Complaint
The item complained of was a report on the Government's plans to introduce higher penalties for motorists who exceeded the speed limit by more than a certain amount, in which the reporter explained that the plans were motivated by research suggesting that lowering driving speeds from 40 to 30mph could drastically reduce pedestrian fatalities. A viewer questioned the basis of the research relied on by the Government, and complained that, in any event, it had been inaccurately reported in the item. In particular, the reporter had confused stopping distance with speed at impact, and had overstated the likely impact of reducing speeds on the level of pedestrian fatalities.
Outcome
Before the complaint was put to the ECU, the reporter had acknowledged that he should have referred to impact speed rather than stopping distance. The ECU regarded his acknowledgement as resolving this aspect of the complaint. After investigation, however, the ECU concluded that the statement "Hit someone at 40mph, and there is an 80% chance they will be killed. Hit someone at 30mph and there is an 80% chance they will survive" was also questionable, in that the figures reflected conclusions drawn from the research in relation to children hit by vehicles, whereas the differential for pedestrians as a whole (including adults) was significantly lower. Irrespective of the complainant's points about validity of the research and the conclusions drawn from it, the terms in which it was reported were inaccurate, and the complaint was upheld in this respect.
Further action
The Editor of the BBC's Business and Economics Centre has discussed the issues arising from the finding with his production and reporting teams, stressing the importance of checking their facts carefully, especially when handling stories where statistics play a crucial part.
© MMIX