FS50068601: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50068601 | |dn_ref=FS50068601 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=3 August 2005 | ||
|dn_pa=Essex Constabulary | |dn_pa=Essex Constabulary | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant asked Essex Police via the Office of Essex Safety Camera Partnership to provide him with the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. Essex Constabulary refused to provide the information citing s.31 (Law Enforcement) and s.38 (Likely to endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). Whilst the Commissioner recognises the value of improving public awareness and the opportunity disclosure would bring to further the debate on the effectiveness and purpose of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in furthering this debate would outweigh the public interest in maintaining both of these exemptions. There is in his opinion a stronger public interest in avoiding both an increase in non compliance with road traffic laws and the likely increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The Commissioner was also persuaded that if the perception of the risk of being caught by speed cameras was reduced this may force Essex Constabulary to consider more widespread installation of speed cameras incurring additional public expenditure. | |dn_summary=The complainant asked Essex Police via the Office of Essex Safety Camera Partnership to provide him with the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. Essex Constabulary refused to provide the information citing s.31 (Law Enforcement) and s.38 (Likely to endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). Whilst the Commissioner recognises the value of improving public awareness and the opportunity disclosure would bring to further the debate on the effectiveness and purpose of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in furthering this debate would outweigh the public interest in maintaining both of these exemptions. There is in his opinion a stronger public interest in avoiding both an increase in non compliance with road traffic laws and the likely increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The Commissioner was also persuaded that if the perception of the risk of being caught by speed cameras was reduced this may force Essex Constabulary to consider more widespread installation of speed cameras incurring additional public expenditure. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/68601 | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2005/68601 dn.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 31 | |dnd_section=FOI 31 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 38 | |dnd_section=FOI 38 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50068601
- Date: 3 August 2005
- Public Authority: Essex Constabulary
- Summary: The complainant asked Essex Police via the Office of Essex Safety Camera Partnership to provide him with the identity of the 20 fixed camera locations in Essex that catch the most drivers speeding, how many drivers per month or year are caught at each of these locations, and how much money was raised from each location per month or year. Essex Constabulary refused to provide the information citing s.31 (Law Enforcement) and s.38 (Likely to endanger the Health and Safety of any Individual). Whilst the Commissioner recognises the value of improving public awareness and the opportunity disclosure would bring to further the debate on the effectiveness and purpose of speed cameras, he was not persuaded that the public interest in furthering this debate would outweigh the public interest in maintaining both of these exemptions. There is in his opinion a stronger public interest in avoiding both an increase in non compliance with road traffic laws and the likely increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The Commissioner was also persuaded that if the perception of the risk of being caught by speed cameras was reduced this may force Essex Constabulary to consider more widespread installation of speed cameras incurring additional public expenditure.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: dn.pdf
