Dear Dr Hamer

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - APPEAL AGAINST APPLICATION OF EXEMPTIONS - FOI REQUEST REF: 2854

The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership consists of Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Her Majesty's Court Service and the Highways Agency. For the purposes of Freedom of Information requests, appeals against decisions made by the Partnership are handled by Surrey County Council in consultation with the Surrey Police Information Access Team. As a result, I have investigated the response to your request REF 2854 and have now completed my review.

Your request was for the following information about the M25 Junction 12 new road layout:

The response to 1 was supplied by the Highway Agency.

The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership refused to disclose the information requested under 2 quoting section 31 of the FOI Act (Law Enforcement) Section A and B, and Section 38 (Health and Safety), Section A, as this is site-specific information, directly related to the level of enforcement provided at an individual safety camera site. Although there are a number of cameras at the entry to the junction, there is only one exit camera. The cameras measure average speed across the zone.

The Partnership also refused to disclose information in response to questions 3 and 4, quoting the same exemptions.

In your email of 25/11/08 you challenged the response on the following basis:

`DfT Circular 01/2007 (USE OF SPEED AND RED-LIGHT CAMERAS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT: GUIDANCE ON DEPLOYMENT, VISIBILITY AND SIGNING) stipulates the fundamental objective underlying the National Safety Camera Programme is to "reduce speeding, collisions and casualties at locations where excessive speed represents a road safety problem". Yet you seek to withhold information on the basis that cameras are not indeed live, and therefore are acting with deceit to road users. Furthermore there has been no evidence presented to suggest that the change in road layout presents a greater risk to collision and therefore health and safety, than was the case before the change was made. Therefore the premise that identification of 'dummy' cameras would lead to more accidents is not evidenced in fact. Whilst withholding the data is claimed in protection of law enforcement, there is no greater undermining of law enforcement than speed cameras which do not work.'

You state `there has been no evidence presented to suggest that the change in road layout presents a greater risk to collision and therefore health and safety, than was the case before the change was made.' The Safety Camera Paertnership have provided the following statement: `The primary reason for the introduction of the cameras on the M25/M3 junction was as part of a traffic management trial to reduce congestion. We expect that the camera enforcement will also provide road safety benefits, however this was not the primary purpose. Therefore we did not undertake an analysis of collisions prior to the introduction of the scheme. The presence of the enforcement is advertised on our website '

I have considered your statement that `you seek to withhold information on the basis that cameras are not indeed live, and therefore are acting with deceit to road users… Whilst withholding the data is claimed in protection of law enforcement, there is no greater undermining of law enforcement than speed cameras which do not work.'

The effectiveness of the camera enforcement network relies on the perception that the chances of being recorded are high at all sites. It is not possible to provide a live camera in all housings because too many penalties would be generated for the Safety Camera Partnership “back office” processing teams to cope with.

Within Surrey there are 23 fixed speed camera housings within which six speed cameras are deployed. The six cameras are deliberately deployed to ensure that some housings receive more “live” camera time than others because there is a greater road safety need at those sites (ie there has been a greater history of collisions and speeds at some sites compared with others). When housings are not provided with a live camera, they are provided with a dummy flash so that a continued visual deterrent is maintained.

The Safety Camera Partnership has evidence to show the effectiveness of the safety camera network which have been in use in Surrey since 1995. Headline results for the casualty reduction performance of core safety camera sites across Surrey to the end of September 2008 are summarised below. Please note that data for sites that have been in place for less than 6 months prior to September 2008 are not included in this analysis as there is not enough “after” period to make a fair comparison with “before” data.

It should be noted that mobile speed enforcement is sometimes undertaken at fixed speed camera sites to supplement the fixed speed camera. Also, in addition to these core sites, mobile enforcement is also undertaken from time to time at other sites where there has been concern over excessive speeds and road safety. These are known as exceptional sites, and are enforced on a less regular basis by the Partnership's own mobile enforcement police officers or by local casualty reduction police officers.

Fixed Speed Camera Sites

Combined Speed and Red Light Violation Camera Site

Red Light Violation Camera Sites

Mobile Speed Enforcement Camera Sites

All Camera Enforcement Sites Combined

35% reduction in collisions overall (a reduction from 261 to 170 collisions per year at 46 sites

These figures confirm that the use of safety cameras (without all cameras needing to be live) has led to a reduction in road casualties.

You state that: `..the premise that identification of 'dummy' cameras would lead to more accidents is not evidenced in fact.' We belive that release of this type of information would encourage further similar requests which would lead drivers to being able to deduce by a process of elimination those locations where the risk of being caught is more/less likely. This would diminish the ability of the safety camera technology to impact on road safety. The Information Commissioner's Office has issued several Decisions on this topic, including the Decision Notice FS50068601 on 3rd August 2005 on a request for the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. In his decision the Commissioner stated: 'The Commissioner is also mindful of the fact that the release of this information is likely to lead to similar requests for this type of information. The Commissioner is aware of number of websites directed at drivers and speed cameras and therefore considers site specific information could result in the formation of a database on the location of live cameras. This could then be used by drivers to ascertain the level of risk at any particular camera site. The Commissioner is persuaded that ...such information could be used by drivers to drive at higher speeds... leading to an increased risk to the health and safety of the public'

In addition, there is strong evidence behind the Safety Camera Partnership's concerns on vandalism of cameras in Surrey. Since the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership was created in April 2005 there have been 28 incidents of vandalism to safety camera housings. An anti-camera vigilante organisation called Motorists Against Detection “MAD” led by a self styled “Captain Gatso” have claimed to have undertaken attacks on safety cameras in Surrey (appearing on local radio stations and quoted in local papers) including those located on residential roads as well as main roads. Their press releases include statements showing that they deliberately target cameras that they believe are issuing the most penalties (see www.speedcam.co.uk).

So far, there has been only one occasion when an actual live camera happened to be within a housing and so was destroyed when the housing was attacked. The cost of purchasing a complete safety camera pole and housing is typically around £10,0000 to £15,000. The cost of purchasing a camera for deployment within the housings is approximately £30,000.

In conclusion, I believe that to release information would indicate whether all, or only some of the cameras at this site were live cameras. This information would assist anti-camera vigilantes in their stated aim of disrupting safety camera enforcement. This would reduce the effectiveness of the safety camera network and so prejudice the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and so I uphold the use of the Section 31 (1) (a) and (b) exemption. I also uphold the use of the Section 38 (1) (a) and (b) exemption which refers to health and safety. Disclosure would have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the safety camera network, so making camera deployment less effective and impacting on the safety of pedestrians and road users. As these are both qualified exemptions I have also reviewed whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in not disclosing the information. I consider the public interest arguments to be identical in each case.

There is a public interest in furthering understanding of road safety issues including the effectiveness of safety cameras in reducing speeding, and the spending of public money on the safety camera network. However, I believe in this case that this interest is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining an effective safety camera network. Crime and Disorder surveys of Surrey residents have show that the fear of traffic is a prime concern. During the 2007 Surrey Policing Plan Survey, 37% of those residents questioned cited speeding motorists as a problem. This was the top rated community issue.

The partnership have stated in their original response, and have again explained to me, that they would be happy to release this information once the current temporary scheme has been completed and either removed or replaced by a different scheme.

I trust that this explanation now satisfies your enquiry. If you are still unhappy with the decision, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the Information Commissioners' website: http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Eileen Perren, Freedom of Information Officer