FOI request to Wilts SCP - is this a fair reply?

[deeps]

I recently asked Wilts scammers for information about their activities along the M4, via a Freedom of Information request.

For those that don't know, the Wilts SCP target drivers along the M4 by dangerously parking their vans on the bridges roughly between jnct's 15 to 17. They say their aim is to reduce collisions, so I thought presumably they would have evidence of drivers speeding and crashing along that stretch?

What do you make of their answer to this question....

"Please supply numbers of collisions along that stretch that have been recorded with a positively identified cause of excessive speed above the speed limit."

Their answer said:

Your request has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed.

This is difficult to be accurate for many reasons e.g. when a single vehicle collision occurs as a result of a driver losing control of a vehicle which either overturns, leaves the carriageway or hits the central barrier for no apparent reason and the driver is not alleging involvement of a second vehicle, side winds, illness, falling asleep, tyre burst, mechanical failure etc it is reasonable to believe that speed had a part to play. However, with no witnesses or an admission by the driver the cause cannot be confirmed as excess speed. Therefore officers often attend the scene of collisions where excess speed may be the probable cause but they will not record it as such as they lack the evidence. (Except in exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to close the motorway for lengthy periods to carry out skid tests etc to ascertain the minimum speed a vehicle was travelling). 
  
Damage only collisions are not recorded by the police therefore the following figures apply ONLY to collisions involving injury. In view of this, there is very likely to be under-reporting of collisions which have excess speed as a contributory factor. 
 
For the five years prior to camera installation there have been 96 injury collisions (19 per annum.)
 
For the two years since camera installation there have been 20 injury collisions (10 per annum.)

According to their figures elsewhere, there were a total of 101 injury collisions for the five years prior to camera installation in April 2005, so they are saying that 96 of those 101 (97%) were recorded as excessive speed above the limit. I thought DFT stats suggested the figure was around 10%. So is it possible the Wilts SCP are confused or telling fibs here?
 

Edited by deeps on Monday 29th October 23:13

[Parrot of Doom]

> there is very likely to be under-reporting of collisions which have excess speed as a contributory factor.

Ask for evidence of this, as for the collisions data ask how the two statements can provably be linked to camera deployment.

[Mattt]

Would be interesting to see what the actual figures were for the 5 years leading up to it - i.e. were the proceeding 2 years as low as post camera installation?

[deeps]

deeps said:

According to their figures elsewhere, there were a total of 101 injury collisions for the five years prior to camera installation in April 2005, so they are saying that 96 of those 101 (97%) were recorded as excessive speed above the limit. I thought DFT stats suggested the figure was around 10%. So is it possible the Wilts SCP are confused or telling fibs here? 

Just to make that clearer, the SCP is claiming that 97% of injury collisions on their stretch of the M4 over a five year period were caused by excessive speed.

That totally conflicts with the official DFT stats.

[streaky]

deeps said:

I recently asked Wilts scammers for information about their activities along the M4, via a Freedom of Information request.

For those that don't know, the Wilts SCP target drivers along the M4 by dangerously parking their vans on the bridges roughly between jnct's 15 to 17. They say their aim is to reduce collisions, so I thought presumably they would have evidence of drivers speeding and crashing along that stretch?

What do you make of their answer to this question....

"Please supply numbers of collisions along that stretch that have been recorded with a positively identified cause of excessive speed above the speed limit."

Their answer said:

Your request has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed.

This is difficult to be accurate for many reasons e.g. when a single vehicle collision occurs as a result of a driver losing control of a vehicle which either overturns, leaves the carriageway or hits the central barrier for no apparent reason and the driver is not alleging involvement of a second vehicle, side winds, illness, falling asleep, tyre burst, mechanical failure etc it is reasonable to believe that speed had a part to play. However, with no witnesses or an admission by the driver the cause cannot be confirmed as excess speed. Therefore officers often attend the scene of collisions where excess speed may be the probable cause but they will not record it as such as they lack the evidence. (Except in exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to close the motorway for lengthy periods to carry out skid tests etc to ascertain the minimum speed a vehicle was travelling). 
  
Damage only collisions are not recorded by the police therefore the following figures apply ONLY to collisions involving injury. In view of this, there is very likely to be under-reporting of collisions which have excess speed as a contributory factor. 
 
For the five years prior to camera installation there have been 96 injury collisions (19 per annum.)
 
For the two years since camera installation there have been 20 injury collisions (10 per annum.)

According to their figures elsewhere, there were a total of 101 injury collisions for the five years prior to camera installation in April 2005, so they are saying that 96 of those 101 (97%) were recorded as excessive speed above the limit. I thought DFT stats suggested the figure was around 10%. So is it possible the Wilts SCP are confused or telling fibs here?

Edited by deeps on Monday 29th October 23:13

Where do they say that? They don't refer to "above the limit", only to "excess speed". The figures they give have no context of speed whatsoever - Streaky

Edited by streaky on Wednesday 31st October 08:50

[LathamJohnP]

deeps said:

"Please supply numbers of collisions along that stretch that have been recorded with a positively identified cause of excessive speed above the speed limit."

Deeps,

IMO your request is too specific and leading. I would have asked:

"Please supply the accident statistics on which this policy is based".

Then you can make your own judgement about whether the numbers support their case.

Bear in mind that FOI requests can be turned down is deemed "vexatious", which is a somewhat subjective assessment. You don't have to give a reason for your request, but they might have supposed you are "anti" their policy and played silly buggers.

So, I'd write another letter, from a friend or family member with different address and surname, saying you are a uni student doing research on road safety and want to understand their policy better.

If this bears no fruit, consider an appeal to Information Commissioner.

John

[deeps]

streaky said:

Where do they say that? They don't refer to "above the limit", or to "excess speed". The figures they give have no context of speed whatsoever - Streaky

I did wonder that, but they do go on about excess speed being difficult to record then say "the following figures blah blah",
so I assumed the figures they supplied were to answer my question. If not, they haven't answered anything! That's probably the case if the number of collisions involving excess speed is recorded as zero, which would explain their ramblings.

[deeps]

LathamJohnP said:

IMO your request is too specific and leading. I would have asked:

"Please supply the accident statistics on which this policy is based".

I did ask for other stats too, they claim to have reduced KSI's by 50% by merely sitting on bridges pointing cameras.

We need more time to pass to let things level out, but their stats do show that serious injuries in 2006 were higher than in 2000 and 2001, and the same as the average of the five years prior to camera enforcement. So no reduction at all.

[mmm-five]

If I'm reading it right, they don't say that excess speed was the cause of these incidents, but excess speed was a contributory factor!

In other words there was an incident and some of the damage/injury was related to the speed that was involved - NOT THE CAUSE!

Also they say that where a driver hasn't said why they crashed, then they assume it was excess speed that contributed to the accident - as if the driver is going to admit falling asleep, bein gon his phone, getting a blowjob!!!

Edited by mmm-five on Tuesday 30th October 19:37

[SLCZ3]

deeps said:

I recently asked Wilts scammers for information about their activities along the M4, via a Freedom of Information request.

For those that don't know, the Wilts SCP target drivers along the M4 by dangerously parking their vans on the bridges roughly between jnct's 15 to 17. They say their aim is to reduce collisions, so I thought presumably they would have evidence of drivers speeding and crashing along that stretch?

What do you make of their answer to this question....

"Please supply numbers of collisions along that stretch that have been recorded with a positively identified cause of excessive speed above the speed limit."

Their answer said:

Your request has now been considered and the information asked for is enclosed.

This is difficult to be accurate for many reasons e.g. when a single vehicle collision occurs as a result of a driver losing control of a vehicle which either overturns, leaves the carriageway or hits the central barrier for no apparent reason and the driver is not alleging involvement of a second vehicle, side winds, illness, falling asleep, tyre burst, mechanical failure etc it is reasonable to believe that speed had a part to play. However, with no witnesses or an admission by the driver the cause cannot be confirmed as excess speed. Therefore officers often attend the scene of collisions where excess speed may be the probable cause but they will not record it as such as they lack the evidence. (Except in exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to close the motorway for lengthy periods to carry out skid tests etc to ascertain the minimum speed a vehicle was travelling). 
  
Damage only collisions are not recorded by the police therefore the following figures apply ONLY to collisions involving injury. In view of this, there is very likely to be under-reporting of collisions which have excess speed as a contributory factor. 
 
For the five years prior to camera installation there have been 96 injury collisions (19 per annum.)
 
For the two years since camera installation there have been 20 injury collisions (10 per annum.)

According to their figures elsewhere, there were a total of 101 injury collisions for the five years prior to camera installation in April 2005, so they are saying that 96 of those 101 (97%) were recorded as excessive speed above the limit. I thought DFT stats suggested the figure was around 10%. So is it possible the Wilts SCP are confused or telling fibs here?
 

Edited by deeps on Monday 29th October 23:13

Ah!! so they cannot give any figures of accuracy for incidents caused by speed, but unless a vehicle is travelling at a speed of, for example X leptons, it must by definition be at rest, therefore the excess speed incidents also cannot be assessed, and due to this the majority of accidents involving excess speed must involve more than one vehicle, but as the police do not record any incident which has no injury,!!!!!$# how about forgetting the whole idea and just go for a pint>>>

[tigger1]

deeps said:

For the five years prior to camera installation there have been 96 injury collisions (19 per annum.)

For the two years since camera installation there have been 20 injury collisions (10 per annum.)

So, why are we comparing a 5 year period with a 2 year one? Is this "all" the data, or has it been nicely selected because 2000 was a tt of a year for accidents and skews the figures massively? Methinks the latter.

Bloody people being free and easy with statistics again

[liner33]

I wonder if some of those accidents include the bad fog pile ups than happen every few years on the M4 ??

Just one of those could push the stats right up for one year let alone the really bad one that happened near Membury services some years back

[bluepolarbear]

Sounds like the are wriggling as they know the numbers will be pathetically low. I'd write back accepting their explanatory notes and ask again for the figures they (must)have. Expect them to be around the zero mark.