WYorks Scameras Ignoring ASA Ruling
Discussion
You may remember some time ago a thread about West Yorkshire Scamera Partnership having a complaint against them upheld for a poster claiming "One of these (Camera) means at least four of these (RIP Gravestones)"
Here's a link for those who want to read it:
www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40637
The adjudication (Made in December 2005!) was that the claims were misleading and that they should "not repeat the approach".
I was in a car park today, and bought a Pay-and-Display ticket. What should appear on the sticker-back (Where you normally get McDonalds offers.....)
Oh look......
Oh dear.....
Over 12 months after the adjudication, they are still making the exact same claims that were ruled to be misleading, and told to stop using.
This was particularly annoying as WYSCP stated at the time of the ruling that the claims being made were no longer being used.
Suffice to say, (Now my p*ss is back to normal temperature) I have now made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority to point out the obvious and flagrant breach of their adjudication.
I shall await a response to see what happens.
(Yes, it was quiet day with nothing else to do...)
Here's a link for those who want to read it:
www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=40637
The adjudication (Made in December 2005!) was that the claims were misleading and that they should "not repeat the approach".
I was in a car park today, and bought a Pay-and-Display ticket. What should appear on the sticker-back (Where you normally get McDonalds offers.....)
Oh look......
Oh dear.....
Over 12 months after the adjudication, they are still making the exact same claims that were ruled to be misleading, and told to stop using.
This was particularly annoying as WYSCP stated at the time of the ruling that the claims being made were no longer being used.
Suffice to say, (Now my p*ss is back to normal temperature) I have now made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority to point out the obvious and flagrant breach of their adjudication.
I shall await a response to see what happens.
(Yes, it was quiet day with nothing else to do...)
Well spotted AC !
I'm almost sure the original complaint to ASA was by our very own BigFatF'er. He will be interested in this thread I'm sure.
Are there financial penalties for failing to comply with ASA rulings, and if so does the cash come from the pockets of camera victims, or the chief scammer's own pocket? Easy answer to that one I'm sure!
I'm almost sure the original complaint to ASA was by our very own BigFatF'er. He will be interested in this thread I'm sure.
Are there financial penalties for failing to comply with ASA rulings, and if so does the cash come from the pockets of camera victims, or the chief scammer's own pocket? Easy answer to that one I'm sure!
This "ONE of these to four of these" claim is horribly misleading, irrespective of whether they means RIP or serious injury.
Tthe A657 from Shipley station towards Leeds has at least 6 scamera in a stretch little more the 3/4 of a mile, stationed either side of the road. I've lived in this area for 20 odd years and in that time can only recall perhaps three serious incidents, and these were when the road had a 40 mph limit. It is now 30 all the way, which is sensible given the building that has taken place over the past ten years.
Tthe A657 from Shipley station towards Leeds has at least 6 scamera in a stretch little more the 3/4 of a mile, stationed either side of the road. I've lived in this area for 20 odd years and in that time can only recall perhaps three serious incidents, and these were when the road had a 40 mph limit. It is now 30 all the way, which is sensible given the building that has taken place over the past ten years.
jasandjules said:
It says
4 Fatal or Very Serious crashes below. Which indicates the 4 RIP bit above is a lie before you even get started.
Hope the ASA takes action, and issues termination orders against SCP bosses.
4 Fatal or Very Serious crashes below. Which indicates the 4 RIP bit above is a lie before you even get started.
Hope the ASA takes action, and issues termination orders against SCP bosses.
That's the whole point of my complaint to the ASA.
They have already said "cease and desist" (sp?) back in December 2005 for a poster which contained exactly the same wording. They ruled back then that it was misleading and factually incorrect and that they must "not use the same approach again".
We'll see what happens. The ASA seem to be pretty quick in keeping people up to date with complaints, and I'll let you know what happens.
jasandjules said:
It says
4 Fatal or Very Serious crashes below. Which indicates the 4 RIP bit above is a lie before you even get started.
Hope the ASA takes action, and issues termination orders against SCP bosses.
4 Fatal or Very Serious crashes below. Which indicates the 4 RIP bit above is a lie before you even get started.
Hope the ASA takes action, and issues termination orders against SCP bosses.
And even the "4 Fatal or Very Serious crashes" is a lie - for fixed cameras they need to have 4 KSIs per kilometre to meet the criteria - therefore by making the site length 0.5km suddenly only 2 KSIs are required..
For a mobile site 2 KSIs per km are needed, therefore only 1 KSI is required if the site length is 0.5km (as Wiltshire do on the M4 at sites MA0/MA1 and MA8/MA9 )..
As has been said many times, we even have Gatsos appearing on new roads as and when they open!
Four KSI is utter b0llox as is everything else related to a Speed Camera Partnership! They wouldn't know real life if it hit them in the face! They're only interested in One thing and that is self preservation, and they will tell any amount of lies in an attempt to hold on to that, hence the original post - even when they've been caught out they still think we're stupid!!
Four KSI is utter b0llox as is everything else related to a Speed Camera Partnership! They wouldn't know real life if it hit them in the face! They're only interested in One thing and that is self preservation, and they will tell any amount of lies in an attempt to hold on to that, hence the original post - even when they've been caught out they still think we're stupid!!
Ok peeps, as promised, an update on this complaint.
I received a letter form the ASA today (told you they were quick.....)
Dear (Me)
WEST YORKSHIRE CASUALTY REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP
Thank you for your recent online complaint regarding the above advertisers. I am sorry to hear that this has caused you concern.
As you are already aware, the ASA have already investigated and upheld complaints against this advertisement and we are concerned to see that the advertisers continue to advertise in this way. We have therefore passed your letter to our Compliance team, which will follow it up.
The Compliance team does not report to complainants or publish the result of its investigations but rest assured that we have noted your comments and we shall deal with the problem.
(Standard "Whats on our website" paragraph removed)
I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns, and for bringing this matter to our attention.
Yours sincerely
(Name withheld)
Complaints Executive
Pity that they don't publish the result of the investigations. Hopefully a few cages will be rattled by this.
How long shall we give it before we make a Freedom of Information request to WYorks Scameras for information on the ASA's actions?
I received a letter form the ASA today (told you they were quick.....)
ASA Person said:
Dear (Me)
WEST YORKSHIRE CASUALTY REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP
Thank you for your recent online complaint regarding the above advertisers. I am sorry to hear that this has caused you concern.
As you are already aware, the ASA have already investigated and upheld complaints against this advertisement and we are concerned to see that the advertisers continue to advertise in this way. We have therefore passed your letter to our Compliance team, which will follow it up.
The Compliance team does not report to complainants or publish the result of its investigations but rest assured that we have noted your comments and we shall deal with the problem.
(Standard "Whats on our website" paragraph removed)
I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns, and for bringing this matter to our attention.
Yours sincerely
(Name withheld)
Complaints Executive
Pity that they don't publish the result of the investigations. Hopefully a few cages will be rattled by this.
How long shall we give it before we make a Freedom of Information request to WYorks Scameras for information on the ASA's actions?
chrispy porker said:
Just a point, but I don't see the word 'injury' on the ticket.
They could argue perhaps that there have been serious non injury accidents.
Just a loophole perhaps.
They could argue perhaps that there have been serious non injury accidents.
Just a loophole perhaps.
Maybe so, but the ASA ruled against this exact wording back in 2005 as "misleading".
On the actual judgement, (link in my OP) the ASA go into some details about why they upheld the complaint, and your point forms part of their argument.
to quote from their judgement:
"We considered that the text "Speed control safety cameras are installed on roads where there have been at least four fatal or very serious crashes" at the bottom of the poster suggested that speed cameras could also be installed on roads where there had been serious, not fatal, crashes, but considered that that suggestion contradicted the headline claim and pictures."
Alice Cupra said:
Christ!
Im changing my route to work as from tomorrow.
Rawdon Rd (roundabout by Esso station) to traffic lights @ Rawdon two miles further up the road. There must be nearly a dozen cameras.
Strange how I've never heard or read about the devastating carnage and multiple loss of life that must have occured there......
When are these two-faced toe rags going to stop telling lies about the reason for cameras?
Alice Cupra said:
chrispy porker said:
Just a point, but I don't see the word 'injury' on the ticket.
They could argue perhaps that there have been serious non injury accidents.
Just a loophole perhaps.
They could argue perhaps that there have been serious non injury accidents.
Just a loophole perhaps.
Maybe so, but the ASA ruled against this exact wording back in 2005 as "misleading".
On the actual judgement, (link in my OP) the ASA go into some details about why they upheld the complaint, and your point forms part of their argument.
to quote from their judgement:
"We considered that the text "Speed control safety cameras are installed on roads where there have been at least four fatal or very serious crashes" at the bottom of the poster suggested that speed cameras could also be installed on roads where there had been serious, not fatal, crashes, but considered that that suggestion contradicted the headline claim and pictures."
Ah I thought maybe they had changed their text subtly. but it seems not. Wonder what the upshot will be in that case.
chrispy porker said:
Wonder what the upshot will be in that case.
Unfortunately, the ASA won't be publishing the outcome. Would like to know if its just a "telling off", a "severe b***ocking", or some sort of financial penalty.
Does anyone have any experience of FOI requests, as I'm assuming a FOI request to the Scamera Partnership will provide an answer.
Will give it a while to get sorted, though....
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff