Carmunock Road, Glasgow - G45/G44

Martyn Dewar made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Strathclyde Safety Camera Partnership

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Strathclyde Safety Camera Partnership.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 2002

Under the above act, I shall be obliged if you would disclose the following information:

* The total number of Safety Cameras on this road (I believe this to be 3, but would appreciate clarity)
* The number of drivers 'caught' speeding by the Safety Cameras on this road
* If possible, the total revenue obtained from the above.

I would like this information from 01 January 2005 if possible, but if such a timescale is not possible, please provide as much information as you can, within the time available to you.

I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory timescale permitted by the Act, but should you have any queries or require any clarification, please do not hesitate in responding to this email.

Kind regards,

Martyn Dewar

Good evening,

I note that I have not yet had any acknowledgement of my FoISA request [1] yet, and that the due date of 16/06/10 is fast approaching.

While it may be that Strathclyde Police has simply had a higher volume of requests lately, I note that you do usually send acknowledgements before providing data, so thought it best to send a gentle reminder in case my original request did not get though.

I do look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Martyn Dewar

[1] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ca...

1 Atodiad

Mr Dewar

Please see attached correspondence.

<<Response - Partial Dsiclosure.pdf>>

Sgt Susan McGinlay
Strathclyde Police
Force Disclosure Unit
Freedom of Information
0141 435 1217

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Good morning Sergeant McGinlay,

Request for Internal Review under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 2002
-------------------------------

Thank you for your response to my recent FoISA request, which I have now taken the time to read in full.

I understand that you have cited a number of exemptions which prevent full disclosure, and having reviewed your responses; I do agree with most of the information you have provided.

However, regrettably I note that you have not disclosed the total information relating to Part 2 of my request (number of drivers ‘caught’ speeding by the Safety Cameras on this road.), and have cited Sections 35 (1) (a) & (b) and 39 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act as your reason for not doing so.

As such, I must ask for an Internal Review of this decision; as I feel that there is indeed a strong public interest for disclosure of this information, in light of the fact that there is a significant interest placed on public bodies to act in a transparent manner, and that otherwise, there is no measurable KPI for how well these cameras perform.

Furthermore, I note that in a previous FoISA request of a similar manner [1], your colleague Sgt John Cameron did choose to disclose the same information that I have requested; therefore there did not seem to be any issue with disclosure at that time.

In light of the above, I shall therefore be obliged if you would pass my request for Internal Review onto the relevant party within Strathclyde Police, for their consideration and response within the statutory timescale.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ca...

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martyn Dewar

[1] http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/da...

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr Dewar,

I note your request and would offer the following comments by way of
explanation and for your consideration.

As noted in our response the primary aim of the safety cameras is road
safety, not income generation, their purpose is to deter drivers from
speeding/running red lights in the interests of road safety, not for
catching offenders. In other words if driver behaviour and the
resulting crashes and casualties was not apparent, there would be no
requirement for cameras at the site in question.

The measure of effectiveness for such sites is the reduction of casualty
and crash figures over a three year period, this being the standard
comparison period for evaluation of road safety measures. The effect of
speed on the resulting severity of injuries in road crashes can be
clearly seen when looking at statistics from safety camera sites. This
is seen in the personal injury crash statistics covering three years
data before and after installation of camera sites introduced between
2000 and 2005. There has been an overall decline of 37% in personal
injury crashes. However, for crashes involving serious/fatal injuries
the fall is much more significant at 61%.

Despite an increased number of cameras and vehicles on the road, the
number of offenders detected is dropping significantly. In Strathclyde,
there has been a drop of almost three quarters in the annual number of
Conditional Offers processed between 2003-04 and 2008-09, This is a
further indication that drivers are paying attention and slowing down at
recognised accident areas.

Whilst there is undoubtedly (public) interest, i.e. curiosity, in
statistical figures the correct interpretation of public interest in
terms of the freedom of information legislation, is that the disclosure
of requested information is for the greater good; that it is in the
interest of the public. I would echo my colleagues comments that
disclosure of site specific information would hinder efforts to reduce
casualty figures and lead to increased accidents and casualties.

The exemptions quoted in our response reflect our position that it is
not in the public interest that through disclosure of site specific
information (the two sites on Carmunock Road), that drivers are
encouraged or persuaded to take the chance that they will not be
recorded speeding. Any resulting increase in crashes or casualties as a
result is patently not in the public interest.

The previous disclosure you comment on was in fact for the whole of the
A77 SPECS system and is not a like for like comparison for your current
request that seeks information on specific identified locations.

Can I ask that in the circumstances outlined here, you consider that
disclosure of the enforcement capability of such sites and the impact
such information will likely have on road safety and casualty figures is
appropriate, in the public interest?

Should you wish to press on with your assertion that it is more in the
public interest that such figures are disclosed please confirm this view
and the review panel will take it into consideration when reviewing our
response.

If you could respond today with your views then a response should be
provided at the latest by 13 July.

Kind Regards

Inspector Graeme Cuthbertson
Force Disclosure Unit

Force Headquarters
Int 704 1205
Ext 0141 435 1205

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

1 Atodiad

Mr Dewar

Please see attached correspondence.

<<Review acknowledgement letter.pdf>>
Sgt Susan McGinlay
Strathclyde Police
Force Disclosure Unit
Freedom of Information
0141 435 1217

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Sheena Brennan,

1 Atodiad

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Good morning Mr Dewar

Attached is the response to your request for a review of your recent FOI
request relating to speed cameras.

Many thanks

Sheena Brennan
Force Disclosure Manager &
Acting Head of Information Management
9th Floor, Pegasus House
Tel No 0141 435 (704) 1200

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

<<FOI REQUEST - Dewar 0331 10.pdf>>

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir