Safety Camera Replacement Project

The request was partially successful.

Dear Transport for London,

Can you tell me how many KSIs (Killed or Seriously Injured) that were attributed to SPEED ONLY, were recorded on the roads listed below that are intended to be part of the project to install Average Speed Cameras that was discussed by the TFL Finance and Policy Committee on 27th November 2013.

The roads are as follows:-

(a) A406 – Hanger Lane to Bounds Green Road;
(b) A40 – Polish War Memorial to Paddington Slip Road;
(c) A2 – Black Prince to Tunnel Avenue; and
(d) A316 – M3 to Hogarth Roundabout.

Please also list the 4 other potential roads that were not identified for the Trial

Yours faithfully,

D Cukier

FOI, Transport for London

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-1622-1314

Thank you for your e-mail received on 29 November 2013 asking for
information about collisions on the roads that are part of the Safety
Camera Replacement Project.

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and TfL’s information access policy. 

A response will be provided to you by 31 December 2013.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Just to Clarify the information requested is as follows:-

(1)

(a) A406 – Hanger Lane to Bounds Green Road -
% of KSI collisions that were directly attributed to Speed alone on this strech of road = ???? %

(b) A40 – Polish War Memorial to Paddington Slip Road-
% of KSI collisions that were directly attributed to Speed alone on this strech of road = ???? %

(c) A2 – Black Prince to Tunnel Avenue -
% of KSI collisions that were directly attributed to Speed alone on this strech of road = ???? %

(d) A316 – M3 to Hogarth Roundabout -
% of KSI collisions that were directly attributed to Speed alone on this strech of road = ???? %

(2)Please name the other 4 Roads mentioned in the Report that were not disclosed to the committee

Yours sincerely,

D cukier

FOI, Transport for London

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-1622-1314

Thank you for your further e-mail regarding your recent Freedom of
Information request.

Your e-mail has been forwarded onto the team providing the information. A
response will be provided to you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear Gemma Jacob

By Law I should have received an answer to my FOI request on 3rd January 2014.

Please ensure I receive a response in the next 3 days before I lodge a formal complaint

Yours sincerely,

D cukier

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-1622-1314

Thank you for your e-mail received on 29 November 2013 asking for
information about collisions on the roads that are part of the Safety
Camera Replacement Project. I apologise for not having provided you with
an update of your request.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and TfL’s information access policy. 

Because we are reviewing the information in your response we have not been
able to resolve your request within the statutory 20 working day.

We intend to provide you with a full response as soon as possible. Please
accept my apologies for this delay.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

The response to my request is well beyond the permitted time

I am now formally requesting an Internal Review of this matter

Yours sincerely,

D cukier

FOI, Transport for London

Dear D. Cukier

TfL Ref:          IRV-100-1314

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received by
Transport for London (TfL) on 3 February 2014.

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your
request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance
with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which is available via the following
URL:

[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/f...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 3 March 2014.
However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact
you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible. We
are still processing your FOI request and hope to have a response to you
soon.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[2][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-1622-1314

Thank you for your e-mail received on 29 November 2013 asking for
information about speed related collisions on the roads that are part of
the Safety Camera Replacement Project.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require. I apologise for the delay
in providing this response.

The number and per cent of collisions that have occurred as a result of
speed only being listed as a contributory factor must be considered in
light of the factors that Police assign to collisions. As you may be
aware, collisions rarely result from a single cause and almost always
involve multiple contributory factors being recorded. For example, on the
four roads that Average Speed Cameras are proposed to be trialled on, in
the three years of data that was analysed, a total of 182 collisions
occurred. However, only 14 collisions were ascribed a single contributory
factor, the other 168 had two or more contributory factors.

Please find below a table detailing the collisions on these roads in which
speed was identified as one of the contributory factor in a collision. The
data shows that approximately 50 per cent of collisions on these roads
listed speed as a contributory factor. However, as stated above, it is
likely that there were also other contributory factors.

Road Total Collisions Total Speed Related Collisions % of total
A40 65 35 54%
A406 (west) 65 32 49%
A316 25 15 60%
A2 27 14 52%
Total 182 96 53%

Please note that the information provided is the number of KSI collisions,
not KSI casualties. When undertaking analysis for road safety projects
etc, we use the number for KSI collisions and not the KSI casualty data to
ensure that we are robust in our rational for any changes we implement.
For example, we would not install a safety camera because a speeding coach
was the only accident in a three year period but produced 25 KSI
casualties in the one accident. By doing this we ensure that we invest
where there is an ongoing collision problem, and not where random events
occur.

The other four roads that were not included for the proposed trial were
A406 (east), A12, A3 & A20.

If this is not the information you are looking for please feel free to
contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

I enclose a part of your response

"For example, on the
four roads that Average Speed Cameras are proposed to be trialled on, in
the three years of data that was analysed, a total of 182 collisions
occurred. However, only 14 collisions were ascribed a single contributory
factor, the other 168 had two or more contributory factor"

Please break down the contributory factors into more detail

ie of the 14 Collisions ascribed as a single contributory factor what were these factors?

of the 168 collisions that had two or more contributory factors please break this total down into what the factors were

Yours sincerely,

D cukier

FOI, Transport for London

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-2155-1314

Thank you for your e-mail received on 4 February 2014 asking for further
information about speed related collisions on the roads that are part of
the Safety Camera Replacement Project.

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and TfL’s information access policy. 

A response will be provided to you by 4 March 2014.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

2 Attachments

  • This attachment has been hidden. There are various reasons why we might have done this, sorry we can't be more specific here. Please contact us if you have any questions.
  • Attachment

    Your right to appeal.pdf

    18K Download View as HTML

Dear D. Cukier

Our Ref:         FOI-2155-1314

Thank you for your e-mail received on 4 February 2014 asking for further
information about speed related collisions on the roads that are part of
the Safety Camera Replacement Project.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm we do hold the information you require.

There are 76 pre-determined contributory factors that might be attributed
to any personal injury accident that is reported to the police. Up to six
factors can be attributed to one collision. In addition, when using the
recording system, a police officer can create a free-text factor that can
describe more unusual accident causes if none of the pre-determined 76 are
suitable. Alternatively, no contributory factors can be attributed to a
collision.

In order to address your two questions, we have attached an excel
spreadsheet with a list of the collisions along the four Average Speed
Camera trial routes. Included on the spreadsheet are details of the
severity, location and contributory factors codes for each collision.

A full list of the contributory factor codes is held on the Department for
Transport’s website. Download the “STATS 19 road accident injury
statistics – report form” document from the following web address
[1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
for information about the contributory factor codes.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please feel free to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

[2][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

 
 
Our ref: IRV-100-1314
 
 
 
Dear D. Cukier
 
Subject: Outcome of internal review
 
I am contacting you regarding the internal review of your request for
information concerning KSI’s attributed to speed only in relation to four
named locations. This review has been carried out following your email of
2 February 2014 regarding the late response to your request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
It is clear that in failing to provide you with a response within 20
working days, TfL has breached the requirements of section 10 of the Act,
and on behalf of TfL, please accept my apologies for the shortcomings in
the handling of your request.
 
The panel found there were a number of factors which led to the delay in
providing your response. The absence of staff members that were key
contributors to gathering the information caused a delay but there was
also further delay resulting from a lack of clarity among contributors as
to the exact nature of the information being requested.
 
The review has found that the most appropriate course of action would have
been to contact you when you first made your request in order to clarify
the information that you were seeking in order to ensure a correct
interpretation was made of the information you required. Seeking further
clarification would be consistent with the duty under section 16 of the
FOI Act to provide advice and assistance to requesters, and I am sorry
that this was not done more thoroughly at the time as it could have helped
to avoid the delays that arose with completing the response.
 
There was also additional delay in clarifying all the information we were
providing was correct and preparing our response to ensure that our
explanation, which accompanied the information to your requested, was
clear and concise. We consider that this explanation was necessary for the
proper understanding of the information that was being released, but we
are sorry that this contributed to the delay in providing you with the
response.
 
I believe a response was sent to you on 4 February. However, in view of
these failings, we do not consider that this necessarily represents the
end of the internal review process. We consider that it would be
appropriate in the context of this request to offer you a further internal
review of the content of the response, even though you have already
exercised your right to a review in view of our failure to provide a
timely response. Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the quality of
the response, you may still request a further internal review.
 
However, if you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date
you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for
enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, at the following address:
 
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
 
A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website
([1]www.ico.gov.uk).
 
Yours sincerely
 
Lee Hill
Information Access Adviser
[2][TfL request email]
 
 
 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[tfl%20request%20email]