ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Fife Community Safety Partnership

Complaint

Objection to a poster that stated " ... Speed Cameras SAVE LIVES ... ". The complainant challenged the claim.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Ruling

Complaint not upheld

The advertisers said recent research showed that casualty rates increased rapidly with rising speed and demonstrated a clear correlation between speed and accident reduction at speed camera sites. The advertisers sent evidence that they believed substantiated the claim. The advertisers said a report commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) looked at the effects of speed cameras in eight regions throughout the UK and found a 1.6% reduction in fatalities in those regions. The advertisers said the claim did not state the number of lives saved; it stated merely that lives had been saved. They argued that, because nationally deaths had increased by nearly 1% but on average in the eight camera partnership pilot areas covered in the report deaths fell by 1.6%, in terms of lives saved the 2.5 percentage points difference demonstrated the significant life saving effect of speed cameras. The advertisers also maintained an analysis of speed cameras, introduced into the Greater London area between 1992 and 1998, showed a 33% reduction in fatal accidents for the three years after the installation of the cameras compared with the three years before the speed cameras were introduced. The Authority considered that the claim implied that the presence of speed cameras reduced fatalities. It noted the results of the Greater London analysis and the DfT study showed that fewer fatal accidents occurred where speed cameras were introduced. The Authority concluded that, because it showed that fewer fatal accidents occurred after speed cameras had been introduced, the evidence sent by the advertisers supported the claim that speed cameras saved lives.