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

custardy

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.

Do you ride a bike?
If so is a rigid frame bike?

photome

some peoples (drivers) attitude towards cyclists (any other road users ) sucks!!

prowla

To me it looked like a retro film from the 50s/60s.

I'm amazed that it didn't occur to them that all of their riders should have a cycling helmet on. I guess the do-gooders got so wrapped up in their artistry they left their common-sense behind.

And on that lovely wide road (I wish our roads were as wide and traffic free as that.), there's no cycle lane - maybe that would have been an idea.

Marco_Panettone

prowla wrote: »

To me it looked like a retro film from the 50s/60s.

I'm amazed that it didn't occur to them that all of their riders should have a cycling helmet on. I guess the do-gooders got so wrapped up in their artistry they left their common-sense behind.

And on that lovely wide road (I wish our roads were as wide and traffic free as that.), there's no cycle lane - maybe that would have been an idea.

You're both hitting the nail on the head and entirely missing the point at the same time! The advert shows some riders wearing helmets, other riders not - this is reflective of cycling in this country and perfectly legal and reasonable. Cyclists need to be given space NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE WEARING. People need to ride (and drive) to the conditions - not stick rigidly to the kerb no matter what, and not always stay in their lane when overtaking other traffic.


Why should it be seen as 'common sense' to wear a helmet at all times? The science doesn't back it up, and nobody wears helmets in the Netherlands - the safest place to cycle. PPE is the absolute last resort in safety - eliminate the danger first before even considering it.


I look forward to anti knife-crime adverts being banned because the potential victims aren't wearing stab-vests, and anti-rape adverts being banned because women are out at night-time in normal clothes - after all "it's common sense" to protect yourself as much as possible, isn't it?

AndyBSG

Johno100 wrote: »

Seems like a sensible decision.

Sorry but this is the complete opposite of 'sensible' by any stretch of the imagination.

The biggest danger here is that the ASA are deciding to completely overrule advice given by national cycling and government panels with regards to taking primary position, not riding in the gutter etc.

I don't know when the ASA got power to decide to overrule these recommendations...

Marco_Panettone

AndyBSG wrote: »

Sorry but this is the complete opposite of 'sensible' by any stretch of the imagination.

The biggest danger here is that the ASA are deciding to completely overrule advice given by national cycling and government panels with regards to taking primary position, not riding in the gutter etc.

I don't know when the ASA got power to decide to overrule these recommendations...

And the Highway Code itself!


Anyway, good news: http://road.cc/content/news/109781-asa-suspends-ban-cycling-scotland-advert-pending-independent-review

DKLS

Whatever happened to make your own risk assessments?, I will wear my helmet when riding off-road, but a pootle down the road onto the canal towpath to the pub no.


Life is full of risks you just need to manage them appropriately, I have a friend who is a cardiac surgeon, we once talked about risk and perceptions of risk, and one of the most dangerous activities you can ever do is putting your socks on in the morning.

Retrogamer

custardy wrote: »

Do you ride a bike?
If so is a rigid frame bike?

I do.
I've both a rigid hybrid and a cross country mountain bike with front suspension that's usually locked out on the road.

The potholes i can see in the image above would be an issue (never noticed them when i posted before) but generic cracks and fractures shouldn't be an issue.

Marco_Panettone

Retrogamer wrote: »

I do.
I've both a rigid hybrid and a cross country mountain bike with front suspension that's usually locked out on the road.

The potholes i can see in the image above would be an issue (never noticed them when i posted before) but generic cracks and fractures shouldn't be an issue.

It's better and safer to maintain a course than to suddenly swerve though. By riding slightly further out she's able to do this, avoiding the potholes and be more predictable to other road users. It's the same with parked cars - ride further out in a straight line, not close to doors and then swerve to avoid being knocked into the path of traffic.

rdr

The ASA has withdrawn the ruling:

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.

:T