FOI 4822 We have a received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following: “Many thanks for your e-mails of 25th…
We have a received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following:
“Many thanks for your e-mails of 25th October 2006. I am most grateful For the information. Would you mind if I prevailed on your kindness by asking a further Question to complete the answers to a problem I have? It relates to th following information I retrieved from the Highways
Authorities website but refers to the source of the authority for this Matter as being the HOPSDB:-
“As a prescribed device under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, all equipment shall conform as a minimum to the requirements of the Home Office and “The Automatic Distance/Time Speedmeter Handbook” issued by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), Publication No 95. ). The equipment shall also have received ‘type approval’ (HOTA) from the Secretary of State at the Home Office”.
37 “Dummy units shall operate such that they are indistinguishable from a camera unit and shall appear so unless the housing is open”. If the dummy was distinguishable from a live camera, not only would it lose it’s deterrent effect, it would mark it out as a camera which could be ignored and could encourage rather than deter speed limit violations.could it not? Could you therefore say that if a live camera was removed from the housing and replaced by a dummy unit, that the camera, would then operate, to all outward appearances as it did before the dummy was installed?
I’m sorry for having to ask you to state the obvious, but unless it is spelt out for them some people still misunderstand.