Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 17, 2025 10:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Just seen this link:

http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefing ... search.pdf

I have to say most of the stated "facts"don't bode with my own impressions or that which I've seen elsewhere.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
The following extract is interesting:

Quote:
In addition, the number of motorists caught for speeding by police officers
increased between 2002 and 2003 (Home Office, 2005). Comparative
figures for camera and police enforcement of speeding offences is
given below:

Code:
Action       1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
By police   554500   571300   496700   421700   304200   322400   464000
By camera   336700   403800   498600   699400  1014600  1235500  1784500
Total       891200    975100  995300  1121100  1318800  1557900  2248500


From these figures, there can be no doubt that there has been a significant
increase in the use of speed cameras as a means of detecting
speeding motorists. In part, this is the result of the new funding
mechanisms introduced in the Vehicle (Crimes) Act 2001. There also
appears to have been some decline in police action in catching speeding
motorists since 1999. However, it is also important to note that police
action has itself increased over the last two years: by 5% between
2001 and 2002 and by 43% between 2002 and 2003. The latter increase
parallels a comparable increase of 44% in camera activity between
the same years.


I am drafting an FOI to expand the top line of this to see how much is "police camera action" as opposed to "proper" traffic policing. In particular, I want to see a line for other motoring offences - careless driving charges brought by police without involving an accident (ie, just as a result of normal policing)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
I am thinking of sending the followiing:
Quote:
Please service the following request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I refer to the PACTS article, "Research briefing on speed" published 8th June 2005: http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefing ... search.pdf.

I wish to see related documents as follows:

Background information that supports the table part way down page 3 of the research briefing that provides a split of "enforcement by police" between

a) police going about their normal duty and following suspects for 2/10ths of a mile or more, and

b) police purely using mechanical speed traps and/or laser/radar traps?

As a more representative control, I would also welcome two other statistical collections over the same years, as follows:

"police prosecutions for all non-speeding and non-parking traffic offences"

and

"police prosecutions for all non-speeding and non-parking offences that were not precipitated by callouts from members of the public".

The address for correspondence is:

My name and address

Please acknowledge this Freedom of Information request.

I would prefer to receive your reply in electronic form by email.

--
Best Regards,

Questions:

1) Is this good?
2) To whom should I send it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 16:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I think you might as well ask what is included in the "By Camera" heading, fixed cameras or also mobile units. Be careful of the definition of "police". Will this include civilians employed on police business?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 16:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Roger wrote:
I am drafting an FOI to expand the top line of this...


You can't send it to PACTS because they are not a governmental or official body. PACTS aren't bound by FoIA.

The figures quoted above are Home Office figures.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 17:06 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
So I send it to the Home Office as an FOI or to PACTS as a polite request? I'm tempted to do the latter - can't hurt.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.027s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]