West Midlands Police
Freedom
of
Information
Request reference: 3441/10
Reference Issue 3, undeclared enforcement sites and KSI data, this has been
partially obstructed on the grounds that information will be published at a
future date.
The use of the word ‘obstructed’ in this sentence is inappropriate, unless you feel
Section 22 has been applied inappropriately. If this is the case please ask for an
internal review using the process attached (appeals procedure.pdf).
Please confirm that the data for future publication only consists of KSI data
and that the number of undeclared mobile sites is complete at 24.
It is disappointing to learn that some of these sites have been operating for six
months and yet the information has not been displayed on the website despite
it being updated in January 2010. Please advise when accurate data is
expected to be published on the website.
24 was correct. The list of mobile sites on the website has been updated to reflect
those currently in use, including the KSI data for 20 of those previously supplied. The
remaining four are not in use and have not been included.
Reference Issue 5, apparently all personnel know the DfT Regulations but I
would appreciate clarification as to how they are being interpreted.
For example, on the undeclared mobile list there is identified
enforcement(40mph) westbound on Little Aston Road. Please advise why there
are no black and white camera signs(BWCS)on approach to this enforcement
zone, and yet there is false BWCS after the zone when there is no enforcement
within 1km ahead. False signs undermine credibility. Is mobile enforcement
being implemented on routes without the use of BWCS and, if so, why and
when was this policy commenced?
Secondly, there is a DfT Guidance on the use of signs 880 within the same field
of view as fixed cameras but I noticed the use of a mobile sign on the Yardley
Wood Road, near Mackenzie Road, about 500 metres ahead of the enforcement
vehicle and well out of view. There are also no BWCS on the route. I would
appreciate knowing the WMCRP policy on the location of signs 880 relative to
camera enforcement.
DfT guidance states that co-located camera and speed limit reminder signs should
be placed in the same view as fixed speed cameras. This can either be a single
diagram 880 (join speed limit and camera sign) or a combination of either diagram
878 or 879 (safety camera sign) and diagram 670 (speed limit sign) depending on the
speed limit. This only applies to fixed cameras, not to mobile sites.
At mobile sites a co-located sign should be placed in advance of the point of entry to
the site. As above, this can either be a single diagram 880 or a combination of
West Midlands Police in complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 to release the enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However,
the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to The
Force Solicitor, West Midlands Police Headquarters, Lloyd House, Colmore Circus Queensway, Birmingham, B4
6NQ.
30/04/10
Ref:
3441/10
West Midlands Police
Freedom
of
Information
diagram 878 or 879 with diagram 670 depending on the speed limit. Additional 878 or
879 signs should then be placed at intervals of around 1 km throughout the site.
In the West Midlands, an appropriate co-located mobile sign is placed by the
operator to mark the start of the enforcement zone. In accordance with the guidance,
this does not have to be within the same view as the mobile van. If the enforcement
zone exceeds 1 km, additional fixed signing may be placed at 1 km intervals. No
enforcement takes place without a co-located sign in advance of the van.
Reference Issue 5,knowledge of Regulations and Standards within the
partnership, I am sure there will be familiarity with the ACPO Guidelines but
please advise if anyone on the Partnership board has completed a Certificate
of Competence in the use of enforcement equipment.
Information not held. The Partnership Board is made up of elected members from
each local authority. Since they do not participate in enforcement, there is no
requirement for the Board to have completed and/or show to the Partnership any
such certificate.
Conversely, as it is their job, all our mobile enforcement staff have completed the
necessary training and have reached the required standard necessary and have
attained the relevant certificate that allows them to be an enforcement operator.
Reference Issue 6, membership of the partnership board, I would appreciate
knowing the people who represent HMCS and Highways, as this data is still
missing.
The Partnership Board consists of elected members from all seven local authorities
and representatives of the Police and Fire & Rescue Authorities. These are the only
individuals who are considered board members and they are listed on our website. In
addition, officers from partnership members attend meetings. Only those officers
involved with supervising the Casualty Reduction Scheme are listed on the website.
The Highways Agency representative is Rob Price but he is classed as an officer and
not a voting member.
An invitation has been made to HMCS and it is hoped that they will have a
representative in future.
West Midlands Police in complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 to release the enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However,
the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to The
Force Solicitor, West Midlands Police Headquarters, Lloyd House, Colmore Circus Queensway, Birmingham, B4
6NQ.
30/04/10
Ref:
3441/10