NIPs issued on the A20 dual carriageway eastbound, west of Sandy Lane to the east of Cookham Road
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035757
I note you seek access to the following information:
My request relates to the A20 dual carriageway eastbound, west of Sandy Lane to the east of Cookham Road (48114821) and signposts relating to the speed limit in miles per hour. Within this section of road, there are average speed cameras (in operation during the time below)
My request relates to the period 26/12/2023 to 24/01/2024
* During this time, there was a sign specifying that the speed limit was 50mph when it was in fact apparently 40mph. Please confirm if this was the case
* The total number of drivers/vehicles that were detected travelling above the speed limit
* Therefore could I please request the total number of Notices of Intended Prosecution that were issued during the time specified above
* This section of road had apparently previously been a 70mph limit. When did it get reduced to 50mph; and in-turn 40mph before reverting to 50mps if this was the case
* TfL have stated that a 50mph sign was fitted in the 40mph section of road which led to many fines
* What is the breakdown of penalty for drivers caught at this time? (fines, awareness courses, points)
* Can you confirm that there were national speed limit signs in place during the period mentioned above? And when these were removed?
* Do you plan to look at this and consider why thousands of motorists were caught out unwittingly by incorrect signs?
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31 (1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement.
Reason for decision
In questions two, three and six above, you have asked for information on camera activation/detection and NIP’s issued at sites specifics however, we are not required by statute to release information on Camera detections/activations and Notices of Intended (NIP’s) issued at specific sites.
To provide the number of violations/detections and NIP’s issued by a site specific speed camera, would cause operational harm to the MPS.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement - Information released under the Freedom of Information Act is released into the public domain, and not just to the individual requesting the information. While some individual requests for site specific safety-camera data may pose no threat to the prevention or detection of crime or to public safety, it is possible that subsequent requests of a similar nature could enable camera deployment and enforcement patterns to be plotted.
In these circumstances the information requested would, enable individuals to draw conclusions about the likelihood of being caught on camera at specific locations. If numbers of offence detection were released, it may enable the public to predict likely camera deployment patterns. This could potentially lead to individuals making decisions about where it is and is not “safe” to speed or jump the lights.
In addition, there is documented evidence that the release of information relating to safety cameras which generate the most offences has resulted in those camera sites being subject to criminal damage.
To disclose information in relation to NIPs issued would therefore reveal tactical capability and would place the MPS at a tactical disadvantage. The MPS has a duty to protect the public from harm and that duty of care to all involved must be the overriding consideration. It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information which would undermine our ability to detect crime and bring offenders to justice. Specific information would reveal resource information and intelligence that would be extremely valuable to those wishing to carry out such infractions.
As detailed within the 'harm', the disclosure of any information that provides information in relation to the deployment and use of police resources would be a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to commit crimes. In addition, more crimes would be committed which would place the safety of the general public at risk.
Whilst there is public interest in the transparency of policing resources and providing reassurance that the MPS is appropriately and effectively ensuring that their resources are used effectively and appropriately, there is also a strong public interest in knowing that policing activity with regard to the delivery of law enforcement is operationally effective.
Public safety is of paramount importance and any information which would undermine policing tactics and consequently place individuals at risk is not in the public interest. The effective delivery of operational law enforcement is crucial and of paramount importance to the MPS.
Disclosure of information that would undermine the operational integrity of effective law enforcement and will undoubtedly adversely affect public safety as more crimes would be committed.
We are therefore unable to disclose the NIP data by the location requested, as we believe that there is a stronger public interest in ensuring that the overall effectiveness of speed cameras is not undermined or compromised.
Disclosure
During this time, there was a sign specifying that the speed limit was 50mph when it was in fact apparently 40mph. Please confirm if this was the
It has been confirmed that on the 24 January 2024 the MPS were made aware there was a single 50 mph speed limit sign within a 40 mph average speed zone for the above location. Contact was made with Transport for London (TfL) immediately and on the 25 January 2024 the 50 mph sign was removed and replaced with a 40 mph sign. The MPS can assure you that the 50 mph sign was not placed / installed by the MPS or TfL. While police do not know the exact date/time the 50 mph was erected by an unknown third party, we have a statement from a senior member of police staff stating that it was correctly signed on the 17 January 2024.
The 50 mph speed limit sign affected a small proportion of the average speed link which didn’t invalidate the enforcement, if you travelled at the stipulated speed of 40 mph and 50 mph for the small proportion of the link you would not have committed an offence. On the enforced baseline of 40 mph, 78% is covered with adequate 40 mph signs, the last 22% would have been affected by the unauthorised 50 mph sign.
This section of road had apparently previously been a 70mph limit. When did it get reduced to 50mph; and in-turn 40mph before reverting to 50mps if this was the case
The location you have requested (A20 dual carriageway eastbound, west of Sandy Lane to the east of Cookham Road (48114821)) was a 70 mph speed limit and a Temporary Traffic Management Order (TTMO) was created by TfL and came into force on the 18 October 2023 to reduce the speed limit to 40 mph.
Just to clarify, the speed limits on the A20 Sidcup Road before the TTMO was created were as follows. The A20 Sidcup Road (towards Sidcup) speed limit is 40 mph, the speed limit changes to 50 mph near Woodchurch Close (nearest side road). The speed limit changes again to National speed limit on the A20 Sidcup By-Pass by Crittall’s Corner by the slip road going costal bound towards the M25.
Since the introduction of the TTMO on the 18 October 2023 the speed limits were changed, the 50 mph limit near Woodchurch Close has been removed, the 40 mph speed limit has been extended from Woodchurch Close (nearest side road) past the services and changes to National Speed limit thereafter.
TfL have stated that a 50mph sign was fitted in the 40mph section of road which led to many fines
The presence of the 50 mph sign did not make enforcement unlawful. If a car was driven at the maximum of 40 mph for the first 78% of the baseline, then at 50 mph for the last 22% that was affected by the 50 mph sign, the average speed of the vehicle between the cameras would have been 42.2 mph.
On the enforced baseline of 40 mph, 78% is covered with adequate 40 mph signs. The last 22% would have been affected by the unauthorised 50 mph sign.
To summarise, a motorist issued with a notice of intended prosecution / requirement for driver details at the location in question during the period the 50 mph sign was in place, would have exceeded one or both speed limits. For any speeding violation with an average speed of 46 mph or above, the offence will remain valid for enforcement action.
Can you confirm that there were national speed limit signs in place during the period mentioned above? And when these were removed?
Do you plan to look at this and consider why thousands of motorists were caught out unwittingly by incorrect signs?
This is a TfL matter but the MPS can confirm that during the time frame provided above, there were no national speed limit signs in place. The MPS do not hold the date that these were removed.