03831-24 Various v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Various complainants complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Doing 52mph in a 20 zone: the cyclists putting lives at risk for a personal best”, published on 17 May 2024.

2. The article, which appeared on pages 2 and 3, was a report on the rise in cyclists logging journeys on the Strava fitness app. It was also flagged on the front-page, with the headline “"52mph in a 20mph zone ..... Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain" appearing above the masthead. The article stated that “[a] remarkable 52mph” was “the record logged on Strava, the GPS fitness tracker, for a 0.63km stretch of road: a 20mph zone hugging the Thames.” It went on to report that "competitive users of apps such as Strava are racing for their personal bests – and putting other road users at serious risk of injury."

3. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “52mph in a 20mph zone: How cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps”. This version of the article was published on 16 May 2024.

4. IPSO received 96 complaints about the article. The complainants said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it was not possible that a cyclist would be able to reach a speed of 52 miles per hour on the stretch of road referenced in the article. Complainants said that this figure, which came from data produced by Strava, was clearly the result of an error: 52 miles per hour was not a speed which could be reached on a road by bike. In fact, they said, the top-speed of Olympic cyclists in a velodrome cycle was around 45 miles per hour.

5. The newspaper said the article was a story of significant public interest, drawing attention to the risks posed to the public by dangerous cycling, and the way logging competitive speeds on fitness apps was – regardless of the accuracy of the speeds as they appeared on the apps – fuelling competition amongst cyclists and endangering the wider public. It said it was made clear that the data which formed the basis of the headline, front-page flag and article had been taken from the Strava app. It said that it could not independently authenticate Strava’s data, which could be affected by a number of factors; for example, dead spots in the GPS signal. It argued any such factors cannot be known by Strava and so the data must be taken on trust. It placed its reporting in the wider discussion of fitness apps and safety, citing concerns expressed by the Royal Parks, people who have lost members of their families, and MPs, that fitness apps encourage riding at dangerous speeds.

6. Notwithstanding the above, on 23 May, the publication published a print correction in its Corrections & Clarifications column. The correction read:

“An article ‘52mph in a 20mph zone: How cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps’ (May, 17) referred to data taken from the Strava app. Strava has now removed some of the data included in the article and headline, which appear to have been erroneous. Data is uploaded to Strava by users, either automatically or manually, and cannot be checked or independently verified; the data is accepted on trust. We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record.”

7. On 22 May, the publication amended the online article as follows: it removed the references to the 52mph speed; it added a reference to the fact the data posted to Strava has to be taken on trust and cannot be independently verified; and it amended the headline to remove any reference to data. It also published the following underneath the updated article:

“This article and its headline have been amended to remove speeds recorded on Strava which Strava has now deleted and which appear to have been erroneous. Data is uploaded to Strava by users, either automatically or manually, and cannot be checked or independently verified; the data is accepted on trust. We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record.”

On the same date, in its online Corrections & Clarifications column, it published a correction which read:

“An article ‘52mph in a 20mph zone: How cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps’ (May, 17) referred to data taken from the Strava app. Strava has now removed some of the data included in the article and headline, which appear to have been erroneous. Data is uploaded to Strava by users, either automatically or manually, and cannot be checked or independently verified; the data is accepted on trust. We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record.”

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact

Findings of the Committee

8. The newspaper did not ultimately dispute that the Strava data was inaccurate. The publication had said that it was not possible to verify the data from the app, which the Committee accepted appeared to be the case. However, the original article had not made clear the data was unverified, and the headlines – both in print and online – had referenced figures without qualification or any reference to the fact that they could not be independently verified. Further this, the figure of 52mph was – on the face of it – a questionable figure, given how large it was, and further steps should have been taken to either verify the figure – for instance, by contacting Strava – or to appropriately distinguish it as an unverified figure. As such, the Committee did not consider the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the headline or text of the article, and there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

9. The inaccurate information effectively formed the basis of the article and featured prominently in the headline, the front-page flag, and the text of the article itself. The error was therefore significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

10. The publication had published a correction. In print, this had appeared in its designated Corrections and Clarifications column, six days after the original article’s publication. The online version of the article had been amended to include a footnote correction and to remove the disputed data, and a standalone correction had appeared in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column, five days after publication.

11. While the figure had been referenced on the front-page, the Committee was mindful of multiple factors when considering whether the position of the proposed correction was sufficiently prominent. It noted that front-page and front-cover corrections are generally reserved for more serious cases, wherever the breach appears in the publication. Due prominence is not the same as equal prominence.

12. Taking into account the facts of this case, including the fact that the inaccuracy arose from a single unverified figure and the prompt steps taken by the publication to resolve complainants’ concerns, the Committee did not consider that a front-page correction or flag was appropriate. The Committee was satisfied that the corrections were therefore published promptly, and with due prominence. Turning to the wording of the corrections, both made clear the correct position was that the data was “erroneous” and that it had been taken from a source which could not be verified. The Committee was therefore satisfied they put the correct position on record. The corrections therefore were sufficient under Clause 1 (ii) and there was no further breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

14. The published corrections put the correct position on record and were offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 22/05/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/07/2024