ASA ruling on advert
Discussion
[quote=ASA]
Dear Puggit,
[b]Your complaint about Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership[/b]
Thank you for contacting us about this advertisment. I am sorry that it has caused you concern. We can intervene if an advertisment that has been broadcast beaches the Advertising Standards Code by, for example, risking causing significant harm, causing widespread offence or being materially misleading. In this case we do not deel that there has been such a breach and will not be taking any action.
The advertisment includes the statement 'Speed cameras reduce casualties and save lives'. We expect most advertisments to have been checked prior to transmission by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) which will demand substantiation for claims made in commercials. In this case the BACC approved the advertisment on the basis of statistics shwoing that the fall in the number of casualties on roads covered by speed cameras is greater than that on roads that are not. It is our understanding that these figures mirror those produced by the Department for Transport that demonstrate that, nationwide, there is a correlation between the placement of cameras and a reduction in average speeds and accident/casualty rates. Given this, we do not feel that the claim made in the advertisment is likely to mislead viewers to their detriment.
I am sorry if this conclusion disappoints you but I can assure you that we do act when a breach has occurred. Thank you again for raising this issue with us; it is always useful for us to get reactions to advertisments from members of the public.
Yours sincerely,
Brainwashed Goverment Worker...[/quote]Now then, I complained stating the fact that paramedics save lives, and speed cameras take radar/photo evidence of potentially speeding vehicles.
How to respond? (I have email address)
Dear Puggit,
[b]Your complaint about Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership[/b]
Thank you for contacting us about this advertisment. I am sorry that it has caused you concern. We can intervene if an advertisment that has been broadcast beaches the Advertising Standards Code by, for example, risking causing significant harm, causing widespread offence or being materially misleading. In this case we do not deel that there has been such a breach and will not be taking any action.
The advertisment includes the statement 'Speed cameras reduce casualties and save lives'. We expect most advertisments to have been checked prior to transmission by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) which will demand substantiation for claims made in commercials. In this case the BACC approved the advertisment on the basis of statistics shwoing that the fall in the number of casualties on roads covered by speed cameras is greater than that on roads that are not. It is our understanding that these figures mirror those produced by the Department for Transport that demonstrate that, nationwide, there is a correlation between the placement of cameras and a reduction in average speeds and accident/casualty rates. Given this, we do not feel that the claim made in the advertisment is likely to mislead viewers to their detriment.
I am sorry if this conclusion disappoints you but I can assure you that we do act when a breach has occurred. Thank you again for raising this issue with us; it is always useful for us to get reactions to advertisments from members of the public.
Yours sincerely,
Brainwashed Goverment Worker...[/quote]Now then, I complained stating the fact that paramedics save lives, and speed cameras take radar/photo evidence of potentially speeding vehicles.
How to respond? (I have email address)
ASA said:
In this case the BACC approved the advertisment on the basis of statistics shwoing that the fall in the number of casualties on roads covered by speed cameras is greater than that on roads that are not. It is our understanding that these figures mirror those produced by the Department for Transport that demonstrate that, nationwide, there is a correlation between the placement of cameras and a reduction in average speeds and accident/casualty rates. Given this, we do not feel that the claim made in the advertisment is likely to mislead viewers to their detriment.
Of course the fall is greater/there is a correlation:
The cameras are placed where there had been more than the usual number of accidents, so there would naturally be a fall back to the usual levels.
I reported the "Valentine card" sent to all of London 17-24 y.o. as a breach of their code - after a few months I got a letter back saying that it was not in breach of standards, but also that London Scamera partnership were aware of the offensive nature of the card, and were withdrawing it anyway. A victory of sorts, I suppose.
cptsideways said:
Thats exactly the same letter I got in reply to my complaint. Perhaps we should write back & re-explain those figures a little better.
If you're wondering why you all get the same response and letters to your queries, read on:
[url]www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/Publications_scheme_SCPs.pdf
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 5th June 00:50
Jewhoo said:
That link doesn't work for me
I think it should be www.kentandmedwaysafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/Publication_scheme_SCPs.pdf
That makes for very dull reading, but with a couple of interesting points.
1) When I asked Destroyer if he could withhold information regarding enforcement activity and he said no he was lying. I knew he wasn't answering my question, I just wanted to wait until such a time when I could prove it, and here it is
They don't have to tell you if it affects their enforcing activity.
2) The SCPs all club together to release the same information. That's nice.
1) When I asked Destroyer if he could withhold information regarding enforcement activity and he said no he was lying. I knew he wasn't answering my question, I just wanted to wait until such a time when I could prove it, and here it is
FOI advice said:
Two specific categories of information are of particular concern to Safety Camera
Partnerships. These are a) details of enforcement thresholds and b) information that could be
used to deduce enforcement activity at specific sites or routes. In September 2004 ACPO
applied the public interest test to evaluate whether withholding such information from the public
better served the interests of the public than releasing it, and agreed that the benefit of
disclosing such information was outweighed by the potential consequences to law enforcement
and to the impact on road safety. As such, their guidance is that these two categories of
information qualify for exemptions under Section 31 of the Act.
They don't have to tell you if it affects their enforcing activity.
2) The SCPs all club together to release the same information. That's nice.
Jewhoo said:
That makes for very dull reading, but with a couple of interesting points.
1) When I asked Destroyer if he could withhold information regarding enforcement activity and he said no he was lying. I knew he wasn't answering my question, I just wanted to wait until such a time when I could prove it, and here it is
FOI advice said:
Two specific categories of information are of particular concern to Safety Camera
Partnerships. These are a) details of enforcement thresholds and b) information that could be
used to deduce enforcement activity at specific sites or routes. In September 2004 ACPO
applied the public interest test to evaluate whether withholding such information from the public
better served the interests of the public than releasing it, and agreed that the benefit of
disclosing such information was outweighed by the potential consequences to law enforcement
and to the impact on road safety. As such, their guidance is that these two categories of
information qualify for exemptions under Section 31 of the Act.
They don't have to tell you if it affects their enforcing activity.
2) The SCPs all club together to release the same information. That's nice.
So ACPO have said this information does not have to be released, so do I, how does that now mean I am lying? Does qualifying for Exemptions not mean that the Exemptions allow the information to be witheld? I thought it did.
I can't remember what your question was but if it was a request for specific location/time schedule info I would withold it, if it was information regarding a public schedule that just give out the road number and number of mobile units deployed/day then I would release it and do so via a routine publication.
I'm not sure of your exact question but if I sad I wouldn not publish then it would be specific site schedules as mentioned above.
>> Edited by destroyer on Sunday 5th June 23:31
My question was whether you would release information that would cause a reduction in the amount people you caught speeding. Your answer was that all accounts information would be released. WTF? Talk about a politicians answer.
As an aside, people like you often say that you don't want to catch people speeding, and that you are trying to slow people down at specific sites to reduce casualties. The intention is good but the method is poor - you scam someone, they will continue to speed past that point for the two weeks until the NIP arrives, then they drive around paranoid for the next six months. Announce that you will be there and the traffic will be instantly slowed, only those stupid enough to speed would then be caught. Thats a much better way, only you won't meet those targets of yours.
As an aside, people like you often say that you don't want to catch people speeding, and that you are trying to slow people down at specific sites to reduce casualties. The intention is good but the method is poor - you scam someone, they will continue to speed past that point for the two weeks until the NIP arrives, then they drive around paranoid for the next six months. Announce that you will be there and the traffic will be instantly slowed, only those stupid enough to speed would then be caught. Thats a much better way, only you won't meet those targets of yours.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff