Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2026 09:07

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Gizmo
 Post subject: SCP abuse FOI again!!!!
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 13:24 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Report

Leader backs BFP campaign for clarity on speed camera cash


Quote:
THE Bucks Free Press has been backed by Wycombe's top councillor as we bid to uncover how much money is being made from a controversial mobile speed camera monitoring Marlow Hill.

Lesley Clarke, the leader of Wycombe District Council, has called on the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership (TVSRP) to disclose figures on the number of fines issued and total revenue made since the speed enforcement device was installed on the High Wycombe hill.

Cllr Clarke is backing our campaign for the TVSRP to Bring Us Up To Speed.

She said: "I'd like to know how much that camera is earning. I have been using that road for a long time and I have never seen any accidents."

The Free Press was told this week that our appeal against the TVSRP's refusal to disclose how much cash is being collected has been declined.

The request for information was first made, under the Freedom of Information Act, in April after calls from motorists who felt the site was being used to generate revenue.

A letter from the TVSRP this week read: "A request for information relating to the number of tickets issued at sites would reveal that there are several sites that, for various reasons, have not detected any offences for a period of time. It would also identify sites that receive a relatively small amount of enforcement."

It continued: "This information would compromise the aforementioned enforcement strategy to such a degree that there would be a prejudicial effect on the apprehension or prosecution of offenders."

This latest knockback comes in spite of attempts to divulge information on the Marlow Hill speed camera coming up for discussion in the House of Lords.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes told fellow peers: "The Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership has, claiming an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, refused to respond to press requests for figures of amount of revenue raised and number of fines issued. Surely rather than this being secret it should be public information."

A further appeal is to be lodged, and should this fail the Free Press will take the request to the Information Commissioner, the overseer of the Freedom of Information Act.

Floods of concerned motorists continue to write in to complain about the camera, yet TVSRP remain tight-lipped.

A TVSRP spokesman said: "I don't think this changes our stance at all. We are following guidelines for all other police forces. We cannot make exceptions for one camera site."

To add your name to our petition Click here


9:44am Monday 22nd August 2005


_________________
Speed camera policy Kills
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 13:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Yeah. I heard about this yesterday and emailled the journalist who wrote it:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Getting speed camera info
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:58:52 +0100
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: pleat@london.newsquest.co.uk

Hiya,

I was very interested to read your piece on getting info on fines issued by a
particular speed camera. I DON'T believe the 'operation reasons' excuse
although it is widely made. The truth of the matter is that they do not wish
to see their cash cows revealed.

I'm wondering what I can do to assist. I could certainly issue a national PR,
citing your efforts and demanding proper transparency. If you want to talk it
over I'm on 01862 832000 (try first) and this afternoon I'll be on my mobile:
07799 045553. Or reply to this email.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
---------------------------------
promoting intelligent road safety
================================

No reply so far.

_________________
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  
 
antera309
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 14:50 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
I live in Wycombe and am well familiar with this road and the Camera site on it.

In four years of travelling on that road at peak time every day, I have never seen an accident there.

The Talivan site bears all the classic hallmarks of a revenue generator - 40mph speed limit drops to a seemingly unjustified 30mph less than 100 yards in front of the site. The Talivan itself hides over the brow of a hill and snaps traffic coming over the crest. By the time you have seen it, it's too late.

Marlow hill is very steep - people going up the hill are reluctant to brake when the 40mph limit goes to 30, as they want to keep up their momentum to scale the remainder of the hill. This especially applies to drivers of low-powered or heavy vehicles.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
johno1066
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:07 
I too live in Wycombe and a letter was published in the Mideweek on Tuesday providing information on the TRL595 report. Should go down well.

The marlow hill scam was one I have had many dealings with, namely because the van is parked on double yellows, just before the 40 sign and outside a school entrance.

They can park there because the traffic order states 'for Police purposes', so never mind then, double yellows obviously don't mean anything and are safe to park on if you're a Policeman or a civvy in a camera van.

Incidently, there were two KSICOLLS that justified that camera, one was a suicide whereby the chap drove through a brick wall the other is unknown. The figures after the site became active have not yet been published.
Top
  
 
chrisdhall
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 21:51
Posts: 38
antera309 wrote:
The Talivan site bears all the classic hallmarks of a revenue generator - 40mph speed limit drops to a seemingly unjustified 30mph less than 100 yards in front of the site. The Talivan itself hides over the brow of a hill and snaps traffic coming over the crest. By the time you have seen it, it's too late.


So no chance for the police operator to "form a prior opinion that the vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit"
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
johno1066
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:55 
No and they use civvy operators as well.
Top
  
 
JJ
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 19:59 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Quote:
A further appeal is to be lodged, and should this fail the Free Press will take the request to the Information Commissioner, the overseer of the Freedom of Information Act.

Good luck.
We have had several requests of this nature, one of which went all the way to the Information Comissioner. The IC upheld our exemption.
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns, should a member of the public come up with a reason that it is then I am sure the IC will reverse the decision.
Good luck.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Pete317
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 20:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
JJ wrote:
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns


Of course it's in the public interest, when it affects the majority of the public.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
johnsher
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 21:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
JJ wrote:
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns


translation, "we could lose our jobs if too many people realise we're running a scam."
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 00:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns, should a member of the public come up with a reason that it is then I am sure the IC will reverse the decision.
Good luck.


If you specified your highest earning cameras, and slowing down for the cameras contributes to safety, then public safety would be enhanced.

In fact, if your basis for existence is true, then you have a duty to warn the public about those dangerous locations where most people are caught speeding.

Pehaps you might like to explain how it can POSSIBLY be in the public interest to keep your highest earning sites a secret.

_________________
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  
 
Gatsobait
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 00:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
JJ/Steve wrote:
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns, should a member of the public come up with a reason that it is then I am sure the IC will reverse the decision.

I really don't see how servicing the FOI request is supposed to reveal enforcement patterns. If the goal is speed limit compliance, and the SCPs keep telling us hw delighted they'd be if the cameras generated no fines because no-one was caught speeding, then disclosing the amount of revenue made at the site will just be a proxy for the amount of speeding going on there. It's only one site after all, so knowledge of the fines issued at one site in isolation really tells us stuff all about enforcement patterns. Even if the amount of revenue is shockingly high we can't infer that the talivan is there a lot - it it's there for 2 or 3 days a month and pings every second car, or it could be there every other day but only pinging about 1 in 10. If you want to find out TVSRP's enforcement patterns knowing the revenue at one site is quite worthless without having the same information for all the others. It's laughable that they've tried to sell this pup to the Bucks Free press, and gratifying that the BFP aren't buying. Hells bells, JJ, if the paper wanted to know how often the talivan was there they'd have asked that, and having been blown out they could just keep an eye on the place for a few months and make a note of when it shows up and how often. No FOI request needed, just a pencil and a calendar.

But it would still be worth knowing how much money they're raking in from that site. If it's a honeytrap with no real purpose (never mind hope) of producing anything other than revenue then it's in the public interest to be told. TVSRP's reluctance to disclose the information and their use of this lame excuse that somehow their operating patterns could be worked out if they complied just makes it look like they have something to hide.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 00:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Gatsobait wrote:
... just makes it look like they have something to hide.


That's it exactly. They do have something to hide. They want to hide their cash cows.

_________________
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  
 
r11co
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 01:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
JJ wrote:
It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns, should a member of the public come up with a reason that it is then I am sure the IC will reverse the decision.


Tell you what JJ, why don't you come up with a reason why it isn't?

Go on - explain your rationale.

Ball's in your court......
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Gatsobait
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 01:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
r11co wrote:
Ball's in your court......


Not any more. It rolled over the side right behind Kate Winslett and Leonardo Di Caprio. :twisted:

Image

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
antera309
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 01:27 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
JJ wrote:
...It is not in the public interest to reveal enforcement patterns, should a member of the public come up with a reason that it is then I am sure the IC will reverse the decision.
Good luck.


Camera vans are paid for with public money, on the premise that they will improve safety where used by slowing down traffic. The public have a right to know whether the purported objective is being met.

By definition, a steadily falling £-per-hour is the surest indicator of an effective camera site.

As far as I can see, the onus is on the IC to come up with a reason for withholding this information, since the public's reason for requesting it should be obvious.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Gizmo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 06:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
JJ wrote:
We have had several requests of this nature,


Is that a fact. Sounds like the public are closing in on you.

When a Councillor is refused information it is starting to get silly isn't it considering the local authority are responsible for road safety.

Your days are numbered..... :wink:

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
johno1066
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 
I can tell you now. High wycombe may not be the nicest town but the camera debate is really hotting it up there at the mment, there's alot of angry people whom are seeing through the fog.

The bottom line is they're making millions from this camera and they don't want the public to know for that reason. The KSI figures published for this camera prior to its installation were 2 KSI in the 3 years prior to the 'installation'. No figures have yet been pubished after the camera was allowed to go there. One of the fatalities was a suicide but was counted towards the overall figure.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 29184.hcsp


Also, out of the 743 TVSRP cameras, 245 of the sites have been judged not to have reduced casualties. A further 269 of these sites have not been deemed operating long enough to test their effectiveness. we can say that out of all the TVSRP cameras, only according to the DofT, 229 effective cameras in the whole of the thames valley region, one of the largest forces in the Country.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 029198.pdf
Top
  
 
Puggit
 Post subject: Sign the petition!
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 09:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 18:16
Posts: 23
Location: Reading
Please visit the Bucks Free Press website and fill out your details, to add your voices to the growing clamour against TV'S'RP :)

http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/lo ... losure.php
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
wayneo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 07:53
Posts: 460
By the way, is it me, or is there a distinct lack of mobile cams at the sites in Wycombe lately???

I haven't seen any operating for two weeks now!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
antera309
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 13:51 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
wayneo wrote:
By the way, is it me, or is there a distinct lack of mobile cams at the sites in Wycombe lately???

I haven't seen any operating for two weeks now!


You're right. I haven't seen the Talivan on Marlow hill for a while now.

Perhaps an attempt to sway the figures before they are forced into publishing them?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

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 : 0.705s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]