CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Cyclists must ride in the gutter & wear helmets, ad watchdog rules"
(93 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Not for the first time, the ASA shows its true colours as an ignorant, prejudiced, car-supremacist, busybody institution.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The sting in the tail of the Nicewaycode...
This seems bizarre considering the ASA declined my compaints against the Nicewaycode;
"I understand you consider the ad misleading because you believe it misleadingly implies that its advice represents what is and isn’t legal for cyclists...
...While I appreciate some might disagree with this advice, it is our task to consider whether the claims are likely to bring about consumer detriment. In this instance we consider cyclists are unlikely to be endangered or otherwise negatively affected because they are broadly likely to appreciate that they aren’t compelled to follow the advice when it’s unsafe or if they disagree with it. We therefore find we don’t have grounds to pursue an investigation. "
Posted 10 years ago # -
My fingers are trembling as I can't believe I'm about to defend the NWC, I suppose there's a first time for everything etc.
No, can't have a normally dressed person on a town bike anywhere near the primary, least of all without a foam hat or coated head to toe in dayglo yellow. I look forward to the next cycle safety ad wherein a cyclist duly helmeted and hivised rides along the gutter while the cars are no doubt encouraged to 'give room'.
Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.
Someone please tell me reassuringly that this is a joke or bad dream. I can't stand it anymore.
Posted 10 years ago # -
So which organisation can we complain to about the ASA ignoring road safety advice from Bikeability, the IAM, rospa etc etc? :-(
Words fail me, they really do.
Posted 10 years ago # -
But wearing a helmet is the normal thing to do. It would be crazy to not wear one.
Everyone knows that cycling means you will probably die as a result but cyclists should make sure not to get in the way of real traffic and take every precaution to make it easy for hardworking motorists to get past you. Cyclists are odd anyway and must dress in an odd way.
Or perhaps the ASA have no idea what they're talking about.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Totally disgusted.
Posted 10 years ago # -
This country is lame
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Or perhaps the ASA have no idea what they're talking about"
This. What we have here is the judgement of an organisation that knows nothing about cycling (being an advertising rather than transport watchdog), and I suspect has used the highway code as its only source of information when making their decision. Their job is to interpret the law, and best practice guidance and in doing so have not cast their net wide enough.
I would be annoyed, but not particularly worked up were it not for the fact that a precedent has been set in the final para:
"Cycling Scotland was told that any future adverts featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position"
Expect now that no-one will take a chance in ANY advertising of showing a cyclist without a helmet, high vis or in the gutter.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Their poor thick heads are going to explode when they see the ads for the tour! All those cyclists in the middle of the road holding up those nice skoda drivers...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh, good grief...
How does one complain about the ASA?
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Expect now that no-one will take a chance in ANY advertising of showing a cyclist without a helmet, high vis or in the gutter."
That would seem to be a valid conclusion.
The ASA did send this to at least one journalist yesterday -
"
The ruling doesn’t mean categorically that all advertisers must feature cyclists wearing helmets from now on. ASA Council, who made the decision, would take into account the context and message of the ad. In this instance, the realistic situation depicted in the ad meant that the cyclist should have been shown with a helmet.But we have made rulings in this area before where we haven’t judged an advertiser to be in breach of the rules on this point because of the fantastical nature of the ad. See Coca-Cola.
"
From that link -
"
1. 18 viewers challenged whether the ad could be seen to condone behaviour prejudicial to health and safety, because Duffy was not wearing reflective clothing and did not have lights on her bicycle."
Only five complained about the aspects ruled on in the CS ad.
Plenty more complained about various other aspects, these haven't been upheld.
ASA bringing itself into disrepute.
I wonder how CS will react.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The helmet thing is interesting.
It's maybe a bit like not showing people smoking in ads - e.g. the woman in the new Dyson ad wouldn't be allowed to smoke. (I believe - I could be wrong.)
Maybe cyclists people in helmets is seen as positive social reinforcement. Showing cyclists without helmets would be negative reinforcement.
So I'm willing to let that one slide.
As for the ruling against showing cyclists in primary, it's laughably ignorant...
... or, at least, it would be if it wasn't just more of the same.
I suspect most of us saw the Jeremy Clarkson photo of a cyclist "making a point" (by being in the correct position).
And I suspect all of us have been victims of "punishment passes".
These three things - and you can throw in the comments section of every newspaper article about cycling - are all part of the same narrative that convinces drivers that cyclists should cycle in the gutter and that, if we stray from there, we're just doing it in order to be "arrogant" and "selfish".
Posted 10 years ago # -
Best not to get dragged into the helmet debate. I've focussed on the other stuff.
Here's the email I've just sent to ASA's press dept:
Could I please get a statement from ASA on the following:
1 ASA decision A13-238570 uses the phrase “parking lane”? Road Traffic legislation does not mention any such thing. Why did the ASA deviate from the Highway Code and road traffic legislation and call part of the public highway something that does not exist?
<HCrule163.jpg>
2 Highway Code rule 163 shows how much room a motorist is expected to give a cyclist. Motorists are advised to cross the dashed white line and give “at least as much space as you would a car.” This is significantly different to the ASA decision given in A13-238570. Why did the ASA deviate from the Highway Code?
3 How many people were involved in making this particlar ASA decision?
4 The complaints procedure appears to only allow complaints about ASA decisions from the advertiser or complainants. How can members of the public get ASA decisions overturned?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Cycling Scotland should be encouraged to seek a review of the decision:
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/Independent-review-process.aspx
Requests [for review] should come only from the complainant, the advertiser or the broadcaster.
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
Really good blog by darkerside (formerly of CCE now of CCG):
http://www.darkerside.org/2014/01/asa-censors-cycling-safety-ad/
Posted 10 years ago # -
@carltonreid Just a thought, but if you express your message as a Freedom of Information request for the analysis and papers behind the decision, this puts it into a formal process and makes it harder to ignore.
Posted 10 years ago # -
While I am very angry and dissapointed with what's come out of the ASA, part of me wonders whether this will burn Cycling Scotland's fingers enough that - in combination with the stink the NWC kicked up at the time - that they take a step back from these daft, pointless advertising and branding exercises and maybe concentrate on something more meaningful. Like trying to improve cycling in Scotland.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yay for Cycling Scotland!
Cycling Scotland fully intends to pursue the ASA Council’s Independent Review process
They focus on the helmet, which I'd consider the less serious issue, but I'm sure others will be happy with that...
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thanks SRD (and I consider myself more of a wandering vagrant between CCE and CCG...)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Excellent blog post Darkerside.
Someone in the ASA wants a nation where cyclists ride in the gutter and dress like bollards, and will ban every advert that threatens their ideal.
I want a nation where my kids can safely ride a bike as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
This.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@roibeard - they out helmets first, but use only 87 words to discuss versus 120 on positioning. I don't think that adds up to 'focusing' on helmets. The order reflects that in the original ruling.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
ASA (@ASA_UK) tweeted at 11:17am - 28 Jan 14:We have a vacancy for a Complaints Executive, full time fixed term contract up to 12 months goo.gl/6iQ9S (https://twitter.com/ASA_UK/status/428124577286201344)
"
"
Clive Matthews (@hexhome) tweeted at 12:29am - 29 Jan 14:@ASA_UK Well try and get one who values consistency and knows about cycling! (https://twitter.com/hexhome/status/428323937504591872)
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
I thought Cycling Scotland's line on helmets:
"There is a broad spectrum of research and opinion across the road safety and health communities when it comes to issues relating to helmet use ..."
sums up the situation pretty well.I'll be honest and say I was surprised to see something like that coming from a body like Cycling Scotland.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD - I suppose I'd just address on the more important thing first (two many "clear communication" courses!), regardless of the order in the original, and incorrectly assumed that order denoted priority.
In any case, great that they're seeking a review.
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Charlethepar; Would it help to get their attention if lots of us posted Freedom of Information requests?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Is ASA subject to FoI?
Posted 10 years ago # -
the same narrative that convinces drivers that cyclists should cycle in the gutter and that, if we stray from there, we're just doing it in order to be "arrogant" and "selfish".
As if to prove my point, I just had a car behind beep it's horn as I was about to turn onto Holyrood Park Road - i.e. here:
Dalkeith Road, about to turn left onto Holyrood Park Road
And, when they passed me on HPR, the passenger gave me a filthy look.
(Is there even room to pass a cyclist in the gutter on that part of the road?)
Drivers have been conditioned to feel entitled.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think a better idea than submitting lots of FoI requests would be to ask that the ASA require all car adverts to meet the "you should" requirements of the Highway Code, which would mean each car advert has to show a driver meeting the following requirements:
1. you have planned your route and allowed sufficient time
2. clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls in the correct manner.
3. you know where all the controls are and how to use them before you need them. Not all vehicles are the same; do not wait until it is too late to find out
4. your mirrors and seat are adjusted correctly to ensure comfort, full control and maximum vision
5. head restraints are properly adjusted to reduce the risk of neck and spine injuries in the event of a collision
6. you have sufficient fuel before commencing your journey, especially if it includes motorway driving. It can be dangerous to lose power when driving in traffic
7. ensure your vehicle is legal and roadworthy
8. switch off your mobile phoneCan't be too careful after all.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Drivers have been conditioned to feel entitled."
I'm sure it didn't used to be like that, but increasingly that seems to evidence of attitude/behaviour - made more 'justified' by nonsense like this.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
