Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

The "next phase" of Operation Safeway has been launched in London this month, due to a spate of KSI collisions involving humans. This suggests that previously, Operation Safeway has failed to have long term benefits. Human nature does appear to be very resilient.

Many cyclists, behaving in a very similar manner to humans on bicycles in the Netherlands, have been stopped and fined by police officers in London. It's widely acknowledged that cycling in the Netherlands is a relatively safe and comfortable form of transport.

Of cyclists involved in KSI collisions, does the MPS have any statistics as to how many, or what percentage, of humans involved whilst riding a bicycle were behaving in a way that was "dangerous" - other than simply cycling too close to much larger vehicles, due to necessity given their choice of transport and the failure of the institutions that should protect them?

It would seem that changing human nature is very difficult, and that, as in the Netherlands, it is the environment around the human that needs to change. Evidence suggests that the segregated cycle paths recently announced by TfL are a proven way to improve the environment around the human to reduced KSI collision.

Has the MPS advocated for physical separation of humans on bicycles from large, motorised vehicles in the past 12 months? Please would you provide relevant documents.

TfL's Cycle safety action Plan states, "The most common contributory factors attributed to the cyclist as recorded by police attending fatal or serious cyclist casualty collisions during 2013, were: 'failed to look properly', 'failed to judge other person's path or speed' and ‘careless/reckless/in a hurry’." Does the MPS have any evidence that it can change the human species so that individuals whilst riding bicycles do not make such errors with fines/"a stick"?

What percentage of humans on bicycles in 2013 were not at fault when involved in a collision?

Yours faithfully,

Ian Perry

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Perry

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015020001194

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 16/02/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

* The "next phase" of Operation Safeway has been launched in London this
month, due to a spate of KSI collisions involving humans.  This
suggests that previously, Operation Safeway has failed to have long
term benefits.  Human nature does appear to be very resilient. Many
cyclists, behaving in a very similar manner to humans on bicycles in
the Netherlands, have been stopped and fined by police officers in
London.  It's widely acknowledged that cycling in the Netherlands is a
relatively safe and comfortable form of transport.

* Of cyclists involved in KSI collisions, does the MPS have any
statistics as to how many, or what percentage, of humans involved
whilst riding a bicycle were behaving in a way that was "dangerous" -
other than simply cycling too close to much larger vehicles, due to
necessity given their choice of transport and the failure of the
institutions that should protect them?

* It would seem that changing human nature is very difficult, and that,
as in the Netherlands, it is the environment around the human that
needs to change.  Evidence suggests that the segregated cycle paths
recently announced by TfL  are a proven way to improve the environment
around the human to reduced KSI collision.

* Has the MPS advocated for physical separation of humans on bicycles
from large, motorised vehicles in the past 12 months?  Please would
you provide relevant documents.

* TfL's Cycle safety action Plan states, "The most common contributory
factors attributed to the cyclist as recorded by police attending
fatal or serious cyclist casualty collisions during 2013, were:
'failed to look properly', 'failed to judge other person's path or
speed' and ‘careless/reckless/in a hurry’."
* Does the MPS have any evidence that it can change the human species so
that individuals whilst riding bicycles do not make such errors with
fines/"a stick"?
* What percentage of humans on bicycles in 2013 were not at fault when
involved in a collision?

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If
this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the
earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above.  Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Perry

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015020001194

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 16/02/2015.  Firstly, may I
apologise for the delay to this request.

I note you seek access to the following information, which for ease of
reference I have highlighted in bold and numbered:

The "next phase" of Operation Safeway has been launched in London this
month, due to a spate of KSI collisions involving humans.  This suggests
that previously, Operation Safeway has failed to have long term benefits.
 Human nature does appear to be very resilient. Many cyclists, behaving in
a very similar manner to humans on bicycles in the Netherlands, have been
stopped and fined by police officers in London.  It's widely acknowledged
that cycling in the Netherlands is a relatively safe and comfortable form
of transport.

1 - Of cyclists involved in KSI collisions, does the MPS have any
statistics as to how many, or what percentage, of humans involved whilst
riding a bicycle were behaving in a way that was "dangerous" - other than
simply cycling too close to much larger vehicles, due to necessity given
their choice of transport and the failure of the institutions that should
protect them?

It would seem that changing human nature is very difficult, and that, as
in the Netherlands, it is the environment around the human that needs to
change.  Evidence suggests that the segregated cycle paths recently
announced by TfL are a proven way to improve the environment around the
human to reduced KSI collision.

2 - Has the MPS advocated for physical separation of humans on bicycles
from large, motorised vehicles in the past 12 months?  Please would you
provide relevant documents.

TfL's Cycle safety action Plan states, "The most common contributory
factors attributed to the cyclist as recorded by police attending fatal or
serious cyclist casualty collisions during 2013, were: 'failed to look
properly', 'failed to judge other person's path or speed' and
‘careless/reckless/in a hurry’."

3 - Does the MPS have any evidence that it can change the human species so
that individuals whilst riding bicycles do not make such errors with
fines/"a stick"?

4 - What percentage of humans on bicycles in 2013 were not at fault when
involved in a collision?

DECISION in regards to Questions 2 and 3: 2 - Has the MPS advocated for
physical separation of humans on bicycles from large, motorised vehicles
in the past 12 months?  Please would you provide relevant documents. 3 -
Does the MPS have any evidence that it can change the human species so
that individuals whilst riding bicycles do not make such errors with
fines/"a stick"?

Section 16 Freedom of Information Act 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000... provides an
obligation for a public authority to provide advice and assistance to a
person making a request, so far as it would be reasonable to do so. I can
clarify that requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act
are for information held by a public authority at the time a request is
made.  

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance on this
issue and states ‘The FOIA and the EIR apply to information held by public
authorities. They do not have to create new information to respond to
requests. A public authority is not creating new information where:
• it presents information it holds in the form of a list or schedule;
• compiling an answer to a request involves simple manual manipulation of
information held in files; or,
• it extracts information from an electronic database by searching it in
the form of a query.’

Therefore a public authority is not required to create new information or
provide opinion in order to respond to a request, unless it is already
contained within documents or other recorded form.  Enquiries were made
within various MPS units which, on the balance of probability, established
that despite reasonable searches no information was located pertinent to
Questions 2 and 3 - and therefore, this aspect of your request is not held
by the MPS.  However, there is a wealth of information on both the
Transport for London (TfL) and Department for Transport (DfT) websites. To
provide you with some assistance I have provided a number of links in the
area you are interested, which can be found under Advice and Assistance
below.

DECISION in regards to Questions 1 and 4: 1 - Of cyclists involved in KSI
collisions, does the MPS have any statistics as to how many, or what
percentage, of humans involved whilst riding a bicycle were behaving in a
way that was "dangerous"4 - What percentage of humans on bicycles in 2013
were not at fault when involved in a collision?

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to
this aspect of your request within the cost threshold. We estimate that
the cost of complying with this request would exceed the appropriate
limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for
agencies outside central Government; this is set at £450.00.   This
represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate
of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and
locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

To answer this aspect of your request will exceed the cost threshold,
because to determine if held, locate, retrieve and extract the answers for
questions 1 and 4 would exceed 18 hours. This is because the information
is not held in the format you have requested.

Your criteria means that once potentially relevant documents have been
located, it would be necessary to identify and extract the information
relevant to your request. At a minimum, this would require reading the
relevant accident reports. The scope in regards to whether a cyclist was
‘behaving in a way that was “dangerous”’ tends to indicate that you are
seeking an opinion, which as mentioned above, a public authority is not
required to provide - unless this is already contained within records or
other form. If the entirety of your request was considered in this way,
for example whether a cyclist was ‘not at fault when involved in a
collision’, would further illustrate the difficulties in estimating the
amount of time required to determine the extent of information held in
relation to your request.

Therefore a member of police staff would be required to read through
hundreds of records to determine if information is held relevant to your
specific criteria. To put this into some context, similar information has
been disclosed on police reports of cycling accidents and fatalities for
the period 01/01/2010 to 19/07/2013, which can be found by way of this
link to the MPS Disclosure log
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...

To provide you with some assistance even if it took just 15 minutes to
read through each accident report to see if information contained within
it was relevant to your request,  this would equate to over 25 hours for
every 100 reports to determine if held, locate, retrieve and extract this
initial information. Only after this initial search was carried out would
we be in a position to then carry out further manual searches.

Please note that the Information Commissioner's guidance states that
'Section 12 makes it clear that a public authority does not have to make a
precise calculation of the costs of complying with a request.  Only an
estimate is required ... what amounts to a reasonable estimate can only be
considered on a case by case basis.'  The Information Commissioner also
advises 'where a reasonable estimate has been made that the appropriate
limit would be exceeded, there is no requirement for a public authority to
undertake work up to the limit.'

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice. I have outlined the sections relevant to this refusal
notice in the legal annex below.

Advice and assistance

Under Section 16 we are required to provide you with advice and assistance
to assist you with submitting a new request for recorded information which
can be located, retrieved and extracted within the 18 hours specified by
the Act. I am unable to advise you on how to narrow your request in this
case because, even with a reduced time frame, would still require a member
of police staff to read through hundreds of accident records - which may
even then not contain any of the information you are seeking.

To assist you further I can provide you with some relevant links in the
area you are interested in:

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/docume...
TfL published June 2014 for 2012 and 2013

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Wealth of research by Government departments (Department for Transport
(DfT)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Shared use routes for cyclists and pedestrians

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gover...
Low level lights for cyclists

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Traffic management techniques for cyclists

https://www.gov.uk/government/collection...
Gov.uk (collection of articles)

https://www.gov.uk/search?q=cycle
Various links to cycle research

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/cyc...
Cycle proofing is a process which over time ensures that the built
environment generally, and roads specifically, are seen to be safe,
convenient and pleasant for cycle use by people of all ages and abilities.

The aim of the Cycle Proofing Working Group is to improve the quality of
UK roads for cycling by:

·        sharing knowledge of cycle proofing with those designing and
implementing cycle infrastructure on UK roads
·        conducting research on innovative approaches to cycle proofing
·        encouraging the training of engineers and planners in cycle
proofing
·        advising on cycle proofing standards
·        advising on how to better integrate policies that impact cycle
proofing, such as planning policy
·        advising on the maintenance of roads to improve conditions for
cycling

The group is made up of technical experts on the design and implementation
of highway cycling infrastructure. Current members are:

·        Department for Transport (Chair)
·        Highways Agency
·        Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation
·        Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport
·        Institution of Civil Engineers
·        Institute of Highways Engineers
·        Transport for London
·        Local authority representatives
·        British Cycling
·        CTC, the national cycling charity
·        Sustrans

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/docume...
Cycle Safety Action Plan - using most recent data

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling...
TfL - London Cycling Design standards 2014 consultation draft

I hope you find this explanation useful, however should you have any
further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Mike
Lyng on telephone number 0207 161 3605  quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

M Lyng
Information Rights Unit

Complaints Rights

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(5) of the Act provides:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

Section 12(2) of the Act provides:

Section 12(2) of the Act provides that subsection (1) does not exempt a
public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of
section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph
alone would exceed the appropriate limit.

Section 16 of the Act provides:

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and
assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do
so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information
to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or
assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section
45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in
relation to that case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org