Forum menu
[quote=D0NK uttered]how do you do that aracer?
you do know adverts are the main income of most tv channels, that's [b]exactly[/b] like stealing their telly programs, you heartless immoral bastard!I usually just channel surf when adverts come on so rarely, if ever, actually watch any.
Cheers aracer
Edit
shucks.Sorry, your operating system is not supported just yet.
I responded by saying I found the close pass in the advert socially irresponsible
I'd happily respond by shitting on Matt Wilson's windscreen.
Who's up for taking photo's?
The ASA can influence ads that have already been shown and promote a bit of a media flurry but that's about it.
The Advertising Standards Authority is the UK’s independent regulator of advertising across all media. We apply the Advertising Codes, which are written by the Committees of Advertising Practice. Our work includes acting on complaints and proactively checking the media to take action against misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements.
The poorly informed basis of their ruling is a shame but there'll be lots of advertisers who'll push the boundaries in the future. Maybe the five complainants will have run out of green ink by the time a new ad comes out on this subject.
sounds like 5 complaints achieves the investigation threshold so would it be wrong to make a concerted effort to send atleast 5 complaints about every new car ad?
I was just thinking the same thing.
The first one that springs to mind is the LV advert which shows someone driving so close to the lorry in front that they can't avoid the object that falls from it without swerving into a different lane.
Ruling withdrawn:
The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish our decision on our website.
*like!*
Cheers,
Jamie
[quote=bencooper ]Ruling withdrawn:
linky please so I can share the good news?
woop woop, well done everyone who's made a noise and the asa for listening.
It may be a bit behind the times given Ben's post above, but the big guns are firing:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/mystifying-asa-ruling-cycling-safety-advert
[quote=nbt uttered]linky please so I can share the good news?
http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Cycling-Scotland-Ruling.aspx
...am still slightly worried that there is no mention of the decision on helmets being incorrect - hopefully that is just because they didn't feel the need to mention both issues, rather than that it's not going to be pursued.
ta
That letter from the all-party cycling group sums it up nicely (aracer's link from the CTC above). Good work all who emailed.
What the ASA calls '[i]a potential flaw in our ruling[/i]' is actually more than one. Are those just weasel words, or could they benefit from further reminding? That last frame in the video, with the potholes, needs wider circulation as it provides an explanation of the rider's course.
well done everyone who took the time to comment/email to them!
The power of t'interweb, well done everybody. Right, whose next to feel our Furious Vengance?
Flippin brilliant! 😀
(Having said that, let's wait and see what they come up with next....)
slowoldgit
...That last frame in the video, with the potholes, needs wider circulation as it provides an explanation of the rider's course...
No it doesn't, there is no explanation needed for the rider's course. She is allowed to be in that position (nay, encouraged to take that position!) regardless of obstacles. Read cyclecraft!
Dave
I defer to you as I avoid riding on roads. Though someone posted it earlier. The comment about '[i]a potential fla[/i]w' remains.
What was most disheartening about the whole thing was the vocal minority of fellow cyclists (including women) saying how ridiculous it was that she was wearing normal every day clothes instead of lycra, helmet, high viz jacket, gloves, sensible shoes etc which apparently all [i]proper[/i] cyclists wear [i]all the time[/i], even if they are just popping out to the shops. 🙁
am still slightly worried that there is no mention of the decision on helmets being incorrect
Y'know what? I reckon they (the ASA) will stick by the helmet stuff, and to be fair, there'll be plenty who agree with that. Without wishing to re-open the helmet debate (please god, no!) I think there is a pretty unanimous consensus that the line on road positioning, "parking lanes", half metres, the appallingness of a car nearly having to pull out properly to overtake a cyclist etc. and that's the bit that is pretty undeniably "wrong" in a pretty objectively demonstrable way with the ruling.
While plenty (including me) disagree with the line they've taken on helmets, I think in fairness that they can justify it, or at least present a justification that is coherent.
stavromuller - Member
The power of t'interweb, well done everybody. Right, whose next to feel our Furious Vengance?
right how do we get rid of clarkson?
I actually wrote a slightly ranty email to Guy Parker yesterday (I called their ruling socially irresponsible and dangerous and linked the government's Bikeability doc, and felt an urge to move to Tunbridge Wells...), I'm guessing that the 3,400+ signatures on the petition and numerous emails slightly outweighs the five original complaints. Plus the fact they were just plain wrong.
right how do we get rid of clarkson?
Nuke the site from orbit?
😀
Pleased I sent a rant in now. Sure on it's own it probably wouldn't have done a lot, but collectively they must have made a difference!
Well done all....
While plenty (including me) disagree with the line they've taken on helmets, I think in fairness that they can justify it, or at least present a justification that is coherent.
Ok but can we all please start complaining to the ASA when pedestrians and car drivers are shown not wearing helmets? 😉
I think you'll find it was may e-mail in particular that made them think twice.
Dear Chaps,I'm sure you're both normally level headed types but I just can't comprehend the ruling passed over the above ad! What gives you the right to completely ride roughshod over the laws of the land and spout such twoddle as "...appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane." Pray tell, what the hell is a parking lane?!?
I hereby cease to write anymore about this astoundingly misguided ruling, it's making me go all angry.
Good day to you,
Jamie
Cheers,
Jamie
Ok but can we all please start complaining to the ASA when pedestrians and car drivers are shown not wearing helmets?
The Highway Code actually says pedestrians should wear high viz (even on the pavement)
[img] 
[/img]
([url= https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 ]rule 3[/url])
How often do you see that in adverts?
spout such twoddle as "...appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane." Pray tell, what the hell is a parking lane?!?
According to the full ruling, [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-asa-say-cyclists-must-ride-in-the-gutter-must-wear-helmets/page/3#post-5726733 ]quoted earlier by [b]cookeaa[/b][/url] the "parking lane" thing seems to have come from Cycle Scotland:
Cycling Scotland referred the ASA to the National Standard for cycling training’s recognised reference source for cycle training, “Cyclecraft”, which identified two clear positions: the first being the primary position, which is the default position for urban roads, placing the cyclist in the centre of the active traffic lane; and the secondary position, placing the cyclist on the left of the primary position, but not less than half a metre from the kerb. In this case, [b]the advertiser commented that the cyclist was not less than half a metre from the parking lane.[/b]
I'm assuming it refers to the concrete bit at the side of the road that appears at the end of the video. Could be parking or a bus stop.
TBH I'd wait and see what the final outcome of the [I]"Independent Review"[/I] before breakin out the champers....
And while I don't think the Ad should be banned, I don't think the [I]Nice Way Code[/I] actually helps cycle road safety much, We've had proper road safety ads for motor vehile users for decades, shit scary stuff in some cases demonstrating the consequences of not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, Drink driving, mobile use, etc, but [I]THINK HORSE[/I] is quite a change of tac considering its a campaing encouraging Drivers not to mow down cyclists...
Over the years we've had:
But cyclists safety will apparently improved by this effort:
Really?
Yes, the Nice Way Code ads were rightly slated by cycling groups at the time for being simplistic and silly.
But that's not the point about the ASA thing - they attacked one good part of the adverts, the part showing a normal person riding a bike sensibly.
I actually liked the ads, yes they were silly, that was the entire point- sillyness stands out from the usual Blindingly Obvious Public Information Films.
Did you watch the rest of the Nice Way Code adverts?
I didn't think they were [i]that[/i] bad.
Yes it could be said they were trivialising important things by using "humour" but I'm not sure that scary adverts of cyclists dying horribly would help the already low cycling numbers, so I can see why they did that.
[quote=edlong uttered]While plenty (including me) disagree with the line they've taken on helmets, I think in fairness that they can justify it, or at least present a justification that is coherent.
Not coherent with other rulings they've made, and whilst I've not taken any action in the light of their retraction, if the bit about helmets does get kept I shall be complaining to them about all adverts for cars, and if necessary appealing the decisions. Given that is undoubtedly the case that cars are more of a safety issue than cycling without a helmet is (nice of the MPs to mention some of the issues with helmet use).
What a good letter from the MP's.
If I had tried to write that it would have been garbled rant.
Did you watch the rest of the Nice Way Code adverts?I didn't think they were that bad.
The [I]Rest[/I]? there were only two were there not? (definantely an effective use of funds then) I did watch the RLJing effort as well.
I didn't think they were [I]that[/I] good. [url= http://road.cc/content/news/94378-nice-way-code-shuts-shop-gets-lambasted-self-congratulatory-farewell-message ]I wasn't the only one either...[/url]
The best you can say about the campaign is that it was innocuous and "amusing". The truth, however, is that it was an aimless waste of public funds, based on some focus group cobblers and not much apparent reference to research, which has not improved road safety for cyclists in any measurable way...
OK maybe we don't need the Gore of some road safety ads, but I sure as shit wear a seat belt and make sure my passengers do, watch my speed in towns and built up areas and take my time at junctions, yes cycling perhaps makes me more aware of the dangers of driving, but I'd say those old road safety Ads also had an effect on my conduct in a car...
[url= http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-horse-and-the-python/ ]This is a far better consideration of the Nice Way Code campaign[/url] and do watch the linked Irish campaign video which gets across loads more points without patronising anyone (IMO), inside of 60 seconds, I see no reason that ad couldn't be run here in the UK TBH... It would have saved a fair chunk of the £425,000 budget Scottish cycling pissed away on telling us to be [I]Nice[/I]...
I already agreed the ASA ruling was wrong, and I'll be glad if/when its retraction has been finalised by this independent review, primarily because it will help set appropriate precedent for when someone releases a proper cycling road safety ad campaign...
So I'm going to be on Radio Scotland tomorrow morning talking about this (probably) - wish me luck 😉
Hah, they didn't get to me as they were "prioritising calls from members of the public".
That doesn't sound good 😀
who were presumably foaming at the mouth about cyclists not riding in the gutter, running red lights, riding on pavements and bringing about the end of civilisation as we know it?"prioritising calls from members of the public"
Dunno, didn't hear it - I'm sure they were all perfectly sensible and rational 😉
I was listening to the discussion (rent-a-rant?), rather alarmingly there were a few calls for compulsory helmet wearing as "what harm can it do to wear a helmet?" along with the some sensible points being made regarding treating all road users with due care and respect.
I sometimes wear a helmet, whether that be out on the road bike or out on the mtb, it's my call as to whether i feel the need so i sincerely hope helmets do not become compulsory in Scotland as i'll be up in court every week.
What was most disheartening about the whole thing was the vocal minority of fellow cyclists (including women) saying how ridiculous it was that she was wearing normal every day clothes instead of lycra, helmet, high viz jacket, gloves, sensible shoes etc
When I went to the "Go Dutch" conference in Newcastle, one of the Dutch experts was expressing his dismay at how so much promotional material in the UK that is meant to encourage cycling actually deters people. He argued that constantly showing riders in helmets, reflective gear etc puts out the message that cycling is a dangerous activity.
rather alarmingly there were a few calls for compulsory helmet wearing as "what harm can it do to wear a helmet?"
People who haven't given helmet compulsion much thought (particularly non-cyclists) tend to spout that as "common sense".
As with everything in life the truth is more nuanced.
[b]neil_the_wheel[/b]: yep that's why we need images of people cycling safely in normal clothes exactly like that advert. 🙁
(are you a member of the [url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url] btw? Katja and Claire are very big on the [i]"normal activity in normal clothes"[/i] ethic)
Yeah, that would have been my point too - the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, and going on about helmets just puts off people who could really do with the exercise.
Constantly showing cyclists in weird clothes and safety apparel gives the impression cycling is weird and dangerous = less people cycling
Helmet compulsion is pretty much government backing that cycling is inherently dangerous = lot less people cycling
The argument that cyclists should have to wear a helmet otherwise somebody will kill them is very much the same as muslim women being made to feel that they must wear a niqab or a burqa because otherwise they are open to being raped.
In civilised societies, men don't rape any woman whose face or hair they can see, so there is no need for women to cover themselves up. If we lived in a civilised society, all motorists would drive with due care and attention and give top priority to making sure that they didn't hit anybody.
But we should be clear that it isn't just cyclists who are treated in this way. It's part of a wider tendency to blame the victim rather than the culprit.