- 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
- Another_MAMIL 41 min 8 sec ago
Who spends £55 on a bucket hat? You'd have to be a PNS to waste that much money on a bucket hat—it's not normal.
- Rendel Harris 50 min 13 sec ago
It's Haigh in the long coat.
- HoarseMann 5 hours 19 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 5 hours 38 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- wtjs 6 hours 23 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
- wtjs 6 hours 32 min ago
I won't be getting anything on Friday...
- I love my bike 8 hours 25 min ago
It's in the land of the sidewalk, for better or worse, that driving 'right of way' does exist. . . and many other things they can keep as well!
- IanGlasgow 9 hours 36 min ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
- Supervet 10 hours 23 min ago
I have started holding my breath for 5 x 30 seconds, that increases EPO, rebreathers not required....
Add new comment
75 comments
Interestingly (or maybe not) the ASA currently have £26k job vacancy for a Complaints Executive. In the job description it says
" Assess complaints, undertake internet, telephone and other relevant research before making a decision under minimal supervision"
So you have to wonder how much thought and expertise did go into this ASA ruling we're all getting worked up about.
You can see the vacancy here: http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Careers.aspx
The Road Danger Reduction Forum has sent this out. Note the fourth point - most of the rest has been mentioned by other commenters:
Dear friend/colleague,
You have probably seen how a piece of idiocy by the ASA has caused justified anger among cycling groups and others concerned with a civilised approach to danger on the road.
If not, you can read about it here:
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-killing-of-the-horse/c...
here:http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-advertising-stan...
and the CTC's comments here: https://www.ctc.org.uk/news/advertising-watchdog%E2%80%99s-helmet-ruling...
The RDRF objects to the ASA's decision on the basis that:
1. It does not understand that the positioning of the cyclist is absolutely correct in terms of the advice given by Bikeability (National Standards) cycle training.
2. Although the Highway Code at present recommends helmet wearing , there is a lack of evidence that this can reduce cyclist casualty (even cyclist head injury) rates.
3. If the ASA is going to oppose representation of anybody who is not apparently obeying all the recommendations of the Highway Code, it would have to ban advertisements featuring such behaviours as pedestrians walking about at night without hi-viz clothing.
4. Of course, the ASA could take note of the fact that typical driving tends to involve not just infringing Highway Code recommendations but the law, for example on breaking speed limits. The fact that this behaviour may not be explicit or even visible (as with driving when fatigued) does not excuse condoning such behaviour.
Taking this seriously would involve not just restricting a large proportion of all car advertisements, but representations of typical motor traffic in any advertising. Take a look at (and contribute to) the CTC's site here: https://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/which-car-ads-show-breaches-of-hi....
We are not suggesting that most advertisements featuring examples of typical driver behaviour which may, or are likely, to be infringing the rules and recommendations of the Highway Code should be banned - too many would have to be restricted. But that would be more fruitful than focussing on supposedly rule or recommendation breaking behaviour by those much less likely to endanger others – even if the recommendation was based on sound evidence, which helmet wearing is not.
Organisations such as the CTC are writing to the ASA, you may wish to sign this petition on Change.org http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/sir-hayden-phillips-please-reverse... as well as contacting the ASA directly trough their complaints arbiter Sir Hayden Phillips whose receiving e-mail is indrev [at] asbof.co.uk .
Dr Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction Forum
www.rdrf.org.uk
Lord Chris Smith, the CEO of the ASA is also a Sustrans patron.
Marvellous work there.
Complaining to the ASA about the ASA - chapeau, sir. Top work indeed.
Actually the ASA is not a government body it is a self funded industry body and has no legal standing whatsoever. All they give is advice.
I've posted before on the hilarity of people making up their own bespoke Highway Code and others' idiosyncratic interpretations of what is pretty clear to most people.
And as I have said before (and as an Advanced Motorist) it tends to come from people who have never read the highway code as it applies to cyclists or pedestrians or by dint of passing a pretty basic driving test (designed for most people to pass) think they have greater knowledge than a cyclist.
Just watch the bewilderment of a pontificating motorist when faced with conundrum that the person they are lecturing has been driving longer and is more qualified to drive more vehicles than they are.
Most cyclists have driving licences. Most drivers don't ride bikes. Remember you are the most expreienced road user in any dispute.
' the ruling, albeit a little misguided, is also trying to promote the same thing.'
in what way?!
Bizarre, you can't show a cyclist with no helmet in an advert but you can show the helmet that is Jeremy Clarkson smashing a sports car into a supermarket.
Signed the petition.
This is the most ridiculous ruling I've ever heard of. From where I'm sat it looks like a criminal abuse of power.
Think that's taking the 'anti-helmet' thing a bit far, TBH !.. I understand the need for cyclists to be outraged by certain things - like injustice in our criminal system, when car drivers who kill cyclists fail to be properly punished and lack of safe infrastructure for us cyclists ..
But let's get some perspective - the advert is trying to promote cycle safety and awareness of cyclists for car drivers and the ruling, albeit a little misguided, is also trying to promote the same thing.
I just wish we - as a group - would start to understand who is on our side and who isn't. We risk just being seen as an angry militant pressure group by being outraged because some of us disagree with the opinion that helmets contribute to our safety (I actually believe they do but wont go there..!)
Sorry 700c but that's bonkers. The ASA is not on your side. It is not promoting cycle safety by this ruling. It is though imposing a view of what a "legitimate" a cyclist looks like. ie Hi viz tabard, helmet, and keeping out the way of motorists. That's not cycle safety that's a Jezza Clarkson ish definition of how
speeding motorists can be least impeded by other road users.
1 If you cycle in the gutter you are more vulnerable to being squzzed or struck by vehicles that misjudge the gap.
2 If you wear a helmet you are likely to be passed more closely than if you do not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm
Just add point 2 to point 1
3 The perception that cycling is dangerous and requires special safety attire is a myth but one that puts many people off cycling. Where people cycle in ordinary clothes (Amsterdam, Copenhagen etc) cycling is more widespread.
4 The more cyclists using the road the more aware motorists become and the overall safety of cyclists is increased.
The ruling from the ASA is not only factually wrong in its citing of the Highway Code and safety advice, it is also counter to everything we know about safety for cyclists.
The ASA is not our friend - It is (in this case) a promoter of danger to cyclists.
As I said, I won't be drawn into a helmet debate (I'm respectful of the full range of views on this!), or a highway code debate - I'm not supporting the ASA's reasoning which I agree could be flawed. If you read my post you will see I'm not giving views on either matter, I just think those who are anti-helmet are focusing their outrage in the wrong direction!
There was another post on here where someone was incandescent with rage that his/her child was allowed to wear a helmet - or not wear a helmet - when cycling to school - but that the parent had to sign a disclaimer. I mean, seriously?!
what's 'criminal' (to quote the original post), is not how the possibly misinformed opinions of the ASA on safe cycling might offend cyclists's sensibilities about helmet use, freedom of choice, perception, blah blah - but the number of cyclist accidents and casualties on our roads caused by drivers.
In strict terms of legal terminology I guess you could argue my comment - that this ruling is "a criminal abuse of power" - would not stand up in court. But I stand by view, that the judgement is promoting/reinforcing misconceptions and contradicting the Law and the Highway Code, and is therefore seriously harmful to the wellbeing of the population in general. That is a pretty serious mistake to make and, in my layman's view, is deliberate and therefore would bear comparison with criminal negligence.
The ASA supposedly exists to protect the public, primarily from dishonest or misleading claims when promoting a product or service. On this occasion they appear to have done the opposite.
She should really be wearing a helmet and her core is only partially engaged.
OK. How about objecting to all/any car adverts that depict a car driving on the road on the grounds that "the ad is socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety"
Actually - car manufacturers aren't allowed to depict their cars going at speed in adverts - this is deemed to be 'irresponsible' - so I really don't think the ASA are particularly anti- cyclist any more they are anti anything .. Just political correctness!
In spite of the good intentions of the original advert, we already knew the NiceWayCode was a pile of steaming horse sh1t.
Seems the ASA agrees, but for all the wrong reasons...
'the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic.'
yep, sounds about right.
The ASA needs controversy to justify its existence and pretend that it is not entirely in the pocket of the advertising racketeers. What better way of generating that controversy than by antagonising a type of person that large sections of society already hate, that has no advertising budget and no political lobbying budget, but is known often to be highly vociferous on social media?
You can't complain to the ASA about its decisions...
...but you can complain to the ASA about advertising. That includes social media. For example, an organisation's Twitter profile.
@ASA_UK's Twitter profile says "We keep UK ads legal, decent, honest and truthful". This isn't an accurate description of the cycle helmets ruling, is it?
So I've complained to the ASA about the ASA's advertising, and asked them (the ASA) to stop the subjects of the complaint (the ASA) from using the phrase "legal, decent, honest and truthful". Screenshot of complaint here.
Looking forward to their adjudication.
That's flippin' genius, that is!
Don't forget that car manufacturers are, by a very large margin, the biggest advertisers; just look at the billboards, watch commercials at the TV etc... So we shouldn't be surprised by that decision from the "Advertising Standards Authority".
I've signed the petition. What a bonkers decision to make, based on only 5 complaints!
This image (nicked from the discussion on Singletrack) adds important context to her road position:
BfG6GrnCUAE_Kjq.jpg
Yea 0.5 metre from the kerb.You mean where all the potholes gravel glass etc is.Now I see why we need Helmets because we would crash every time out on the bike
I have complained to the ASA too!
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx
idiots
You can complain directly to the ASA via email at indrev [at] asbof.co.uk
see website
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/Independent-review-process.aspx
Strictly only advertisers or complainants can raise an objection, but if enough people raise an issue with this ruling then I would expect an Independent review by Sir Hayden Phillips.
Also I expect Sustrans, BC, CTC, et all to be wading in on this one.
This is the most bizarre ruling I have ever seen. From just 5 complaints and their own misguided interpretation of "social responsibility". Utter madness......
"five complaints"
Wow, a social outrage huh.
That Mercedes SL has no airbags or seatbelt pre-tensioners and should be consigned to a museum.
and if he clips the curb and rolls the car, no roll cage, won't anyone think of the children.
Pages