Safe Speed Forums

Strathclyde Safety Camera Partnership last week published in my local newspaper details of a 'new for 2005' mobile cam site. I've a real problem with this choice of site as it has also had a 2 pedestrian crossings and a new road surface put there in the last 6 months (so I can already predict the claims of 'x% reduction at camera site y' in a couple of year's time....)

SSCP have been fairly reasonable in the past with their level of mobile enforcement with no obvious increase in presence for quite a while - concentrating most of their effort on the A77 to M77 upgrade, but clearly the political pressure is coming to bear on them to expand.

I was therefor hoping to use this new location (listed on their rather comically titled Cameras Cut Crashes website) to bring home some of the national issues regarding scam abuse to the locals. I was going to start by getting hold of the accident stats used to justify the site.

I know some of you have done similar things in your area and was looking for some advice re. the wording of a FOI request.

All advice gratefully received.

PS. Another site I have a beef with is the first one listed here as this stretch has also been widened recently with a filter lane for a busy side street added....

Hi r11co,
I am trying to find out information as well. I am having a mobile cammera site in a road very near me. I sent this email. I am not sure emails can be used or you have to put it in writing.


Hi Emailed earlier about Safety Camera data. I now have found out that a mobile safety camera is to be used on the B5017 Shobnall Road. Under the freedom of information act I would like to see :-

1/ The report on the accidents used to justify the camera - in particular Speeding related percentage of accidents.

2/ Where the accidents have taken place.

3/ The length and position of the site used for calculation of accidents.

4/ The site survey by the qualified road safety engineer about other (viable if any) safety measures.

Many thanks Richard

From what I have seen from other dealings with the camera partnership I am not hopeful.

My next step will to involve my local MP - I think most will give advice and send letters requesting the information and are more likely to get a response.

I searched the forums for freedom AND of AND information and there is quite a lot of information to look through.

Good luck !

Regards

Richard

That "safety" camera website is sickening with its spin and just downright lies.

Superb statements like this:

"If you're a driver, remember that this website tells you WHERE the cameras are in Strathclyde. We're keen that you know their locations so you can slow down, and avoid an accident in an area where speed and crashes are a problem. You will also be avoiding a fine and penalty points on your licence."

So they're not bothered if I cause an accident anywhere else

Email is fine

<SNIP>
Dear Sirs.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please can you advise me if
you have the Personal Injury Collision Data for Junctions 14 to 17 of
the M4 motorway for the period 2000 - 2005.

If you do not have this information available or are unable to release
it, I will require written confirmation as to why it is not available.

To ease administration, response via email is completely acceptable.

I look forwards to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully
</SNIP>

And the reply

<SNIP>
Dear Mr **removed for privacy**

Thank you for your request for information lodged with this unit under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This unit does not hold the Personal Injury Collision statistics for the stretch of the M4 motorway between Junctions 14 - 17. This information is therefore exempt under Section 21 (1) of the Act in that: information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 is exempt information in that the information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment.

The information you require is the property of the Statistics Section of Wiltshire Constabulary and you should direct your request to that authority at **removed for privacy**@wiltshire.pnn.police.uk . You are advised that there may be a search fee levied by the Statistics Department.

I can however supply you with the statistics which were presented to the Department for Transport (DfT) for approval of enforcement sites in the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership Operational Case 2003/2004.

Seven sites were identified by the Partnership Analyst as suitable for enforcement taking into account the accident statistics and the Health & Safety implications of enforcement. The table below shows the statistics which represent figures for the 3 years prior to application for authority to enforce. All sites comply with the requirements for enforcement as laid down by the DfT.

Location of safety camera enforced sites KSI collisions Total Injury collisions Site length (KM's)
Approx 6.9 km east of junction15 3 17 1.5
Junction 15 7 34 2
Approx 1.8 km west of Junction15 2 6 1
Approx 3 km east of Junction16 1 4 0.5
Approx 8.4 km west of Junction 16 4 12 2
Approx 8.3 km east of Junction 17 4 15 2
Approx. 3.1 km east of Junction 17 1 2 0.5
NB Figures correct at time of printing but due to the nature of collision recording they are subject to amendment in the future.

I trust that the foregoing is of use to you.



**removed for privacy**
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Wiltshire & Swindon
Safety Camera Unit
</SNIP>

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Just noticed this - they are now setting up sites on the basis of 1 KSI Collision within the past 3 years by making the site length 0.5km (to get 2 KSI per km)..??!!
Wonder how many other single random KSIs are also used as justification elsewhere then..

Hi Have received reply to my FOI request - NOTE 1 SPEED RELATED ACCIDENT IN THREE YEARS !

Mr. Wilson

In answer to your enquiry:-

1. The original submission in the operational case to the DfT for
approval
to operate at this site analysed the 3 years 2000 to 2002 (inclusive)
with
regards to accidents; over the route there was 1 KSI and 24 PICs with
13% of
the accidents being speed related. With this submission the speed
survey
(Oct 03) showed that the 85th percentile was 41mph (30 mph speed limit)
and
93% of the traffic was exceeding the limit. The total volume analysed
was
9607 vehicles, therefore 8934 were exceeding the speed limit.

More recent analysis over the three year period 2002 to 2004
(inclusive)
shows there has been 2 KSI and 36 PIC and only 2.7% of the accidents
being
speed related.

2. The accidents are spread across the whole route. The one KSI,
occurred at
an island junction between Shobnall Rd and The Parkway.

3. The start and end of the route are as follows:
start: 421603 324006 (254m west of Aviation Lane)
end: 423785,323073 junction with A5121
length:2 km

4. I am a qualified engineer with 30 years highways and road safety
experience. My staff and I survey all our sites before submitting them
to
the DfT for approval and can confirm that no viable physical
engineering
safety measures where an option at this site.

Did I read this right?

Before:


After:


So it doesn't matter that KSI's doubled and PICs went up 50% then?
All that matters is that less of them were 'speed-related'?

Am I missing something, or has the world gone truly mad?

Cheers
Peter

They are truly mad. It doesn't matter that the accident figure has gone up, just that speed has come down. Remember the mantra...."Speed Kills"
Should be replaced with "Watch your speedo, not the road"

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Why are they counting 2002 in both sets?

What are the year by year figures?

When did enforcement start?

Why do camera partnership figures always leave so much to be desired?

And last but by no mean least - with 93% of vehicles exceeding the 30mph speed limit why don't they know there's something wrong with the speed limit?

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

Does anyone remember those little vinyl self cling triangular flags, with tourist slogans on? Once beloved by caravaners to record where they had been in case they should forget, they could be adapted to circular badges of speed limits you have visited.
The more you visit, the more clutter appears on your windows, until eventually you have to give up driving because you cannot see out!
More effective than a camera! And cheap too.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I am convinced that the partnerships rules are wrong. But they will implement them - this is their remit as a quango. I think the place to send complaints and lobby is the partners in the partnership and the local MP. If everyone gets data from their closest camera - I am sure they will find a similar picture. Pleas if you have some spare time do this. It may well change policy.

Many thanks Richard