A404 Marlow Hill, FOI battle hots up
Discussion
See Safespeed forums - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3687
[quote=Bucks Free Press]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."[/quote]
[quote=Bucks Free Press]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."[/quote]
So let me see.
The claim is that the road safety policy will be working when nobody is ever measured as travelling above the speed limit. Most Scamerati claim they would be delighted with such success.
What the Thames Valley crowd seem to be suggesting is that they have several sites which as at or close to 100% successful.
You would think that they would be proud of such a thing and wish to make a song and dance about it rather be so secretive.
Wouldn't you?
The claim is that the road safety policy will be working when nobody is ever measured as travelling above the speed limit. Most Scamerati claim they would be delighted with such success.
What the Thames Valley crowd seem to be suggesting is that they have several sites which as at or close to 100% successful.
You would think that they would be proud of such a thing and wish to make a song and dance about it rather be so secretive.
Wouldn't you?
Bucks Free Press said:
[ ... ]A TVSRP spokesman said: "I don't think this changes our stance at all. We are following guidelines for all other police forces."
Since when has Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership (TVSRP) been a "police force"?
BTW - the TVSRP's relevant policy on FoI is stated as follows:
"
Performance
Audited Accounts
Accounts for the Partnership operations and spend.
Website, annually.
Free
Offences Detected, Penalty Notices Issued and Fines Paid
Breakdowns of these figures for the Thames Valley area by financial year.
Website, annually.
Free
Public Interest
Camera Site Information
Each camera site / enforcement location will have the following details published:
- Collision Data (by calendar year)
- Camera installation date / first enforcement date
- Installation reason
- Site photo / diagram
- Site length / location
- Speed survey data
Website, quarterly.
Free
"
But, on the camera links I clicked, the "Installation Reason(s)" was given as one or more numbers with no obvious explanation (i.e. clickable link) to explain ... a fat lot of use!
Also, clicking any of the "Site diagram", "Site map" or "Speed survey data" links took me to the same page showing: "Information Currently Unavailable The information you have requested is currently unavailable. This will be presented on the website for public access as soon as it can be converted to a format suitable for viewing online." A fat lot of use (2)!
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 27th August 19:06
Here you go:
1 High KSI per km
2 High PIC per km
3 Borderline KSI or PIC per km
4 Evidence of speed problem from speed survey
5 Evidence that local residents are concerned about speed for example complaints, surveys, petitions
6 High casualties spread across a length of route rather than a specific location
7 Proximity to vulnerable road users including children, horse riders, elderly
www.saferroads.org/docs/enf/data_info.htm
Click on the link at the bottom of each camera stat page that says 'For further information about how this data is collected click here'
1 High KSI per km
2 High PIC per km
3 Borderline KSI or PIC per km
4 Evidence of speed problem from speed survey
5 Evidence that local residents are concerned about speed for example complaints, surveys, petitions
6 High casualties spread across a length of route rather than a specific location
7 Proximity to vulnerable road users including children, horse riders, elderly
www.saferroads.org/docs/enf/data_info.htm
Click on the link at the bottom of each camera stat page that says 'For further information about how this data is collected click here'
Please help the Bucks Free Press get this information out into the open by filling in the form supporting the information request at:
www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/transportnews/marlowhill/
It really shows the scale of the problem when such a wet liberal rag like the BFP is pushing for this information.
www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/transportnews/marlowhill/
It really shows the scale of the problem when such a wet liberal rag like the BFP is pushing for this information.
puggit, that webpage seems to say that the criteria refer to fixed camera sites only. I think we've seen recently that criteria for mobile sites are different and seem to be less stringent (eg. number of KSIs required). And the page itself states at the bottom that if the Scumera ignore any of their own guidelines to catch someone it doesn't matter.
Scamera Page said:What it says is if these guidelines aren't followed then the partnership can't have the cash, but you're still guilty...
These criteria only relate to the safety camera cost recovery process: non-compliance does not provide for any mitigation regarding an offence committed by a driver in breach of current UK law.
streaky said:
Also, clicking any of the "Site diagram", "Site map" or "Speed survey data" links took me to the same page showing: "Information Currently Unavailable The information you have requested is currently unavailable. This will be presented on the website for public access as soon as it can be converted to a format suitable for viewing online." A fat lot of use (2)!
Clearly the Thames Valley lacks any form of technology skills!
Surrey seem to have managed to get their site running some months ago ...
PetrolTed said:
If safety was such a concern they'd simply put railings along the pavement.
Hmm, are they safe? Might we not have cars amd M/cycles and pedal bikes colliding with them? And causing them damage!
Better put in some safety barriers and then protect them with some of those massive concrete blocks.
What about their mobile sites on the other side of the hill on the NSL dual carriageway Marlow-Wycombe stretch ? I can't believe either of those are accident blackspots, but the site at the bottom of hill at the Marlow junction in particular must absolutely coin it.
For those who don't know the road, it's a virtually straight downhill stretch of about 2km with I'd guess a 5-7% gradient. You'd practically have to brake the whole way down to keep at 70mph, and the mobile van parks right at the bottom, hidden round a slight bend until about 600m to go.
outnumbered said:The camera on this section of the A404 is a pure revenue earner.
What about their mobile sites on the other side of the hill on the NSL dual carriageway Marlow-Wycombe stretch ? I can't believe either of those are accident blackspots, but the site at the bottom of hill at the Marlow junction in particular must absolutely coin it.
For those who don't know the road, it's a virtually straight downhill stretch of about 2km with I'd guess a 5-7% gradient. You'd practically have to brake the whole way down to keep at 70mph, and the mobile van parks right at the bottom, hidden round a slight bend until about 600m to go.
The stats for this site are here: CA$H
The van was put there after 2 consecutive years with no KSIs, and there have been no KSIs since it was instigated in 2002.
Anyone local to Marlow on here? Can you write to your local MP about this? TED
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff