NIP's, speed cameras, speeding incidents and flooding water on the A20

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035680

I note you seek access to the following information:

These questions relates to one of the many NIPs issued for the eastbound stretch of the A.20 [REDACT] We would like to know:

1. When exactly were the current speed cameras introduced?
2. How was this publicised? What signage (with dates) has been put up since a decision was taken to reduce the speed limit to 40mph?
3. How many alleged speeding incidents have been logged for the last 4 days of 2023?
4. How many alleged speeding incidents have been logged in each week of January 2024?
5. How do the number of recorded incidents in January 2024 compare with the incidents logged in January 2023, and logged in the last full month before the speed limit was reduced to 40?
6. What accidents/incidents have occurred on the A20 involving flooding/water in 2023 -eg on the slip road to the BP garage?

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
Section 38(1)(a)(b) – Health & Safety
Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Q1 - When exactly were the current speed cameras introduced?

Section 40 (Personal Information)

The Traffic Management Order contains personal information (names and signatures) which is exempt from disclosure. The release of this would breach UK GDPR principle (a) (lawfulness, fairness and transparency).

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Having considered your request, I have found that the information requested contains a range of personal data, namely that of witnesses, suspects and retired police officers. Having given regard to the legitimate interest in respect of each person’s personal data, I have found that:

Personal data relating to individuals -

a. There is a general public interest in setting out how public servants conduct their business. There is accordingly a legitimate interest in disclosing the names of the individuals.

b. The disclosure of this information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a above.

c. In this case, the release of the names and signatures of individuals within the Traffic Management Order would be unexpected, unfair and distressing to them, on the basis that they would not reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. In this regard, the disclosure of this personal data would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy of the data subject(s) and be likely to cause unwarranted harm to them.

Q3 - How many alleged speeding incidents have been logged for the last 4 days of 2023?
Q4 - How many alleged speeding incidents have been logged in each week of January 2024?
Q5 - How do the number of recorded incidents in January 2024 compare with the incidents logged in January 2023, and logged in the last full month before the speed limit was reduced to 40?

Section 31 (Law Enforcement) & Section 38 (Health & Safety)

Within these questions, you are asking for information on “the number of alleged speeding incidents” that have been logged at different times at a site specific, but unfortunately, we are not require by Statute to release information on camera detections/activations at site specific.

To provide the number of violations/detections and NIP’s issued by this site specific speed camera, would cause operation 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 (section 38 of the Act).

Section 38(1)(a)(b) – Health & Safety - provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or safety of any individual. ‘Any individual’ includes any specific individuals, and any member of the public, or groups within society. It includes the family and friends of deceased individuals, the applicant, the supplier of information, or anyone else.

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

Q1 - When exactly were the current speed cameras introduced?

The new 40 mph speed limit came into force on 18 October 2023 (please see attached Traffic Management Order).

Q2 - How was this publicised? What signage (with dates) has been put up since a decision was taken to reduce the speed limit to 40mph?

Signage is Transport for London (TfL) responsibility, but we are aware of signage issues but not the exact dates they were installed. Please resubmit this question to TfL.

Q6 - What accidents/incidents have occurred on the A20 involving flooding/water in 2023 - eg on the slip road to the BP garage?

We can confirm for the 2023 period in question, that the MPS recorded four accidents on the A20 but only one occurred on BP Garage forecourt, near junction with A20 Swanley bypass. No flooding/water was recorded to be a contributory factor.