Camera Partnership refuses FOI Request for H&S reasons
Discussion
The following appeared in the Bath Chronicle 2nd May:
People living on one of Bath's busiest roads say speeding motorists are still a problem - a year after a speed camera was activated.
The fixed camera on London Road was installed in 2005 but not activated until May 2006.
Members of the London Road Area Residents' Association say coaches, taxis and motorcycles remain a problem on the often-congested route into the city.
Association spokeswoman Ann Dunlop said: "The majority of those who do break the limit are people who have got frustrated at the roundabout by the A4 Batheaston bypass and think the camera is a complete waste of time and money.
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
"I have never seen the camera flash myself but I have been told of people who have been caught.
"When the camera was installed originally it was a bit of a joke because the traffic is so often nose to tail and the thought of anybody speeding was ridiculous."
The Chronicle has issued the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, Safecam, with a Freedom of Information Act request for figures detailing the number of drivers caught exceeding the speed limit on the A4 at Lambridge.
However, Safecam has declined to publish the figures, claiming that revealing the number of motorists caught breaking the limit could prejudice the health and safety of the public.
A spokesperson for the partnership said: "If information concerning site-specific data is released, it could give the impression that the chances of being recorded speeding or red-light jumping in particular locations was low and thus may encourage higher speeds or red-light jumping at these locations and hence a higher risk of accidents to road users.
"For camera enforcement to be truly effective there must be the perception that the chances of being recorded is high at all sites.
"The ability for safety camera technology to impact on road safety would be diminished by the disclosure of such information and therefore prejudice law enforcement."
The decision to site the camera on London Road was originally taken in response to a string of accidents during a four-year period.
Statistics showed 97 people were injured, 16 seriously, in 76 separate accidents between 1999 and 2003.
IT'S ALL ABOUT HEATH & SAFETY...NO...REALLY....IT IS!!!!
People living on one of Bath's busiest roads say speeding motorists are still a problem - a year after a speed camera was activated.
The fixed camera on London Road was installed in 2005 but not activated until May 2006.
Members of the London Road Area Residents' Association say coaches, taxis and motorcycles remain a problem on the often-congested route into the city.
Association spokeswoman Ann Dunlop said: "The majority of those who do break the limit are people who have got frustrated at the roundabout by the A4 Batheaston bypass and think the camera is a complete waste of time and money.
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
"I have never seen the camera flash myself but I have been told of people who have been caught.
"When the camera was installed originally it was a bit of a joke because the traffic is so often nose to tail and the thought of anybody speeding was ridiculous."
The Chronicle has issued the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, Safecam, with a Freedom of Information Act request for figures detailing the number of drivers caught exceeding the speed limit on the A4 at Lambridge.
However, Safecam has declined to publish the figures, claiming that revealing the number of motorists caught breaking the limit could prejudice the health and safety of the public.
A spokesperson for the partnership said: "If information concerning site-specific data is released, it could give the impression that the chances of being recorded speeding or red-light jumping in particular locations was low and thus may encourage higher speeds or red-light jumping at these locations and hence a higher risk of accidents to road users.
"For camera enforcement to be truly effective there must be the perception that the chances of being recorded is high at all sites.
"The ability for safety camera technology to impact on road safety would be diminished by the disclosure of such information and therefore prejudice law enforcement."
The decision to site the camera on London Road was originally taken in response to a string of accidents during a four-year period.
Statistics showed 97 people were injured, 16 seriously, in 76 separate accidents between 1999 and 2003.
IT'S ALL ABOUT HEATH & SAFETY...NO...REALLY....IT IS!!!! 
Fidgits said:
yeah, i always laugh at that camera - there is a bus lane, so i suppose taxis/busses could get caught, but short of going down there at 4am you never get above 10-20mph EVER!
That's why they are going to lower it's HIT level to 12 mph!!!
We can't have a camera that's not making money can we!!
Bath Chronicle said:
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
How about these people "trying to pull out of side roads" try not pulling out in front of oncoming traffic then - or is the spokesperson saying it is the riders fault for daring to do 30.999mph?
Edited for clarity
Edited by BonzoGuinness on Saturday 5th May 03:18
BonzoGuinness said:
Bath Chronicle said:
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
How about they try not pulling out in front of oncoming traffic then - or is it the riders fault for daring to do 30.999mph?
This is nonsense. The issue is that motorcycles and bicycles are allowed to use the bus lane. Stationery traffic allows vehicles to turn right off the main road, the turning vehicle then takes the gap without checking to see if there's a bike coming up the bus lane...
XMG5 said:
tigger1 said:
Is H+S even a reason under the FOI Act to not disclose?
Perhaps that is a question
to be put to said Scameraship? 
Any legal eagles on here like to comment on this FOI 'defence'?
Edited by XMG5 on Friday 4th May 09:00
I would have thought they could claim it under some act or other as they are correct. If you revealed a certain camera took no pictures at all then you would be revealing it as a dummy camera and as such people would ignore it. Thus hindering its purpose. So I can see why they would not to release it.
mr_annie_vxr said:
I would have thought they could claim it under some act or other as they are correct. If you revealed a certain camera took no pictures at all then you would be revealing it as a dummy camera and as such people would ignore it. Thus hindering its purpose. So I can see why they would not to release it.
Or possibly, the road is so busy no one can reach the speed limit, proving that speed has nothing to do with the accidents... But that can't be the case, shirley
Mon Ami Mate said:
BonzoGuinness said:
Bath Chronicle said:
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
How about they try not pulling out in front of oncoming traffic then - or is it the riders fault for daring to do 30.999mph?
This is nonsense. The issue is that motorcycles and bicycles are allowed to use the bus lane. Stationery traffic allows vehicles to turn right off the main road, the turning vehicle then takes the gap without checking to see if there's a bike coming up the bus lane...
So either way it's still the fault of the person turning/emerging then, not the poor bloke on a bike who is just trying to make some progress. From what I gather from the article, the scamera is on the main road and the bikes are on the main road - the quoted spokesperson seems to be somehow trying to insinuate that it's the bikers fault and the scamera is needed to slow them down, rather than the numpty crossing his path and failing to accord precedence.
Edited by BonzoGuinness on Saturday 5th May 04:29
BonzoGuinness said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
BonzoGuinness said:
Bath Chronicle said:
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
How about they try not pulling out in front of oncoming traffic then - or is it the riders fault for daring to do 30.999mph?
This is nonsense. The issue is that motorcycles and bicycles are allowed to use the bus lane. Stationery traffic allows vehicles to turn right off the main road, the turning vehicle then takes the gap without checking to see if there's a bike coming up the bus lane...
So either way it's still the fault of the person turning/emerging then, not the poor bloke on a bike who is just trying to make some progress. From what I gather from the article, the scamera is on the main road and the bikes are on the main road - the quoted spokesperson seems to be somehow trying to insinuate that it's the bikers fault and the scamera is needed to slow them down, rather than the numpty crossing his path and failing to accord precedence.
Edited by BonzoGuinness on Saturday 5th May 04:29
Mon Ami Mate said:
BonzoGuinness said:
Mon Ami Mate said:
BonzoGuinness said:
Bath Chronicle said:
"Pedestrians and cyclists would like the traffic to slow down on that stretch of road and there have been a number of accidents with people trying to pull out of side roads and all of a sudden they get hit by a motorcyclist coming the other way.
How about they try not pulling out in front of oncoming traffic then - or is it the riders fault for daring to do 30.999mph?
This is nonsense. The issue is that motorcycles and bicycles are allowed to use the bus lane. Stationery traffic allows vehicles to turn right off the main road, the turning vehicle then takes the gap without checking to see if there's a bike coming up the bus lane...
So either way it's still the fault of the person turning/emerging then, not the poor bloke on a bike who is just trying to make some progress. From what I gather from the article, the scamera is on the main road and the bikes are on the main road - the quoted spokesperson seems to be somehow trying to insinuate that it's the bikers fault and the scamera is needed to slow them down, rather than the numpty crossing his path and failing to accord precedence.
Edited by BonzoGuinness on Saturday 5th May 04:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff