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

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

** High Priority **

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

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

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

show quoted sections

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
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

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