JJ wrote:
1. All of our sites have had the accident data averaged, so these cover core safety camera sites 49 and 11 control sites. All 49 core sites are published. Control site locations will not be published or they will loose their viability.
I don't see that, but it doesn't matter so long as we get enough to understand the nature of the sites.
JJ wrote:
6. I and steve find this offensive and wonder just why you think you can demand this of us. Allude to trickery again and we will withdraw all communication.
Are you suggesting that you are unable to provide such a basic assurance? It does not reflect on your integrity. However it does reflect on the usefulness of the data. Without the assurance the data is useless.
JJ wrote:
8. This will be refused and resisted with an exemption under FOI. It is not in the public interest to release site specific enforcement data as it may reduce deterrence.
An indication is necessary and will be insufficient to affect enforcement. We can't afford to accidentally include 'substantially inactive' sites. You have already published enforcement schedules - the number of enforcement days per year would be excellent. Other specifications such as 'more than 10 times per year' may be adequate. I expect we can find a form that is acceptable.
JJ wrote:
There you go. I think these figures shatter your regression dreams as far as how we operate the system up here.
You will I think struggle to demean these figures. You asked for them and now have the first release. Please pass comment but don't resort to comments of improper behavior, it does not do you any favours and highlights your struggle to show that cameras don't work to reduce localised KSI casualties. These surely show they do.
Thanks for the offer of publication but please don't, we don't require it of you.
?