[Closed] The ASA say cyclists must ride in the gutter, must wear helmets

The ruling is here

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/1/Cycling-Scotland/SHP_ADJ_238570.aspx

Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.

Anyone want to crowdfind a cycling advert, to run in a national newspaper? It'll be a very simple image, with a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane, sans helmet, with one middle finger held aloft 😉

"the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic" - What an unbelievable misunderstanding of the primary position.

What's even worse is that the public can't complain about the ruling - only the advertiser or one of the original complainants can do that. We should be lobbying Cycling Scotland to get this reviewed.

Yes, just noticed that - not very accountable are they?

I read that ruling. Helmets aside, it seems that the ASA are objecting to a car having to overtake properly. Mad.

This is just nuts... We don't have a formal right to complain but that doesn't mean we can't complain, just to let them know they've ****ed up. But is there a better way?

That sounds very much like the Highway Code just got ignored completely?

Helmets are a constant bone of contention and really need to modded as flamebait whenever they crop up. I doubt the ASA are aware of this though. I like helmets, personally but they're a free choice and I'm good with this. I particularly detest the growing expectation that cyclists should dress head to foot in hi vis.

This sounds like a very poor piece of work by the ASA.

Please politely contact the ASA:

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-killing-of-the-horse/

I'm sending them a jobby in a box

If anyone wishes to start a crowd funding campaign for an advert i'd chip in £50, i dunno bout anyone else but if helmets became compulsory then i'd be getting prosecuted every time i leave the house on the bike.

To be clear, the ASA thinks this is wrong:

[img] [/img]

I've written to the independent reviewer. He's not supposed to investigate decisions unless asked by the parties involved, but perhaps if enough people tell him it's a stupid decision he'll look into it.

Wow!

I wonder if Cycling Scotland feel like a fight! If it offers them any reassurance, I (as a non member) would sign up if they chose to fight it!

" The ASA's ruling added: "We were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane "

It's probably because she's about to overtake the person standing there taking a photos FFS.....

Studies have shown that feline protection is highly effective:

I thought the Nice Way Code had faded ingloriously from view, but here it is, still causing problems for cyclists. Ridiculous ruling by the ASA, however.

It's probably because she's about to overtake the person standing there taking a photos FFS.....

+1, in fact isnt it a still from a video, in which case she's probably passing a parked Range Rover with cameraman and kit hanging out of the tailgate...

Unbelievable! So, the ASA are effectively overuling the law. I wonder why 5 people complained in the first place and what their real reasons were?

Looks like maybe a van from the shadow on the ground?

I personally like how the ASA have made lengthy references to the highway code regarding helmets. Then ignored what it says about overtaking cyclists.

I didn't see anything on the ASA website that said I couldn't send them an email using their contact form, so I did:

I have read the report on the BBC website regarding your banning of a cycling safety advert. I am shocked and appalled at your action. It is not for you to decide where in the road it is safe to ride, or how. I personally wear a helmet, but many cyclists feel safer without one, because it promotes more socially acceptable response from drivers. Driver behaviour is the big hazard for cyclists. Cyclists are fed up with drivers who think they own the road, and car advertising encourages drivers to think like this. Can I assume you will in future ban any advert for a car that promotes any attributes or features other than safe driving?

Hmmm, think I'll be writing them an e-mail today.

Will also be looking at car adverts and complaining about all these images of open roads and freedom where the reality it's traffic jams and road rage....the current Leon estate advert, for example.

"[i]she's probably passing a parked Range Rover[/i]"

The image above is a frame from a video. The camera is on a moving vehicle in front of the bicycle.

You can watch the video here:
> http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-killing-of-the-horse/

its a little unfair to call that poor girl a horse.

Email sent.

This was the shocking bit for me in the BBC news article:
[i]But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible".[/i]

I can't agree that not wearing a helmet to ride to the shops is socially irresponsible. The only person's safety it could really influence is your own - and then only in the highly improbable event that you have a crash.

Wearing a helmet to ride to the shops makes sense if you already have a helmet hanging from your bars and ready to go. However if not having a helmet to hand means you take the car instead hence increasing car traffic and congestion on the road and causing air pollution as well as making it more unpleasant for pedestrians and cyclists then that would be more socially irresponsible.

Cycling scotland wont do anything because it has the budget to buy 2 deep fried mars bars and an iron bru a year.

complaint sent, What a stupid ruling. Encouraging cyclists to ride in the door zone, and the gutter WTF!!!

unbelieveable.

Email sent to Guy Paker, CE of the ASA.

guyp@asa.org.uk

Dear Mr Parker,

I am astounded that the ASA think it within their realm to adjudicate on what is or is not safe cycling with so little knowledge or understanding of the matter.

While the ASA admit on one hand that "UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb", on the other the ASA then go on to adjudicate that showing cyclists doing either is
"socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety" and so should be prohibited. Since when did the ASA become the arbiter of social responsibility and health and safety?

The extent of the adjudicator's research appears to have got as far as a Daily Mail article and no further. Perhaps they could read a copy of Cyclecraft by John Franklin, or any of the research papers published on the rates of helmet use.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/

Comments like "when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic" really highlight the astonishing lack of knowledge of the issue and make it necessary for the ASA to amend it's adjudication.

It is disappointing that access to the Appeal process is so heavily restricted as there is a substantial body of people who feel the ASA has reached far beyond the limit's of it's role making an ill-informed decision contrary to best evidence and practice.

Perhaps the ASA's Chair, Lord Smith, who is also patron of Sutrans the cycling and green transport organisation, may be able to assist in educating the adjudicator.

Yours sincerely,
--

\/ @ Stoner 🙂

comment sent via website:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have just read your adjudication on Cycling Scotland's 'Think Horse' advert. Clearly you have never ridden a bike on a road, or read the highway code (and it's companion book: Cyclecraft).

To suggest that promoting the primary position could be deemed 'socially irresponsible' is ironic in the extreme. The primary position, as backed up by both Cyclecraft and the highway code is the best and safest position for cyclists to hold, since it virtually guarantees visibility and forces drivers (note: not cars, but drivers - cars do not make decisions) to treat cyclists as part of traffic and to overtake them in accordance with both the law and a general respect for human life.

Furthermore, I'd like to take issue with your premise that cars *must* overtake bikes regardless of the road situation. You say: "...when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic...". The driver did not *have* to choose to overtake the cyclist at that point, and if it was unsafe for the car to cross into the other lane then they absolutely *should not* be overtaking there, since there is demonstrably not enough room for the manoeuvre to be completed safely with respect to all parties.

I live in hope that you will reverse this decision, or at least revise the wording of your socially irresponsible ruling.

Regards

Stoner, you mind if I use that text to send one myself?

ivesent similar to stoner - how ever slightly less rational - no abuse but i suggested both texts and may have touched on "the board looking biased having being held up in their boxes by cyclists adopting the correct position at some point "

I don't mind, Dan, but I think it's always better to have 100 unique letters than 1000 facsimiles arrive on a CEOs intray. They can be easily dismiss electronic boiler plate as just a kind of lazy spamming.

I've sent a message along the same lines to the Independent Reviewer of ASA decisions, which is the next step for Cycling Scotland if they want to take it further. Copied to the ASA, obviously, for all the good it would do.

indrev@asbof.co.uk

I've written to them, I thought the adverts were great.

I've written and asked two specific questions so they can't just send me a standard 'we're sorry you're not happy' response.

I've emailed both the ASA head and the independent reviewer - writing your own letter is best as it doesn't look like spamming, but this is what I wrote:

I am writing to ask you to consider investigating the above decision made by the ASA in respect of a Cycling Scotland television advert. The ASA's decision is contrary to both the law and accepted good cycling practice.

On the first point, wearing a helmet or safety clothing is not a legal requirement when riding a bicycle. When promoting cycling to non-cyclists, it is generally accepted that when "normal" people are shown cycling it makes a big difference to the likelihood of people taking up cycling, and the health benefits of doing so far outweigh the risks.

On the second point, the side of the road is not a safe place to cycle. The side of the road is rougher. With more obstacles, and puts the rider at greater risk of being squeezed at pinch points. The primary riding position, as shown in the advert, is accepted by all cycle trainers as the safest place to cycle. The ASA's comment that the overtaking car is forced into the opposite lane shows a shocking misunderstanding of traffic law and good practice, as that is exactly what should happen when a car overtakes a bicycle safely.

So I ask you to please investigate and reverse this ASA decision which, if upheld, would mean cycling adverts in future have to portray dangerous behaviour.

angry of brentford here, but i cant find the asa email to object to complain please help a numpty

Independent reviewer: indrev@asbof.co.uk
ASA head: guyp@asa.org.uk (courtesy of Stoner)

They seem to think that it was an advert to show cyclists how to be properly overtaken by a car (wear a helmet and ride in the gutter) rather than for car drivers.

Very depressing.

If I recall correctly, the volume of complaints relating to specific ads that the ASA receive is lower than one might expect, and from my experience they are a very communicative organisation (albeit with an air of finality accompanying their rulings). However, the agency supplying the ad for approval will have been given opportunity to respond and give their side of the story - seems odd that this hasn't happened, particularly given the irrefutable evidence against the decision. Perhaps they're holding out for the PR shitstorm?

In short, I'd imagine even a few emails will set off a warning light somewhere.

Email to the chief exec below - the links do work in the original email... the research articles are the ones in Stoner's post

Dear Guy,

Your recent ruling that "cyclists should ride in the gutter" referenced in this Bikebiz article appears to be at odds with UK-wide national standards for cycle training, which are backed by the UK and Scottish Government, and is also in variance with Highway Code rule 163.

Whilst i recognise the ASAs role in ensuring truthfulness in advertising, I don't believe they have the experience or ability to rule on cycling and road safety. Nor should they be making rulings based on what appears to be nothing more than keeping tabloid readers happy, and ignoring the large amount of research in this area

Research articles
Further research

As chief executive, your role is generally to look at the bigger picture rather than the details. This ruling is an obvious case where the bigger picture - benefits of cycling to health, poor driving standards, etc - have obviously been missed in favour of what appears to be a biased decision that will be detrimental to all road users, encourages the ignorance of the highway code, and is outside of your scope.

Please review the ruling with the adjudicator. Your chairman, Lord Smith is a patron to Sustrans, so this would be an ideal place to start with building up a bigger picture to help in this review.

[url= http://www.cyclingscotland.org/news/cycling-scotland-issues-statement-in-relation-to-adjudication-of-the-asa-council ]Cycling Scotland statement[/url]

“We are disappointed with the adjudication of the ASA Council and the statement that future ads should always feature cyclists wearing helmets. Our guidance on the issue of helmets and safety attire for adults on bicycles mirrors the legal requirements set out for cyclists in the Highway Code. 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 and the ad reflected this diversity by showing cyclists both with and without helmets.

The advert was produced in close consultation with an experienced cycle training instructor who carefully considered the use of road positioning and safety attire required for cycling in the daytime. The road positioning in the advert complies with the National Standard for cycle training, which is referenced within the Highway Code. The driver of the car in the advert also follows the Highway Code, which states that vulnerable road users, such as those on a bicycle, should be given at least as much space as you would give a car when overtaking.

Cycling Scotland fully intends to pursue the ASA Council’s Independent Review process open to us.”

). However, the agency supplying the ad for approval will have been given opportunity to respond and give their side of the story - seems odd that this hasn't happened, particularly given the irrefutable evidence against the decision. Perhaps they're holding out for the PR shitstorm?

The judgement is ridiculous. It's not even primary vs secondary, it's gutter hugging and kerb scraping vs secondary! 50cm.... To have my wheels within 50cm of the kerb on my MTB I'd have to have my left hand [b]no more than 15 cm[/b] away from the kerb line. So that's ~15cm between the end of the bar and railings and lamposts on the edge of the pavement.

The secondary road position (roughly 1 metre to the left of the traffic flow and [b]not less than 0.5 metres[/b] to the edge of the road) may be appropriate if the road is wide enough to allow safe overtaking, and the rider’s safety is not reduced by riding in this position

I have just smeared dog plops on an email, and sent it in.

Not my best plan.

*wipes screen*

But they were paid to do a short term 'awareness campaign' by either the Scottish govt or Cycling Scotland. The ads were never going to be repeated so why would the ad agency worry about fighting the ruling? Time spent doing this is wasted (for them, from a business point of view).

This is all conjecture, but in the interests of keeping the conversation going... because a) they shouldn't be creating ads at the clients expense that then get pulled b) they may have a PR arm that can bill for the hours promoting the ruling, indeed the PR may generate more, longer lasting noise than the 'short term' TV ads, and c) the ASA could have offered this view at an earlier stage if accurate storyboards etc had been shared.

Don't hold me to 'c)' though - it's been a while since I've been involved in this sort of thing and don't know how accessible this sort of input is these days.

But let's not get distracted from the fact that, yes, it's a ridiculous ruling.