The Department for Transport (DfT) has said it has “no plans to withdraw” its controversial ‘Hang Back’ cycle safety video which was widely criticised by cycling campaigners when it was launched last week, despite a call from Cycling UK to withdraw it.
The charity, which has accused the DfT of “victim blaming” through the film, last week wrote to transport minister Andrew Jones to call for it to be pulled and to urge the department to work alongside cycling campaigners on safety messages, but its appeal has been rebuffed.
It said that DfT officials this week told it: “The level of criticism is unfortunate, however we have no plans to withdraw the video.”
The film seeks to warn cyclists about the danger posed by a lorry turning left – although the footage appears to show the vehicle’s driver overtaking the rider shortly before a junction, giving him no choice but to be caught on the inside of the vehicle.
The segment with the lorry is preceded by a montage showing a piano being dropped as well as slapstick scenes from films and cartoons, which led British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman of accusing the DfT of trying to make “entertainment out of death.”
> Boardman: DfT Hang Back video makes “entertainment out of death”
Cycling UK, which says that the “real problem” lies in dangerous lorries that have blind spots, is now urging cyclists to contact the minister and DfT to continue to press for the video to be axed.
The organisation’s senior road safety and legal campaigns manager, Duncan Dollimore, said: “Cycling UK is urging Andrew Jones and the team behind their dreadful ‘Hang Back’ initiative to Think! again, and to stop blaming the victims of these tragic collisions where cyclists have been killed by lorries.
“Think! does not tell people to avoid the roads because of the danger drunk drivers pose to others, so why is it now trivialising the victims of lorry collisions when we know lorries are a problem and have massive blind spots?
“National government’s regressive attitude is in stark contrast to the capital, which last Friday announced how it will address the disproportionate problem of lorry related cycle deaths.”
Making reference to plans unveiled in the capital to remove dangerous HGVs from the city’s streets, he added: “London Mayor Sadiq Khan isn’t blaming the victim, but driving unsafe lorries off his roads and promoting safer design.
> London mayor Sadiq Khan plans to ban unsafe lorries from capital’s roads
“Hopefully government will learn from London and follow suit.
“I’d urge everyone who is equally disgusted by this Think! campaign to write to the Minister asking him to withdraw this campaign, which they can do via the Cycling UK website.”
61 thoughts on “DfT rejects Cycling UK call to withdraw ‘Hang Back’ video”
Or to put it another way,
Or to put it another way, they don’t give a shit.
Advertising Standards
Advertising Standards Authority it is, then…
Yes ASA. Good thinking! Just
Yes ASA. Good thinking! Just lodged the complaint on their online form.
Others can have a go too:
https://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx
Only takes a couple of minutes, and you can use this link for the location of the footage when they ask for it on the form.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-think-campaign-to-improve-cyclists-safety
unconstituted wrote:
Done! Come on people, let the fat smug useless bastards know we don’t have to put up with this crap
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Yes ASA. Good thinking! Just lodged the complaint on their online form.
Others can have a go too:
https://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx
Only takes a couple of minutes, and you can use this link for the location of the footage when they ask for it on the form.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-think-campaign-to-improve-cyclists-safety
— Daveyraveygravey Done! Come on people, let the fat smug useless bastards know we don’t have to put up with this crap— unconstituted
These people are doing their best to save cyclists from getting killed. Describing them as “fat smug useless bastards” I don’t think is really doing them justice, regardless of whether you think they are right or wrong. Do you have an anger or attitude problem in everyday life?
Applecart wrote:
So you think these people aren’t actively trying to make cycling more dangerous and they aren’t evil and malicious, they’re just incompetent? Whichever it is, and I tend to the totally incompetent theory, if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be in it, no matter how good your intentions. What you meant to do doesn’t count, it’s the actual effect that matters, and if that is the exact opposite of what you meant to do, you are hopelessly incompetent.
unconstituted wrote:
Thanks for the links, I have done this too just now. I just chose Other and Other in the options and gave the link to it.
non cyclists who think they
non cyclists who think they can lecture cyclists on how to cycle….
“The level of criticism is
“The level of criticism is unfortunate,”
Basically the minister for transport is saying, Cycling UK are hindering us from our plans to get rid of those pesky cyclists!
I wouldn’t trust a Labour transport minister to do anything good for cyclists, but the current Tory party look like they and the Daily Fail readers are going to start undoing the little good work that has been done in the last few years.
Just trying to save some
Just trying to save some lives.
How very inconsiderate!
ASA complaint now submitted
ASA complaint now submitted against the Dept of Motoring.
Amazing crassness not to at least acknowledge the level of complaints against this video.
This DfT video is appalling.
This DfT video is appalling. It implies that it is perfectly acceptable to cut up cyclists. The manoeuvre of the lorry is totally unacceptable and in fact contradicts all that motorists are supposed to do when turning left.
I think this advert will help
I think this advert will help save lives. If you get caught in this position, beside a lorry and a potential left turn you need to take evasive action or be ready too. If you get squashed you are a victim. If you are aware of the danger and ready to avoid it you have taken control of the situation. This is defensive riding and as a cyclist you need to learn how to do it. Education saves lives, arguing over the semantictics of it seems petty. Forget victim blaming, don’t be a victim!
simonsays wrote:
Have you actually watched the film?! Jesus Christ!
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
I think this advert will help save lives. If you get caught in this position, beside a lorry and a potential left turn you need to take evasive action or be ready too. If you get squashed you are a victim. If you are aware of the danger and ready to avoid it you have taken control of the situation. This is defensive riding and as a cyclist you need to learn how to do it. Education saves lives, arguing over the semantictics of it seems petty. Forget victim blaming, don’t be a victim!
— Daveyraveygravey Have you actually watched the film?! Jesus Christ!— simonsays
Of course simonsays hasn’t.
He’s also not aware of highway code rule 182:
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
And highway code rule 163:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
…
And highway code rules 211-213:
Rule 211
It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.
Rule 212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
Rule 213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
(Anyway thanks to simonsays I now have some highway code rules to stick into my complaint. )
Bluebug wrote:
We know the rules. However, visibility is poor in lorries. As a lorry weighs many tens of tonnes and you are the physical equivalent of a soft beetle being crushed underfoot, doesn’t it makes sense to hang back rather than get killed? Or do you want to die just to prove a point so you can have a good f***ing whinge about it? You can always have the highway code read out at your funeral I suppose and “I told you so” chiselled on your gravestone.
Bluebug wrote:
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that road users should follow the highway code. I don’t think anyone is questioning that the video is bad, and the response to the CyclingUK challenges are poor.
However, I think what Simonsays is getting across is that being aware of dangerours scenarios may help cyclists anticipate & react to them. E.g. when the f*****g truck driver does overtake you and left-hook you, the realisation of what is happening may help the rider to take avoiding action.
When I cycled in Leeds city centre I quickly realised that being in the right was f*** all use to me if I was dead, and I started cycling with the assumption that if someone could make a stupid and dangerous manouvre, they would.
When I did some advanced motorcycle training, much of the tuition centred upon anticipation of risk – i.e. the assumption that people do stuff that they shouldn’t.
BikeBud wrote:
Exactly! What I’ve tried to say here and elsewhere is what making you a good cyclist or a good driver for that matter is anticipating other peoples’ behaviour. That is the whole game.
To repeat, as a cyclist:
1. always presume you haven’t been seen
2. if you have been seen, always presume that they under-estimate your speed
THIS WILL HELP YOU TO LIVE. GOOD LUCK!
Applecart wrote:
What is the most famous (and probably the only effective) government information film of all time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYJYA0P5ls8
Understand yet?
bikebot wrote:
Surely its this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLW7PFQ7u-E
inz4ne wrote:
I was thinking of the one that The Department for Thwarting Paedos (except famous ones) nicked off the prodigy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3FnCiRpdQ4
davel wrote:
Success rate, not so good.
bikebot wrote:
Yes, I agree that’s really effective and we need something similar now for cyclists to make drivers aware of visibility issues. However, cyclists should not be encouraged to undertake at junctions – that is the central message here, to hang back if there’s a chance the vehicle next to you could turn. I do this myself in town, naturally as I don’t want to die. Touch wood, I’m still here.
Applecart wrote:
So you apportion responsibility for the squashing to the squasher and squashee. Well, preacherman, your work here is done. Your congregation of extremely experienced cyclists who are also still here, but only by sheer luck, will stop throwing themselves under HGVs and popping manuals through red lights. We don’t know how we managed before we heard your message, but we’ve seen the errors of our ways and will change. We promise.
There are so many driving sites that don’t yet realise that what they’re missing is for you to register with a username that just hints at a bit of a trolling and post approx. 30 posts that are similarly patronising to regular and/or professional drivers. You know, the squashers.
If you could miss the point on there too, just in the interests of fairness. Maybe blame the cars, or trucks, or whatever. There is a whole world beyond these comments that needs you.
Applecart wrote:
OK you didn’t understand. I’m going to try a few things, and for various reasons I’m going to be a little blunt. Partly, because I’m in that sort of mood this week, and partly because I think you need it.
First, with all your advice, try to picture the idea that 99% of people are not colossal fucking idiots. For the 1% who are, the chances of having any affect are zero, they’re a matter for the Police.
Second, take the thought that anyone has been or even could be “encouraged to undertake at junctions”, wrap it up in a lead lined box and drop it down a very deep shaft. The only people that ever did that, were the berks that designed the lethal combination of feeder lanes and advanced stop lines, which happens to be the same government department making this video.
Third, the ability of a government information film to provide any training benefit is minimal. That isn’t how road awareness works. The brain is already wired to be an anticipation machine, 90% of what people attribute as road awareness is simply experience and familiarity. My experience is that the people that put the most faith in training are invariably those with the least actual experience of it (you’ll get the same answer from almost all cycling instructors).
The underlying message on the famous 70’s bike commerical was very simply, you’re dangerous, they’re vulnerable, act accordingly.
Fourth, regardless of intentions or claims otherwise, to the majority of people viewing the video it shows the lorry overtaking. Images do not match the message, so that it reinforces a dangerous driving behaviour. A worryingly large number of drivers don’t understand the basics of junction priority, and anyone that ever uses the loaded word “undertaking” really doesn’t help with that.
In summary
Educational benefit to cyclists: 1 points.
Potential to reinforce dangerous driving: -1,000 points.
Shitness rating: -999 points
And if that isn’t clear, just do your best to avoid me for a few days.
L Willo wrote:
Yes, we do need a similar video to make drivers aware of visibility issues. That’s the problem with this “Hang Back” video – it doesn’t instruct drivers at all. It also doesn’t really inform cyclists in any sensible fashion due to a bad example. They could have shown a cyclist undertaking in a dangerous fashion with the driver behaving normally – instead they show a cyclist riding “correctly” and a lorry doing a really dangerous left-turn.
The video is really poor and a huge missed opportunity. Just contrast it with the “Think Once, Think Twice, Think Bike!” example above. I really don’t the DfT are doing their best to help cyclists at all.
simonsays wrote:
Thank god we have public information films to tell people they need to take evasive action when a sodding great big lorry turns across their path.
Absolutely zero educational content in that video, all it shows is that lorries are dangerous. It doesn’t show any way to reduce exposure to that danger (not a request for anyones advice on that BTW).
bikebot wrote:
Except for “hang back”, the title of the video, that advises you to “hang back” so you don’t get squashed by a juggernaut that may not have seen you. Are you on something?
Done – both CyclingUK and ASA
Done – both CyclingUK and ASA
Bluebug, Bikebot, The point
Bluebug, Bikebot, The point is, if you rely on the highway code or your right of way to protect you from a lorry then you are going to come off pretty badly.
This is a lesson that people need to learn. You are vulnerable on a bike and should be aware of potential dangers. Lorries are killing lots of cyclists, if you are aware of the dangers then this is a way of protecting yourself before other measures come in to help.
simonsays wrote:
Thank God there’s another sensible person on here!
Knowing the highway code, and having a camera on their helmet is not going to make them more visible to drivers. I do agree that drivers should be made aware, of course. I do also think it’s basic common sense to hang back at junctions as the chances are they haven’t seen you, and if you take that risk there is only one loser in that situation – you. RIP
Applecart wrote:
its a public information film on the same level as tell women “CAREFUL men might rape you, beware”
Housecathst wrote:
To be fair if they were also a cyclist they would be asking for it wearing tight lycra and all that. Hows a red blooded lorry driver meant to resist when hes popped out of his cab to check who he has just left hooked! And they wouldnt have paid any road tax……
Housecathst wrote:
I tell my girlfriend not to walk home alone at night, just as I tell cyclists to stay out of the way of cars and lorries, you fucking moron.
Applecart wrote:
I think that you may be missing the point. I don’t know if you’re missing it on purpose.
Everyone agrees that HGVs are dangerous. And that if you come up behind one is signalling left or approaching a left junction then it might be safer to freewheel a moment to see what they’re doing rather than blithely continuing up their inside.
However, the DafT film doesn’t show that. It shows a lorry overtaking a cyclist then almost immediately turning left across them. Classic left hook. One of the most common ways in which HGV drivers kill cyclists.
And *that* is the complaint: that the supposed cycle safety film appears to legitimise a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre, presenting it in such a way as to say that the result was the fault of the cyclist.
Anecdote:
Last night I saw a cyclist riding on the road on the Centre in Bristol. It’s a hellish gyratory type system. A bus overtook him as they approached a bend. Quite a tight bend, and the bus therefore moved much closer to the kerb. The cyclist was forced up against the kerb, managed to stop themselves falling over, but stopped until the bus passed.
Now please tell me: according to the DfT film, and your own comments, that was the cyclist’s fault for ‘not hanging back’. Really? So not the bus driver’s fault for not hanging back until he could safely overtake, then??
brooksby wrote:
I couldn’t have put it better myself, “thank goodness there’s another sensible person on here”!
Applecart, the DfT film shows EXACTLY HOW TO OVERTAKE A BIKE BADLY. That’s why most of us are up in arms about the film, the cyclist in that example has not done anything wrong. If they want to make a film about cyclists undertaking lorries, (and have hilarious pianos falling out of the sky etc for more than three quarters of it) that would be a different issue.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
I agree with you. The point is however, that in that situation as a cyclist you should hang back if you do not want to be killed. They could perhaps make it clearer, so I’m with you on that.
However this does not detract from the central message that you should always, as a cyclist, presume you haven’t been seen and that drivers cannot estimate your speed accurately, tending to under-estimate.
This under-estimation of speed is what leads to drivers turning left, as they do not realise just how fast you come up on the inside. I think perhaps a better explanation of this is needed. Both cyclists and drivers need to be aware of this, and particularly lorries.
Satisfied now? 😉
Applecart wrote:
Erm – so you’re saying that every time I get overtaken I should slow down, freewheel or hit the brakes, just in case I haven’t been seen and the overtaking vehicle decides to ignore a handful of Highways Code rules and pulls in or turns, squashing me?
Wow, that’s going to make my journeys a bit longer…
brooksby wrote:
In the city I can generally keep pace with the traffic and am often faster. However if I see a turn coming up I let the vehicle in front lead, I don’t try to undertake. Undertaking is risky as they don’t see you.
simonsays wrote:
I’m not usually this rude to a fellow cyclists, but please take that egg you’re asking me to suck and shove somewhere* that will stop you spouting this shit.
*I’d suggest your arse.
I was trying to argue this
I was trying to argue this point a few days back on here. . If you want to stay alive ALWAYS presume that:
1. drivers haven’t seen you
2. if a driver has seen you, they will under-estimate your speed
This means: hang back and don’t put yourself between a vehicle and a junction if at all possible. Hang back, like the ad says.
If you bear these two points in mind you will have a lot less to get angry about as a cyclist, and live significantly longer and/or with much fewer disability adjusted years. And I just can’t get my head around all these comments that “drivers don’t give a sh*t” etc. For Christ’s sake, they don’t want to kill you! What sort of bizarre world do you live in?!
Complaint sent to ASA.
Complaint sent to ASA.
Applecart, if drivers really
Applecart, if drivers really didn’t want to kill anyone, and I mean REALLY, there would be no drink driving, no mobile/smart phone use and no speeding. All of these things are dangerous for those doing it, for which I cannot find myself caring too much about, but much more importantly dangerous for everybody going about their business around them. Oh yes, and all against the law.
ktache wrote:
Only a psychopath goes out in the morning looking for someone to kill, sure. But many drivers – and I’d include myself in this when I was younger – drive with an assumption that the road is completely empty, junctions are clear, they have the right of way, etc. People don’t make a connection between that approach and the likelihood that they might inadvertently kill someone.
ktache wrote:
I think the issue here is atrributing intent. Nobody wakes up and thinks “today I’m going to drive recklessly and kill someone”. I totally agree that drivers need educating about blindspots and how to share the road with cyclists. Equally, cyclists need educating about how to not get squashed. Ultimately though, it’s a one-way battle. If you have the choice a cyclist to reduce risk by hanging back, you had better bloody well use it if you want to live, as there is only one loser. That’s my point.
Well it sure does appear that
Well it sure does appear that the DfT does not read or in fact follow the rules of the Highway Code. What plonkers they are, are they not ! !
Surely DFT can wake up and
Surely DFT can wake up and release a campaign targetting drivers who text/use social media etc whilst behind a wheel. This causes far more injury and death to all roads & footpaths. Yet we see nothing, its a growing issue and to date all we have is an increase in the fine given out, not that they are being prosecuted because the police don’t have the resource or support to catch and prosecute….getting away with murder.
Lorry/bus design is the real issue. Get those changes in that mandate additional safety and visual aids…..its a joke.
Simmo72 wrote:
But they do have the time to send a PCSO out to “enforce” a purely advisory cyclists dismount sign. Now his powers are very low, but send him out with a camera and he can gather evidence. I’m guessing that PCSOs can act as professional witnesses in court, much as full police can, not that it need ever come to that, FPN and points in the post?
Yesterday I held back for an
Yesterday I held back for an HGV at one set of lights only for the HGV to block the ASL at the next set. No matter, I put myself in a visible position and self-righteously let the fecker know what I thought of him.
However, I fundamentally support the view that being in the right is not the best way to survive out there. How then do we educate fellow cyclists in defensive techniques without endorsing shit drivers, or are we prepared to carry on getting crushed (despite wearing hi viz, helmets and ringing our bells) whilst the drivers are educated?
inz4ne wrote:
Fact is, roads were never designed to accommodate cars and bikes and it’s insane to think it will ever be safe. In an ideal world they would never share the road.
In reality however, we have to make the best of it by educating both drivers and cyclists how to not endanger or otherwise irritate each other. Promoting the notion that drivers are unequivocally dangerous/cunts and that the authorities/police are useless/smug/cunts/don’t give a shit like the tiny handful of regular commenters on here is not helping anyone and is woefully fucking disrespectful to people who are genuinely trying to help you, and will scrape your ass off the road and inform your loved ones of your demise.
I’m a cyclist, and I see cyclists riding dangerously all the time. Two-abreast, a metre out from the verge, powering through junctions and lights, undertaking and then bitching when they get knocked off or have a close pass. It’s insanity. You will never win against a vehicle so wind your neck in stay out of the way as much as possible. If it’s that dangerous that you can’t help whingeing and shaking your fist every day, “don’t cycle” would be my advice. You can probably find ways to stay fit or travel that are much less stressful for you and everybody else.
Personally, I love cycling and I give people the benefit of the doubt. I also assume that drivers haven’t seen me and can’t assess my speed. Seems to work for me as I’ve made it to middle age despite cycling pretty much every day for 30 years. Good luck.
Applecart wrote:
What is woefully disrespectful is the I’m more important than you attitude of most motorists.
As a
cycling forum trollcyclist, you should know that it is recommended and entirely legal to ride two abreast, as far away from the gutter as they like.Undertakingusing a filter lane to an advanced stop box is an example of how woefully inadequate the infrastructure is, perhaps giving filtering cyclists confidence of going up the inside of traffic.It is insanity. You think that you are going to convince 95% of the posters on this site they are wrong. You will never win against us, so wind your neck in and piss off to the daily mail, where I’m sure your contributions will be better received.
Fuck off (again), Willo.
Fuck off (again), Willo.
Why is Willo’s name appearing
Why is Willo’s name appearing in the quotes? Did someone do that deliberately?
Response from ASA this
Response from ASA this morning:
“Thank you for submitting your complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
We aim to respond in more detail within ten working days. We are, however, currently experiencing large volumes of complaints, so it might take a little longer, so please bear with us.”
Well done everyone and keep them coming.
Let’s try and keep some
Let’s try and keep some balance here. I’d just like to say a big thank-you to those careful drivers who have given me lots of room when overtaking at great personal jeapordy to themselves and others. Chapeau to the driver who overtook me yesterday on a blind corner and only just missed the HGV coming to meet him – I’m still not sure how he made it in time.
Chapeau also to the driver today who left it too late to complete his overtaking manouevre before a mini-roundabout and took the roundabout and ensuing traffic island on the wrong side of the road nearly taking out the foolish pedestrian who had only looked right before crossing. Fortunately in this case I was able to catch up at the usual queue just down the road and thank the driver personally.
These commendable drivers respect cyclists – I’m sure they must watch DfT videos all the time.
inz4ne wrote:
For the sake of balance I’d like to thank every pedestrian I walked past earlier that didn’t punch me in the face.
When you make comments like yours, you know something is tragically wrong culturally. You sound like you’ve been abused ritually, and are now pleased when you aren’t abused.
unconstituted wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for you to delete this once you;ve re-read what he put 🙂
unconstituted wrote:
Woosh!
hawkinspeter wrote:
I did only read the first line, give me a break
Full-on evangelist bot mode at the moment!
Can we not see and accept
Can we not see and accept irony/sarcasm without needing the horrible emoticon.
I did have to reread the “great personal jeapordy to themselves” but then I hopefully read the rest in the spirit in which it was written.
ASA didn’t work. They won’t
ASA didn’t work. They won’t look at it.
Dear Mr XXXXXXXX
Your Complaint: Department for Transport (Think!)
Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority, with your complaint about a recent Think! Ad that you saw on the Think! Road Safety Twitter Page, regarding an ad featuring a lorry and a cyclist. I understand why you would want to tell us about this ad, but we’re unable to pursue your complaint in this instance, because the material you’ve identified does not fall within the remit of the CAP Code that we enforce.
To provide some background, I should first explain that when the ASA took on the responsibility for regulating online content, it was decided that marketing communications for causes and ideas (e.g. marketing content for campaigning groups) would only fall within our remit if they appeared in paid-for spaces, or if they contained direct solicitations for donations or purchases. Since then, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP, the body responsible for writing the Code that the ASA enforces) has brought our regulation of all marketing communications for causes and ideas in other media in line with this position. This means that we will only assess marketing communications for causes and ideas that appear in paid-for or donated spaces, and we won’t consider complaints about other communications (e.g. emails, leaflets, mailings, SMS text messages and the like) unless there’s an explicit solicitation for donations as part of the marketer’s own fund-raising activities. You can find out more about this position here.
In this case, because the material that you objected to did not contain a direct solicitation for donations and was on the advertisers own space, I’m afraid we’re not able to take further action under our Code. However, if you would still like to pursue your complaint about this material, you may wish to contact the advertiser directly here – https://forms.dft.gov.uk/contact-dft-and-agencies/ .
I appreciate that this is not the response you might have liked, but I hope I’ve explained our position clearly and provided you with some useful information. Thank you, nonetheless, for taking the trouble to contact us. You can find out more information about the ASA and the work we do by visiting our website, www.asa.org.uk.
Kind regards
pp Laura Sparks
Complaints Executive
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
http://www.asa.org.uk