- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Nice Way Code screenshotASA bans safety advert showing helmetless cyclist for being socially irresponsible +Video
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint against an advertisement from Cycling Scotland that showed a woman cycling without a helmet and riding in primary position in the road, saying it broke rules relating to “social responsibility” and “harm and offence.” Cycling Scotland plans to appeal the decision.
Advertising watchdog ASA also says that cyclists in TV adverts must wear helmets, and also suggests that cyclists should ride no more than 0.5 metres from the kerb – neither of which are required by the law.
The ASA judgement would also appear to cast doubt on the social responsibility of cycle safety campaigns mounted by Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport (DfT) which have also featured helmetless cyclists.
Inevitably, the decision has prompted a wave of critcism of the ASA - @asa_UK - on Twitter and elsewhere, with national cyclists' organisation CTC saying it "is deeply concerned at the effect such a ruling could have on the future popularity of cycling, by increasing public fears that cycling is more 'dangerous' than it really is."
The advert in question, called ‘See Cyclist. Think Horse’ formed part of the Scottish Government’s £425,000 Nice Way Code campaign, heavily criticised by some cycling campaigners when it was launched last year.
The spot aimed to highlight to motorists how much space they should give cyclists when overtaking. Some cyclists shown were wearing helmets, others were bareheaded, including a woman shown at the end of the advert being overtaken by a man in a car.
The ASA says that it received five complaints from people who had “challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because it showed a cyclist without a helmet or any other safety attire, who was cycling down the middle of the road rather than one metre from the curb [sic].”
Upholding those complaints, the ASA said:
The ASA acknowledged that the ad was primarily encouraging motorists to take care when driving within the vicinity of cyclists.
We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire, and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane. We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.
We understood that UK law did not require cyclists to wear helmets or cycle at least 0.5 metres from the kerb. However, under the Highway Code it was recommended as good practice for cyclists to wear helmets. Therefore, we considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code. 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.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence).
It's a muddled judgment that on the one hand cites the Highway Code as authority for requiring the advertiser to always show cyclists wearing a helmet – the Highway Code says cyclists "should wear a cycle helmet," but they are not compulsory – while also talking about a “parking lane” and an apparently arbitrary distance of 0.5 metres from the kerb, neither of which have a foundation in law.
As for the finding that “the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic,” some might question how closely the ASA studied the Highway Code, which illustrates the distance drivers should give cyclists when overtaking with a picture of a car that is almost entirely over the broken white line in the middle of the road (see Rule 163 here).
In defence of the advert, Cycling Scotland told the ASA that using a mixture of cyclists with and without helmets reflected the fact that they are not a legal requirement and are a matter of individual choice.
It added that the video shoot had been supervised by one of its most experienced instructors, and that the distance the cyclist was from the kerb was because that was the safest position on the road in question to make her visible to other users.
In a statement, Cycling Scotland said: “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."
ASA adjudications can be appealed by the advertiser, broadcaster or complainant within 21 days to an independent adjudicator, one of the grounds being that “a substantial flaw of process or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant evidence is available.”
Cycling Scotland says it “fully intends to pursue the ASA Council’s Independent Review process open to us.”
The ASA’s decision conflicts with a 2011 ruling on an advert filmed in Copenhagen from car manufacturer Citroën that depicted several cyclists without helmets. It said the advert could not be shown during children’s TV shows, but it was permissible for it to be aired at other times.
A petition had been set up on the website Change.org calling on independent adjudicator Sir Hayden Phillips to reverse the ASA's decision - something he can only do following an appeal by Cycling Scotland.
But with 750-plus names already on the petiition, compared to five people who originally complained about the advert, it could help focus his mind.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- BBB 0 sec ago
Here is a formula working out the cost of cycling on an individual level....
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 19 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- wtjs 2 hours 57 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 4 hours 8 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 6 hours 15 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 2 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 20 hours 51 min ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 2 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
75 comments
FML
I signed too, says 721 more needed. C'mon guys!
oh my, bet rapha are shitting it now, going to have get all their beardy models to wear helmets in the pics from now on
"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."
That wording sucks bad and needs updating, as do the pathetically worded careless and dangerous driving laws.
I have just written (well emailed) the ASA to strongly complain about this adjudication.
I have also emailed Lord Chris Smith who is chairman of the ASA and also a patron of Sustrans.
Individually my emails will probably head straight in the Trash folder, even before they have had the courtesy to read them. But hopefully if enough people do the same, and generally kick up a stink about this, then something will get done.
If they are a government body, they're subject to Freedon of Information Requests:
https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/the-freedom-of-...
Helmet, yes... it would just be better to set a good example
(For those that argue different on the helmet debate...facts are facts, you are more protected, less likely to squash your tiny brain, and yes cars may pass closer but come on....if you don't believe this, run head first into a wall and tell me if your skull gets damaged or not...its kind of stating the bleeding obvious people, protect your head!!)
50cm from the kerb, erm, I agree with every other right minded cyclist on this issue...its rubbish.
Sweet motor in the ad, though.
Plus oh yeah, I got knocked off my bike TODAY by a car turning left (not indicating or paying attention) leaving my and bike bike battered and bruised. Jeans and (hi-viz) jacket all ripped up, but narey a scratch on me placcy lid, and never mind that I was riding easily within 0.5m of the kerb.
When it comes to driver collisions, helmet is generally neither her nor there and it is DEFINITELY safer to keep at least a metre away from the kerb. Not just for sharps/potholes, but for visibility.
Cycled along that road this morning!
http://goo.gl/maps/uahkd
Surely the way to deal with this is to complain to ASA every time you see a car advert with the driver not wearing a crash helmet and neck brace, after all the majority of people involved in car accidents that end in hospital have head injuries so it's socially irresponsible for car manufacturers not to highlight this. Failure by ASA to agree with this must imply discrimination against cyclists & revoke this ruling.
I've just tried to sign the petition and the link's broken or it has been removed. Anyone have any info on it?
I've just tried to sign the petition and the link's broken or it has been removed. Anyone have any info on it?
Just submitted this complaint to ASA "Manufacturers are not complying with their social responsibilities by show people driving wearing helmets and neck braces as the majority of people who receive hospital treatment following a motor vehicle accident receive treatment for head injuries. This complaint is a direct comparison with your decision to ban the Cycling Scotland advert showing a woman riding without a helmet, your decision being made in direct contravention of current laws and without any evidence to back your decision other than your own prejudices
Motor manufacturers also fail to show the proven effects of exhaust gases in built up area's which cause asthma and breathing difficulties in young children, another failure of the motor manufacturers to comply with their social responsibilities." Will anyone else join in to ensure that we can highlight ASA's prejudicial and anti cycling decision
God i am bored, just submitted a complaint against Peugeot for failing to address the environmental impact of driving in an urban area in a car advert.
Some points:
1. The ASA are not a Government body (they are set up and paid for by the advertising industry), and so are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
2. So far some 3,000 people have signed the petition on http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/sir-hayden-phillips-please-reverse...
3. Before complaining to the ASA you should know what the basis for complaint is, such as : 4.1 and 4.4 of the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code, http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast-HTML.aspx ), namely that “Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18” (rule 4.1) and “Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety” (rule 4.4). I think that could cover a hell of a lot of advertisements with cars/motoring in them.
4. I suggest you are careful and specific, not getting into car driver helmets and neck braces (which are not recommended in the HC), but look at things like whether it is LIKELY that drivers of cars in the ad are speeding - because about 40% do when they can in free-flowing conditions. That kind of thing.
5. You can also get into stuff like not showing pedestrians at night not wearing hi-viz (which is - wrongly in my view - recommended in the HC).
6. remember that a defence of car adverts (speeding into the sunset on deserted roads etc.) is that they are in obviously unrealistic situations, which the Cycling Scotland stuff is not.
D4.1 and 4.4 of the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code, http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Broadcast-HTML.aspx ), namely that “Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18” (rule 4.1) and “Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health or safety” (rule 4.4). I think that could cover a hell of a lot of advertisements with cars/motoring in them.r. Robert Davis, Chair Road Danger Reduction Forum www.rdrf.org.uk
Whilst I usually harp on about helmets (because let's face it they aren't as inconvenient as a fractured skull) it's the height of pettiness to ban this advert.
Furthermore it's quite clear from the advert that there's a lot of damaged road on the left hand side of the lane - anyone who has actually ridden a bike (apparently no-one from the ASA) would know to avoid this.
Have signed the petition too.
Social responsibility?! I've complained twice now to the ASA about adverts for cars banging on about 'road tax' and they come back stating that everyone knows road tax is actually Vehicle Excise Duty therefore road tax is not misleading and the complaint is rejected.
We all know the road tax myth actively fuels the cretinous and ignorant out there, including certain councillors and MP's who should know better, so there is very obvious social responsibility aspects that should be recognised...but they ignore it.
Now they play double standards and uphold a complaint when the subject is doing nothing illegal or unlawful? Quite right the ASA are put under fire on this, I'd suggest we all complain referencing the road tax crap and ask why social responsibility was not a factor there.
Just an addition to the helmet argument - 1996 and I get hit head on by a car on the wrong side of the road. I suffer respiratory arrest and paramedics saved my life despite being taken to trauma unit with full blues & two's and a Glasgow Coma Score of 3/15. In laymans terms that's as low as it gets.
I was left with a brain injury and spent 18 months rehabilitating as an outpatient. Helmet on? Yep, not a scratch on it.
The brain injury was caused due to rapid acceleration & deceleration against my skull, and the low oxygen sats when the arrest quickly followed was suspected of causing a hypoxic injury.
So, helmets have their place but as we all know they are a limited tool useful in limited situations. The driver? No charges as there were no independent witnesses.
Thanks go to the police who weren't that interested, the CPS for dumbing the whole incident down as a simple whoopsy, the lawmakers who all need running down to give them an insight into the murder they continually defend and the insurers who keep these people driving by charging responsible motorists more money to subsidise the moronic.
We don't even need to talk about a hypothetical risk of of riding half a meter from the kerb. Look at the very last few frames of the advert, the whole road surface to the side is broken up with a hole big enough to swallow the bike.
Their ruling literally proposes that she rides into a great big pothole for her own safety (but that's OK, she'll have a hat on if she comes off).
Whatever process the ASA are supposed to have, something has gone seriously wrong and they've made a judgement which will endanger the public. I hope they have someone in charge who will recognise this quickly, they should even need to wait for an appeal to get their house in order.
Omg helmets again!!
Withdrawn!
http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Cycling-Scotland-...
Could solve the issue by saying that 1 metre's space should be given. I've seen, and experienced, plenty of drivers pass me while driving giving very little room indeed!
And, no, I don't drive like my grandmother...
I'm pretty sure that the jury is still out on whether wearing a helmet is a 'good' thing and whether it sets the correct example/makes cycling suitably accesable.
And, just to point out the obvious, cycling and running head first into walls are two very different activities. Its reasonable that any protective equipment you choose to use would be quite different. It's no wonder that you don't see a lot of bouyancy aids in the base jumping scene.
Legitimatly, we could complain about every car add full stop. Encouraging car use does nothing to strengthen our communities, cars pose a significant risk to other road users and contibute to multiple health problems and general polution. Buying and driving a car is pretty 'socially irrisponsible' in this context, certainly more so than not wearing a hat.
Really? Are you completely incapable of spotting obstructions and avoiding them as and when they appear? Why not cycle on the opposite side of the road just in case you come across road works blocking the entire lane? Most potholes I have spotted do oddly seem to be positioned a few feet from the kerb, or even in the middle of the lane. You need to cycle around obstructions when they appear, rather than 'owning the road' just in case. It's really not that hard and would prevent a lot of road rage. Oh, and don't get me started about cycling two-abreast...
Facts are facts, but not all facts are relevant facts. Running head on into a wall damages your skull - that's a fact. It doesn't follow from that that cyclists, runners, people walking down stairs or getting out of the bath, drivers, children running around a playground (the one time I suffered concussion) or anyone else should therefore wear a helmet. You need logic to join up your facts into an argument, you see?
But I agree, wall-runners probably should wear helmets. Indeed, I question the benefits of wall-head-interfacing as a legitmate sporting activity. There's a reason why its not an Olympic event, I reckon.
(Though its a good metaphor for engaging in the helmet-argument. About as useful as banging your head against a wall).
Signed the petition. From some of the comments in my thread on bikeradar, you'd think one or two of the five complainers were posting there...
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12956905
Had the ASA have looked outside the window of their High Holborn offices two years ago, they would have seen a hoard of cyclists wearing a lot less than just helmets:
http://www.urban75.org/london/london-naked-bike-ride-2011-2.html
Pages