens within vehicles, which show text, to be deployed in a position where the equipment can be seen by and potentially distract the driver. This means the IVMA in vehicles can only be viewed below a speed of 5 mph limiting the ability of the IVMA in fast time or spontaneous incidents.”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

It is not practical or appropriate to control urgent incidents using mapping data or select attending vehicles based on location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As detailed above, there is a requirement for all officers to assign themselves to calls until informed otherwise and to keep all radio transmissions to an absolute minimum. It is not practical to control the incident based on mapping data, nor is it appropriate to select or deselect vehicles or officers to attend based on location.”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 4 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Urgent assistance requires all available vehicles to respond until cancellation because delay could increase risks to officers, suspects and the public.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The OnCall system will have the ability to calculate the travelling times of units and show information surrounding the policing skills of the officers in each vehicle, which in turn will enable a more intelligence based approach to deployments. It is the MPS’ view that the OnCall system will address the concerns raised by HM Assistant Coroner in his report, by ensuring appropriate assignment of vehicles based on distance and skill set. The system will not, however, change the expected response of officers to incidents of urgent assistance, for the reasons outlined. Due to the individual nature of those incidents, this will still require an initial multi-unit response in accordance with current practice.”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Train emergency-response drivers to conduct dynamic risk assessments, including considering the proximity and abilities of other attending units.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 September 2022.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Roadcraft is not definitive police policy, and its risk-assessment guidance is not an exhaustive list.

    Stated by College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Train emergency-response drivers to conduct dynamic risk assessments, including considering the proximity and abilities of other attending units.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the matter of concern regarding MPS driver training, it is the MPS Driving School which is responsible for preparing and delivering the emergency response aspect of all MPS driving courses in line with national minimum requirements. Due to the complex nature and volume of practical training required, attendees are required to complete the theory aspect of learning and pass an exam prior to attending the practical training module. Specific reference is not made in training to the Roadcraft Handbook, however the principles of Roadcraft are embedded within MPS driver training, including the standards of emergency response driving outlined in Chapter 13.”

Source location

Response from Metropolitan Police Service
Page 1 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Roadcraft is not definitive police policy, and its risk-assessment guidance is not an exhaustive list.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Roadcraft is not the definitive document for police policy. It is owned and run by a non-police organisation Police Foundation and is used by many emergency services around the world. It is used primarily for driver training and not for force policy.”

Source location

Response from NPCC
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 2022

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026