Would it be too much to hope that they record my vehicle details, time, date & speed *every* time I pass the camera? Should I then be caught following a moment’s lapse of concentration say, I would be able to present numerous previous instances of passing the camera at a safe speed as evidence of my normal good character.

In fact, surely Surrey Safety Camera Partnership will be doing this as a matter of course since their stated aim is to improve safety not persecute drivers…*&^&^^

Sorry, the sarcasm got too much and my brain rebooted.

Ere we go. Substantive reply next working day:

Dear Mr Heath

In your email below you raise your concerns over the “surveillance society” aspects of the A3 average speed cameras. I am happy to be able to respond and hope my response will leave you less dissappointed and concerned over the use of this equipment. Firstly, as a general point the cameras are not the same as CCTV cameras in that they are not continuously recording video of the scene in front of them. The camera system simply retains still pictures of those vehicles that are detected as substantially exceeding the speed limit over the length of road covered by the cameras. The cameras are not the same as other ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras either, in that information on vehicles travelling past the cameras who do not exceed the speed limit is not retained or used in any other way by the system. The cameras have no other purpose other than to deter vehicles from speeding during the course of temporary road works in order to reduce the risk of road traffic injury to road workers and road users. They record no other information than still pictures of speeding vehicles and the date and time the vehicle passed the entry and exit cameras in order to calculate the average speed.

In response to your specific questions:

– after what process of consultation and decision were these particular cameras introduced on the A3?

The cameras are installed by the Highways Agency who are responsible for the road and for the maintenance road works being undertaken. For any road scheme where a temporary reduction in speed limit is introduced there will usually be consideration by the Highways Agency and their contractors as to whether enforcement of the speed limit would be needed (otherwise a reduction in speed limit without enforcement is likely to be ignored and could put road workers and road users at risk). This is undertaken by the Highways Agency in consultation with Surrey Police, and with Surrey Safety Camera Partnership where cameras are considered. The Highways Agency provide information on all their road schemes on their website and via media releases. See the link here:

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/22445.aspx

The Surrey Safety Camera Partnership also provided a media release explaining why the cameras are being used:

http://www.surrey-safecam.org/fe/default.asp?n1=52#help3iny

– who owns and controls them? It is Highways, Surrey Police, you or who?
The Highways Agency pay to have the equipment installed and rent it from the equipment provider during the course of the road works. Surrey Police colleagues working for Surrey Safety Camera Partnership are responsible for processing the information recorded by the system.

– what information do they record? (I’m even more concerned by the “average speed” cameras in this respect than the old Gatso type)
The system records still pictures of vehicles detected speeding (calculated using the time the vehicle is recorded passing an entry camera and then the time it is recorded passing an exit camera). The system will record the time and date that the speeding vehicle was detected and what average speed it was calculated as travelling at. Information on other vehicles passing the cameras is not retained if they are not recorded as exceeding the speed limit.

– how long do they hold it for and for what purposes?
After the information in the form of images of speeding vehicles is recovered from the camera system it is generally retained by Surrey Police for about 3 years, depending upon storage space. Information of the offence details is transferred to a Surrey Police computer system and retained (as with any other offence).

– who is the Data Controller under the DPA?
Surrey Police.

– to whom do they release the data and under what circumstances? To how many staff in how many agencies are my journeys now routinely disclosed and accessible (of the ones you can tell me about)
Data on speeding vehicles is used to prosecute the offence so will be shared with the registered keeper, nominated drivers, the CPS and Courts as appropriate. The details of the offence will be retained on Surrey Police computer systems which could be interrogated to assist in the course of an investigation by the Police (as with any other offence).

– can I request all the identifiable personal data you now hold on me under DPA? If so what is the cost and procedure?
An explanation is provided via this link:

http://www.surrey.police.uk/about/dp.asp

As far as the A3 average speed cameras are concerned, information will only be held about you if you were the registered keeper or nominated driver of a vehicle that has been detected as substantially exceeding the limit.

– what have they cost (or what is the typical capital/running cost of and installation and how many are there)
We do not hold information on the cost of installation and ongoing hire and powering of the equipment as this is undertaken by the Highways Agency.

Can you see any way back from this surveillance-state position? Are there any plans for trials to disable cameras, or remove them altogether? By what process and on whose authority would a decision to remove them be taken?
The A3 cameras that you refer to will be removed when the temporary road works are complete. The Highways Agency expected that the scheme would take 14 weeks to complete. With regard to safety cameras (speed and red light violation cameras) generally, they are likely to continue to be used while they are shown to demonstrate a valuable contribution to reducing road casualties. We would only consider removing a permanent safety camera site if County Council engineers and Police believe that better casualty reduction could be acheived via alternative cost effective methods, or if there has been a change to the road layout due to development that has rendered the camera position obsolete. We have previously removed 8 Gatso camera housings on this basis and we continuously monitor the level of collisions and speeds at all our permanent sites.

I understand your concerns over the issue of a “surveillance society”. It think as part of this debate it is important to note that fixed safety cameras do not record or retain any information on vehicles that are not recorded substantially speeding, or jumping red traffic signals. Whether the recording of these traffic offenders could be considered an unacceptable infringement of personal liberties has to weighed up against the reduction in road casualties that are delivered by safety cameras.

That seems quite encouraging. If they retain no data from “innocent” motorists, my objection is mollified. Duncan serves up no PR waffle, and appears attentive to the concerns. Cheers.

I think the respondent deserves a ThinkPublic ‘public servant – I thank and salute you’ postcard, for the care they have taken to really answer each of your questions thoroughly and respectfully, in language that seems quite normal (not civil servant-speak). I have a vague sense that if you’d written to ask these Qs of a govt department eg under FOI, the response would have been an official-ese rendition of the ‘complying with this request would go over the £600 limit blah blah waffle waffle…’