Complaint re "ride to the race" leaflet sent to ASA, from myself and another complainant.
Update: The complaint has been "informally resolved" - this means that the advertiser has undertaken not to repeat the claims, or given other assurances to the ASA. I find this rather unsatisfactory, since the nature of the complaint is not publicised, but the detail is below. The detail of the draft ruling (produced before ASA realised BeHIT had put their hands up) is confidential. Suffice it to say, if you see any of these claims repeated in any media covered by the Code of Advertising Practice, you should complain to ASA.
The leaflet contains the claim that "50 children under the age of still die of cycling head injuries". This is false. The real figure is 22 child cycling fatalities for 2002, of which 10 were recorded as head injury deaths. This is according to Hansard.
The leaflet contains the claim "a further 22,500 suffer head injuries". The number of recorded hospital admissons is much lower than this (around 2,000); this is an appeal to fear since it seeks to suggest that al these injuries are serious. This intent is implied by only this and the fatality figure being quoted, in the manner of "killed or seriously injured" figures commonly used in public debate.
The leaflet contains a claim that "cycle helmets have been shown to reduce head injury by up to 89%." I believe this figure cannot be substantiated. The only similar figure of which I am aware comes from a single study (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson), a (downward)revision to which was published in 1996. The leaflet also says that "research has shown that at least 75% of head injuries would never have occurred had the cyclist involved been wearing a helmet." This implies that there is no research claiming an efficacy below 75%. This is false. The revised figures from Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, to name but one study, are below this value.
In addition, this and similar research do not "show" that helmets reduce injury, they are small-scale studies which *suggest* that helmets *may* reduce injury, there is a crucial difference between the two. They do not prove the ability of helmets to save any given injury.
The leaflet also seeks to conflate the injuries prevented by helmets with life-threatening injuries. This is invalid. It is contradicted by a body of research which indicates that the most serious neurological traumas, subdural haematoma and diffuse axonal injury, are caused by twisting motions which are not mitigated by helmets. In other words, helmets are effective primarily in non life-threatening crashes. This research dates back to the 1940s and has been developed since, the latest addition of which I'm aware being in March 2003 (Curnow).
Finally, the tone of the leaflet maximises the apparent risk of cycling and exaggerates the protective effect of helmets. This risks causing compensatory behaviour in helmeted cyclists which would result in greater danger than had they not been wearing a helmet in the first place. Although this is repudiated by BHIT it is one widely accepted reason why laws compelling helmet use have never resulted in reduced injury rates in any jurisdiction where they have been enacted, and have actually been followed by substantial increases in some cases. Although there are numerical reductions in injuries, the reduction in numbers cycling is always at least as great.
I would seek to have BHIT prevented from presenting the upper end of study figures as if it were representative; I would seek to have them stop using the highest figures which have now been revised; and I would seek to have them emphasise that cycling is fundamentally safe (the BMA agrees), that helmets are not a magic talisman against death or serious injury, and that helmets are desirable as part of an overall safe cycling strategy which includes development of roadcraft, high standards of maintenance, appropriate aids to conspicuity and - crucially - an obligation on the part of motorists, who cause the majority of fatal and serious cyclist injuries, to take due care.
The implication that a parent has discharged all obligations towards their child simply by making them wearing a helmet is absurd and dangerous.
The text of the complaints, translated into ASA-speak, is as follows:
1. challenged the claim "50 children a year under the age of 16 still die from cycling related head injuries";
2. objected that the claim "a further 22,500 suffer head injuries" was misleading and an appeal to fear, because it implied the head injuries were all serious ones;
3. objected that the claim "Cycle helmets have been shown to reduce head injury by up to 89%" was misleading, because the figure was presented as fact but was not universally accepted, and
4. objected that the claim "international and national research has shown that at least 75% of all head injuries would never have occurred had the cyclist involved been wearing a helmet" was misleading, because the figure was presented as fact but was not universally accepted.
These slightly misunderstand some of the points made (e.g. I don't believe this type of study can ever be used to say that a given proportion of injuries would "never have happened" if a helmet had been worn), and this I made clear in my response to their draft ruling, but the complaint is now "informally resolved" and apparently I have no further say in the matter. |