Dear Wellington Regional Council,

I would like to request the following information relating to footage acquired from a report produced by Jacobs titled “Safety Assessment of Chews Lane Pedestrian Crossing”, dated 30 May 2019. This report was provided to me by Matthew Lear (Manager Bus and Ferry Operations, previously Health and Safety Manager) on 21 June 2019.

I would first like to give a bit of context around this report and my request for information will follow.

This report outlined the outcome of recording the Chews Lane crossing on Willis Street between 6am and 9am from 2 May 2019 to 7 May 2019, and also 9 May 2019. This report was in response to the thousands of red light running incidents reported to Metlink (including Bruce Horsefield (then Manager Customer Contact)) since 25 Oct 2018 on that intersection. Video footage was provided for all these incidents. The footage was gathered using artificial intelligence techniques to determine whether a bus is running a red light, and found on average at least 50 buses ran red lights on this intersection every day. This report appears to be the only tangible outcome from the 9 months of reporting safety issues.

The results of the report showed that Jacob’s believed that a total of 3 buses entered the intersection on a red light during the recorded times. After receiving the report, I reviewed the footage I had and found that during the same recording times for the days of 2 May 2019 and 3 May 2019 there were 38 instances of red light running, which is significantly higher than 3 for the entire week. Again, there is video footage of these incidents.

This raised the concern about the reliability of the report supplied by Jacob’s, as it was potentially not reporting on other incidents during the same time period which skews the results of the report to appear more favourable for GWRC.

I emailed my concern, along with the videos the artificial intelligence produced and the times of the incidents, to Lisa Colebrooke (Business Advisor, PT). This prompted a response from GWRC:
“Jacobs have provided us with an independent expert report and we hope you benefited from the briefing Matthew organised for you with <redacted> from Jacobs. The report gives a clear methodology and practical examples of buses travelling through the Chews Lane crossing giving us assurance that there is not systemic red light running on this pedestrian crossing. As it was stated in the meeting with Matthew and <redacted>, the reason for the report was to get an independent expert view, not to prove or disprove your observations.
We recognise you may have a different view to this and acknowledge you have asked for further work to be undertaken. We are considering our position on this and will be in touch shortly. “

I responded reiterating that I wasn’t asking for further work to be undertaken, rather that the footage was reviewed for the times I provided. In the follow up email, I provided one instance that I had video of a bus entering a red light during the time Jacob’s was recording, but was not present in the Jacob’s report. The details of this bus were:
- Route 24
- 2 May 2019, around 7:55am
- Northbound
- The video footage I have for this is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7wfY1p...

I received a response from Greg Pollock (General Manager, PT):
“I am aware of your concerns relating to the Chew’s Lane Pedestrian Crossing report recently provided to you. We have watched the footage you noted as ‘entered on red’ and compared this with the time and date stamped footage from Jacobs, taking into consideration possible timing issues for your footage. We see nothing in the footage from Jacobs that would cause us to question their findings, or that supports the assertions in your email. We do realise that Jacobs had access to better camera citing as well as high definition cameras which record each frame. We acknowledge the camera position you have in your office window is dictated by your workplace, and that you have mentioned to us that every second frame is not recorded which makes your footage appear to speed up moving objects. However, as previously advised, our ongoing discussions with bus operators will focus on the promoting good driving practices, of which traffic light adherence is one.”

From this, I’m a bit concerned at the meaning of “We see nothing in the footage from Jacobs that would cause us to question their findings”, which seems to imply that the footage I have was simply created out of thin air.

**************

My request is as follows:

In order to make sure that we are both on the same page, and that there is confirmation about the reliability of Jacob’s report which was funded by tax payer money, I am requesting information from the footage provided by Jacob’s for the morning of 2 May 2019.

I would like to know:
1) When each route 24 bus was seen going northbound for the morning of 2 May 2019, between 7:30am and 8:30am.

2) For each route 24 bus viewed on the footage, either (in order of preference):
a) A video of the bus going through the intersection from both cameras of Jacob’s
b) A still photo of the bus going through the intersection at the moment it crosses the intersection line (the end of the advanced cycle box) from both cameras of Jacob’s. Blurs can be applied quite easily for these still images to protect Privacy.
c) A description of whether the light was green, amber, or red at the time the bus crosses the intersection line. Please note that I would expect either a or b to be provided instead of this. A very good reason for refusing a or b would be required.

3) In order to correlate with actual traffic and to make sure that GWRC is not purposefully withholding results that show safety concerns, I would like to get the actual times that each route 24 was in that area during that time period by using the real time information.

4) If there are any buses shown as travelling in the area on the real time information, but were not found in the footage provided by Jacob's, then I would like:
a) a photo of the rear advertisement on all the missing buses that were not found on video. The point of this is to match it with the video I have
b) I would also like a brief explanation on why the bus was shown to be travelling on real time information, but was not found on the high definition camera feed that Jacob’s had used for the report.

5) If any of the route 24’s in 2) were found to be crossing the intersection line on a red light, then:
a) An explanation of why the Jacob’s report did not contain that incident in their report
b) An explanation of why both the General Manager of Public Transport (Greg Pollock) and the Manager of Bus Operations (Matthew Lear, previously Health and Safety Manager) did not find this when requested earlier and both responded that there was nothing of concern with the report.
c) An explanation of why multiple managers (Bruce Horsefield, Greg Pollock and Matthew Lear) have insisted there is no concern for safety after a large amount of evidence to the contrary.
d) What actions GWRC will take to ensure the reliability of the Jacob’s report
e) What actions GWRC will take to ensure that their Management team take safety reports seriously in the future.
f) What actions GWRC will take to ensure that their Management team react quickly to safety reports in the future.

I would imagine that given there is only an hour worth of footage requested, that the time to analyse this would be only a few hours.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

I'm a bit surprised about this extension. Would it be possible to get a bit of background why it is expected to take so long?

My concern is that the footage to view is only an hour long, and when requested similar information (minus the screenshots), Greg Pollock was able to view the footage (a larger amount than requested here) in the space of 2 weeks. Now it seems that the council is unable to view an hours worth of footage in over 2 months. I find it extremely unusual as Greg Pollock found nothing of concern when he previously viewed the footage, so it should be quite straightforward to view and collate the response this time, or is the council actively trying to hide something?

Can I please make another request to the council:
- Time spent on consulting for this request since 29 July 2019
- Who was consulted, and when, and what about
- The expected time needed for consulting for this request since 26 August to 10 October 2019
- Who is planned to be consulted, and when during that period, and what are they planned to be consulted about
- The expected time needed for consultation for each of the questions asked.

For the above, I would imagine that this information is very fresh and should be able to be responded to promptly as this information was undoubtedly used when determining the extension required.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Just confirming that you received my further request about the consultations needed for this request. By my calculations, this new request will be due September 24, and should not interfere with the existing extension of the original request. Please note that given you have already decided to extend based on necessary consultations, then the information must surely be readily accessible by the council and under the LGOIMA it should be released as soon as reasonably practicable. I note that the 20 working days is probably quite a long wait for such information that is readily available, and if the council chooses to wait until then they are failing to meet the standards and principles of the LGOIMA.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for that response. I'm glad that the GWRC is finally allowing me to follow up on this.

As I've been given the opportunity to view the footage again (which I note was revoked from me before), I won't require the information in 1 and 3, as that was covering the situation when GWRC claimed there was no buses running red lights in the footage, as they have done in prior emails. In regards to that, am I correct in that I would not be required to pay the 3 hour fee for point 3, and just the fee for point 2?

There is a chance that GWRC will provide me the wrong footage for me to view, in which case I will make a further request for the information in point 3 at that time, and will be happy to pay the fee if that is the case. I would find it concerning if GWRC do intentionally provide the wrong footage though, but I would not be surprised given prior interactions with the council.

Understand about the refusal for point 4, and am happy for that to be excluded due to me being able to come view the footage in person. Again, this was just covering the situation where GWRC may claim that buses were not present in the footage, and by viewing the footage myself this should not be a concern.

As for point 5. I understand that using the LGOIMA is potentially not the right medium for that. After viewing the footage, and getting the still images for point 2, which will undoubtedly show that there was more buses running red lights than shown in the Jacob's report that you have provided me. When this is shown, I will be taking this matter further.

Finally as for the fee (for point 2, as point 3 is no longer required), this is up to 3 hours estimated. What would the new deposit be, and would I get a refund if this work takes less than 3 hours time (as it is only an hours footage, I would expect this to take only slightly longer than an hour, as both sides do not need viewing in entirety, and only required to get the still images I've requested). Once you have responded to this, I can provide the deposit as you wish.

As for a suitable time to visit, are you free tomorrow? Otherwise what are some suitable times next week?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for that.

I am free Friday 27 September 2019 at 9am, I can stop by then and stay until the footage is reviewed.

I've just paid the new deposit using the same details as in the letter. I'm assuming that if I get everything I need within the first hour then I'll get that refunded, and if I need more time I'll be contacted to make further payment.

Understand that Lisa may not be able to answer questions. Any follow up I will do in writing.

I don't foresee any reason why Jacob's would need to be contacted to view the footage as you hold that footage in its entirety. If there is technical issues regarding your systems that prevent me from viewing the footage, then I don't think it is particularly fair that I have to pay to wait seeming as those issues would be entirely to do with your system. Can you please elaborate on what technical issues you could foresee that would require me to pay extra?

I will bring my laptop along so that I can correlate with my footage.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks, got the invite this morning. Noted on your definition of technical queries, I shouldn't need to ask anything like that.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for asking. As I'm still unsure why this request was extended, I would appreciate a bit of transparency on why it was extended and whether GWRC extended it with a valid reason for the LGOIMA, so I would still require a response to my supplementary request. I continue to stand by my comment that this information should be fresh and shouldn't require 20 working days to respond, as the information was likely used in the councils decision to extend this request.

If however, the council did not actually have a valid reason for the extension, and therefor don't have the supplementary information that I requested, then that would be a concern that I would inform the Ombudsman about. The council needs to ensure that their responsibilities under the Act are performed satisfactorily. Purposefully extending a request for the purpose of hiding information is not OK which I believe is what has happened here. There is already a complaint with the Ombudsman in regards to the extension (as somehow your team managed to view the footage within 2 weeks, yet when asked for over FYI it is for some reason going to take 2 months).

Given that this request is aiming to get transparency about the councils negligence under the Health and Safety at Work Act, my supplementary request will aid myself in getting more evidence of the council trying to cover up their negligence.

I appreciate that you probably have the view that this supplementary request is adding to the councils time commitments for responding to requests, but again I outline that the information should be extremely fresh and was most likely used to extend this request so it really should not impose a burden to the council to respond with the information. If it is for some reason a burden on the council, then the council most likely did not have a valid reason to extend the request in the first place which was the only reason I made the supplementary request.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thank you. As I can see, the council is upholding their anti-transparency stance. I'll see you on Friday to determine how much the senior management team has attempted to hide in terms of health and safety. I will be laying a complaint with the Ombudsman for the refusal of my follow up request, which is related to the complaint about the extension of the first request.

Just a small note, as you extended my original request due to consultations, you should have had the information about the consultations quite readily available. By quite readily available, I mean I would have expected the response with all the consultations to be provided within a day or two. If you did not have the information available at the time I made the request, then you can't possibly have used that consultation to determine that you needed an extension. My request for what consultations were done was to show transparently whether the council had a legitimate reason to extend the original request or not. One can make the assumption that after 20 days the council is choosing to refuse to provide the consultations, that the council did not actually make any consultations and rather just extended the request for no reason except to further remove transparency.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thank you for letting me view the footage this morning. I believe I took 15 minutes to get what I wanted, and am requesting 6 still images. At the estimated 5 minutes each, this should take an additional 30 minutes, making the total 45 minutes. As this is under an hour, and the first hour is free, I would like my deposit refunded as soon as possible.

The images I am requesting are in relation to the incident I reported, and your senior managers Greg Pollock (General Manager, PT) and Matthew Lear (Manager Bus and Ferry Operations, previously Health and Safety Manager) both concluded that there was nothing of concern in the video relating to this incident:
- Route 24
- 2 May 2019, around 7:55am
- Northbound
- The video footage I have for this is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7wfY1p...

For the record, the approach I used was to speed up the video footage to the fastest possible, skip to around 7:45am (10 minutes before the reported incident), and watched until I saw the incident at 8:00am (5 minutes after the reported incident). I then skipped to the correct timestamp on the opposite viewing video. This process took 15 minutes.

From the Jacob's footage, I would like to request the following images from the videos:
- From the file HeadingTowardsLambton/02-05-2019/074603_02-05-2019.avi, the following times:
* time 14:48 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:52:37, bus shown in focus
* time 14:54 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:58:83, bus at intersection line on red
* time 14:57 in video, datestamp shows 08:01:00:44, bus gone through intersection on red
- From the file HeadingTowardsManners/02-05-2019/0900-0800 02-05-2019/1_20190502-074602_0025h.avi
* time 14:52 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:55:81, bus shown orange light, starting to overtake cyclist over yellow lines
* time 14:55 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:57:47, bus shown red light
* time 14:58 in video, datestamp shows 08:01:00:25, bus gone through red light

I'm a bit appalled that two of your senior management team have lied about safety concerns about the Jacob's report when it was brought to their attention. In addition, they then tried to suggest that the videos I had were fake, which is a physiological torture technique known as gaslighting, which aims to manipulate the victim into doubting their own sanity. I find it concerning that senior managers of a public office perform such techniques on members of the public raising legitimate concerns.
Now that I've seen that the Jacob's footage has exactly the incident I reported, only 5 minutes off from the time I suggested to start looking, it is clear that my footage was not fake, and those senior managers either neglected to look at the footage when prompted by a safety concern, or simply do not believe that buses running red lights have a safety concern to the public.
I would appreciate an apology from both those managers for their actions.

I will be raising this with Worksafe NZ as a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, spanning almost a years worth of neglect by the Greater Wellington Regional Council of legitimate health and safety concerns to members of the public.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

I'm just making the council aware that I am yet to receive the information that was collated on Friday morning. I remind the council that under the LGOIMA, information requests must be released without undue delay after making a decision.

As you made the decision to release me some of the information on September 12, and I performed all the tasks required for you to collate the information on Friday September 27, and the remaining work required an estimated 30 minutes and you had a 3 hour slot for this work planned for Friday September 27, I would have expected that information to be released on Friday September 27th. As you have not done so, the information is now being delayed for some unknown reason.

I find it a bit concerning that some of your officers are planning on deleting this information before releasing it to me in order to cover up their corruption that this information proves. I would be a lot happier if the council adheres to the requirements of the LGOIMA and releases the data without undue delay. To me, that would be today as you failed to do so on Friday. Failure to do so will result in another complaint to the Ombudsman in regards to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

I'm just making the council aware that I am yet to receive the information that was collated on Friday morning. I remind the council that under the LGOIMA, information requests must be released without undue delay after making a decision.

As you made the decision to release me some of the information on September 12, and I performed all the tasks required for you to collate the information on Friday September 27, and the remaining work required an estimated 30 minutes and you had a 3 hour slot for this work planned for Friday September 27, I would have expected that information to be released on Friday September 27th. As you have not done so, the information is now being delayed for some unknown reason.

I find it a bit concerning that some of your officers are planning on deleting this information before releasing it to me in order to cover up their corruption that this information proves. I would be a lot happier if the council adheres to the requirements of the LGOIMA and releases the data without undue delay. To me, that would be today as you failed to do so on Friday. Failure to do so will result in another complaint to the Ombudsman in regards to this request.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Just informing you that I am still waiting for the information I requested, as well as the refund for the deposit. Can I ask when both of these will be provided to me? Understand that your delay is breaking the law.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport