Do we know who put in the original complaint to the ASA?
For my sins I work in marketing and it is not unknown for ASA to be used as a political pawn. ie: you get a competitor’s campaign pulled by making a complaint to ASA based on some obscure element of it. Also tends to lead to negative PR and brand damage for the brand that’s being complained about.

So my guess is whoever put in the original complaint is using ASA for anti-cycling propaganda (rather than the ASA making this ruling off their own back)…

I’m struggling some days to understand how there can be so much antagonism towards an activity which is so good for everyone who does it, the people around them and society in general…

It’s important to note that our ruling applies to advertisers only and should not be read as general advice to the public

Yes, some of the complaints got the wording a bit wrong, I reckon.

[eg. 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]

In light of that reply from the ASA, I think I’m going for a different approach, and actually taking back my previous comment about car ads – if they consider cycling without a helmet to be “potentially harmful or irresponsible”, then clearly all driving is. Anybody able to provide me with a list of all current car adverts, as I reckon I can make a valid complaint about every single one of them on the basis of advertising an activity which kills thousands every year.

If they’re trying to dodge it by saying it just applies to the advertisers I wonder how many car adverts show the car not using their indicators when making a turn? That must surely be condoning irresponsible driving – something must be done to make these adverts equally socially responsible! May keep an eye out for car adverts this evening

Oh most of Car Ads could be picked on in a similar fashion two examples:

That Mercedes one where the fella wears an LED encrusted suit, supposedly lighting up when he has an emotional response to a sound or the rousing engine noise of his car (I suppose they can’t actually show him getting a lob on can they)… How is a self illuminating suit not a distraction from safe and responsible driving? Next thing you know everyone’s clothes will be glowing, Socially irresponsible! Ban it!

Or how about the Jag advert where apparently the whole planet que up for their go driving an F-type around, curiously empty, streets? Late 40-something, silver fox, Captain Cliche, clambers out, leaves his door wide open and then chucks the keys to the next bloke… Leaving car doors wide open? Throwing pointy metal Objects? SOCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY Gone Mad I tells ya! probably best to just ban all depictions of car use in adverts…

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?

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?

Specifically any that mention “Road Tax”

would it be wrong to make a concerted effort to send atleast 5 complaints about every new car ad?

I’d see it more as our civic duty

Not at all. I doubt I/we are the only ones thinking that way anyway.

I expect those two examples I gave each cost a fair bit more than “THINK HORSE!” and there’d be a much more concerted effort from the advertisers’s not to have their advertising pulled.

But malicious ASA complaints, sighting “Socially Irresponsible” imagery seems like a golden opportunity to address all sorts of cultural ills…

You could Bollox whole market segments with a handful of emailed complaints…

So who’s top of the STW shit list?

D0NK uttered » sounds like

how do you do that aracer?

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/news/cycling-scotland-issues-statement-in-relation-to-adjudication-of-the-asa-council

Cycling Scotland has issued a statement in relation to the adjudication of the ASA Council in relation to the Think Horse television advert.

“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. This highlights the key message of the advert and reinforces the need for drivers to give those traveling by bike the correct amount of road space when overtaking.

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

Petition signed and complaint sent!

**** ridiculous.

dammit, just found my email to Mr Parker @ 9am this morning…sitting in my drafts box.

Ah well, I think he’s probably got the message by now. I doubt he’s waiting for my contribution specifically 🙂

The downside of all of this is that I am now going to have to watch tv adverts to look for socially irresponsible adverts. I usually just channel surf when adverts come on so rarely, if ever, actually watch any.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/singletrack-world-forum-e/cpgdlmbifgbhcoigdoeoooakijdionop?hl=en-GB

I usually just channel surf when adverts come on so rarely, if ever, actually watch any.

you do know adverts are the main income of most tv channels, that’s exactly like stealing their telly programs, you heartless immoral bastard!

Cheers aracer
Edit

Sorry, your operating system is not supported just yet.

shucks.

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

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:

https://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1401_appcg_asa_nice-way-code-ruling_let.pdf
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/mystifying-asa-ruling-cycling-safety-advert

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 ‘a potential flaw in our ruling‘ 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 ‘a potential flaw’ 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 proper cyclists wear all the time, 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….