Study of cycling injury risk in London (FOI)

Request

This request follows on from the previous Freedom of Information request below:

Speed limits reduction report (FOI)

The study of cycling injury risk in London, to which the answer (and what was said in public) gave significant credence, was published on the 'Elsevier' 'open access' platform.

A

Please set out the guidelines established by the Government of Jersey for utilisation of 'open access' research of this kind and on such a platform, including in relation to peer review. Please confirm that the decision in question, about speed limits, was backed up by only peer-reviewed research (in respect of the whole 'literature review' of which this report was part) and explain how assurance on this was provided to ministers.

B

As regards the Elsevier 'research' platform in particular, please explain how ministers (and senior officials) were advised of its frankly most peculiar stance on 'gender' in its Guide for Authors, given that 'gender' was referenced in the cycling risk study in respect of the assessment of cyclists' behaviour. For ease of reference, the relevant words by Elsevier are:

"While sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals that are associated with physical and physiological features, gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men and gender-diverse people which occur in a historical and cultural context, and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and how power is distributed in society. Gender is often incorrectly portrayed as a binary (female/ male) factor. In reality, there is a variety of gender identities and expressions that inform how individuals identify themselves and express their gender."

C

Please confirm whether the above statement by Elsevier, on research published by the same ministers have sought to rely, represents Government of Jersey policy, and, if it doesn't, why therefore credence was given by ministers to the report in question? If the statement does represent Government of Jersey policy, please advise where that policy is set out for citizens to see and by what process such a policy was established and put into effect.

Response

A

The Government of Jersey does not have a policy which provides guidance as to how officers should utilise open access research.  Therefore, this information is not held, and Article 10 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

B and C

The Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 gives a right to request information that is held in recorded form, unless exempt. 

These parts of the request pose questions rather than seeking information held in a recorded form. 

This information is not held; therefore, Article 10 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

Article applied

Article 10 - Obligation of scheduled public authority to confirm or deny holding Information

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), if –

(a) a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority; and

(b) the authority does not hold the information, it must inform the applicant accordingly.

(2) If a person makes a request for information to a scheduled public authority and –

(a) the information is absolutely exempt information or qualified exempt information; or

(b) if the authority does not hold the information, the information would be absolutely exempt

information or qualified exempt information if it had held it,the authority may refuse to inform the applicant whether or not it holds the information if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) If a scheduled public authority so refuses –

(a) it shall be taken for the purpose of this Law to have refused to supply the information requested on the ground that it is absolutely exempt information; and

(b) it need not inform the applicant of the specific ground upon which it is refusing the request or, if the authority does not hold the information, the specific ground upon which it would have refused the request had it held the information.