ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership

Complaint

A leaflet, distributed by the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership, was headlined "A BOOK OF TRICKS for those who want to get off speeding". One page of the leaflet was headed "TRICK DEALERS"; text stated "Here are some of the websites that offer 'inside info' on how to get off the speeding ticket in exchange for cash. There are others. We closely monitor them all. They will take your hard earned money and say they will assist you - but if you tell lies you will not be able to avoid our charges! ...". Text on the same page under the sub-heading "General anti-safety camera websites" listed the sites "www.safespeed.org.uk www.abd.org.uk www.pepipoo.com". Another page was headed "THE TRUE COST OF SPEEDING" and text stated "The cost to the NHS for each high-speed collision is about £100,000 - this money comes from the taxes paid by people like you and your family ...".

The complainant challenged:

1. whether the inclusion of the websites "www.safespeed.org.uk", "www.abd.org.uk" and "www.pepipoo.com", under the general heading "TRICK DEALERS", was denigratory and

2. the claim, "The cost to the NHS for each high-speed collision is about £100,000", because he believed the figure was less than claimed and because he believed the NHS could recover costs from motor insurers.

CAP Code

Adjudication

Drivesafe said the Book of Tricks formed part of a campaign designed to help and inform members of the public who were going through an enquiry or prosecution process and it was no longer being distributed.

1. Complaint upheld

Drivesafe said there was a distinction between those sites listed under the heading "TRICK DEALERS", where it was suggested some anti-camera websites took payment in exchange for information on how to avoid speeding fines, and those under the heading "General anti-safety camera websites", which included www.safespeed.org.uk, www. abd.org.uk and www.pepipoo.com. They sent a series of submissions onto public forums operated by the websites pepipoo.com and safespeed.org.uk that showed examples of correspondents asking for advice on how to avoid speeding penalties.

The ASA noted the websites www.safespeed.org.uk, www.abd.org.uk and www.pepipoo.com were included on a page under the general heading "TRICK DEALERS" with other websites and were grouped under a sub-heading "General anti-safety camera websites". Although the 'general' websites included forums where contributers could exchange information, and some of those exchanges involved enquiries relating to penalty point and fine avoidance, we noted those sites did not offer to help drivers break the law. We considered that, to include those sites under the heading "TRICK DEALERS" alongside others that encouraged drivers to act illegally was potentially denigratory to those sites. We advised Drivesafe not to imply in future campaigns that information on those sites was illegal if it was not.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clause 20.1 (Denigration and unfair advantage).

2. Complaint upheld

Drivesafe said the £100,000 figure was based on information supplied by the National Safety Camera Liaison (NSCL) and was sourced from the Department of Health. They also sent information from the most recent annual amendment to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which showed the ceiling of charges that could be recovered following an accident was £35,500 when the leaflet was published.

We understood the figure was based on the hypothetical cost of treatment that could arise as a result of Accident & Emergency, Intensive Care Unit and out-patient care costs and the sum total of £100,000 was based on charges listed under those general headings sourced in the Department of Health's Reference Costs 2001 publication. Although we noted Drivesafe had taken the figure in good faith from a leaflet published by the NSCL, we considered that we had not seen evidence to show that £100,000 was a representative average cost to the NHS for all high speed collisions. We advised Drivesafe, if they wished to repeat the approach in future marketing, to ensure that they held documentary evidence showing that they accurately represented costs to the NHS, and encouraged them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future material.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).