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)

(rule 3)

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, quoted earlier by cookeaa 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, the advertiser commented that the cyclist was not less than half a metre from the parking lane.

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 “Independent Review” before breakin out the champers….

And while I don’t think the Ad should be banned, I don’t think the Nice Way Code 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 THINK HORSE is quite a change of tac considering its a campaing encouraging Drivers not to mow down cyclists…

Over the years we’ve had:

[video]http://youtu.be/SXI8-_9FrB4[/video]

[video]http://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE[/video]

[video]http://youtu.be/WWN6kchSI2E[/video]

[video]http://youtu.be/HeUX6LABCEA[/video]

But cyclists safety will apparently improved by this effort:

[video]http://youtu.be/Cl_IzodNazY[/video]

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 that 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.

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 Rest? 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 that good. I wasn’t the only one either…

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…

This is a far better consideration of the Nice Way Code campaign 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 Nice…

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 😀

“prioritising calls from members of the public”

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?

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.

neil_the_wheel: yep that’s why we need images of people cycling safely in normal clothes exactly like that advert. 🙁

(are you a member of the Newcastle Cycle Campaign btw? Katja and Claire are very big on the “normal activity in normal clothes” 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.

In addition to the weird clothes that cyclists wear, what about the black gimp outfit that Jonathan Edwards was wearing in the Pippa Middleton Telegraph cycling article a month ago, i see the point of dressing like he does if you are heading out for a full on winter ride into driving rain/wind etc but to show the image of himself in a fully enclosed Lycra outfit makes me want to throw-up never mind the image burned on a non-cyclist’s retina whilst reading the article.

Surely it would have been more beneficial for the cause to show him wearing relatively normal clothing as….wait for it….shock…horror….. you can cycle perfectly well in normal clothes with a bit of thought put into it regarding the outside conditions etc.

Image in question ^ , Perhaps i’ve just read too much Grant Peterson

Got a reply from the ASA saying thank you for your comment we are now reviewing our decision on cyclist positioning. SO I sent a reply thanking them but atelling them to sort out the ASA attempt at helmet compulsion bobbins too.

Image in question

it is pitiful, the trouble is they are actually dressed very similar, only differences are she has 3/4ers on while johnnie has full length and she has lifted her skull cap up a bit while his is covering his ears. I guess you could argue the fabrics he is using don’t offer much contrast (so it looks like a god awful onesie) but I’m a badly dressed IT geek so I have no authority in these matters.

The biggest problem is sex and our societal values.
Lady in lycra = mmm
man in lycra = gimp

Nah, it’s not a “societal” thing – it’s just a “person who knows how to dress them self stylishly versus Jonathan Edwards” thing 😀

Note how Pippa’s has matched white helmet to white shoes to white bike to white highlights on jacket. Accessorising that is.

While he looks like he is wearing a body stocking.

he has lifted her skull cap up a bit while his is covering his ears

Hard to tell but I think his actually comes down and under his chin! And did he really need the extragimp overshoes – doesn’t look like a particularly wet/cold day.

Accessorising

stop trying to make out you know fashion – we’ve all seen you in bibshortsknickers (iirc)

it’s just a “person who knows how to dress them self stylishly versus Jonathan Edwards”

fairplay

stop trying to make out you know fashion – we’ve all seen you in bibshortsknickers (iirc)

I’m glad it was so memorable for you 😉

Actually I was mostly empathising with Mr Edwards as he’s about as stylish as I look on the bike.

(But then I’m commuting to work in the rain not doing a photoshoot for a national newspaper with a well-known hottie)

I’m glad it was so memorable for you

[url=http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/what-has-been-seen-cannot-be-unseen]all the mindbleach in the world would not shift it[/url]

I just got a reply from the ASA saying they have suspended their judgement:
Dear “toys19”

Thank you for your email.

We have taken the decision to withdraw the ruling against Cycling Scotland pending the outcome of an Independent Review. We have published the following statement on our website:

“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.”

Kind regards

Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson
Press Officer
Direct line 020 7492 2122

Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
http://www.asa.org.uk

Follow us on twitter: @ASA_UK

Legal, decent, honest and truthful

Considering the size of the initial response to this, I am surprised that no body has noticed that the ruling has been suspended? I’m lonely here..

Everyone else noticed a couple of pages ago 😉

:oops:Oh. I looked and couldnt find it..
I was working.

have they published the updated ruling yet?

Indeed, it would be good to hear what has happened.

I want to echo the views above about constant expectation that we should be lumi bibbed up and Lycra clad. I had a discussion on cycle week when I turned up for a lunchtime offce ride sans luminous gear and was ‘issued’ a bib….and then two other from the office arrived, both ladies wearing dresses, and discussing the lovely spokey dokey’s and stickers on one of the bikes. When they were given bibs they did not argue – they put them in the baskets on the front of their bikes….! I thought the organiser was going to have a heart attack…

Good to see that common sense has prevailed!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-27999347

The full adjudication still refers to the “parking lane” I see. Good that someone has seen sense nonetheless.

Hurrah! 🙂