Cycling Scotland Ad banned by the ASA for being "socially irresponsible"

Johno100

The ASA has today ruled that Cycling Scotland's Ad, showing a cyclist not wearing a helmet and riding in the middle of the lane is "socially irresponsible"

The Ad:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELId66LUupw

The Ruling:-

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/1/Cycling-Scotland/SHP_ADJ_238570.aspx

Seems like a sensible decision.

Altarf

Johno100 wrote: »

Seems like a sensible decision.

Except it isn't.

Greater numbers of head injuries are suffered by car drivers and pedestrians, but you don't see driving helmets and walking helmets being promoted.

Cycling helmets are in that "we must do something" category, that will do nothing when a 40 tonne truck drives over your abdomen.

It also diverts attention from the actions that are far more likely to prevent injury - high visibility / reflective clothing and lights.

As for riding in the middle of the road, look at the last couple of seconds of video and you will see the road surface breaks up, which the cyclist is obviously avoiding.

So off back under your bridge.

Johno100

Altarf wrote: »

It also diverts attention from the actions that are far more likely to prevent injury - high visibility / reflective clothing and lights.

That's a valid point, she wasn't wearing any and I'm not sure wearing a flowing skirt on a bike is a good idea, the ad appears even more "socially irresponsible".

Altarf wrote: »

As for riding in the middle of the road, look at the last couple of seconds of video and you will see the road surface breaks up, which the cyclist is obviously avoiding.

Is that the best you can come up with:rotfl:. You do realise that this advert was professionally filmed and they could have picked any bit of road they wanted to film it. The positioning of the cyclist on the road was no doubt deliberate.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

That's a valid point, she wasn't wearing any and I'm not sure wearing a flowing skirt on a bike is a good idea, the ad appears even more "socially irresponsible".



Is that the best you can come up with:rotfl:. You do realise that this advert was professionally filmed and they could have picked any bit of road they wanted to film it. The positioning of the cyclist on the road was no doubt deliberate.

The best? You mean a valid reason not to ride there?
Once more. For someone so ant cyclist,you certainly do spend a lot of time on the cycling board.

Handsome90

Johno100 wrote: »

That's a valid point, she wasn't wearing any and I'm not sure wearing a flowing skirt on a bike is a good idea, the ad appears even more "socially irresponsible".



Is that the best you can come up with:rotfl:. You do realise that this advert was professionally filmed and they could have picked any bit of road they wanted to film it. The positioning of the cyclist on the road was no doubt deliberate.

I remember something along this line Chris Boardman said, "If a maniac on the streets is shooting everyone with a gun, would you give body armour to everyone?" But that's what some people think like. Cyclists, should be wearing hi-vis, helmets, etc. None of them are compulsory. Look at the other European countries, people cycle in everyday clothes. That's what cycling should be like.

Marco_Panettone

Why should high vis and lights be used in the situation depicted in the advert? It's daylight. The weather is good. Visibility is clear.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with how the woman is riding. There's nothing wrong with what she's wearing. The overtake is good. Cycling is a way of getting from A to B under your own steam and for free, just like walking. No 'special' clothing is required, just like for walking.


If you believe cycling to be dangerous you need to tell me why. What causes the danger, and what is the solution to that. It certainly won't be a coat and hat...

Retrogamer

Doesn't seem fair to me personally.

The purpose of the advert is to raise awareness to motorists that cyclists need the same room as other road users when overtaking and it does this fine.

The woman cycling her bike on the road is breaking no laws and when i drive i often come across cyclists with no helmets and in the summer, wearing skirts as well.

I would say she's a bit far out though. The bumps in the road she was apparently avoiding don't look bad enough to cause any problems by cycling over them.

Marco_Panettone

Retrogamer wrote: »

Doesn't seem fair to me personally.

The purpose of the advert is to raise awareness to motorists that cyclists need the same room as other road users when overtaking and it does this fine.

The woman cycling her bike on the road is breaking no laws and when i drive i often come across cyclists with no helmets and in the summer, wearing skirts as well.

I would say she's a bit far out though. The bumps in the road she was apparently avoiding don't look bad enough to cause any problems by cycling over them.

Surely it's safer to avoid them anyway rather than hit what you think might not be a problem and crash into the path of other vehicles?

hugheskevi

Going through the judgement:

We noted that the cyclist in the final scene was not wearing a helmet or any other safety attire

They noted the cyclist was fully compliant with all road rules.

and appeared to be more than 0.5 metres from the parking lane.

This was because the cyclist had moved out to avoid some deep potholes and is allowing an appropriate distance from the hazard, as this screenshot from the last second of the advert shows. The woman appears to have moved out in good time, to avoid swerving to avoid the hazard which appears a sensible course of action given the conditions.

[IMG][/img]


It is also impossible to know from the camera angle whether the cyclist is approaching a junction, in which case the Institute of Advanced Motorists suggests she should "Take up a primary position around 75-100m before reaching a junction, in the centre of the lane, providing it is safe to do so."

We also acknowledged that the cyclist was shown in broad daylight on a fairly large lane without any traffic.

Aside from the car that was overtaking her.

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.

The video clip featured a number of cyclists, some wearing helmets, others not. This is a fair and accurate representation of cyclists in general. In the conditions shown (quiet roads, excellent weather, broad daylight, rider apparently on a short pleasure ride and riding slowly) it would not be unusual to encounter a cyclist not wearing a helmet.

Note that the Barclays Cycle Hire system (Boris Bikes) does not include helmets despite catering for novice cyclists on some of the busiest streets in the country. Is there an implication that the scheme should not be promoted as it undermines the Highway Code?

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.

As demonstrated above, the cyclist's position is appropriate. In the vast majority of overtaking situations where the cyclist is correctly positioned and the car is allowing the recommended distance whilst overtaking the car will have to enter the right lane of traffic. This is in no way surprising or unusual.

Personally, I noticed 3 issues with the advert:

(1) Showing a car overtaking whilst in the same lane, although appropriate in the particular situation, may inadvertently lead drivers to presume that overtaking without changing lanes is acceptable, which in the vast majority of circumstances it will not be.

(2) "See cyclist. Think horse." A reference to horse can often be a derogatory term for unattractive women. To put a picture of a female along with a caption advising viewers to think of a horse may be considered offensive.

and most important of all,

(3) The cyclist is wearing inadequate safety gear, and should instead be shown wearing a protective 600kg of metal to minimise risk of injury, as the other responsible road-user pictured was demonstrating.

Retrogamer

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Surely it's safer to avoid them anyway rather than hit what you think might not be a problem and crash into the path of other vehicles?

The ones pictured above there are a bit more severe. I was meaning the fractures and dents in the clip at another time.

I'm not sure about the woman in the video, but i'd personally expect most people to be about 1 foot closer to the holes, and if it was men i'd be around 2 foot closer.

scragend

hugheskevi wrote: »

(2) "See cyclist. Think horse." A reference to horse can often be a derogatory term for unattractive women. To put a picture of a female along with a caption advising viewers to think of a horse may be considered offensive.

If I saw the woman in the advert on her bike I certainly wouldn't think of a horse. I didn't think she was half bad.