Cycling Scotland and the ASA

[drossall]

The eventual impact is likely to depend on the coverage given to the outcome. At the moment, I think it's fair to say that there is more coverage of the decision than of the resulting row. Therefore, at present, the decision will have the greater long-term impact, except amongst those who already knew enough to be part of the row.

[RJ]

It's still early days. Let's be positive (for once). Sensible people have got off their arses and made such a racket that some twats with power were forced to listen, and have back-tracked (for now).

There are -ve aspects to some folks having read the initial ruling, but I bet lots have watched the video (even some outside Scotland!) which will have much more positive effect. 

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=74456.0 

[SlowCoach]

I see this just as a holding statement. Cycling Scotland have made a complaint. The ASA have been obliged to refer it to the Independent Reviewer. I don't think the furore has necessarily influenced them.

From the ASA website:

Both sides have 21 days from the date on the ASA’s letter of notification of the adjudication to ask the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications, Sir Hayden Phillips, to review the case.  But they must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant evidence is available

The interesting bit is "they must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant evidence is available".

What I don't see is any timescale to the review process.

[hazeii]

It might be more dangerously subtle than that. The 'helmet as necessary safety equipment on a bike' meme leaks into advertisement creators heads as a result of this nonsense and we get far fewer, if any, helmetless cyclists in adverts.

This goes for the BBC too, as it is apparently their policy that anyone onscreen has to wear a helmet.

[mcshroom]

Wierdly it seems only to be policy for riding while in this country though. There's a clip of one of the BBC World presenters who died suddenly last week that they keep using which involved him reporting to camera while riding lidless on a dutch bike (I'm assuming in the Netherlands), and antoher program recently saw a rider in normal clothing in NL, then emerging from a ferry at Harwich in high-viz and helmet

Obviously head injuries are less dangerous outside of the UK or something

[mattc]

Perhaps the BBC are mindful of where Top Gear does most of its filming?

[delthebike]

"In a clarification, the authority stressed the advert could still not be broadcast in its current form."
Quoted from this bit of the beeb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25960322.

I think they'll continue the ban on the ad but limit it to lack of helmet and hi-viz.

[red marley]

One of the consequences of the (possibly temporary) withdrawal of the ruling is that I received a copy-n-paste reply to my letter today:

Dear Jo
 
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
 
Peta
 
Peta McLucas
Communications and Marketing Manager

Which does allow a convenient sidestepping of any detailed response. Perhaps it is understandable under the circumstances, but it does mean that we should be vigilant about chasing up if necessary when the revised ruling comes out.

[drossall]

Once the revised ruling comes out, they'll probably be very unwilling to revisit it again.

[TimC]

One of the consequences of the (possibly temporary) withdrawal of the ruling is that I received a copy-n-paste reply to my letter today:

Dear Jo
 
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
 
Peta
 
Peta McLucas
Communications and Marketing Manager

Which does allow a convenient sidestepping of any detailed response. Perhaps it is understandable under the circumstances, but it does mean that we should be vigilant about chasing up if necessary when the revised ruling comes out.

I think it's compulsory under the review procedure. Anything else would be to pre-judge the review - in which case. what's the point of the review process?

[Redlight]

Indeed. If they keep that part of the ban in place, it will mean that other people making adverts containing people on bikes will have to show them wearing helmets.

Not necessarily. The ASA does not pre-approve advertisements and acts only on complaints so there is nothing to stop someone producing an ad showing normal people riding bicycles and hoping that no one complains.  So, for example, an organisation such as the CTC could produce an ad intermingling clips of people riding in Holland with those of people also riding in normal clothes in the UK to make the point that it is the infrastructure not the clothing that influences the safety and it would be hard to see how a complaint could be upheld, were one made.

[thing1]

I thought the wording on this petition is superb: 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

I'm taking the liberty of pasting a copy here, so folks may draw inspiration from it if when this sort of insidious censorship crops up next (and, god forbid, if the independent review withholds the ruling)

Cycling is a safe activity. Per hour the UK Department For Transport finds it is on par with walking and driving in terms of risk of serious injury or death. Also cycling brings significant health benefits that outweigh any risks by a factor of 20:1.


Under this ruling cycling can only be portrayed in UK adverts as requiring safety equipment and positioned in a manner as to expose the cyclist to the risk of car doors being opened on them, or to encourage close/unsafe passing by motor vehicles. This is contra to the Highway Code Rule 67 ("Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path") and Rule 163 ("give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car").

A cycle helmet is not a legal requirement in the UK, nor have they ever been shown by peer-reviewed research to reduce serious or fatal injury rates among cyclists. They have however been shown to dramatically reduce cycling participation, particularly amongst teenagers and women. Portraying cycling in the UK as requiring a helmet or only ever happening whilst helmeted sends the wrong message to the general public, with potentially disastrous long-term consequences from the health and economic impact of reduced cycling participation.

The ASA is factually incorrect in inventing such a contrivance as 'the parking lane' to justify its ruling - there is no right to park a vehicle of any description on the public highway.

Rule 152 of the Highway Code states: "You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars." The ASA has repeatedly refused to ban motor vehicle adverts that clearly breach this rule. This double standard makes a mockery of the ASA's authority to adjudicate on road safety matters

[hazeii]

The CTC are inviting submissions for other adverts (featuring walking or cycling) that could be banned if the ruling is allowed to stand.

One of the best suggestions is the Hovis baker's boy advert (features exploited child downhilling on-street, over cobblestones, no helmet, feet off the pedals, etc). You can find it on youtube if you're of a certain age)/

[Steph]

I, em, may akso have sent a polite e-mail, in which I mentioned the greater risk of head injury for car occupants and pedestrians.

[Bledlow]

MPs get in on the act...

Top work!

Dripping with surprising amounts of sarcasm, I thought. (Perhaps that's normal for cycling MPs, they probably read YACF at break-time ... )

Indeed. An excellent letter.

[Cunobelin]

The CTC are inviting submissions for other adverts (featuring walking or cycling) that could be banned if the ruling is allowed to stand.

One of the best suggestions is the Hovis baker's boy advert (features exploited child downhilling on-street, over cobblestones, no helmet, feet off the pedals, etc). You can find it on youtube if you're of a certain age)/

I've got a similar bike!

Pashley Delibike in Hovis livery and original spec even down to the leather pads on the rod brakes

[Pete Owens]

Indeed. If they keep that part of the ban in place, it will mean that other people making adverts containing people on bikes will have to show them wearing helmets.

Not necessarily. The ASA does not pre-approve advertisements and acts only on complaints so there is nothing to stop someone producing an ad showing normal people riding bicycles and hoping that no one complains. 

The trouble is we have organisations in the UK who are devoted entirely to forcing us to wear helmets. A pre-requisite of compulsion is the removal of any bare headed cyclists from mainstream culture to try to normalise the necessity for PPE. You can be sure that they complain at every single add showing a bareheaded cyclist - ans will continue to do so whatever happens in this particular case. The trouble is that most of the time this will go entirely under the radar as most adverts a placed by people entirely uninterested in the issue - they simply want to associate their product with the positive healthy image of cyclists. If they get grief from the ASA every time they show a cyclist in normal clothes then they will follow the path of least resistance and learn to self censor.

TV advertising is extremely expensive - so managing to get a single add though the system would really make no difference - and even if they allow this one through eventually it won't stop them banning the next one. I think the most likely way to get them to change would be to flood them with complaints on every occasion anyone in an ad does not follow every word of advice in the highway code to the letter. That way, the next time Angela Lee writes in to complain about cyclists hat choice she may be dismissed as simply another one of those irritating highway code obsessives.

[Jaded]

Pete, that's an excellent idea. To complain to ASA I think you need the nature of the advert, the channel it was broadcast on and the time it was broadcast. A report would need to add the part of the Highway Code that was not followed.

[spindrift]

The Milk Tray bloke doesn't wear a helmet.

[Jurek]

Or  lanyard and harness....

[Speshact]

There's a bit of me that wants to send this to the ASA but I fear they may agree, to the advantage of the automotive industry who pay for so many of the high budget adverts.

I'm appalled at the shocking Boots Christmas advert, 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Yfr8ZKFXE which at 46 seconds in shows a child, without reflective clothing, running along the middle of a street at night on slippery snow. How could a decent advertiser show behaviour, likely to be emulated by children, that is in such flagrant contradiction to the Highway Code which explicitly states:

General guidance (1 to 6)
1 Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.
3 Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

[Jakob]

ASA are useless and pointless.

[Jaded]

Any useless and pointless organisation that gets onto the front page of the BBC news, or into the first 5 pages of the newspapers is not useless and pointless.

[sg37409]

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

See ASA
Think Horses Arse

[drossall]

I've said this elsewhere, but I still wonder whether advertisers won't play safe by showing helmets by default. After all, their main concern is with getting their messages across. And the ban has had far more media attention than its rescinding is likely to get, so many people may not ever hear that it's no longer an issue.