Our Ref: 008318/14 Freedom of Information Section Nottinghamshire Police HQ Sherwood Lodge, Arnold Nottingham NG5 8PP Tel: 101 Ext 800 2507 Fax: 0115 967 2896 27 January 2015 Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) I write in connection with your request for information, which was received by Nottinghamshire Police on 29/12/2014. Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Nottinghamshire Police to locate the information you require. RESPONSE Under S 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), I can confirm that Nottinghamshire Police does hold the information you have requested. Please find below answers to your questions:- I am requesting information regarding your police forces' use of mobile speed cameras only. The scope of this FOI request excludes fixed cameras, average speed cameras or one-off enforcement campaigns. This is the information that I am requesting: 1) At what percentage of a speed limit does your policing team enforce at? As an example, the Association of Chief Police Officers' recommended threshold is 110% + 2 mph, so in a 30 mph limit, enforcement would begin at 35 mph. The following exemptions have been applied to this request: Section 31: Law Enforcement Section 38: Health and Safety S31 – Law Enforcement Information is exempt from disclosure where the release of information would, or would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice. This exemption is qualified and prejudice based and, as such, I am required to evidence the harm in disclosure and consider whether the public interest would lie in providing the information or in maintaining the exemption. S38 Health & Safety S38 applies where disclosure of information would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of an individual. This exemption is qualified and prejudice based and, as such, I am required to evidence the harm in disclosure and consider whether the public interest would lie in providing the information or in maintaining the exemption. Harm The aim of roads policing is to make roads safer by encouraging people to keep within the speed limits, hence reducing speeds, reducing collisions and consequently, reducing the number of individuals killed or seriously injured on the roads. By definition, those routes selected for mobile enforcement have inherent dangers and, as such, appropriate disclosure of information around enforcement activity is essential. Disclosure of the threshold for prosecution in relation to speeding offences, would inform individuals about the uppermost speed they can attain without fear of detection and prosecution in the Nottinghamshire Force area, This is likely to affect driver behaviour in that individuals could use this information to drive over the speed limit but under the enforcement threshold, thereby evading prosecution. A disclosure to an individual under Freedom of Information is, in effect, a disclosure the world at large. Driving above the stated speed limit is an offence. Withholding the information on prosecution thresholds from the public would maintain the perception that when an individual chooses to speed they are risking criminal liability and therefore, run the risk of being caught and having enforcement action taken against them. This preserves the Police Force’s ability to prevent and detect criminal activity and to apprehend and prosecute offenders this engaging S31 of the Act. There is an established exponential relationship between speeding and the frequency of road traffic collisions. http://www.slower- speeds.org.uk/files/slowerspeeds/ssi%20bad%20driving%20response.pdf As speed increases, so too does the distance travelled during the time available to perceive and react to external stimuli. Braking distances also increase in proportion to speed and therefore, these relationships establish a causal link between speeding and both the frequency and severity of road collisions. Research from the Transport Research Laboratory in 2002 ascertained that drivers are more likely to crash as their speed increases relative to the average speed on a given road. At 25% above the average speed, the risk that a driver will crash increases by 600%.The ‘rule of thumb’ is that for every 1mph change in average speed there will be a corresponding 5% change in the number of collisions. (Taylor et all 2000, Taylor et al 2002). If a collision does occur, the likelihood of serious or fatal injury increases disproportionately with speed. As speed increases (particularly where that speed is in excess of a stated speed limit) then so too does the severity of any ensuing collision and the resulting injuries. Not only will this have an effect of the Police’s ability to prevent and detect crime and to apprehend and prosecute offenders, it will have a detrimental impact of the physical safety of the public. Disclosure of enforcement thresholds would be likely to increase speeding and therefore have a direct impact on the safety of pedestrians and other road users on Nottinghamshire’s road network. In summary, the aim of policing the road network is to make roads safer by encouraging people to keep within the speed limits thereby reducing collisions and, consequently, reducing the number of individuals killed or seriously injured on Nottinghamshire’s roads. The consequences of disclosure would be to compromise this aim and inform drivers of the level at which they can exceed speed limits without fear of prosecution or probability of sanction. This in turn would have an effect on driver behaviour which in turn would lead to the increased likelihood of collisions on Nottinghamshire’s roads putting the public at greater physical risk. Factors favouring disclosure Disclosure of this information would enhance the public’s knowledge of roads policing tactics thereby increasing the level of any public debate on the mater. Nottinghamshire Police provide a public service and therefore should be accountable to the public whom they serve and transparent in our speed enforcement decisions and patterns. Such accountability and transparency will increase the public’s level of trust in the Police service strengthening relationships between the Police Force and the local communities. It is widely accepted that guidelines exist which support the prosecution threshold of 110% of the speed limit + 2mph. Factors favouring maintaining the exemptions Law enforcement tactics would be compromised. There should be no confusion in the mind of drivers as to what the speed limit is on a particular road. Disclosure of the information requested would lead to some motorists treating the enforcement threshold as the ‘perceived’ speed limit knowing they could do so without recrimination. This will have a detrimental impact on the Police’s ability to prevent and detect crime and to apprehend and prosecute offenders which in turn, would lead to an impact on obtaining justice for victims. The risk to public are significant and evidenced. There is a documented increase between speed and frequency and severity of road traffic collisions. This puts pedestrians and other road users at greater risk of being involved in a road traffic collision and increased risk of suffering serious of fatal injuries. Balance Test Disclosure of the requested information would lead to a better informed public thus enhancing the level of any public debate on these issues. Residents of Nottinghamshire and beyond would see the rationale behind the application of the various speed enforcement limits across the county and that decisions are recorded appropriately. The Force would also be held more accountable for it’s patterns and level of mobile speed cameras. However, this must be balanced against the wider public interests relating to operational policing and issues in respect of public health and safety. Although it is widely known that there are guidelines in existence which support the prosecution threshold of 110% of the speed limit + 2mph, to definitively state the threshold at which an individual Police Force enforces speeding offences, would assist individuals evading detection from such offences and have a damaging impact on prosecuting offenders. It would also result in higher speeds on roads in Nottinghamshire which, given the exponential relationship between increased speed and increased frequency of road traffic collisions, leads to an increase in the likelihood of collisions occurring in Nottinghamshire. This has the effect of leading to higher rates of injury and potential fatalities in Nottinghamshire. Opposed to factors favouring disclosure is the key negative of public safety. We can never be entirely sure what effect information disclosure may have. As far as the police service is concerned, the protection of the community must and will always take precedence over information provision. We would be failing in our duty to protect all members of the public should even one person suffer as a result of a disclosure under this legislation. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for non-disclosure is made. This letter constitutes a refusal notice under Section 17 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with Sections 31(1)(a)(b) and 38(1)(b) of the act being applied. 31. – (1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice – a) the prevention or detection of crime b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders 38. – (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to – a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or b) endanger the safety of any individual 2) Does your force engage in a Safety Awareness Course/Speed Awareness Course scheme? If your force does take part in this, are you part of a national scheme that is recognised by other forces? Yes.