Follow this request

There are 3 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?

Actions reference non-compliant speed camera sites

dennis fallon made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Transport

The request was successful.

From: dennis fallon

27 September 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,
In December 2001 the DfT issued a press release specifying the new
Speed Camera Visibility rules and stated that they should be
implemented within six months.An audit of some sites revealed they
could not meet these new rules because cameras were hidden behind
fixed items such as trees.Please advise, under FOI,how the camera
partnerships should have dealt with such sites.Q1.Would there be
any grounds for the partnerships to ignore the new rules and leave
such sites in a non-compliant state?Q2.Would it be necessary to
completely remove the camera or could it be simply covered with a
hood?Q3.Would it be necessary to remove the road calibration
markings, or could these be left in place even if no camera
remained?Q4.With regards to minimising panic breaking due to the
calibration markings, how long would it be acceptable for these
markings to remain after the removal of the camera, or should they
be removed at the same time?

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon

Link to this

From: dennis fallon

29 October 2008

Dear Mr Gray,thank you for your FOI F0004572 received by GPO post
on 29th October.I excuse the lateness of the reply but the
Information Commissioner`s Office have advised me that to ensure
the transparency of FOI procedure I can request you to state the
reply via the public site through which it was requested, namely
www.whatdotheyknow.com.The general public have the right to know
that the DfT have allowed hidden cameras and signs to exist(merely
affecting the way the revenue was processed),and also allow road
markings which may cause confusion to remain on the carriageway
without justification.I would like to see your reply dated 28
October displayed on the website with immediate effect to clear the
`reply overdue` status.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Link to this

From: JohnA Gray
Department for Transport

30 October 2008


Attachment FALLON.JG.doc
215K Download View as HTML


Please see the attached.

John Gray
Speed Policy
Road User Safety Division
Department for Transport
2/13 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

0207 944 2466

Think before you print to save energy and paper.

Only print this message if you really need to.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: dennis fallon

30 October 2008

Dear JohnA Gray,
Thank you for your reply to my email request,the contents of which
are quite disturbing as they seem to indicate the DfT have turned a
blind eye to potentially dangerous situations.Although you know I
believe I have UNFAIRLY been the victim of a non-compliant hidden
speed camera in the West Midlands 3 years ago,and I have been
alleging CORRUPTION and COLLUSION between the police camera
partnership, who have been deliberately ignoring the optional DfT
guidelines, and the magistrates who have been accepting unverified
evidence in order to push through prosecutions, PLEASE ADVISE why
your original reply was sent by GPO post when the original request
was by email and why my personal details,previously undislosed,
were then sent to a public website when surely they are covered by
the Data Protection Act.You know that I am unhappy that the DfT
deleted from their files all record of my original allegation of
corruption and collusion from 2 years ago, and I hoped you would
treat data more carefully in future.I note that the Chief Constable
of the West Midlands,Sir Paul Scott-Lee, will be unexpectedly
leaving next year, and that Andrew Pearce and P.C Sweet have alredy
left the top posts in the partnership, but they should be held
accountable after the damage to public trust that they
caused.Please check my youtube clip which demonstrates just one of
many faulty cameras at
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K_7kl_cIiC... please comment via
this website about my DPA query.
Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Link to this

dennis fallon left an annotation (31 October 2008)

Ref the faulty youtube link,type"Birmingham Speed Camera" into youtube search to view clip.

Link to this

From: JohnA Gray
Department for Transport

31 October 2008

Dear Mr Fallon

As your original e-mail did not appear to have a return address a response
was sent to you by post. This was an oversight which I very much regret
and apologise for.

A copy of the response was sent to the web site e-mail address you refer
to at your request. I was unaware that your details would be at risk and
apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Thank you for sending the link to your You Tube clip - the content of
which will be noted.

John Gray
Speed Policy
Road User Safety Division
Department for Transport
2/13 Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

0207 944 2466

>>> dennis fallon <[FOI #3205 email]> 30/10/08
23:58:51 >>>
Dear JohnA Gray, Thank you for your reply to my email request,the
contents of which are quite disturbing as they seem to indicate the
DfT have turned a blind eye to potentially dangerous
situations.Although you know I believe I have UNFAIRLY been the
victim of a non-compliant hidden speed camera in the West Midlands
3 years ago,and I have been alleging CORRUPTION and COLLUSION
between the police camera partnership, who have been deliberately
ignoring the optional DfT guidelines, and the magistrates who have
been accepting unverified evidence in order to push through
prosecutions, PLEASE ADVISE why your original reply was sent by GPO
post when the original request was by email and why my personal
details,previously undislosed, were then sent to a public website
when surely they are covered by the Data Protection Act.You know
that I am unhappy that the DfT deleted from their files all record
of my original allegation of corruption and collusion from 2 years
ago, and I hoped you would treat data more carefully in future.I
note that the Chief Constable of the West Midlands,Sir Paul
Scott-Lee, will be unexpectedly leaving next year, and that Andrew
Pearce and P.C Sweet have alredy left the top posts in the
partnership, but they should be held accountable after the damage
to public trust that they caused.Please check my youtube clip which
demonstrates just one of many faulty cameras at
[1]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K_7kl_cIiC... please comment via
this website about my DPA query. Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: dennis fallon

31 October 2008

Dear JohnA Gray,I am not a malicious person when mistakes simply
occur and I fully accept the apology.I was advised about this
website by the Information Comissioner`s Office when I commented
that FOI information of public concern was not meeting a wider
audience.I have intensively reviewed the West Midlands Cameras and
most of them are non-compliant, have no road safety purpose and may
well be causing accidents which are not recorded if they are
non-fatal.I have several examples of photographs showing"Accident
here, did you see anything?"with the speed cameras in the same
field of view, and because the police record no evidence they say
they have no evidence(which is true!!).The situation is still
ongoing, but at least the Chief Constable is not seeking further
employment.If the youtube link fails to launch please
search"Birmingham Speed Cameras" in the youtube search.I am totally
adverse to dishonesty and it is nice to see issues discussed in the
light of day.Thanking you, Dennis Fallon.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Link to this

John Cross left an annotation ( 5 August 2010)

"In order for the costs of preventing, detecting and enforcing speeding offences to be reclaimed from the related fine revenue, Partnerships had to comply with the Department’s visibility rules. Camera sites that did not comply will have been excluded from the netting-off scheme and if active the fine revenue retained by the Treasury. There were no requirements in place to compel Partnerships to remove road markings or cover cameras that did not comply with the Department’s visibility rules. "

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department for Transport only: