Advert banned due to cyclist not doing anything wrong

Kieran_Burns

So in summary:

There are three points being made by the ASA: no helmet being worn despite it not being required (or necessary); the cyclists position in the road despite it being taught by Bikeability (the replacement for the Cycling proficiency test) and the position of the car over-taking the cyclist, despite it being EXACTLY the same position shown in the Highway Code under rule 163.

So, they banned the advert over something not required, something recommended and taught by the Govt and something clearly depicted in the Highway Code.

I have to admit to being confused about this...

veronese68

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So in summary:

There are three points being made by the ASA: no helmet being worn despite it not being required (or necessary); the cyclists position in the road despite it being taught by Bikeability (the replacement for the Cycling proficiency test) and the position of the car over-taking the cyclist, despite it being EXACTLY the same position shown in the Highway Code under rule 163.

So, they banned the advert over something not required, something recommended and taught by the Govt and something clearly depicted in the Highway Code.

I have to admit to being confused about this...

No, the car in the ad has not covered the white line. The car in the picture from the Highway Code you posted is well across the white line. Presumably if the car in the ad had crossed the white line the ASA would have exploded in some kind of apoplectic fit.

PBo

guyp@asa.org.uk

Head of ASA.

Go on, fill your boots, I already have!

roger_merriman

Have to be said they (the ASA) are being supported by various charities Such as Headway.

Equally I'm rather doughtfull that they are looking at this logically, more in a something must be done, what ever that happens to be.

rolf_f

Clearly the ASA think it is OK to ban an advert if only 5 people complain about something they can agree is doubtful. Therefore, all we need is for folk on here to watch the adverts and post up which ones they think are dodgy and why (me - I'm genuinely scared to go into pubs these days incase someone near me orders a Strongbow and I get killed by a load of crossbow bolts). Then we just need 5 or more people to make complaints about the advert on that basis. With a bit of luck we can get at least 25% of adverts banned!

roger merriman wrote:

Equally I'm rather doughtfull that they are looking at this logically, more in a something must be done, what ever that happens to be.

You shouldn't eat so many sandwiches then.

The Rookie

So what's happening, the link on the first page to the adjudication comes up dead and no end of searching of the asa webby and I can't find it, does that mean they have pulled it for 'review' already?

ManiaMuse

The Rookie wrote:

So what's happening, the link on the first page to the adjudication comes up dead and no end of searching of the asa webby and I can't find it, does that mean they have pulled it for 'review' already?

Yup lol.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25960322

The Rookie

Blimey, they must have been inundated with complaints to 'arrange the review' that fast (and try and stem the tide)!

Anyone got the original ruling cached/saved that they can post?

Kieran_Burns

Ban withdrawn apparently:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... dvert.html

AlSee

If a car in London passed you giving you that much space someone else would overtake through the middle.

oneiroi

AlSee wrote:

If a car in London passed you giving you that much space someone else would overtake through the middle.

Cycloslalomeur

Nothing wrong with a bit of middletaking is there?