KSI data and relationship to effectiveness of Speed Cameras

The request was partially successful.

Dear Safer Roads Humber,

Having received a response to a previous request, I have been able to access the data I need to request further clarification as to the effectiveness of the data you gather and who reviews that data to effectively say whether an operation is effective and who takes the decision (or should take the decision) to cease a failing operation.

With regard to the cameras you site on the A1033 Main Road at Thorngumbald. I note from your published data that during the baseline surveys taken through years 1999, 2000 and 2001 there were 3 KSI Casualties, 15 slight casualties and 10 slight injuries (assume slight casualty could be as little as a small scratch on the car or broken plastic bumper and slight PIC to be a bruise or seat belt mark from suddenly stopping.)

After nine years of further operation by Safer Roads Humber in Thorngumbald I note only two further KSI accidents reported, however during the period 2011, 2012 and 2013 I note there were a total of 7 KSI Casualties, a further 21 slight casualties and a further 7 PIC's

Could you therefore explain how the effectiveness of the operation improved the road safety over that period and if in fact the operation (from your data) why the operation did not prevent/effectively reduce these accidents /deaths/serious injuries.

Was this ever brought up in conversation regarding the effectiveness / suitability and cost of this operation and if so would those minutes be available for public review/debate.
I am informed that the data recorded is reviewed and debated by the powers that be and cameras are shut down/site permissions removed if they are indeed found not sufficiently effective.

Finally I note that within the offence data provided for that period there were a total of 22 alleged offences that had no further action taken, as such the reason for no further action will be a matter of record that you will hold on file. Would you kindly advise the "reasons" only why those alleged offences were withdrawn.

I look forward to your most expedient response

My kindest regards

Yours faithfully,

Dave Fisher

Dear Safer Roads Humber,

I have been advised that under law I should have received a response to my previous FOI request by now, would you kindly confirm that you are aware of the delay and respond accordingly please.

My kindest regards

Yours faithfully,

Dave Fisher

Ruth Gore, Safer Roads Humber

I am out of the office until 26/02/2018.
 
If you have any questions regarding safety cameras, please visit our
website www.saferroadshumber.com
If you are contacting me about a fixed penalty notice / "speeding ticket"
please ring 01482 398200 between 10am - 1pm.
To book a speed awareness course please ring 01482 399065.

Thank you
 
 
 
Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: Freedom of
Information request - KSI data and relationship to effectiveness of Speed
Cameras" sent on 23/02/2018 08:08:18.
 
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
The information in this email, and any attachments, are confidential and
intended for the person they are addressed to. If this email was not
intended for you, you may not copy, use or share the information in any
way. Please email [email address] to advise us that you have
received this email in error. East Riding of Yorkshire Council is able to,
and reserves the right to, monitor email communications passing through
its network. The council does not accept service of legal documents by
email. We have made every effort to virus check this email and its
attachments. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability for loss or
damage which may happen from opening this email or any attachment(s). We
recommend that you run an antivirus program on any material you download.
    

Marshall, Ellie 9074,

Good Morning Mr Fisher,

 

Your FOI response was closed and sent to your email on the 18/01/2018 from
Sian Boynton.

 

Please let me know if you need this resending.

 

Kind regards,

 

Ellie Marshall

Information Compliance Assistant

Humberside Police

 

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication.
To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet
Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the
addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be
unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this
transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender
immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks
e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct
their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions
expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your
co-operation. Humberside Police

Dear Marshall, Ellie 9074,

A very Good Afternoon to you Ellie,

I have looked back and I don't appear to have that response (I may have inadvertently deleted it but do not recall doing so)

Would you kindly re-send the response please and apologies for any confusion if it was in some way my mistake.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Fisher

Marshall, Ellie 9074,

Good Morning Mr Fisher,

I apologise the last FOI response was to your previous request, the FOI officer will be in contact in due course with a response to your further request.

Kind regards,

Ellie Marshall
Information Compliance Assistant
Humberside Police

show quoted sections

Dear Marshall, Ellie 9074,

Good Morning Ms Marshall

Thank you very much for your prompt response and included confirmation.

From your response, It would appear that the person who had the responsibility to respond to the FOI request would be 'out-with' the time frame permitted to respond if in fact you could not attach nor forward his/her response to my request, and must therefore assume that the FOI request was not satisfactorily complied with.

If that was the case could you kindly advise if I now need to raise an internal review as I am not too sure of the protocols in this regard and obviously I do not wish to raise a review if the response to my FOI is somewhere to hand.

My kindest regards

Yours sincerely,

Dave Fisher

Boynton, Sian 8066,

1 Attachment

Your Ref:
Our Ref:F-2018-00430

16 March, 2018

Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your request for information regarding further questions to Safer Roads Humber request.

This is to inform you that all information relating to your request has been considered and a relevant response has been attached.

Should any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

If I can be of any further assistance on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Sian Boynton
Information Compliance Officer
Humberside Police

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication. To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your co-operation. Humberside Police

Dear Boynton, Sian 8066,

Thank you very much for the response to my request, however I would like to ask again for confirmation (as per my initial request) that the device being used on which I was caught travelling at a couple of mph in excess of the 30mph speed limit, had the ability to take a photograph of a motor cycle and or any vehicles number plate when it had passed the camera, being that the camera van was situated in between two parked vehicles at an obtuse angle to the main road that was being "enforced".

You have advised the following in your response: "Both sides of the carriageway can be enforced. The equipment is capable to detect both approaching and receding vehicles".

However this does not unfortunately answer my question. Had I been riding a motorcycle (in the same direction as I was travelling in my car) with a rear number plate only on my motorcycle at a speed in excess of the 30mph limit, would your operator have been able to take a photograph in evidence for the Courts that I had indeed transgressed the speed limit whilst riding the motorcycle?

I quite obviously understand that speed enforcement cameras are pieces of equipment that have the ability to detect movement, my question is can the particular piece of equipment being used, take a photograph in both directions that can be used in evidence if the vehicle from which the equipment is operating is "sandwiched" between two stationary vehicles on a slip road that is not parallel to the road which they are monitoring? If not, was there a camera facing in the opposite direction on the vehicle that is linked to the tripod mounted camera and it's display thus providing the display detail on the photograph? And if that is the case, how would it take a picture through the vehicle that was parked directly behind it of a receding speeding vehicle that is not on the same road as it is parked?
You mention the choice and suitability of the location of the device is up to the operator. therefore he must have selected his position knowing the requirements for enforcement more especially as the speed data you publish is based on all classes of speeding motorised vehicles. One assumes that for a "receding' speeding motorcycle, his camera would need to be able to take a clear photograph of a rear number plate.

Also within your response you mention the calibration criteria of the machine is "current" my question (as your response was delayed) was "at the time of the offence what was the calibration status of the equipment being used" Could you kindly pass on the Calibration Certificate number and location of calibration authority (assuming it is undertaken externally by an authorised body) Obviously I am aware you may need to make some redactions to any information you supply.

Finally, I am a little confused by your answer regarding Holderness High Road, the Hull City Council and Safer Roads Humber. You state that it was the Councils decision to not include Holderness Road in any further Safer Roads monitoring.
(When they re-joined Safer Roads Humber in 2015, they decided not to re-instate that site.)
Yet there are still many hundreds of speeding vehicles that pass in front of my house in both directions every day. And furthermore, there is a large white rectangular board at the side of the road advising speed cameras are in operation on this section of the Highway?

Can I therefore request that the Humberside Police kindly provide me with with any road traffic accident detail (including KSI) that have taken place along this stretch of the highway since the Hull City Council decided that the Casualty data had reduced to such a level that it was not considered necessary to further monitor the speeding vehicles on Holderness Road?

It's quite a specific point, at what point do the Council "override" the Safer Roads Humber and Police monitoring criteria? Thus effectively manipulating the statistical data to effectively show improvements?
If you ignore the high number of speeding vehicles on this main road then effectively you can adjust the overall improvement statistics. I believe the EU refer to this type of activity as "cherry picking".

Thank you so much for your kind help in anticipation

Yours sincerely,

Dave Fisher

Dear Boynton, Sian 8066,

I sent to you an updated request for further information that I had specifically requested in my initial letter to you and which you did not respond to in a timely manner (as was the case with my initial request) therefore would you kindly respond to my last request re the ability for your operative using the device he was using on the day of my alleged 'contravention' to take a photograph of a receding motorcycle rear number plate travelling in the same direction as my vehicle was travelling. Also the calibration certificate status on that day. And the Hull City Councils ability to remove a road from your surveillance if they feel it it safe to do so and under what criteria and have the accident statistics (KSI's) any relevance on their decision?
I also requested the police accident data record for Holderness Road since the Council withdrew the road. This would in my opinion be a part of the whole point of Safer Roads Humber. If the stats show a marked improvement then fine, withdraw the road. However I live on this road....there appears to be a difference of opinion as to how much "safer" Holderness Road has become.

I look forward to your most urgent response to this second message.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Fisher

Boynton, Sian 8066,

Dear Mr Fisher

Your request is being dealt with and you will receive a response shortly.

Regards

Sian Boynton

show quoted sections

Dear Boynton, Sian 8066,

Thank you very much for your latest response.

I am unsure as to why you have delayed your previous responses and or not given the "question specific" answers I had requested, nor why you chose to respond with answers that do not match the questions at all, as this has created lengthy delays.
I wonder therefore if it is indeed time to ask for an internal review or to make contact with the Commissioner?
I was instructed to comply with the requirements to attend a speed awareness course (having been recorded by your covert operative as exceeding a speed limit by one or two miles per hour) and was given extremely precise information of what fate would befall me if I was late for the course or if I did not present my driving license or if I was considered to be disruptive in any way. All of which I strictly "adhered" to.
Yet seemingly when I request DATA that you hold and are bound by "good practices" to provide in a timely manner, it appears you have license to "skirt around" giving an appropriate and meaningful response that prevents me from progressing my report.
I look forward to your response this time keeping in mind best practice and the requirements of the law to provide that information in a timely manner.

My kindest regards

Yours sincerely,

Dave Fisher

Boynton, Sian 8066,

1 Attachment

Your Ref:
Our Ref:F-2018-00814

26 April, 2018

Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your request for information dated 27 March, 2018 regarding further questions on camera equipment used by enforcement officers.

This is to inform you that all information relating to your request has been considered and a relevant response has been attached.

Should any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

If I can be of any further assistance on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Sian Boynton
Information Compliance Officer
Humberside Police

Internet Email should not be treated as a secure means of communication. To ensure regulatory compliance Humberside Police monitors all Internet Email activity and content. This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful. If you are not a named addressee, you must not disclose, copy, print, or in any other way use or rely on the data contained in this transmission. If received in error you should notify the sender immediately and delete this Email Humberside Police routinely checks e-mails for computer viruses. However addressees are advised to conduct their own virus checks of all e-mails, & any attachments). Opinions expressed in this document may not be official policy. Thank you for your co-operation. Humberside Police