Freedom of Information request confirms speed cameras in decline

Updated: 19 November 2014

MCN's Freedom of Information request has confirmed there are fewer speed cameras

1 of 1

Three out of four regional speed camera authorities report that camera vans are spending less time catching speeders than last year, an MCN investigation can reveal.

In some counties the chances of you running into a speed camera van has fallen by 70 per cent in 12 months.

MCN reported last month that a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for details of enforcement hours had been submitted to regional camera authorities created in the Government’s National Safety Camera Programme.

At that time early responses already showed that enforcement in some areas had fallen by nearly 60 per cent. Now a fuller set of responses has been received, creating a picture of speed camera decline across the country.

Out of 24 regions across the UK to provide the information requested, 18 reported a reduction in hours speed camera vans spent on the road in June 2007 compared to June 2006.
Sussex reported a fall of 70 per cent, based on enforcement officer hours.

Cleveland and Gloucestershire reported falls of around 60 per cent and Essex and Wiltshire of around 40 per cent. Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Somerset all said enforcement was down by around a third.

Under the Government’s National Programme, regional authorities consisting of partnerships between police and local councils were set up to run cameras using money raised in fines.

That scheme was scrapped in April, leaving local councils to pay for cameras out of a general road safety grant. Now it appears the changes have sent speed camera enforcement in many of the partnership areas into meltdown.

Across all the regions to provide the data requested, the number of hours speed camera vans spent catching speeders dropped by seven per cent but the figure was kept down by disproportionately large rises in small number of areas.

West Mercia reported a rise of 201per cent, from 150 hours spent catching speeders in June 2006 to 452 in June 2007.

A spokesman said the dramatic increase was the result of severe staff shortages in June 2006.

He said: “This year our team is almost fully staffed.”

Some regions, including North Wales, home of controversial chief constable Richard Brunstrom, refused to provide the information requested.

See the actual responses sent by each regional camera partnership by clicking on the links below.

Get MCN today (Wednesday, August 15, 2007) for a more in-depth analysis of speed camera decline across the UK.

Devon and Cornwall

Leicestershire & Rutland

Nottinghamshire

Derbyshire

Suffolk

Dear Mr Farrell,

I am in receipt of your original FOI request dated 2nd July 2007 and the subsequent correspondence in relation to your query.

As previously outlined, the information that you required formed part of the camera sheet and I can confirm that much of the information on this sheet is exempt. The Exemption applicable is Section 31 Law Enforcement (Section A and B). and applies to;
· the level of use of a single site – e.g. Numbers of offences detected at a single site, hours of enforcement time at a site, revenue generated on a site-specific basis;
· Operational programme of fixed camera sites, and prioritisation of all sites
Having now extracted the required information from the sheets I can now advise you of the following information. A total of 4 mobile cameras were in use in June 2006 and they were in use for 7hrs 07mins; 23hrs 24 mins, 35hrs 10mins and 66hrs 31mins respectively. The total time for the 4 cameras was 132 hours and 12 minutes.

The same information for June 2007 is not yet available but I would estimate that this would be available towards the end of August 2007.

Should you wish to complain about the way in which your request for information has been handled you may contact the Information Commissioner at:

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

Yours faithfully

Michelle Finnerty
Communications & FOI Manager
Suffolk Safety Camera Partnership

Norfolk

Dear Mr Farrell

Ref; FOI/JVO/10

17th July 2007

Freedom of Information Enquiry. Re safety cameras.

Request; please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006.

Response; I can confirm that the Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership operates 5 mobile safety camera vans and 1 motor cycle. These have been in operation for the year, 2006 and 2007.

Whilst these are mobile safety camera “vehicles” they are not utilised 100% each day on enforcement duty. They are used for conveying equipment, conveying officers to court, and training, carrying out demonstrations, and supporting other police casualty reduction duties.

The required action to provide the information you have requested, as detailed above, would exceed the cost threshold by which we are legally required to respond to your request. Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) states that a public authority is not obliged to: “comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit”. The Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, defines the “appropriate limit” for the Norfolk Constabulary as £450, and specifies that this sum equates to 18 hours work at a standard rate of £25 per hour.

Each day a log is completed for each vehicle showing its deployment. It would be necessary to check each log for each vehicle in order to extract the information requested. For the period requested, this would take approximately 45 hours and exceed the appropriate limit in terms of costs, and therefore Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (2000) applies.

In accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act (2000). This letter serves as a Refusal Notice.

Had the above information been available, I believe that consideration would have been given to exempt this under Section 31 Law Enforcement (Section A and B). The concern is that the information contains working practices that, if known, would have an impact on operational policing. “It is considered that the public interest in disclosing such information at this level is outweighed by the potential consequences to law enforcement and the impact of such a release on road safety measures.”

Yours Truly

Mr Bryan Edwards
Freedom of Information Decision Maker

South Yorkshire

Dear Mr. Farrell

Thank you for your request for information.

In June 2006 we had the capacity to deploy 4 mobile units based on a shift pattern between 6am and 12 midnight. In September 2006 we added a motorcycle enforcement officer.

This remains unchanged in June 2007 ie 4 mobile vehicles and one motorcycle.

We do not keep records of actual hours on the road, only the shift patterns worked which is a 9 or 10 hour day minus 30 minutes meal break.
Realistically we estimate that each unit spends upto 7 hours a day on site or travelling to site. The shift pattern means that two members of enforcement staff are at work on most days.

To obtain a more accurate figure would result in a trawl of daily work sheets which is a manual process which will be extremely time consuming.

We hope that this information is useful to you.

on behalf of South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership

Humberside

Dear Mr Farrell

Further to your recent application for access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council does not hold this information and would advise you to contact the Freedom of Information Officer for Humberside Police who may be able to help you.

Janet Slight
Humberside Police
The Hall
Lairgate
Beverley

I am sorry that the Council is unable to assist you on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Tracey Tomlinson
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator

Devon and Cornwall

Dear Mr Farrell

I am writing with reference to your Freedom of Information request dated 2/7/07 asking for the number of mobile units deployed in this area in June 2006 and June 2007; also the number of hours for which each vehicle was deployed.

The number of mobile camera units deployed in the Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership area in June 2006 was 7. The number deployed in June 2007 was also 7.

With regard to your request for hours of deployment I must advise you that this would involve a manual review and analysis of all working logs. The cost of providing you with the information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. It is estimated that this would cost £1800 to comply with your request. Therefore this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request, however, you may wish to refine and resubmit your request.

Complaint Rights

You have the right to ask us to review this decision. If you wish us to review this decision please set out your grounds for review in writing and send them to the Force Information Manager, Strategic Development Department, Devon & Cornwall Constabulary, Middlemoor, Exeter, EX2 7HQ, Devon.

If you are still dissatisfied after an internal review you also have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at Commissioner’s Officer, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545700.

Yours sincerely

Natalie Hatswell

Communications & FOI Manager, Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership

Hampshire

Dear Mr Farrell
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 344
I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd July 2007. Our responses to your requests are as follows:

Request 1: Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007

Response 1: There were 6 mobile speed camera units deployed in our partnership area in June 2007.
Request 2: and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed
Response 2: After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed is outweighed by the potential consequences to law enforcement and the impact of such a release on road safety measures.

As such the information you have requested is exempted from public disclosure under Section 31 Law Enforcement and Section 38 Health and Safety of the Freedom of Information Act for the following reasons:

FOIA SECTION 31 – LAW ENFORCEMENT

This information contains working practices that if known could have an impact on operational policing. Considerations include:

Not all mobile cameras are equally active. If information concerning a certain camera was released it could give the impression that the chances of being recorded speeding was low, which may encourage higher speeds and hence casualties at those locations.
For camera enforcement to be truly effective there must be the perception that the chances of being recorded are high at all sites.

FOIA SECTION 38 – HEALTH AND SAFETY

This information contains working practices that if known could have an impact on the health and safety of the general public. Considerations include the fact that the disclosure of specific data on camera sites could make the camera deployment less effective which would impact on the safety of pedestrians and road users at large.

Request 3: Please also provide the same data for June 2006
Response 3: There were 6 mobile speed camera units deployed in our partnership area in 2006.
For the second part of the request see the answer under response 2 above.
Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact us quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely

Julian Hewitt

Rights of Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of Hampshire Constabulary made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you have the right to lodge a complaint with Hampshire Constabulary to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

Information Compliance Unit
Hampshire Constabulary HQ
West Hill
Romsey Road
Winchester
SO22 5DB

In all possible circumstances Hampshire Constabulary will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After Hampshire Constabulary has reviewed the decision if you are still dissatisfied you may then make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

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

North Wales

Dear Mr Farrell

As we are no longer governed by the DfT it is no longer a requirement to record the hours of enforcement. However we are aware of the importance of this information with regards to the deployment of our resources. Therefore in North Wales we are currently upgrading the system which collects this data. Unfortunately during the transition between systems it has been unable to collect some of this data.

We hope to have the new system up and running soon and would welcome the enquiry later on in the year.

Yours sincerely,

Carrie Jones (Ms)

Gweinyddwr/Administrator

pp Essi Ahari

Rheolwr, Siwrne Saff/Manager, Arrive Alive

Partneriaeth Lleihau Anafiadau Ffyrdd Gogledd Cymru/ North Wales Road Casualty Reduction Partnership

West Yorkshire

Dear Steve Farrell,

Your request under Freedom Of Information

Further to my email to you on July 13, I am responding to your request for information, which was received on July 12. You asked for:

– “The number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety cameras partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006”

West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership has four police Ford Galaxys and one police motorcycle that between them monitor 64 designated safety camera sites. Sites are monitored on an intelligence-led rota basis. Sites take priority if there is evidence of risk to public safety from driver behaviour; patrols operate at the sites and on the days and times when they are likely to do most good i.e. calm traffic and improve road conditions

Patrols normally operate between 8am and 6pm, and actual hours are flexible are affected by, for example:

–       weather and light conditions
–       conspicuity conditions of patrol vehicles
–       health and safety of operating officers
–       traffic conditions and behaviours at the site
–       availability of patrol vehicles
–       officers’ shift patterns and leave entitlements.

Accordingly, we have no means of calculating or telling you accurately the total number of hours for which each mobile camera was deployed in June 2007 or June 2006.

I tried to give you this information during our telephone conversation on July 12. You, however, insisted I send a written response. When I pointed out that this would merely delay unnecessarily a request that could easily be dealt with in a conversation, you became heated and tried to insist that I send you a written answer there and then, which I declined to do.

You should be aware that all responses under the Freedom Of Information Act are copied as a matter of course to the Freedom Of Information officers of Bradford M.D.C. and West Yorkshire Police, who are both member organisations of West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership and who between them take the lead in FOI matters. Also, information released by the partnership under FOI is published simultaneously on our website, www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk <http://www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk>, including the original request and some details of who asked it.

The information supplied to you is subject to copyright protection. You are free to use it for your own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing for the purposes of news reporting. Any other re-use, for example copying, circulating or publishing to others, will require the permission of the copyright holder.

If you are not satisfied with this response for information, you may ask for an internal review by contacting the FOI officer, 4th Floor Jacobs Well, Bradford, BD1 5RW or by email on foi@bradford.gov.uk <mailto:foi@bradford.gov.uk>. If you are still not satisfied with the outcome of the internal review you have the right of appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Philip J Gwynne MCIPR MCIM FInstSMM Head of Public Affairs

Essex

Dear Mr Farrell,

Re: Freedom of Information request – Mobile speed camera unit checks

Thank you for your request for information, which was received by Essex County Council on 2 July 2007.

The number of mobile speed unit checks undertaken during June 2006 was 361. The number of mobile speed unit checks undertaken during June 2007 was 216. Each check lasts two hours. This does not include speed enforcement checks carried out by Essex Police outside of the Partnership. This information may be available from Essex Police.

I hope this information provides you with the information you require. If you are not satisfied with my response to your request, please let me know. If I am unable to resolve the issue immediately, I will explain our complaints procedure.

If, after following our complaints procedure, you are still not satisfied, you are entitled to ask the Information Commissioner to review our decision. You can contact him at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 01625 545700.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest. Please contact me if you would like further advice or assistance about your request or your right to access information held by Essex County Council.

Kind Regards

Kelly Garratt

KELLY GARRATT
Senior Road Safety Officer
(Communications and Business Liaison)

Cheshire

Mr Farrell

In June 2006 we had 4 enforcement vans that enforced for a total of 235 hours In June 2007 we had 3 enforcement vans that enforced for a total of 227 hours

Regards
Cheshire Safer Roads Partnership

Leicestershire & Rutland

Mr Steve Farrell
Senior Reporter
Motor Cycle News

Dear Mr Farrell

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd July 2007 sent to Leicestershire County Council and passed to us on the 2nd July. I note you seek access to the following information:

• Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed.
• Please also provide the same data for June 2006.

I can advise you that we hold some of the information requested but not all. I have carried out a ‘harm test’ and ‘public interest test’ and can see no valid reason why I should not release the information you have requested.

In answer to the first part of your question the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Safety Camera Partnership carried out 137 mobile site visits during June 2006 which equated to 135 hrs 25 mins. This was compared to 9 mobile site visits during June 2007, equating to 106 hrs 7 mins.

Unfortunately we do not hold the breakdown of hours each mobile unit was deployed.

For your information as explanation to the reduction in enforcement hours in ’07 compared to ’06, we had a reduction in resources due to sickness within the team during June ‘07.

The Leicestershire Constabulary 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 Information Security Manager, Leicestershire Constabulary Headquarters, St. Johns, Enderby, Leicester LE19 2BX.

Yours sincerely

Frances Rowlands
Road Safety Unit Manager
Safety Camera Scheme for Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland

Gloucestershire

Dear Mr Farrell,

Gloucestershire Constabulary Freedom of Information request 2007.845

On 5 July 2007 you sent an e-mail constituting a request under the Freedom of Information Act asking the following:

Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s1, I can confirm that the Gloucestershire Constabulary holds this information.

In June 2006, three mobile speed camera units were deployed for a total of 164.23 hours during the course of the month. At this time, the Safety Camera Partnership had a full staffing compliment, except for two weeks during the month there were only two units were deployed due to annual leave.

During June 2007 the staffing compliment was reduced due to staff turnover (vacancies are currently being filled), and a single mobile enforcement unit was deployed for much of the month, with a second being deployed during the last week of the month, contributing to a total of 69.5 hours of deployment.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to ask that we review your case under our internal procedure.

If you decide to request that such a review is undertaken and following this process you are still unsatisfied, you then have the right to direct your complaint to the Information Commissioner for consideration.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Liz Hudd
Freedom of Information Officer
Business Improvement Department
Gloucestershire Constabulary

Dorset

Steve,

Sorry for the initial confusion & delay. In June 2006 Mobile Safety Camera Vans were deployed for 464 hours, in June 2007 vans were deployed for 440 hours.

Dear Mr Farrell,

Serial Number: 0001/07/07 (Please quote this reference in future correspondence regarding this submission).

Thank you for your email of 2 July 2007. Answers to your queries as follows:

June 2006

June 2007

52 Mobile Safety Camera Sites

3 Mobile Safety Camera Vans

The information regarding at time spent at each site is classed as Site Specific and is thus exempt under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: a) states the fact, b) specifies the exemptions in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemption applicable to the information you requested is Section 31 – Law Enforcement Sections A & B. Please see the attached table showing how the exemption applies and that the Public Interest Test has been completed.

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership provides you the right to request a re-examination of your case under its review procedures. If you decide to request such a review please write to the Operations Manager DSCP, Force Headquarters, Winfrith, Dorchester, DT2 8DZ.

Regards

Brian Austin

Cambridgeshire

Dear Mr Farrell

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 0205/2007

In reply to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, received 2/7/07

Request

We have completed all searches within Cambridgeshire Constabulary and hereby enclose your response.

Response

June 2006
2 mobile enforcement vans
Total of 89 hours and 30 mins deployment

June 2007
2 mobile enforcement vans
Total of 66 hours and 20 mins deployment

Unfortunately we are unable to provide data broken down per van. This would involve a manual search and analysis of each individual record and would not be retrieveable within cost under Section 12 of the FOIA.
In summary the cost of providing you with this part of the information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’
as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.

It is estimated that it would take in excess of 20 hours work costed at £25 per hour.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this is a Refusal Notice for this particular part of your request.

Police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely required to provide crime statistics to government bodies and the recording criteria is set nationally. However, the systems used for recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing crime data. It should be noted that for these reasons this forces response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to appeal our decisions, please see the attachment below, which sets out your rights to appeal.

(See attached file: Complaint Rights.pdf)

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact the Information Access Office on telephone number 0845 456 456 4 extension 2396.

Regards
Alison Hayward
Information Access Office
Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Sussex

Dear Mr Farrell

I write in connection with your request for information concerning mobile speed cameras which was received by Sussex Police on 2 July.

In June 2007 we had three mobile speed cameras available for use. Information as to the number of hours they were actually deployed is not held, but the time of police Enforcement Officers who deploy them during that month has been recorded as 34.57 hours;

In June 2006 we had four such cameras available for use. Again information as to the number of hours they were actually deployed at the roadside is not held, but the Enforcement Officers time is recorded as 112.87 hours.

Please note that these statistics will fluctuate month by month, so the two sets provided above cannot be taken as indicating any trend.

Yours sincerely

T Mahony

Lancashire

Dear Mr Farrell
RE FOI APPLICATION REFERENCE: 682/07
Thank you for your request for information received on the 4th July 2007, which was as follows:-
Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006.
Your request for information has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed below:-
There are 10 mobile camera unit vehicles deployed in Lancashire’s Safety Camera Partnership area.
In June 2006, the ten camera units where deployed for 496 hours and in June 2007 this rose to 546 in total. Unfortunately, we cannot break this information down as hours are logged against the operator/officer and not the vehicle. Therefore, Lancashire Constabulary does not hold this information in the format you require. In addition to this, the data is stored on a taped backup system and also at a document storage warehouse. The retrieval of such information and the comparison of it with staffing rotas to abstract the information you require would exceed the cost limit offered by the Act. As per Section 12 of the Act, the Constabulary is not under any obligation to provide you with this information.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Carl Melling
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Compliance Manager

Northamptonshire

Dear Mr Farrell

In response to your FOI request I have below supplied the data you requested. Unfortunately our database does not allow me to split the hours deployed between vehicles – I have therefore had to provide total hours.

June 2006
Mobile units = 6
Hours deployed = 425

June 2007
Mobile units = 6
Hours deployed = 354

Regards

Don Powell
Northamptonshire Casualty Reduction Team

Somerset

Mr S Farrell
Media House, Lynchwood
Peterborough Business Park
Peterborough
PE2 6EA
Dear Mr Farrell
FOI Request re: Mobile Camera Deployment During June 2006 and June 2007

Thank you for your correspondence dated 2 July 2007.
In answer to your request for information, I can provide the following details:

Safecam (formerly the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership) has always utilised,
and will continue to utilise, six mobile enforcement units.

In June 2006, five units were deployed and approximately 289 hours of mobile enforcement
took place. One unit was out due to a reduction in staff levels.

In June 2007, four units were deployed and approximately 201 hours of mobile enforcement
took place. Two units were out due to staff annual leave and long-term sickness.

We are unable to retrieve information which details the actual number of enforcement hours per unit, as this would involve a manual search through records and cross referencing with individual officers pocket book notes. To retrieve this information would exceed the cost of compliance limit set by regulations, and is therefore exempt under Section 12: Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.

The regulations are that the Police Service are obliged to provide information requested up to a limit in terms of cost of £450. This equates to approximately two and a half days work (based on £25 an hour, the Nationally agreed rate to use.)

The combined number of enforcement hours covering all deployed units, has been provided.

I trust this answers your request satisfactorily, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Thank you for contacting Safecam.

Yours sincerely

Emma Greenhow

Emma Greenhow
Freedom of Information Officer
Safecam

West Mercia

I’ve had passed on to me from West Mercia Constabulary an FoI request relating to hours of mobile enforcement carried out in June 2007 compared to June 2006. We don’t seem to be included in your circulation list, so I’m not sure whether or not it was intended for us to answer your question, but as I have relatively easy access to the data I’ll do so anyway.

You’ll need to give some thought to the ‘like-with-like’ comparison issues here, as ‘units’ is open to interpretation, & others might take a different view. I don’t know if you meant sets of equipment, vehicles, or people to use them. I’ve gone for people as it’s primarily their availability or otherwise which determines the operability of an enforcement unit.

At the beginning of June 2006 we had just taken on 4 new staff who were not trained or authorised to work independently, and another staff member was almost fully engaged in preparing for their training programme; during that month we had no more than 6 operational units who carried out 150 hours of mobile enforcement activity.

This year our team is now (almost) fully staffed and fully trained, with a complement of 11. During June 2007 they carried out 452 hours of mobile enforcement.

I trust that answers your question & gives you what you need.

Trevor McAvoy
Partnership Manager
Safer Roads Partnership in West Mercia
www.srpwestmercia.org.uk

Bedfordshire

Dear Mr Farrell

I write in response to your Freedom of Information enquiry dated 2nd July 2007 (below) in which you have asked:

Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed.

Please also provide the same data for June 2006.

I can confirm that we do hold records of all speed enforcement undertaken in June 2007 and June 2006, however, we do not hold it in the format you have requested.

There are three elements that make up a “mobile speed camera unit” – namely: the vehicle; speed detection equipment (including camera); and the operator. As the operators, vehicles and speed detection equipment are interchangeable, it is not possible to tell you the number of enforcement hours “per unit”.

I can, however, tell you that the number of hours of speed enforcement undertaken with mobile speed cameras by the Partnership in Bedfordshire and Luton in June 2007 was 171 hours. This was conducted by three dedicated speed camera operators, as well as some police officers who conduct some speed enforcement in addition to their other policing duties.

In June 2006, the Partnership conducted 184 hours of enforcement, with five dedicated speed enforcement operators.

I trust this addresses your query. May I thank you for your interest in the Partnership and draw your attention to your complaints rights, below.

Yours sincerely

Caryl Jones

Communications Manager

Bedfordshire and Luton Casualty Reduction Partnership

Wiltshire

Dear Mr Farrell

I write in connection with your request for information dated 02 July 2007concerning mobile speed camera units.

Your request has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed. You requested the following information:

1. Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007and the total number of hours for which each one way deployed.

And

2. Please provide the same data for June 2006

1. Our records show that ten mobile speed camera units were deployed in June 2007 for a total of 127 hours and 43 minutes and respectively, the number of hours the individual cameras were deployed were as follows (figures given are in hours and minutes):

(1). 32 : 56 (2). 15 : 20 (3). 24 : 40 (4). 10 : 16 (5). 7 : 22 (6). 10 : 25 (7). 8 : 58 (8) 1 : 00 (9). 14 : 30 (10). 2 : 16.

2. Our records show that ten mobile speed camera units were deployed in June 2006 for a total of 208 hours and 15 minutes and respectively, the number of hours the individual cameras were deployed were as follows (figures given are in hours and minutes):

(1). 25 : 14 (2). 42 : 20 (3). 37 : 36 (4). 19 : 03 (5). 6 : 29 (6). 10 : 35 (7).11 : 24 (8) 38 : 05 (9). 16 : 48 (10). 0 : 41.

I am satisfied that all the relevant information has been passed to me, and been considered in the light of your request, within the time constraints applicable under the legislation.

Yours sincerely

David Allen
Freedom of Information Officer

Wiltshire & Swindon, Safety Camera Partnership

West Midlands

Dear Mr Farrell

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

Your request for information, received 12 July 2007 concerning mobile speed camera units has now been considered. I am pleased to provide the following information.

In June 2006 one mobile speed camera van was deployed for a total of 38 hours. In June 2007 two vans were deployed for a total of 113 hours.

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Hornshaw
FOI Unit, Administrative Assistant
Corporate Services Department

Cleveland

Hi Steve

Here’s the answers to your Freedom of Information enquiry.

1. Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area.

June 2006 four mobile cameras

June 2007 three mobile cameras.

2. The total number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006.

June 2006 Camera 1 49hrs 27mins

Camera 2 33hrs 20mins

Camera 3 67hrs 45mins

Camera 4 45hrs 57mins

June 2007 Camera 1 23hrs 07mins

Camera 2 31hrs 35mins

Camera 3 24hrs 45mins

I believe that this answers your enquiry in full.

Kind regards

Mick

Mick Bennett
Cleveland Strategic Road Safety Partnership Camera Enforcement Unit 1st Floor Road Policing Unit Cleveland Police Punch Street, Middlesbrough
TS1 5RY

Northumbria

Dear Mr Farrell,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, which was received by the Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership on 2 July 2007.

During June 2007 the partnership operated 4 enforcement vans at mobile cameras sites, spread across the region. These vans were deployed for a total of 274 hours at an average of 68.5 hours enforcement per van.

During June 2006 the partnership operated 4 enforcement vans at mobile cameras sites, spread across the region. These vans were deployed for a total of 206 hours at an average of 51.5 hours enforcement per van.

If this information is not what you require, or you require more information, please do not hesitate to make another request, clarifying your requirements further if possible. It would also assist us in processing your request if you could quote the reference number on this letter to enable us to determine the information that we have already provided.

The information provided in response to your request is copyright Gateshead Council unless otherwise endorsed. Granting access to this information under the Freedom of Information Act does not permit you to re-use the information provided for commercial purposes, for photocopying or reproduction in any form. If you wish to re-use the information you need to apply for a Licence. You can do this on line at:

http://online.gateshead.gov.uk/atoz/SubmitRequest.aspx?Service=1274

or by writing to Tanya Rossington, Information Rights Officer, Legal and Corporate Services, 1st Floor, Civic Centre, Regent Street, Gateshead, NE8 1HH. You may be required to pay a fee or comply with conditions for permitted re-use.

Yours sincerely

Ray King

Project Manager
Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership
PO Box 124
Cramlington
NE23 1WU

Staffordshire

Dear Mr. Farrell

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have completed the search of our records and can confirm the following information for Staffordshire:

June 2006

241 site visits for a total duration of 290 hours

27 days of active enforcement (total)

June 2007

289 site visits for a total duration of 406 hours

30 days of active enforcement (total)

Unfortunately we do not hold this information broken down into each individual unit and so we cannot answer the total number of hours each unit was deployed.

If you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me, furthermore if you have any comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please contact Philip Jones, Head of Information Governance, Information Governance Unit, Friars Terrace, Stafford, ST17 4AY.

Regards

Gemma Allen

Access to Information Officer

Information Governance Unit, Legal Services, Staffordshire County Council

Derbyshire

Mr Farrell,

Having spoken with my FOI Manager, I believe we may have had a communication problem, in that I may have misinterpreted your original question and presumed your request was site specific, which is of course exempt, as per our previous correspondence.

If I am now correct, the information you require is more of an all embracing total number of hours each of the 4 units were deployed for in both June 2006 and June 2007.

The total amount of hours the 4 units were deployed for during these months is shown below:

Month   Total Hours
Jun-06 176:11:00
Jun-07 267:06:00

Please bear in mind that the above figures are influenced by staffing levels and annual leave.

I hope this now answers your original question satisfactorily.

EKBinns

Emma Binns
Freedom of Information & Admin. Officer
Derbyshire Safety Camera Team

Kent

Steve,
apologies for the delay in responding to your FoI request of 5 July.

In June 2006 we had six operators in six vans using six mobile safety cameras. We had, in previous years been running at nine (since early 2003). These operators also undertake the changing of films in our fixed cameras while they are out and about.

In June 2006 these operators undertook a total of 192.25 hours ‘behind the lens’ operating their mobile cameras; the remainder of their time being taken up in changing ‘wet’ films in fixed cameras, court appearances or leave.

In June 2007 we had seven camera operators undertaking the same tasks (each with their own van and mobile camera). However between them they undertook 169 hours behind the lens. There were heavy court commitments during June and one member of staff was sick for most of the month after returning from leave (and so effectively only six operators were fully active).

I attach a table showing the number of hours ‘behind the lens’ for each operator for June ’06 and June ’07. This is the number of hours during which they undertook mobile speed camera enforcement. In June 2006 we had a large amount of roadworks which were being enforced by the mobile camera team; in June 2007 however we still have considerable roadworks but most of it is being covered by fixed ‘SPECS’ cameras (time-over-distance) – this therefore requires less camera operator time.

I hope that this is of use but if you require further detail, clarification or explanation then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Chris Rogers, Project Manager, Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership
Phoenix House, 2-8 London Road, Maidstone, Kent ME16 8PZ

London

Dear Mr Farrell

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2007070004064

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 13/07/2007. I note you seek access to the following information:

Number of mobile speed camera units in safety camera partnership area and hours deployed for 2006 & 2007.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by the MPS.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

The London Safety Camera Partnership has five (5) mobile speed safety camera units. In June 2007 these units were actively deployed for a total of 87 hours and 38 minutes. In june 2006 they were actively deployed for 94 hours and 55 minutes.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Jon Plant on telephone number 0207 230 1333 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Jon Plant
Senior Operations Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service 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 MPS Directorate of Legal Services, Room 613, Wellington House, 67-73 Buckingham Gate, London, SW1E 6BE

Merseyside

Mr Farrell

We have one mobile speed camera van in Merseyside and for the month of June 2007 it was operational at the roadside for a total of 77.48 hours. This is time actually setup enforcing at the roadside and does not include all the ancillary time associated with operating a mobile vehicle. We did not have the vehicle in June 2006.

Yours

Dave Foulkes, Project Manager, Merseyside Road Safety Partnership

Thames Valley

Freedom of Information Request Response

Dear Steve,

I write in connection with your request for information dated 2nd July 2007, received by the partnership on 2nd July 2007. Your request was for access to the following information:

“Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also provide the same data for June 2006.”

Result of Searches

Your request for information has now been considered and the partnership does not hold all of the information in the format requested. Where the information is not held I will provide you with alternative figures that are held by the partnership and may be of use to you.

Each part of the request has been considered and answered on an individual basis:

Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2007
18 mobile enforcement vans and 2 mobile enforcement motorcycles

Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in your safety camera partnership area in June 2006
18 mobile enforcement vans and 2 mobile enforcement motorcycles

The total number of hours for which each one was deployed.
Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership does not record hours of mobile enforcement carried out by individual units however we do record the total hours of enforcement undertaken by all mobile enforcement units. For the periods requested the total combined hours of mobile enforcement carried out in the Thames Valley were as follows:

June 2006 – 634.5 hours

June 2007 – 536.6 hours

Complainant Rights

Internal Review

If you the applicant are unhappy with how your request has been handled, you have the right to require Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership to review their response. Prior to lodging a formal complaint, you are welcome and encouraged to discuss the response with the case officer who dealt with your request.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures of the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding access to information, you can lodge a complaint with Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership to have the response reviewed. Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership must be notified of your intention to complain within 3 months of the date of its response to your Freedom of Information request. Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

Freedom of Information (Complaint)

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership

PO Box 142

Banbury

Oxon

OX17 1UZ

Kind regards

Karla Batchelor

Project Support

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership

Nottinghamshire

Dear Mr Farrell

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Reference No: FOI 1013

I write in connection with your request for information dated 11th July 2007, which was received by Nottinghamshire Police on 11th July 2007 and acknowledged by e-mail on 11th July 2007. I note you seek access to the following information:-

Please state the number of mobile speed camera units deployed in
your safety camera partnership area in June 2007 and the total
number of hours for which each one was deployed. Please also
provide the same data for June 2006

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Nottinghamshire Police to locate information relevant to your request.

Hertfordshire

Dear Mr Farrell
Further to my letter and subsequent telephone conversation today please find the
outstanding information that you requested.

1. The total number of hours for which each one was deployed?
– June 2006 = 106 hours
– June 2007 = 76 hours

I hope the above information is of assistance to you and please do not hesitate to contact

me should you require further information or clarification on this matter. Please also note that Hertfordshire Constabulary do publish the responses sent out under the Freedom of Information Act in the Disclosure Log which can be accessed through the Hertfordshire Constabulary web site, www.herts.police.uk. However, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, the identities and addresses of individual applicants are not published.

Thank you for taking your time to write to Hertfordshire Constabulary.
Yours faithfully

Barry Bland, Freedom of Information Officer

By Steve Farrell

MCN's Freedom of Information request has confirmed there are fewer speed cameras