Prudential Insurance Advert Cyclists to blame for accidents

sc999cs

Have to get this off my chest - I'm really annoyed at the advert being run at the moment by the Prudential Insurance company where a woman with a cycling helmet bumps into a man while the commentary warbles on about "being hit by uninsured drivers" - implication being that collisions are caused by cyclists. I've sent the following complaint to the ASA as I feel this advert really trivialises accidents involving motor vehicles and cyclists.

Am I the only one annoyed with this advert? I will never consider the Prudential for any form of insurance in the future because of this advert.

Prudential (www.pru.co.uk/car) are running a commercial which show a female cyclist in a lift, fixing her gloves, walking out without looking and bumping into a suited male. The commentary states at this point that the Prudential "will maintain your no-claims insurance if hit by an uninsured driver". The clear implication being that the female cyclist represents an uninsured driver and is to blame for the collision. Considering that generally cars hit cyclists, and inflict serious injuries to those cyclists – even killing them - I believe the use of this as an example is in poor taste. Furthermore it is also implying that it is okay to hit a cyclist because the driver's no claim bonus will remain unaffected, which may lead to a less vigilant approach to driving. The advert is trivialising accidents between motor vehicles and cyclists and the question has to be asked if the advertisers would have found it acceptable to use an example of a car hitting an uninsured motorcyclist or pedestrian to highlight the same benefit of the policy?

KitsuneAndy

sc999cs wrote:

Have to get this off my chest - I'm really annoyed at the advert being run at the moment by the Prudential Insurance company where a woman with a cycling helmet bumps into a man while the commentary warbles on about "being hit by uninsured drivers" - implication being that collisions are caused by cyclists. I've sent the following complaint to the ASA as I feel this advert really trivialises accidents involving motor vehicles and cyclists.

Am I the only one annoyed with this advert? I will never consider the Prudential for any form of insurance in the future because of this advert.

Prudential (www.pru.co.uk/car) are running a commercial which show a female cyclist in a lift, fixing her gloves, walking out without looking and bumping into a suited male. The commentary states at this point that the Prudential "will maintain your no-claims insurance if hit by an uninsured driver". The clear implication being that the female cyclist represents an uninsured driver and is to blame for the collision. Considering that generally cars hit cyclists, and inflict serious injuries to those cyclists – even killing them - I believe the use of this as an example is in poor taste. Furthermore it is also implying that it is okay to hit a cyclist because the driver's no claim bonus will remain unaffected, which may lead to a less vigilant approach to driving. The advert is trivialising accidents between motor vehicles and cyclists and the question has to be asked if the advertisers would have found it acceptable to use an example of a car hitting an uninsured motorcyclist or pedestrian to highlight the same benefit of the policy?

Sometimes cyclists do crash into things, cyclists aren't insured. Fairly valid scenario as far as I can see.

grayo59

Calm down dear! It's only a commercial!

always_tyred

Not quite so clear cut. Mere offence could be taken.

Wouldn't take more than 20 or 30 complaints to advertising standards people to get it pulled.