[Some Fella]

Im sure this will turn up elsewhere but in the meantime – no matter what your thoughts are on the helmet debate this ruling by the ASA is beyond bonkers

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cyclists-must-ride-in-the-gutter-wear-helmets-ad-watchdog-rules/015951

~X(

As suspected, the idiots really *are* winning.

Topic

[Shep73]

Mart wrote:Perhaps we should

Mart wrote:

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

Does that come from a background in engineering or just what you see on the TV?

As an engineer in the automotive industry, and working in other sectors of manufacturing I know the facts and appreciate how we get the resources that I and YOU use everyday. So do you actually understand processes for manufacturing, producing power, producing food, push bike manufacturers or producing parts to keep these factories/power stations going. If you do than I take it you live in a tree and eat grubs and you most certainly shouldn’t be using the internet.

The hate on this forum for motorised vehicles from some of the users is a joke when you pollute just as much through other means.

As for the ASA, may be people should write to them as I intend to do and show them the error of the ways.

[dp24]

I cannot believe what I have
I cannot believe what I have just read.

”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!!

[Carlton Reid]

I chose not to focus on the
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.

[Anonymous]

The more I read the ASA
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.

[Paul_C]

apparently the rules they
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?

[mrmo]

I guess the solution is to
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!!!!

[Mart]

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

[numbercruncher]

Ill informed people making
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!

[Anonymous]

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

[Yorkshie Whippet]

Gman59c
Giving a cyclist room
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.

[Gman59c]

Was absolutely flabbergasted
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!!!!

[IanD]

I think the distance out from
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…

[Author]

Replies