Speed Cameras on M27 road works

Dear Mr Payne

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 383

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th April
2008. I note you seek access to the following information:

Request 1: Would you be able to provide the total number of people who
have been caught speeding through the climbing lane road works between
junctions 11 and 12 on the M27?

Request 2: Would you also be able to break these numbers down into those
who have been traveling between 50 and 70 mph, 70 and 90 mph and those
traveling in excess of 90mph please.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the FOIA, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances, the Safer Roads Partnership may be unable
to achieve this deadline. If this is likely, you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order for your query to be answered as fully
as possible. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
to or contact the Safer Roads Partnership quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

Julian Hewitt

Public Relations Manager
Safer Roads Partnership
Hampshire Constabulary
Romsey Road
Winchester
Hampshire
SO22 5DB
01962 871005
01962 874270

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Payne

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 383

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th April
2008. I note you seek access to the following information:

Request 1: Would you be able to provide the total number of people who
have been caught speeding through the climbing lane road works between
junctions 11 and 12 on the M27?

Request 2: Would you also be able to break these numbers down into those
who have been travelling between 50 and 70 mph, 70 and 90 mph and those
travelling in excess of 90mph please.

To enable The Safer Roads Partnership to meet your request could you
please provide this office with further information. I provide some
guidance that may assist you more clearly describe the information you
require:

Could you please clarify the following. Do you require the total number
of people who have been caught speeding at the completion of the road
works or up until a specific date?

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
1st September 2008 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you chose not to make a payment then your request will
remain unanswered.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact us quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Julian Hewitt

Public Relations Manager
Safer Roads Partnership
Hampshire Constabulary
Romsey Road
Winchester
Hampshire
SO22 5DB
01962 871005
01962 874270

<<FOI Complaint.doc>>

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Payne

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 383

I write in connection with your request for information dated 15th April
2008 with a clarification sent on 8th May 2008. I note you seek access to
the following information:

Request 1: Would you be able to provide the total number of people who
have been caught speeding through the climbing lane road works between
junctions 11 and 12 on the M27? (Sent on 8th May) I would like the
information up to the present date please.

Request 2: Would you also be able to break these numbers down into those
who have been travelling between 50 and 70 mph, 70 and 90 mph and those
travelling in excess of 90mph please.

Response:
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed is outweighed by the potential consequences to law enforcement
and the impact of such a release on road safety measures.

As such the information you have requested is exempted from public
disclosure under Section 31 Law Enforcement and Section 38 Health and
Safety of the Freedom of Information Act for the following reasons:

FOIA SECTION 31 - LAW ENFORCEMENT
This information contains working practices that if known could have an
impact on operational policing. Considerations include:

1. Not all camera sites will be active all of the time. If information
concerning specific site data is released it could give the
impression that the chances of being recorded speeding in
particular locations was low, which may encourage higher speeds and
hence casualties at those locations.
2. For camera enforcement to be truly effective there must be the
perception that the chances of being recorded are high at all
sites.

FOIA SECTION 38 - HEALTH AND SAFETY
This information contains working practices that if known could have an
impact on the health and safety of the general public. Considerations
include the fact that the disclosure of specific data on camera sites
could make the camera deployment less effective which would impact on the
safety of pedestrians and road users at large.

Harm:

For camera enforcement to be truly effective there must be the perception
that the chances of being recorded are high at all sites. If figures are
released that show that some sites have minimal enforcement it could give
the impression that the chances of being recorded speeding in particular
locations was low. This perception is highly likely to encourage higher
speeds and hence result in casualties at those locations.

In addition the risk of dangerous driving increases exponentially as more
people have access to such information

Quantifying the risk of casualties increasing is difficult to do without
intentionally stopping enforcement at a site for a considerable period of
time and monitoring the effect. Given that all of our sites are
high-casualty clusters this is not an action that any Partnership across
the country has risked doing - the possibility of serious or fatal
accidents happening as a result of the experiment are simply too high for
this to be done as an academic exercise.

There have, however, been periods of time where enforcement levels on some
camera routes have been reduced because of problems with the camera, the
signage, or the capacity of a Partnership to effectively target a route.
An example of such a case is listed below as evidence that where the
public believe there to be little or no enforcement the consequence has
been an increase in speeds and ultimately in casualties.

The A325 in East Hampshire has been subject to speed enforcement since
1997. This was one of the first routes where cameras were deployed, and
between 1997 and 2000 the level of enforcement by local division police
officers in East Hampshire was high. Their efforts resulted in a 36
percent reduction in injury accidents on the route. By June 2002, the mean
speed was 40 mph and the 85^th percentile speed was 45 mph. Over the next
year, however, as the Safety Camera Partnership was established,
conventional police enforcement of the route fell away almost completely,
and the small SCP enforcement team had insufficient resources to provide a
comparable level of cover in its first year. By June 2003 the average
speed had increased to 47 mph, and the 85^th percentile speed to 53 mph.
Casualties had increased accordingly - in the four month `summer season'
between June and September in 2002 there were 7 personal injury accidents.
This increased, between June 2003 and September 2003, to 11 PICs. This
illustrates very clearly a correlation between the amount of visible
enforcement, the increase in speeds and the increase in accidents.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST - FOR DISCLOSURE

Awareness- this information could assist individuals in gaining an
understanding of road safety in areas where cameras are located. This
would therefore help them gain awareness regarding road safety issues.

Accountability- Road Safety Partnerships should be accountable for the
decisions they make in relation to camera sites.

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST - AGAINST DISCLOSURE

Perceptions: Details of numbers of tickets issued could imply that there
is little enforcement on the site. This in turn may cause people to think
that they could risk exceeding the speed limit at what could be perceived
as low enforcement sites. It is in the interest of the public that our
roads are kept safe. The ability for safety camera technology to impact
on road safety would be diminished by the disclosure of such information
and therefore prejudice law enforcement.

Efficient and Effective Conduct of Road Safety Partnership activities- The
aim of such partnerships is to make roads safer by encouraging people to
keep within the speed limits, hence reducing speeds, reducing collisions
and, consequently, reducing the number of people killed and injured. The
consequence of the release of this information would be to compromise this
aim.

Decision: It is considered that the public interest in disclosing site
specific data at this level is outweighed by the potential consequences to
law enforcement and the impact of such a release on road safety measures.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact us quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Julian Hewitt

Public Relations Manager
Safer Roads Partnership
Hampshire Constabulary
Romsey Road
Winchester
Hampshire
SO22 5DB
01962 871005
01962 874270

<<FOI Complaint.doc>>

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]