An advertising campaign in Australia for the UAE-based airline Emirates has attracted derision on Twitter – because it depicts an Amsterdam cyclist who according to people who have seen the poster in person has clearly had a helmet placed on her head with the help of Photoshop or similar software.
Twitter user @BicycleAdagio posted a picture of the advert to Twitter, with other users of the social network saying that they had also seen it in Perth and Brisbane.
Emirates ad on a bus stop in Sydney. Yes, that’s a photoshopped helmet on a cyclist in Amsterdam. pic.twitter.com/tKrJwWtU7p
— Stephen B (@BicycleAdagio) June 15, 2016
The Dutch capital, of course, has among the highest modal shares of cycling in the world and among people who use bikes as a means of transport, those who wear helmets are in a tiny minority.
In Australia, cyclists are required by law to wear a helmet, with those who go bare-headed in New South Wales facing a fine of A$319 (£166).
The soft focus of the image posted to Twitter means it’s hard to determine for sure whether or not the image has been manipulated, but user @geoff_tewierik wrote: “Saw one of these joke ads from @emirates in Brisbane the other day too. Clueless marketing department.”
Another user, @cyclingtiger, said: “Sadly I suspect that this is because it’s cheaper to photoshop than to put up with angry complaints about helmetless riding.”
Assuming the image was indeed altered, that may have been done so as not to fall foul of the country’s advertising watchdog.
Last year, Australia’s Advertising Standards Board upheld a complaint against a television advert for a health club which included footage of two women riding a tandem without helmets.
The advertiser, Fernwood Fitness Centre, argued amongst other things that the women were riding on private property and were not therefore required by law to wear helmets.
In considering whether the advertisement did indeed breach health and safety guidelines, the watchdog said:
The Board noted that community standards are very clear on the issue of health and safety whilst riding a bicycle and considered that a depiction of an adult riding a bicycle without a helmet is a depiction which is in breach of these community standards.
In the current advertisement the Board noted that the two women on the bicycle are not wearing safety helmets. The Board noted the advertiser’s response that the advertisement was filmed on private property. The Board noted that the women are depicted riding on a footpath adjacent to a road and considered that it is not obvious that this area is private therefore the most likely interpretation is that the women are riding on a road-related area.
Upholding the complaint, it added:
Overall the Board considered that the advertisement did depict material contrary to prevailing community standards on health and safety.
The advertiser subsequently edited the spot to remove the offending footage, which lasted just 3 seconds.
While in part the Advertising Standards Board’s decision was based on the fact that it wasn’t clear whether or not the women riding the tandem were on the public highway, what is abundantly evident from the Emirates poster is that the cyclist isn’t in Australia at all.

71 thoughts on “Helmet ‘added’ to image of Amsterdam cyclist for Australian ad campaign”
Way to go Australia, making
Way to go Australia, making something as pure innocent (and safe) as riding a push bike into a regulation strewn pain in the ass. The Dutch must be completely bemused by all this.
Aussies, with a government
Aussies, with a government like yours, who needs enemies? Not even the poms would be this stupid.
Last paragraph of the article
Last paragraph of the article says it all really: it looks as if the Australian government doesn’t want Australian people to realise that not every country thinks that mandating helmet use is the way to go… that an Australian in Amsterdam is not obliged to wear a helmet.
It isn’t obligatory to wear
It isn’t obligatory to wear seatbelts while driving in every country. Would it be acceptable for an Australian ad to feature a carefree young woman driving the fuck out of the latest BMW convertible with no seatbelt on?
No. Didn’t think so.
Total non-story.
L.Willo wrote:
And your logic is, “driving the fuck” out of a German convertible is acceptable so long as there is a seatbelt.
Actually, that’s a fairly good approximation of the car industry. Everyday dumb is much dumber than the dumbness reported on here.
L.Willo wrote:
Heres a wee link regarding worldwide seatbelt legislation. Personally I wouldn’t want to be travelling to the countries highlighted in white (Greenland excluded) the only countries in red I would choose to travel to would be the various Pacific Islands. As you can see. No need to doctor images to highlight the wearing of a seatbelt of an Aussie lass raking the guts out of a Beemer as seatbelt legislation is pretty much worldwide especially in developed nations. http://chartsbin.com/view/2028
giff77 wrote:
New Hampshire? Very beautiful, especially in Autumn.
Besides the point though. It is unethical to depict unlawful activity as attractive to promote a product or service.
This is just another poor excuse to bash the helmet laws in Australia, enacted by a democratically elected government.
Bashing Emirates for respecting local laws and customs in their advertising is misplaced and quite frankly pathetic.
L.Willo wrote:
It is not unlawful to cycle without a helmet in the Netherlands.
I’d say it was far more unethical to fake pictures (if that’s what they did) to apply Australia’s outlandish standards to others countries through misrepresentation.
Duncann wrote:
It is not unlawful to cycle without a helmet in the Netherlands.— L.Willo
It is unlawful to cycle without a helmet in Australia where this advertising campaign is running. That is the point. It is not Emirates job to point out that other governments aren’t as responsible.
The age of consent in Brazil is 14. Presumably you would have no problem with an Emirates ad for the Olympics starring a loved up 40 year old man with his Lolita Brazilian ‘girlfriend’?….
L.Willo wrote:
Of course we would. As would everyone in Brazil. Something being legal doesn’t prevent it being offensive or just plain dumb. See Microsoft advert above.
Glad that was cleared that up. Next stupid argument?
L.Willo wrote:
Are you seriously equating ‘riding a bike without a helmet’ with child-sexual-exploitation? Are you really that far gone?
And are you telling me that Australian adverts never show pictures from the US showing cars on the ‘wrong’ side of the road? Really?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Not equating. Acknowledging the similarities given that both activities are illegal in Australia.
Depicting either activity in an Australian ad as a positive reason to travel with Emirates to countries where it is legal is wholly distasteful and inappropriate.
What next, a picture of a helmetless cyclist smoking a post-ride joint outside a ‘coffee shop’?
L.Willo wrote:
Not equating. Acknowledging the similarities given that both activities are illegal in Australia.
Depicting either activity in an Australian ad as a positive reason to travel with Emirates to countries where it is legal is wholly distasteful and inappropriate.
What next, a picture of a helmetless cyclist smoking a post-ride joint outside a ‘coffee shop’?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Let me see if I understand.
You are suggesting that airlines etc should edit any picture of a country they are portaying to ensure that what they are portraying is the same as it would be the country where they are advertising.
DavidJ wrote:
You did not understand.
The issue is legality. Activities happening abroad that are illegal at home should not be promoted in an advert.
Fly Emirates to Mumbai where the whole family can bond over a cigarette:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/17/article-2508985-1977512800000578-391_634x424.jpg
Er …. no.
L.Willo wrote:
So you think that when Emrirates shows adverts for Dubai they should change all the vehicles on the roads to be shown driving on the right (which is illegal here)
DavidJ wrote:
No. Well maybe for the vast majority of posters below the line on road.cc who seem to be a bit hard of thinking, but otherwise no.
L.Willo wrote:
So you are selective in what you think should be photoshopped. Interesting.
Tell me, why are you so very unpleasent and rude about people. I have observed that people engage in constructive discussion, often with a degree of humour, and yet you find the need to trash what they say and be personally offensive to them.
For example in the discussion about the diet and climate change, various points were made which you dismissed out of hand; your own reasoning was demonstrated to contain fallacies, you suggested that people should not criticise the report’s author and yet you were grossly and gratuitously offensive to many people and made personal and and nasty coments about many people here.
Why do you do that?
What are you trying to prove?
DavidJ wrote:
Yes. Get rid of the illegal stuff. Don’t imply that people can pick and choose which side of the road to drive on in an advert. Right or left, keep it consistent and don’t underestimate the intelligence of the audience.
Why do you do that?
I give as good as I get. If people cannot take it they should not dish it out. There are quite a few people on here who I respect but don’t always agree with them. brooksby, carton, giff, fukawitribe, bendertherobot etc. Never exchanged a harsh word with any of them. They have manners.
some of these others though,
…… bad manners with a double digit IQ? Not a good look.
Prove? What does that mean?
You do understand that this is a space where people exchange [b]opinions[/b] about cycling, not facts?
L.Willo wrote:
You have said gratuitously offensive things about “most” people here. Seriously, your approach is really unpleasant. to hid ebhind the “well they started it” argument is at best disengenuous and certainly not a good excuse.
And yes I do understand; what this is and am not sure that you are entitled to command that peopel do not discuss facts as well as opinions.
Again I ask: what are you trying to prove with your seriously unpleasent approach? Do you think you are influencing anybody or is it really an attempt at self aggrandisement – at least in your own mind? Does it make you feel big, or clever or important “sticking it” to people you have never met from the safety of your little room? Is your life really so shallow and empty?
DavidJ wrote:
He’s obviously a genuine troll. I doubted it at first, as real trolls (rather than just normal argumentative idiots) are quite rare. He’s trying to get a rise out of you.
He’s also a major league bullshitter. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t even own a bike, but some JSR type figure who’s come here to see how long he can wind up the cyclists.
It probably would be nice to get the site back to normal, talking about the stories rather than talking about Willo and his mad thoughts on the stories. Like Katie Hopkins, it’s all a bit obvious, and the style doesn’t hide that his arguments are as thick as a bag of spanners.
bikebot wrote:
His presence here is sadomasochistic. I don’t get it, unless he’s a Daily Mail-ite moton who’s happened to discover that he likes riding a bike, and he hates himself for it. It’s his horrible, dark secret. He comes on here to indulge in a bit of penance.
DavidJ wrote:
What gratuitously offensive things have I said about you?
I rest my case.
L.Willo wrote:
What gratuitously offensive things have I said about you?
I rest my case.— DavidJ
I man who posts comments like this…
… as his opening remark on a story, and now claims not to be gratuitously offensive.
I don’t think he’s being sincere. I think he’s acting very deliberately. I think he does this because he’s probably a bit insecure and has issues.
L.Willo wrote:
Nowhere near son, nowhere near.
DavidJ wrote:
Worth remembering that Australia legislates pedestrians heavily as well as cyclists. They’d have a hell of a time photoshopping a typical London streetscene to conform to their local laws.
L.Willo wrote:
Not equating. Acknowledging the similarities given that both activities are illegal in Australia.
Depicting either activity in an Australian ad as a positive reason to travel with Emirates to countries where it is legal is wholly distasteful and inappropriate.
What next, a picture of a helmetless cyclist smoking a post-ride joint outside a ‘coffee shop’?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
How about a European woman sunning herself in a bikini on the beach in an Islamic country where people are expected to dress modestly?
brooksby wrote:
Separate issue but no I do not thinks that ads should encourage people to go abroad and do things that would be illegal in that country either.
L.Willo wrote:
My word, forget the dodgy sex tourism, we must crack down on those Dutch “encouraging” the people of Australia, desperate to experience helmet free riding to come to their country.
The word is portray, you portray a destination as it is, or you don’t. You don’t get your crayons out and draw all over it if you don’t like something about it. That deserves rich mocking for its idiocy.
L.Willo wrote:
So your example is to use something that would be illegal for a tourist to do?
L.Willo wrote:
What’s unlawful about riding a bike without a helmet in Amsterdam?
But of course we must respect local sensitivities. For example, a few years ago Microsoft photoshopped some of its marketing materials for the Polish market, someone thought there could be a small problem with the original. And everyone respected that, and at no point burst out laughing at the clusterfuck of stupid.
L.Willo wrote:
Such adverts are completely unacceptable. This has nothing to do with seatbelts.
L.Willo wrote:
Plenty of car adverts tell me to drive over the speed limit for a built-up area, on the wrong side of the road (for the UK)
L.Willo wrote:
That’s not really the point, here, is it. This isn’t an ad for an object which comes with built-in safety features.
The advertiser, an airline, is depicting an activity familar to many Aussies, in a foreign destination. The service being advertised is not the activity, or the object in the image, or the foreign destination – but the ability to get you there and make that activity a reality.
They didn’t have to show that activity. They didn’t have to show it being performed with debatable (and unrealistic, given Dutch helmet uptake) safety equipment. They didn’t have to doctor an image to fit a controverisal set of rules that only apply in the home market. That’s what’s controversial and worthy of ridicule – and that’s what is the news item, not ‘Emirates sells stuff’.
Look at this from another perspective; Qantas shows a Brit scuba diving in the underwater technicolour paradise of the Great Barrier Reef – you can’t get the same experience in the UK and you’d understand exactly what that image is conveying. Their smartest advertisers could probably have that scuba diver turn out to be a pompous Pom twat who deliberately misses points, lecturing all the other tourists and wildlife of the Reef about exactly how they should be treating the Reef until the Reef becomes a grey shadow of its former self.
That might look like Eden to you, but many would find that image worthy of ridicule. That would be the story.
L.Willo wrote:
If they were advertising bI cycles you may have a point. This is more similar to an advert in saudi arabia for trips to London where they photosshop burkas onto every woman in the shot.
If they don’t want to depict a cyclist not wearing a helmet, then maybe they should pick a different image of Amsterdam.
Now. Why did I stop
Now. Why did I stop commenting on this site? <Reads this thread>
Oh yeah.
PennineRider wrote:
You weren’t missed. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
L.Willo wrote:
Now. Why did I stop commenting on this site? <Reads this thread>
Oh yeah.
— L.Willo You weren’t missed. Sorry, but it’s the truth.— PennineRider
Oh no. Willo has spoken. I’m sure PennineRider is inconsolable and will now top himself via the tried and tested technique of not deferring to every other road user on his commute home.
PennineRider wrote:
Come back and take the piss out of him. It’s fun!
bikebot wrote:
No. It’s not fun. It’s stupid.
Yet another potentially interesting thread turned toxic and absurd.
A troll’s objective is to make every thread about *them*. He likes it when you engage with him and insult him. When you change your avatar to include his name, you’re just turning the whole board into Willo.cc and you’re as bad as he is.
PennineRider wrote:
Objection!
Come on mate.
He’s getting a reaction, regardless. I’ve replied to him on too many threads, but as long as he’s here, threads will be hijacked. If it’s not me, you, bikebot, whoever responding, it’ll be others. This thread has fresh Willo victims and that’ll continue.
He could represent and argue his potentially interesting angles without being a contrary twat, but he doesn’t. The blame for that is on him.
PennineRider wrote:
Come back and take the piss out of him. It’s fun!
— bikebot No. It’s not fun. It’s stupid. Yet another potentially interesting thread turned toxic and absurd. A troll’s objective is to make every thread about *them*. He likes it when you engage with him and insult him. When you change your avatar to include his name, you’re just turning the whole board into Willo.cc and you’re as bad as he is.— PennineRider
I do apologise. Let me explain in the form of a really big gif.
bikebot wrote:
That was a good film, but nobody was wearing a helmet 🙂
the helmet has clearly been
the helmet has clearly been added as there’s no ‘movement’ streaks as compared to the remainder of the bicycle rider…
and here’s the original stock photo…
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/netherlands-amsterdam-woman-crossing-high-res-stock-photography/597057213
Fook me you’re a sad sack. I
Fook me you’re a sad sack. I truly pity your kids. They must be mainlining valium just to make it through the daily evening sermon.
ficklewhippet wrote:
You think he really has kids? He’s mainlining high purity bullshit.
For those who are also a bit
For those who are also a bit hard of reading, have another go at this section from the article:
The Board noted that community standards are very clear on the issue of health and safety whilst riding a bicycle and considered that a [b]depiction of an adult riding a bicycle without a helmet is a depiction which is in breach of these community standards.
Australian Advertising Standards Board[/b]
But sod that Emirates, stick it to the man, yeah!
L.Willo wrote:
So don’t show Dutch cycling, or use a picture of someone with a helmet on. Badly photoshopping a helmet onto an existing image is laughable. Unless it was a deliberate act in protest at such a stupid regulation.
Maybe you missed the fact that this article is about people commenting on the image being modified (“has attracted derision”), because your a bit thick and suffer from seletive reading. I know you’re not replying to me, but I’m still going to rip into you. It’s a hobby.
L.Willo wrote:
Except that the board were referring to a completely different advert in a completely different context.Maybe you should read the article again
Would make more sense if
Would make more sense if their ad was “Escape from helmets and travel on Emirates airline.”
You guys make me laugh. You
You guys make me laugh. You remind me of the bitchy sorority girls in a crap American college movie …..
Like, oh my God, that Willo, like oh my god, i hate him, he is so un pop u lerr and stuff, …
Honestly, who gives a fuck?
L.Willo wrote:
You do.
L.Willo wrote:
It’s already been said, but you do.
And quite a few other posters have bemoaned every thread you post on turning into some awful Daily Mailfest as opposed to a decent kickabout of the article.
L.Willo wrote:
Thank you for proving my point.
“Who gives a fuck?”
Well you clearly do
He claimed to have children
He claimed to have children some way back. No doubt they are whiter than lily white child prodigies who can solve differential equations while rattling off Rachmaninov 3. Or they are Action Men figures (wearing helmets of course)
Ah, helmets! Nothing like a
Ah, helmets! Nothing like a good chat about them to bring cyclists together…
Duncann wrote:
Helmet (singular), a purple one, bell shaped.
How are they promoting
How are they promoting illegal activity when it’s not illegal to ride a bike without a helmet in Dutchland?
vonhelmet wrote:
Illegal in Australialand.Never mind what those crazy dutchlanders do in their own country … there are standards to maintain in Australialand ….
L.Willo wrote:
How are they promoting illegal activity when it’s not illegal to ride a bike without a helmet in Dutchland?
— L.Willo Illegal in Australialand.Never mind what those crazy dutchlanders do in their own country … there are standards to maintain in Australialand ….— vonhelmet
But it’s not illegal to cycle without a helmet in Dutchland, so they are not promoting illegal activity… Unless you’re suggesting a cyclist could cycle without a helmet in Dutchland while in Australialand, but if that’s the case I think there’d be some more fundamental laws that they’re breaking.
vonhelmet wrote:
Groundhog day.
New Hampshire no seatbelts.
Brazil sex with 14 year olds.
India children smoking.
Netherlands. Cycling headless chicken style.
All legal.
All completely inappropriate to depict positively in ads in countries where said activities are illegal.
Willo’s Law.
Of infinitely greater relevance, AASB guidance.
The End.
L.Willo]
Arbitary list of things, ignoring much greater list that could also be included. Willo’s law is self selective.
Now show us examples where those have been photographed to promote tourism and then removed by photoshop for publication.
Still hasn’t worked out that’s what we’re making fun of (not Emirates). Bit slow.
[/quote] Groundhog day. New Hampshire no seatbelts. Brazil sex with 14 year olds. India children smoking. Netherlands. Cycling headless chicken style. All legal. All completely inappropriate to depict positively in ads in countries where said activities are illegal. Willo’s Law. Of infinitely greater relevance, AASB guidance. The End.[/quote]
The difference being that the rest of the world have not banned a completely normal activity due to there being very little evidence to suggest it is any safer with compulsory helmet use, and it is the Australians who are going against the grain. The picture could have been someone on a moped without a helmet on, but that would not make you believe you could do the same in Australia and not contravene Australian law, any more than if the advert was shown in London.
The sex with 14 year olds that you keep refering to is crass, but I will counter with this point. It is illegal in most of the world, and immoral in all of it. To promote sex tourism with a billboard advert showing sex with children would be promoting an abhorrent act that most Brazilians are not engaging in. Promoting an advert with people riding bicycles without helmets is something that almost all nipping-about-town type cyclists are doing in Holland, and in no way reprehensible. They are very different and it has nothing to do with legality.
L.Willo wrote:
How are they promoting illegal activity when it’s not illegal to ride a bike without a helmet in Dutchland?
— L.Willo Illegal in Australialand.Never mind what those crazy dutchlanders do in their own country … there are standards to maintain in Australialand ….— vonhelmet
Australians tourists that then visit those countries, also have to wear special glasses that photoshop helmets onto people in real time.
“Willo’s Law”:
“Willo’s Law”:
the number of posts made on a Website by L.Willo is directly proportional to the probability of one of the more balanced members changing their unique and quirky avatar to a graphic saying “Fuck Off Willo”.
davel wrote:
To avoid causing any offence, I’ve had my avatar approved by the Australian Government.
It just comes across as a
It just comes across as a doomed-attempt to conceal from Australians the fact that other countries don’t share their peculiar fixation on head-gear.
Its as if the Oz regime fears their entire system will collapse if the people ever discover its possible to ride a bike without a polystyrene hat.
The old USSR had a fairly rational reason for concealing from its citizenry the truth about life in the West, whereas Australian helmet-Stalinism is more like a collective mental health problem.
That guy in the second photo
That guy in the second photo looks pretty uncomfortable in his suite.
Has he been banned or deleted
Has he been banned or deleted his account or what, I can only see his posts in quotes.
kwi wrote:
The number of comments on this story has just dropped from 77 to 61?!?
Did he get himself banded?
Did he get himself banded? Been a while since I seen anyone argue bilge with such fervour so tirelessly. Bet he’s a delicate flower in real life though! Always the way of it…
Better for for him to get banned really. He needs time away from the computer to get some perspective. Coming online to pick the same stupid fight every day.. Seriously sad.
unconstituted wrote:
I imagine he is, as we speak, manufacturing another sock puppet account……..