ASA withdraws ban on Cycling Scotland advert pending "independent review"

Support from an surprising, petrol powered source, Motorcycle Action Group (source. Ah heck, they got two wheels, most of them anyway. Some of them got beards that would put an Audaxer to shame. And they like beer.

Quote:

Lembit Öpik, the Motorcycle Action Group’s (MAG) Director of Communications & Public Affairs, has spoken out against the implied imposition of a mandatory helmet law for cyclists.The threat has arisen as a result of the Advertising Standards Agency’s (ASA) directive to Cycling Scotland, requiring them to feature cyclists wearing helmets, and refusing to authorise a television advertisement which showed a rider without a helmet – claiming that to do so would be ‘socially irresponsible.’

Lembit says ‘in 1973, British motorcyclists suffered a hammer blow to their liberty with the introduction of a mandatory helmet law.Over the last four decades we have never wavered from our principled position of opposing this authoritarian regulation.It’s not because we’re against safety; rather it’s because we’re pro-choice.At the heart of any truly free society, citizens have the right to make personal decisions about their welfare and the level of risk they’re willing to entertain.No government has the moral authority to forcibly impose its opinion about what’s best for citizens, because such a move is counter to the very freedoms which democracy exists to uphold.As such, we offer our full support to Britain’s cyclists in opposing the mandatory wearing of helmets.This is a symbolic test of the liberty.A defeat on this would be a catastrophic failure of politicians to respect the personal liberty of the people.’

MAG Chairman John Mitchell adds ‘I have instructed MAG’s Reps to provide whatever support is necessary to assist the British cycling community to successfully resist this ominous legislative menace.The ASA has effectively used its position to censor Cycling Scotland’s right to illustrate cyclists’ liberty to ride without a helmet.They have evidently not got the right to veto the portrayal of a legal activity, but the precedent is extremely dangerous.Their action has reignited an issue which has been quietly smouldering for some time as far as motorcyclists are concerned.Make no mistake, we’re ready, willing and able to take this issue to the politicians, and I have no doubt that this debate will now extend to bikers as well as cyclists.The Cycle Touring Club, which represents cyclists is firmly against compulsory helmet use, as it feels that mandatory helmet use will reduce the numbers of those people who take up cycling. What unites us all is our belief in personal choice.The very last thing elected politicians who ignore this can expect is an easy ride.’

The ban is very much still in place. Belated E-mail response from the ASA (well they have been busy these last few days)

Dear Andrew

I’m sorry about the delay in responding to you.

The ban remains in place pending the outcome of the review. The ASA Chief Executive has the powers to withdraw the ruling – removing it from the public record/publicity – but he can’t overturn ASA Council’s decision. The Independent Review process will give the advertisers the platform to challenge Council’s findings.

Kind regards

Matt Wilson

Matt Wilson
Press Officer

I'm bloody glad I live in Australia where I can say what I bloody well like, bloody idiots.

How f.........g pathetic. If the ASA is concerned about health and safety and all that it would ban all car ads (never any other traffic on the road etc) as it is cars that are dangerous. These ads portray driving as completely carefree and certainly
no mention of the massive number of deaths,injuries and illnesses it causes throughout the world to non drivers and drivers alike. I don't see the ASA and their mates doing anything to upset the boat here. Sometimes I wonder what kind of country we live in when stupidity like this comes along.

As others have noted, the ASA has only suspended its ruling pending a review. Moreover their wording suggests that they are concerned about a possible flaw in the part of their ruling which relates to the cyclist's road positioning - not the part relating to the cyclist's non-use of a helmet.

See full background.

CTC is concerned that the ASA may be looking to ‘save face’ by backing down on the cyclist's road-positioning (acknowledging that it is in line with Highway Code Rule 163), while sticking to their guns on helmets, citing the Highway Code Rule 59 in their defence.

If we end up with the ASA imposing de facto censorship of helmet-free cycling on TV, that would be an appalling blow to the promotion of cycling as a safe, enjoyable, aspirational and (above all) perfectly normal way for people of all ages and backgrounds to get around for day-to-day journeys or for leisure.

CTC has therefore invited people to submit suggestions of other adverts showing examples of
• Deeply ‘irresponsible’ cycling (e.g. cycling without helmets) - https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/which-ads-are-now-banned-your-exa...
• Equally ‘irresponsible’ walking (e.g. people walking on the streets at night without reflective clothing, children out on the streets on their own, not crossing the road carefully in accordance with the Green Cross Code) - https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/now-send-us-your-irresponsible-... and
• Ads showing genuinely irresponsible driving - https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/which-car-ads-show-breaches-of-hi...

We’ve already had some great examples – e.g. the famous Hovis adverts of the 1970s really ought to be banned, according to the ASA’s ‘logic’. Please keep them coming!

There is of course a serious point to this. If the ASA can ban helmet-free cycling on the grounds that it’s covered by the Highway Code, shouldn’t they also be banning any advert showing someone walking at night without reflective gear on exactly the same grounds? And how come so many advertisers get away with showing really irresponsible driving?

[N.B. The answer to this last question is that advertisers persistently use the excuse that their ads are set in purely “fantastical” settings. In other words, nobody could possibly mistake their fantasy car-adverts for the congestion, pollution and danger of real-world street-scenes!]

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

There area few points to make here:
1. The good news: There has been an almighty bout of fully justified indignation from the more civilised members of British society: bloggers, a massive number of commenters on blogs, a great petition, letters directly to ASA from the likes of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, cycling organisations etc. It is good to see so many people being – justifiably – steamed up, and t has certainly had an effect.
2. But don’t get too excited: We don’t know what the procedure of the “independent” review will be. It’s going to be difficult for the ASA to justify it’s take on positioning, but it may repeat it’s stuff about helmets. The struggle needs to continue here.
3. The Road Danger Reduction Forum and some others have raised the issue of the ASA’s views on car advertising and indeed representations of motor traffic. If it gets worried about rule and law breaking in advertisements, the fact is that rule and law breaking occurs with typical driving: is that going to be addressed as a problem?
4. The ASA is unlikely to be rigorous of car advertising because it is a body which comes from the advertising industry. Does anybody think it is going to get really tough with a principal source of its economic activity?
5. A big problem with the ASA is that when it does censure advertisers, all it does is tell people not to do it again. So advertising of motoring is never going to be really policed. A classic case of what happens when a powerful industry self-regulates. Having said that, when it comes to images of cyclists, if the censure over helmets goes through, we can expect marketing and communications people who have put forward everyday images of cyclists riding in normal clothes to be scared off. Look at the images advertising the next London Bike Show – that’s the only kind of thing we will have.
So this episode is not over and the problem has not gone away.

So, do watch this space. And if you see anything which is associated with rule breaking driving in an advertisement, do complain to the ASA. You can let the CTC know about results.

Dr Robert Davis, Chair RDRF

Isn't this the same bunch of cowboys who found CTC ads that pointed out that not riding a bike was more dangerous than not riding one (or something similar) to have offended some arcane rule or other?

And the same bunch who appear unable to stop BHIT making blatantly wrong claims about cycle helmets?

Have we all missed the point? Two MPs have got off their bottoms and done something useful for the cycling community. Now just gotta get the batty old Lords to see some sense...

Does anyone remenber the print advert for milk in the States with Mat Hoffman doing a backflip liddless with a milky moustache?

Funny thing is that Mat wanted to wear a helmet but the milk people said it spoilt the shot. A bit of a side note to this case, and obviously nothing to do with the ASA but the ad was certainly used.

The whole business does illustrate the ignorance that is out there amongst drivers about cycling and how to overtake in particular.

Presumably this decision was made by someone (low-ranking?) in the ASA who drives, and believes, amongst other things, that the highway code recognises such a thing as 'the parking lane', that cyclists should stay in the gutter (or the door-zone) at all times, and that its actually _wrong_ to give a cyclist decent clearance when overtaking if it means 'nearly crossing the dividing line'.

And as such, I think it nicely illustrates the flaw in the Niceway approach - which is assuming there are mild misunderstandings are 'on both sides'. Instead it reveals how wrong-headed are the beliefs of one side in particular.

I hadn't noticed the reference to the 'parking lane'. Wonder who at the ASA invented that concept? They seem to be developing their own private highway code over there!

As if further evidence of the ASA's intransigence were needed, here is an extract of a presumably generic email sent out by the ASA's Matt Wilson in response to direct emails concerning the ban (in this case from the DarkerSide blog author):

[The ASA are given scope] to apply the Codes, to ads, beyond what is required in law if we consider that an ad is depicting a bahaviour [sic, I assume] or activity that is potentially harmful or irresponsible

. . . There are lots of things that are not permitted to be shown in adverts that are perfectly acceptable and legal in real life – for example it is considered irresponsible to show someone buying a repeat round of drinks in an alcohol ad.

As blogger Rob says: "There you have it. A statement from the ASA that riding a bike in the safest road position; the position required by the Highway Code, taught in every training course I know, and a key part of the UK’s current vehicular approach to cycling, is comparable to encouraging intoxication."

Actually - on reflection i would like to see those Cipollini ads banned.
Not on dubious 'safety' grounds but on the grounds of good taste.

The current Coke Zero ad has a group of fixie hipsters doing fixie hipster Coke zero type of stuff - all helmetless.
Still being shown last night - i suppose the ruling was meant for any new adverts coming through.
Do the ASA cover print ads too? - i notice that Cipollini advertises his own bikes in print ads and on films doing all kinds of crazy shit riding without a helmet.

http://inrng.com/2012/08/cipollini-saves-the-day/

If the decision was "withdrawn, pending an appeal", this new decision ought to be a new first decision, not an appeal decision. Relevant if they ban it again!

The campaign, for what is worth, ended some time ago. I doubt there were any plans to show it again.

"Rabid hordes of Internet cyclists" - great description of the commenters on this site (self included)!

Oh I missed that! Best keep an eye on that then probably a proper u-turn won't get reported

ironically of course with the advent of this new internet thingy (it'll never take off ) they can't really ban the advert anyway people will just watch it online.

Time to have my saddle changed...

An independent review of an independent regulator. Is there anyone in this sorry episode that's actually accountable?

Considering that their ruling actively undermined a safety campaign, an apology would have been nice as well.

notfastenough - the BBC have reported it which is how I knew to come here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25960322

Incidentally, I usually have oats for breakfast...

Excellent - a climbdown - hope they were wearing a helmet before they got off...