ASA Ruling.

I cannot believe what I have just read.

Quote:

"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."

If the driver of the car is unable to overtake safely, then they shouldn't be overtaking. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE F*CKING ADVERT!!

I chose not to focus on the helmet part of the decision, barmy though that is.

The BikeBiz story and the email I sent to the ASA press office focusses on the gutter-bunny advice that's contrary to rule 163 of the Highway Code. And the use of the phrase "parking lane" for the public highway is wrong on so many levels.

All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group MPs are - right this moment - penning missives to the ASA. This story will run and run. Until, hopefully, ASA retracts its decision.

The more I read the ASA ruling, the more barmy it becomes ;

They have decided, on the basis of 5 mysterious complaints, that the ad is "socially irreponsible" and can lead to "harm or offense".

Virtually all adverts for cars and alcohol must therefore also breach these guidelines, and probably most adverts for fast food.

Did the ASA consult with the CTC or Sustrans before making this ruling? Who decided this, it appears to be some fruit-cake quango with no accountability to anyone. Bonkers.

apparently the rules they found it broke were sections 1.2, 4.1 or 4.4 of the advertising watchdog’s code, namely causing social irresponsibility, harm and giving offence respectively

Very confused as to how this could cause offence... social irresponsibility or harm...

Who was harmed by the advert?

Who was encouraged to socially irresponsible?

Who was offended?

I guess the solution is to lodge complaints against every car advert that promotes speed, or a lifestyle that produces pollution,

How about the Nissan adverts encouraging driving on roof tops!!! I mean WTF how is it safe someone might try it!!!!

Perhaps we should all complain about car advertising, surly its socially irresponsible to promote a polluting mode of transport.

I am gob smacked, ASA is getting too big for its own boots.....

Ill informed people making rulings on things they don't understand. Who'd have thought it!
Overtaking car almost has to cross the central white line. Crikey, health and safety nightmare!

Gman59c

Giving a cyclist room is dangerous because it forces cars onto the wrong side of the road and therefore encourages dangerous overtaking that could result in a head on collision with an oncoming vehicle. Therefore putting peoples precious metal coffins (H&S) at risk and damaging the economy and government taxes (socially irresponsible) is a greater risk than backing the message to slow down in the first place.

Really begs the question about whose funding who these days. And they say corruption is for developing countries.

Was absolutely flabbergasted to read this, this morning. Setting aside the helmet issue, I cannot see how giving a cyclist space when passing can be deemed socially irresponsible or be a risk to health and safety.

I wonder what they think of the Kit Kat Car Chase advert??? Or the many car adverts that highlight performance (they are really saying this car can go really fast).

Unbelievable!!!!

I think the distance out from the kerb is far more worrying. They don't seem to have taken on board the fact that it is about giving cyclists space at all...