@Morningsider, that's genius !! I bet if you a search for "should" in the Highway Code, there would be even more for the ASA to bother car advertisers about.
They have not covered themselves in glory on this one.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Cyclists must ride in the gutter & wear helmets, ad watchdog rules"
(93 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
@Morningsider Good point. And, if they're insisting on helmets in ads in order to ecourage safety (if, indeed, that's the reasoning behind that), then surely they should ban all mentions of/allusions to speed in car commercials?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Great blog post from "Darkerside", I've sent off complaints to both ASA and the independent reviewer of ASA about this, I am outraged.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as it is not a body listed by the Act as being a public authority. The ASA is independent from Government and receives no funding from the taxpayer.
Although we are not required to provide information, we will always try to be as helpful and transparent as we can when answering queries and provide detailed information and responses wherever possible. Please visit our Transperancy (sic) section of our site for more information."
Now isn't that just lovely?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Has everyone signed the petition:?
Re: car commercials - there should be a rule that they cannot show cars driving on closed roads, and instead must show cars driving on representative city roads at commute hours!
Posted 10 years ago # -
I have never expected much sense from UK authorities with respect to cycling issues. But the ASA judgement is stunning.
I personally think that Helmets and Hi Vis are to an extent "Emperors New clothes",but can see why the ASA commented on that. But the comment on the distance from the kerb, phew. I think I only spend around 10% of my cycling time on roads in that postion.
As indicated in previous posts if that is how ASA wish to play then all car adverts need to reflect the actual, i.e stuck in queues, passed by cyclists, no wild open space mountain roads. Petition aboutto be signed also and complaint on ASA website.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well I've fired in my opinion on the ASA website. Somehow, I suspect I won't be hearing back from them in 24 hours as promised by the automatic reply!
Their judgement - it's hard to write about it without frothing at the keyboard. I barely knew where to start, but I've offered them a guided tour round rush-hour Edinburgh and suggested a fact-finding trip to Amsterdam.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's also possible to complain to the ASA about their claim on twitter "We keep UK ads legal, decent, honest and truthful – including online and in social media."
Posted 10 years ago # -
This mess is ripe for ad nauseum in Private Eye if nothing else.
Edit: has also now appeared on the Guardian and the bike blog.
Posted 10 years ago # -
You should switch off your mobile phone
But not if you're driving a volvo
Posted 10 years ago # -
Nice find. I'm sure there's something in their policy about being consistent.
I'm going to be mildly amused when the next vaguely dodgy driving ad comes out. ASA are used to numbers of complaints in single figures. I suspect there might be some social media coordination to raise that...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Bonus facts: darkerside.org has just gone past 1,000 hits today and the article is fourth on the UK reddit tab (category? Tag? Reddit slightly confuses me). Previous daily best was 650-odd, and that was for the LEL write-up. I've *never* been on Reddit before.
Idiotic as it is, I'm still slightly surprised how much interest this is getting.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's a bit of a silly and twee advert and the ASA ruling is also rather silly and really not worth getting bent out of shape over.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's been doing the rounds on many cycling forums and is prominent on the front pages of bikeradar, roadcc, bikebiz etc. Is even currently on the front of the BBC news page, at the bottom on the main page, in the Scotland section it is a central story.
Likely the busybodies who made the decision thought 'how much of a stink can possibly be raised over this' and are now perhaps reconsidering their stance.
Being optimistic, one can hope this will put a spotlight on the practices of the ASA in general, you can't have them being that blatantly ignorant of the law/highway code etc and goodness knows what else.
Edit: @Paul: The ruling about the ad is completely irrelevant since it wasn't going to be shown again anyway, I think what has rightly caught peoples attention is this:
"Cycling Scotland was told that any future adverts featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position"
In my mind this is absolutely worth getting bent out of shape over, by itself and also in the context of how all the guff about 'prejudicing health and safety' etc doesn't seem to apply to any ads involving cars.
Posted 10 years ago # -
the ASA ruling is also rather silly and really not worth getting bent out of shape over
Au contraire, this is a very important issue. This is media censorship.
I've signed the petition and also complained directly to the ASA regarding their ignorance of, and direct contravention of, highway code rule 163.
I trust most folk here are doing similar.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Actually I agree - no point getting 'bent out of shape'. But...
This is an opporchancity to affect public policy. We all pile into the ASA (motivated by faux outrage or real) and we might get a pro-cycling outcome.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think it's a big deal because this ruling could seriously impact on road safety advertising in the United Kingdom in two areas:
1) Adverts relating to, or illustrating, the primary position would be non-compliant.
2) Adverts relating to, or illustrating, safe overtaking of cyclists would be non-compliant.
The ASA's assessment considered that cyclists should be no more than 0.5m from the kerb and that an overtaking driver should not be required to cross into the oncoming lane.
I want drivers to be made aware of the reason for a cyclist's road position, and I want them taught how to overtake properly.
Preventing the use of advertising for teaching these points unnecessarily hinders such education.
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
Not 0.5m from the kerb, but "more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane."
Which doesn't mean anything. Nothing. Might as well say "more than 0.5 metres from the unicorn ranch."
There is no such thing as a 'parking lane'. Unless of course they mean those stripes of red paint on Edinburgh roads.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Where's the Standards Authority Standards Authority when you need one?
This is a ludicrous ruling by the ASA (OK - the original ad was crap, but absolutely not for the reasons given by the ASA), and arguably going well beyond their area of expertise.
Unfortunately, Judicial Review is (a) expensive and (b) in this case quite possibly barred to third parties. Ergo, a rare occasion when I think I'd like to see Transport Scotland stick to its guns ...
Time for a PQ?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Time for a PQ?"
Remember this is a reserved matter, so it's Westminster rather than Holyrood. In any case I fired off an email to my (cycling friendly) MP Sheila Gilmore.Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Dear friend/colleague,
You have probably seen how a piece of idiocy by the ASA has caused justified anger among cycling groups and others concerned with a civilised approach to danger on the road.
If not, you can read about it here:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-killing-of-the-horse/comment-page-1/#comment-691here:http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-advertising-standards-authority-not-fit-for-purpose/
and the CTC's comments here: https://www.ctc.org.uk/news/advertising-watchdog%E2%80%99s-helmet-ruling-threatens-promotion-of-normal-cycling
The RDRF objects to the ASA's decision on the basis that:
1. It does not understand that the positioning of the cyclist is absolutely correct in terms of the advice given by Bikeability (National Standards) cycle training.
2. Although the Highway Code at present recommends helmet wearing , there is a lack of evidence that this can reduce cyclist casualty (even cyclist head injury) rates.
3. If the ASA is going to oppose representation of anybody who is not apparently obeying all the recommendations of the Highway Code, it would have to ban advertisements featuring such behaviours as pedestrians walking about at night without hi-viz clothing.
4. Of course, the ASA could take note of the fact that typical driving tends to involve not just infringing Highway Code recommendations but the law, for example on breaking speed limits. The fact that this behaviour may not be explicit or even visible (as with driving when fatigued) does not excuse condoning such behaviour.
Taking this seriously would involve not just restricting a large proportion of all car advertisements, but representations of typical motor traffic in any advertising. Take a look at (and contribute to) the CTC's site here: https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/which-car-ads-show-breaches-of-highway-code.
We are not suggesting that most advertisements featuring examples of typical driver behaviour which may, or are likely, to be infringing the rules and recommendations of the Highway Code should be banned - too many would have to be restricted. But that would be more fruitful than focussing on supposedly rule or recommendation breaking behaviour by those much less likely to endanger others – even if the recommendation was based on sound evidence, which helmet wearing is not.
Organisations such as the CTC are writing to the ASA, you may wish to sign this petition on Change.org http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/sir-hayden-phillips-please-reverse-asa-ruling-a13-238570-finding-cyclists-should-be-shown-wearing-helmets-and-placed-in-the-most-suitable-cycling-position-no-more-than-0-5-metres-from-the-parking-lane as well as contacting the ASA directly trough their complaints arbiter Sir Hayden Phillips whose receiving e-mail is indrev@asbof.co.uk .
Dr Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum
http://www.rdrf.org.uk"
Posted 10 years ago # -
All very well, but why cite the bloody English campaigners and not magnatom's blog or darkerside's? (Mine was a bit rubbish).
Sorry to be tribal, but this annoys me.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Probably not aware.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Considering some of the simulated dodgy driving we see in car ads I think the ASA’s integrity must be questioned yet again. I did write to them on the original bus back ads which suggested that cyclists should stay in the gutter and not move right. (Undertake – NO • Overtake – IF YOU MUST)
Their approach to this was consistent with the latest ruling. The ASA really do consider that any attempt to operate your bicycle out of the kerb zone is not to be encouraged. Whatever you do you must cede to all other vehicles as it would be crazy if cycling was actually faster than the completely unrealistic depictions of urban car use depicted in all these ‘nippy’ car ads.
Any suggestion that there is any link between the commercial interests of the car industry and the fact that many car ads bend rules will be strenuously denied I’m sure.
Posted 10 years ago # -
They only had five complaints when the ad was screened. That seems low to bother?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Gembo - I think they do have to respond whether there is one complaint or a 100.
Would be good to have the stats on how many complaints they rejected on the ads as a whole. Anyone know how we get these? Would it take an FOI?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD
Advert taken off because five people complained? Sounds excessive.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@SRD - I'm afraid the ASA isn't covered by FoI...
I can't find my complaint ruling on the website, despite having my complaint not upheld. For all the talk of transparency, not all the complaints are published!
Oh, and don't bother emailing the address on that link (transparency@asa.org.uk) as that user doesn't exist!
Robert
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
CTC (@CTC_Cyclists)
29/01/2014 18:12
.@allpartycycling MPs have sent complaint lettr to @ASA_UK re @CyclingScotland ad ruling http://bit.ly/1fcqhRn."
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
