FOI 27522
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: HRC0027522/26
I write in connection with your request for information which was received on 25th August 2026. Please find below the response to your request:
Mobile Speed Camera Deployment on the M54, Telford
I would be grateful if you could provide the following:
- The killed/seriously injured (KSI) and collision data for the specific M54 overbridge sites used for mobile enforcement over the last 24 months, which justifies their selection as enforcement priorities.
- The methodology or scoring criteria used to rank and select sites for mobile camera deployment, and how frequently this list is reviewed.
- The effectiveness metrics used to evaluate deployments after the fact — specifically, whether this is collision/casualty reduction, ticket volume, or another measure.
- Confirmation of what urban or residential sites, if any, went uncovered as a result of mobile crews being deployed to M54 locations during this period, and how that resourcing trade-off was assessed against your own casualty data.
- Whether operational factors such as ease of access, crew safety, or revenue generation form any part of site selection, formally or informally.
- Whether the M54 sites were brought into use through your published Community Concern programme (as used, for example, for the recent A458 Ford enforcement site, which was introduced following resident concern and supporting speed compliance data), or through a different route — and if the latter, what evidence or request initiated their selection.
- How many current outstanding requests for mobile enforcement from parish and town councils or resident groups elsewhere in Shropshire remain unactioned, and how these were prioritised relative to the M54 sites.
Reply
- The killed/seriously injured (KSI) and collision data for the specific M54 overbridge sites used for mobile enforcement over the last 24 months, which justifies their selection as enforcement priorities.
Since January 2023 there has been 3 fatal and 57 serious injury collisions along the motorway network within the jurisdiction of West Mercia Police. These collisions have involved 111 vehicles and resulted in 106 casualties. Of these collisions, 9 have occurred along the M54 corridor.
- The methodology or scoring criteria used to rank and select sites for mobile camera deployment, and how frequently this list is reviewed.
Mobile camera deployment locations are subject to a rolling assessment process. The assessment considers a range of evidence sources, which may include casualty data, speed survey information, community concerns, intelligence, enforcement outcomes, and emerging risks. Prioritisation is reviewed continually to ensure resources remain directed towards locations presenting the greatest current risk. The process is dynamic and sites may move up or down the priority list as circumstances change.
- The effectiveness metrics used to evaluate deployments after the fact — specifically, whether this is collision/casualty reduction, ticket volume, or another measure.
The effectiveness of enforcement activity is not measured solely by offence volumes. The Partnership considers a range of indicators, including changes in driver behaviour, speed compliance levels, casualty trends, and wider road safety outcomes. Enforcement data itself forms only one aspect of assessing effectiveness.
- Confirmation of what urban or residential sites, if any, went uncovered as a result of mobile crews being deployed to M54 locations during this period, and how that resourcing trade-off was assessed against your own casualty data.
Deployment decisions involve balancing resources across a large geographical area and a wide range of site types. The allocation of officers to motorway locations does not mean urban or residential sites are left uncovered and they form the vast amount of our regular deployments. Site selection is based on current priority assessments, and locations across all road categories continue to be reviewed and deployed according to the available evidence and operational requirements.
- Whether operational factors such as ease of access, crew safety, or revenue generation form any part of site selection, formally or informally.
Operational factors such as staff safety, safe deployment opportunities and accessibility are considered when determining whether a location can be enforced safely and effectively. These factors do not replace the evidential basis for deployment but ensure that enforcement activity can be conducted safely and lawfully.
The Partnership does not select enforcement locations for revenue generation purposes. Revenue generated from fixed penalties is not retained by the Road safety team or West Mercia Police and therefore does not form part of the decision-making process.
- Whether the M54 sites were brought into use through your published Community Concern programme (as used, for example, for the recent A458 Ford enforcement site, which was introduced following resident concern and supporting speed compliance data), or through a different route — and if the latter, what evidence or request initiated their selection.
Motorway enforcement locations may arise through several routes, including analysis of speed and collision data, operational assessments, intelligence, complaints, partner agency concerns (such as requests from national highways) and other road safety information. Currently National highways have asked for additional enforcement on motorways to support HADECS operations.
- How many current outstanding requests for mobile enforcement from parish and town councils or resident groups elsewhere in Shropshire remain unactioned, and how these were prioritised relative to the M54 sites.
No specific recorded information held regarding the number of outstanding requests.
Local Policing groups receive requests from parish councils, town councils, and community groups across the force area. Requests are assessed against the site assessment criteria and prioritised accordingly.