M3 Junction 2 Westbound speed restrictions

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

With respect to the trial on M3 Junction 2 westbound with an average speed restriction to 50mph, please provide the following:

1. A copy of the order approving a speed restriction through this section of motorway.
2. A copy of the certificate verifying the location and calibration of cameras are to the required standard in law.
3. How many drivers have been found to exceed the limit, what proportion of drivers is this? Illustrated by week.
4. How many speeding tickets have been issued, and what is the total value of fines.

Yours faithfully,

Dr K J Hamer

Cooper, Clive,

1 Attachment

Our ref: HA 9/41/47

Dear Dr Hamer,

Thank you for your email of 5 November, about the new road layout at the
M25 Junction 12.

As requested I have attached a scanned copy of the Temporary Traffic
Regulation Order for the M25 Junction 12, 50 mph Speed Restriction.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

I refer to your request under the above legislation for information about
the M25 Junction 12 new road layout.

I am writing to advise you that, having reviewed your request for
information, we have identified that your request for the Calibration
Certificate, Number of drivers found to exceed the speed limit and the
number and value of speeding tickets issued, could more appropriately be
responded to by The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership (SSCP) of which the
Highways Agency is a member. However, before we transfer the request, we
request your permission to notify the recipient organisation of your name
and contact details.

If you agree to this, please sign and return the declaration below.

Kristian Hamer

hereby authorises The Highways Agency

to transfer my information request to The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership

Signature: ...................................

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Clive Cooper, Project Sponsor Area 5
Highways Agency | Federated House | London Road | Dorking | RH4 1SZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1306 878410 | Fax: + 44 (0) 1306 878494
Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk
GTN: 3904 8410

Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers
Highways Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport.

show quoted sections

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

Dear Cooper, Clive,
Thank you for your message. I authorise The Highways Agency to transfer my information request to The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership

Yours sincerely,

Dr K J Hamer

Duncan Knox,

Dear Dr K J Hamer

Yours request to the Highway Agency has been passed to myself for reply. I
have registered this as an FOI request (reference 2854). I repeat your
numbered requests here for easy reference followed by my reply:

1. A copy of the order approving a speed restriction through this section
of motorway.
2. A copy of the certificate verifying the location and calibration of
cameras are to the required standard in law.
3. How many drivers have been found to exceed the limit, what proportion
of drivers is this? Illustrated by week. 4. How many speeding tickets have
been issued, and what is the total value of fines.

1) I note that you have already been provided with a copy of the Traffic
Regulation Order for this stretch of road by the Highways Agency.

2) We seek to exempt your request for the calibration certificates for the
average speed check cameras on this scheme under section 31 (Law
Enforcement) and section 38 (Heath and Safety). In summary the reason for
seeking this exemption this is that for any scheme it may be the case that
not all cameras are "live" at any one time. To provide all the calibration
certificates that we hold for this scheme would reveal as to which cameras
are live, and which are not. Public knowledge of which cameras were not
live would result in increased speeding on the links where the cameras are
not live (hence reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement), and
increased speeds would result in increased risk of road collisions (hence
putting road users and road workers at greater risk of road injury and
death). However we see no harm in releasing this information once the
current (temporary) scheme is complete and either removed or replaced by a
different scheme. The following is the public interest test we used when
considering whether to release this information while the current
(temporary) scheme is in operation.

For disclosure:

The public have a right to know that camera sites used by the safety
camera partnership have been properly calibrated to ensure that they are
accurate. The public have a right to know what measurements are taken and
how they are undertaken to ensure that they are undertaken to the required
standard in law. Safety camera partnerships should be held to be
accountable to ensure they operate equipment in accordance with legal
requirements.

Against disclosure:

It is in the public interest to ensure that roads are kept safe. To reveal
all the available certificates while the current scheme is in operation
would reveal as to which cameras are live and which are not. (On some
schemes it may be the case that not all cameras are live at any one time).
For camera enforcement to have the maximum deterrent effect (resulting in
lower speeds and fewer penalties), then there must be the perception that
the chances of being recorded speeding are high at all sites. This would
result in increased speeding on the links where drivers believe the
cameras are not live. Therefore release of this information could
undermine the effectiveness of the cameras, which would then impact on the
health and safety of road users and road workers at camera locations.
Undermining the effectiveness of cameras would also prejudice law
enforcement in that as a consequence there would be an increase in drivers
substantially exceeding the speed limit at dangerous locations.

If required to by court, the safety camera partnership will provide a copy
of the relevant calibration certificate in relation to any single
individual offence. In doing so, this would provide reassurance to the
court and the public that the cameras used to detect an individual offence
were properly calibrated. This would ensure that the safety camera
partnership are accountable in law for operating equipment in accordance
with legal requirements. However revealing the calibration certificates to
court in relation to a single offence would not reveal as to which other
cameras in the scheme happened to be, or happened not to be live, and so
would not compromise law enforcement or road safety in the same way as in
revealing all the available certificates for the scheme as a whole.

Decision:

It is considered that the public interest in disclosing all the
calibration certificates for this enforcement scheme is outweighed by the
potential consequences to law enforcement and road safety while the
current scheme is operating. However we see no harm in releasing this
information once the current scheme has been completed and either removed
or replaced by a different scheme.

3&4) We seek to exempt your request for information on the numbers of
drivers detected over the speed limit and the number of penalties that
have been issued under section 31 of the FOI Act (Law Enforcement)
Section A and B, and in Section 38 (Health and Safety), Section A, as this
is site-specific information, directly related to the level of enforcement
provided at an individual safety camera site. 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. In summary, if information on
the level of use of individual sites are released, this could diminish the
effect on road safety and would prejudice law enforcement. This
information could give the impression that the chances of being recorded
speeding in particular locations was low compared to others, which may
encourage higher speeds and hence casualties at these locations. Also
experience has shown that the release of such information has led to some
sites being especially targeted by vandals where they have believed that
they are sites that are issuing the most penalties. However we see no harm
in releasing this information once the current scheme has been completed
and either removed or replaced by a different scheme. The total number of
penalties issued by Surrey Safety Camera Partnership from all enforcement
sites combined could be provided if required. The following is the public
interest test we used when considering whether to release this information
while the current (temporary) scheme is in operation.

For disclosure

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. The safety camera
partnership should be accountable for the decisions they make in relation
to the level of enforcement provided at camera sites.

Against disclosure

It is in the public interest to ensure that roads are kept safe. Not all
camera sites will be active all of the time - some sites will be active on
a rotational basis. 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. For camera enforcement to
have the maximum deterrent effect (resulting in lower speeds and fewer
penalties), then there must be the perception that the chances of being
recorded speeding are high at all sites. Therefore release of this
information could undermine the effectiveness of the cameras, which would
then impact on the health and safety of road users and road workers at
camera locations. Undermining the effectiveness of cameras would also
prejudice law enforcement in that as a consequence there would be an
increase in drivers substantially exceeding the speed limit at dangerous
locations.

There is an anti-camera group who have stated publicly that it is their
intention to vandalise the cameras that they consider are issuing the most
fines. Evidence has shown that following the release of such site specific
information in the past, some sites have been especially targeted by
vandals where they have believed that they are sites that are issuing the
most penalties. Therefore the release of this information could prejudice
the effective and efficient conduct of the safety camera partnership in
improving road safety and law enforcement if sites are subsequently
damaged by vandals.

Decision:

It is considered that the public interest in revealing such site specific
information for this enforcement scheme is outweighed by the potential
consequences to law enforcement and road safety while the current scheme
is operating. However we see no harm in releasing this information once
the current scheme has been completed and either removed or replaced by a
different scheme. The total number of penalties issued by Surrey Safety
Camera Partnership from all enforcement sites combined could be provided
if required.

Yours sincerely

Duncan Knox
Surrey Safety Camera Partnership
Together Driving Road Safety
www.surrey-safecam.org

You are advised that the information attached is subject to copyright in
that it is owned by Surrey County Council and/or its contractor/s unless
otherwise stated.
The supply of information under the Freedom of Information Act does not
give the recipient an automatic right to re-use those documents in a way
that would infringe copyright, for example, by making multiple copies,
publishing and issuing copies to the public. You are free to use it for
your own purposes under the "fair dealing" provisions of the Copyright
Design and Patents Act 1998 (S.29 and S.30), which allows use for the
purposes of research for non-commercial purposes, private study,
criticism, review and news reporting.

Any other re-use would require the permission of the copyright holder.
Details of the arrangements for reusing the material owned by Surrey
County Council and/or its contractor/s can be obtained by contacting the
Freedom of Information Officer on the address below. Authorisation to
re-use copyright material not owned by Surrey County Council and/or its
contractors, should be sought from the copyright holders concerned. If in
doubt, you should contact the Freedom of Information Officer in the first
instance.]

If you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information and
wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, in the first
instance you should contact the County Council, quoting your request
number given above, at:

Freedom of Information Officer
Surrey County Council
Room 134
County Hall
Penhryn Road
Kingston Upon Thames
Surrey
KT1 2DN
[email address]

If you are not satisfied by the County Council's response to your
complaint, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for
a decision. The Information Commissioner will normally expect you to have
exhausted our complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Knox,
I would like to request an internal review of the decision to withhold the information I have asked for.

DfT Circular 01/2007 (USE OF SPEED AND RED-LIGHT CAMERAS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT: GUIDANCE ON
DEPLOYMENT, VISIBILITY AND SIGNING) stipulates the fundamental objective underlying the National Safety Camera Programme is to "reduce speeding, collisions and casualties at locations where excessive speed
represents a road safety problem".
Yet you seek to withhold information on the basis that cameras are not indeed live, and therefore are acting with deceit to road users. Furthermore there has been no evidence presented to suggest that the change in road layout presents a greater risk to collision and therefore health and safety, than was the case before the change was made. Therefore the premise that identification of 'dummy' cameras would lead to more accidents is not evidenced in fact.
Whilst withholding the data is claimed in protection of law enforcement, there is no greater undermining of law enforcement than speed cameras which do not work.
Yours sincerely,
Dr K J Hamer

Dear Dr Hamer

Thank you for your email of 25/11/08 forwarded to my in my capacity as
Freedom of Information Officer. The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership
consists of Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Her Majesty's Court
Service and the Highways Agency. For the purposes of Freedom of
Information requests, appeals against decisions made by the Partnership
are handled by Surrey County Council in consultation with the Surrey
Police Information Access Team. As a result, I will review the response
to your request.

I try to conduct all internal reviews speedily and objectively within a
maximum timescale of 20 working days. A written reply, detailing the
results of the review, will then be sent to you. If this deadline cannot
be met for any reason, I will keep you informed of my progress in writing.
In the meantime, if you have any queries, please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eileen Perren

show quoted sections

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Hamer

Please find attached the response to your request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely

Eileen Perren
Freedom of Information Officer

FOI/COR/SCC To Dr K J Hamer
Sent by: Eileen Perren <[FOI #3960 email]>
cc Duncan Knox/COM/SCC@SCC
03/12/08 17:07 Subject Internal review of Freedom of Information
request ref 2854

Dear Dr Hamer

Thank you for your email of 25/11/08 forwarded to my in my capacity as
Freedom of Information Officer. The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership
consists of Surrey County Council, Surrey Police, Her Majesty's Court
Service and the Highways Agency. For the purposes of Freedom of
Information requests, appeals against decisions made by the Partnership
are handled by Surrey County Council in consultation with the Surrey
Police Information Access Team. As a result, I will review the response
to your request.

I try to conduct all internal reviews speedily and objectively within a
maximum timescale of 20 working days. A written reply, detailing the
results of the review, will then be sent to you. If this deadline cannot
be met for any reason, I will keep you informed of my progress in writing.
In the meantime, if you have any queries, please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Eileen Perren

show quoted sections