Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, of which three were Upheld and three were Not upheld.
Since 14 October 2014, offline marketing for causes and ideas outside of paid-for space that does not include direct solicitation of donations has been outside the remit of the CAP Code. This investigation was already ongoing.
Ad description
A leaflet distributed by Brighton & Hove City Council for a consultation on 20 mph speed limits in several areas set out the proposals and likely timescales.
Issue
Unchain the Brighton Motorist, a group made up of local businesses and individuals with an interest in transport policy in Brighton & Hove, challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "Following public consultation in 2012 and a growing number of petitions from local communities, a clear majority of residents across the city have told us they are in favour of reducing speed limits for residential and local shopping areas" and
[that] "National and international research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit −
2. leads to a reduction in road collisions and the severity of casualties;
3. improves the quality of life of local neighbourhoods;
4. encourages more walking and cycling for local trips;
5. [which] in turn would bring significant health benefits and
6. reduce congestion," because they believed that some of the research had taken place abroad and that speed comparisons in km/h would not be relevant to the UK; and that some of the research had assessed 20 mph speed limit reductions when they had been introduced in combination with traffic calming measures.
Response
1. Brighton & Hove City Council (Brighton & Hove) said the consultation had been carried out across the city by sending paper surveys to 10,000 randomly selected businesses and residences; by holding two, three-day public exhibitions at Brighton and Hove town halls where the public could discuss the proposals with officers and where paper survey forms were available to those who had not received them in the post and by providing an online survey on the Council's website which was available to everyone. They also said that the consultation was reported by local press over a wider area than the city itself. Brighton & Hove supplied a map of respondents which they believed showed engagement from across the city with 55% of those responding supporting the 20 mph proposals, rising to 56.5% among respondents who were identified as residents.
2. − 6. Brighton & Hove supplied information which included research data from 20 mph speed reduction trials in Warrington, Portsmouth, Bristol, Oxford, Edinburgh, Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne, and also data from research undertaken in European cities outside the UK.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
At the time of the ad, Brighton & Hove were considering introducing 20-mph speed limits in nine separate areas (phase 2) outside the central area (phase 1). The ASA considered the claim suggested that responses to public consultation, together with a growing number of petitions from local communities, showed that a clear majority of residents in areas across the city were in favour of reducing speed limits in residential and local shopping areas. The information supplied by Brighton & Hove showed that responses both in favour of and against 20-mph speed limits had been received from across the Brighton & Hove area and that a 55% majority of the respondents, rising to a majority of 56.5% of respondents who were identified as residents, were in favour. Because of that, we concluded that the claim had been substantiated and was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
The claims investigated in points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 appeared in the context of a paragraph of text which began "National and international research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit leads to ...".
The national research Brighton & Hove supplied included the Department for Transport (DfT) document "Setting Local Speed Limits," which set out the framework that DfT advised traffic authorities to follow when setting and reviewing local speed limits. Under the heading "Priorities for action," text stated that traffic authorities were "asked to ... consider the introduction of more 20mph limits and zones ... in urban areas and built-up village streets that are primarily residential, to ensure greater safety for pedestrians and cyclists, using the criteria in Section 6 [which followed later in the document]". In particular, DfT cited a report by the Transport Research Laboratory for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and a report to the London Road Safety Unit by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine for Transport for London. The documents reported respectively a reduction of between 3% and 6% (depending on the type of urban road) in the frequency of accidents for each mile per hour that average speeds were reduced, and a reduction in the number of road collisions and in the severity of injuries on A, B, minor and other roads in London. Both documents had looked at areas where 20-mph zones, rather than 20-mph limits, had been introduced. We understood that there was a difference between 20-mph zones, which some of the evidence related to, and 20-mph limits, which were administratively more straightforward to set up and in which it was not compulsory to include the additional traffic calming measures which were required in 20-mph zones. We noted, however, that Brighton & Hove were prepared to implement traffic engineering measures of the kind seen in zones and that their claims were in line with research and guidance issued by transport, road safety and public health organisations.
The information supplied about the trial in Warrington showed that it had looked at the results of 20-mph limits (the kind of scheme proposed in Brighton). It reported reductions in collisions in all three trial areas and reductions in casualties in two of the three trial areas. However, the report itself identified that the 18-month study period would mean that data was limited and that, for statistical reliability, a minimum period of three years’ collision data would normally be assessed. Brighton & Hove believed the results found in Warrington should still be considered reliable because they were in line with results found elsewhere in longer studies that assessed 20 mph zones in Hull and London.
The international research Brighton & Hove had referred to included a trial of a 30 kph zone for the entire city area, excepting major roads, in the city of Graz, Austria. The trial reported that the number of injuries and the severity of accidents was reduced following the creation of the zone. They also supplied a literature review of a number of studies, including some originating from outside the UK. The review concluded that the risk of fatality for adult pedestrians at 50 km/h (31.07 mph) was twice as high as the risk at 40 km/h (24.86 mph) and five times as high as the risk at 30 km/h (18.64 mph).
The ASA noted that the claim was preceded by the phrase "National and international research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit leads to ...". Although parts of the evidence had not looked at exactly the same kind of scheme that was proposed for Brighton & Hove, we considered that it had nevertheless shown that the introduction of 20-mph speed limits would lead to a reduction in road collisions and the severity of casualties and that it was reasonable for Brighton & Hove to apply those findings to the scheme they were proposing. Because of that, we concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
3. Not upheld
Brighton & Hove had supplied a list of the World Health Organization Quality of Life indicators. They included Mobility (under the heading Level of Independence) and Social Support (under the heading Social Relationships), both of which were aspects of life which Brighton & Hove believed could be positively influenced by 20-mph limits. Brighton & Hove also cited the Journal of Urban Health, published by the New York Academy of Medicine, which stated "There is empirical evidence that traffic speed and volume reduces physical activity, social contacts, children's play, and access to goods and services". They also cited a report by the DfT which discussed the intrusive effect of traffic noise and a monitoring report of 20-mph limits in Bristol which showed residents were less concerned about traffic noise following the introduction of the 20-mph limits. Brighton & Hove also referred to their own resident survey, which showed that respondents would see improvements in road safety as representing an improvement in quality of life. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed elsewhere in the adjudication regarding Brighton & Hove's substantiation for other claims in the ad, we considered that readers would regard any reduction in road collisions or severity of casualties as an improvement in the quality of life in a local neighbourhood. In light of that, we considered Brighton & Hove had supplied sufficient information to substantiate the claim that "National and international research clearly shows that a 20mph speed limit ... improves the quality of life of local neighbourhoods" and concluded that it was not misleading.
On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) but did not find it in breach.
4., 5. & 6. Upheld
Brighton & Hove supplied a copy of a monitoring report of 20-mph speed limit pilot areas compiled by Bristol City Council, which reported increases in the number of residents walking. They also cited a report by the former Commission for Integrated Transport, which stated that area-wide 20-mph zones were "the one critical success factor underpinning the best practice in promoting walking, cycling, and public transport as alternatives to the private car"; the Department for Transport Guidance on Setting Local Speed Limits, which stated "Important benefits of 20mph schemes include ... encouragement of healthier and more sustainable modes such as walking and cycling"; and the Department for Transport interim evaluation of the Portsmouth 20 mph programme, which reported that 43% of respondents stated that the scheme had led to a safer environment for walking and cycling and that 36% believed there had been an increase in the amount of walking and cycling. Brighton & Hove also cited findings that cycling had increased in studies of the cities of Hilden in Germany and Graz in Austria. They cited academic research that showed an inverse correlation between traffic volumes and speeds and levels of walking and cycling; guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which encouraged local measures to reduce the speed of motor traffic to encourage walking and cycling; and a statement issued by the Association of Directors of Public Health which stated that areas of slower vehicle speeds were associated with increased opportunities for walking and cycling. We considered that the specific nature of the wording of the claims suggested that national and international research had considered the issues in relation to the reduction of speed limits to the equivalent of 20 mph. Although Brighton & Hove had supplied some information in support of the claims and while we accepted that there were likely to be health benefits to individuals arising from an increase in exercise levels from more walking and cycling, the Bristol City Council report itself accepted that its findings were limited; the Department for Transport Guidance attributed the finding to a study undertaken in one location only, Hull; and the Portsmouth 20 mph programme was a wide ranging scheme that applied to 410 of 438 km (94%) of the city’s residential roads. A report which evaluated the South Central Edinburgh 20 mph Limit Pilot in 2013 found, in a door-to-door survey of residents, an increase in the proportion who considered their street to be safer for walking and cycling following the introduction of the 20-mph limit and a marginal increase in the proportion of children walking to school. Given the limitations or variables in the other studies, however, we considered the findings were less conclusive than the definite wording of the claim suggested. The academic research (referred to above) referred to the effects of traffic volumes as well as speeds, whereas we had not seen conclusive evidence regarding reduction in traffic volume or congestion. The NICE guidance expressed caution about applying the results to the UK of studies undertaken outside the UK which showed increases in cycling, because of legal and cultural differences. That caution would therefore apply not just to the guidance issued by NICE but also to the studies of the cities of Hilden and Graz in Austria that Brighton & Hove had cited.
Because the claims were so definitely worded, but the evidence was not conclusive, we concluded that they had not been substantiated and were misleading.
On points 4., 5. and 6 the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Brighton & Hove City Council to ensure future ads did not make specific claims about the benefits of the scheme unless they held evidence to support them.
