He drives, she dies (BCC decision)

AugustusMaximus

Decision of Commission:
The Commission has considered the broadcast, the submissions made by the complainant, the advertiser and the broadcaster. The complaint concerns an advertisement placed by the Road Safety Authority. In assessing this complaint, the Commission had to have regard to the General Advertising Code and in particular Section 3, protecting the individual & society and offence, harm and human dignity.

The complainant submits that the advertisement is sexist and discriminates against men on the basis of both the content and the fact that all the voice-overs are female. The Commission noted the content of the advertisement. On hearing the broadcast, the Commission found that the message was that if a female does not trust a male’s driving, then she should not get into the car as in too many accidents involving male drivers, female passengers are fatally injured. The advertiser submitted research to the Commission which supports the substantive message of the advertisement. The facts provide evidence that over two-thirds of female passenger deaths involved a male driver (Road Safety Authority statistics). Another statistic which was submitted was that 89.5% of drivers responsible for fatal collisions where excessive speed was cited as a contributory factor were male drivers (based on statistics for years 1997 – 2006). Based on this supporting evidence, the Commission found that the substantive message of the advertisement is factual.

The complainant submits that the suggestion is that all male drivers are targeted by the message and that the advertisement ignores the dangerous driving by females. The Commission could not agree with this submission. The Commission had to consider the purpose of the advertisement. It is in effect a public safety message. It is one which is aimed at a particular demographic due to a particular danger identified for that demographic. The advertisement concentrates on one aspect of road tragedies with the aim of heightening awareness. The Commission would acknowledge that the message is somewhat negative of male driving. However, it is based on available statistics. That the facts are negative cannot determine discrimination and/or sexism.

Road accidents cause tragedy and untold bereavement and affect peoples’ lives irrevocably. The message of this advertisement is that women should not get into a car with a male driver they do not trust. The opening lines of the advertisement are based on the widely accepted perception that women drivers are not as good at driving as their male counterparts. The script then continues with the statement that ‘In Ireland most female road deaths are caused by male drivers’. The script concludes with the statements that ‘because in too many collisions, he drives, she dies’. Given the script and the substantive issue being addressed, the use of all female voice-overs could not determine that the advertisement supported and/or condoned sexism or discrimination.

The Commission would acknowledge that the message is stark. However, given the statistics it is evidently a factual and an important road safety issue. It would not be reasonable to infer that the advertisement dismisses female dangerous driving because it focuses on male drivers. This advertisement addresses one aspect of road safety. As the context was male driving, there was no justification and/or necessity to refer to female drivers. Further, at no stage was it evident that the advertisement was tarnishing all male drivers as dangerous as submitted by the complainant. The closing tagline had to be considered in the context of the entire advertisement. The message was; if a female driver does not trust the driving of a male driver, she should not get into the car. The Commission found that the message was intended to heighten awareness of a significant road safety issue. In the circumstances, it did so in a factual, non-discriminatory and moderate manner. The complaint was rejected with regard to the General Advertising Code, section 3 protecting the individual & society and offence, harm and human dignity.

There is no way I agree with that judgement. If the sexes had been reversed in this ad we would have seen a different decision in my opinion.

voxpop

someone has it as their signature :

Im a white male - of course its my fault

Saab Ed

What a pile of my arse :pac:

Mr Benevolent

The Commission found that the message was intended to heighten awareness of a significant road safety issue. In the circumstances, it did so in a factual, non-discriminatory and moderate manner.

Oh for fuck's sake.

tbh

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

There is no way I agree with that judgement. If the sexes had been reversed in this ad we would have seen a different decision in my opinion.

yes because the statistics would not have backed that up.

you're as well trying to argue that ads for pregnancy are sexist because they target women.

actuallylike

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

There is no way I agree with that judgement. If the sexes had been reversed in this ad we would have seen a different decision in my opinion.

Of course it would be different, statistics say that males cause more accidents, not females.

AugustusMaximus

tbh.

To my mind, the statistics have been grossly misinterpreted.

You don't think that in most situations where a woman and man share a car, that the man in most cases will do the driving.

You also disagree that the ad is offensive towards males, even in the slightest ?

AugustusMaximus

actuallylike wrote: »

Of course it would be different, statistics say that males cause more accidents, not females.

Males drive more hours in total than women. Was that taken into account ?

colm_mcm

From a quick google,

91% of rape victims are female, 99% of offenders are said to be male*

Is it then ok to run an ad in a similar style as the RSA have done, based on statistics.

It's not the stats the RSA are using that bother me, it's the style of the advert that suggests that men are lunatics on the road.

* I'm simply using this as an example, and not trying to make light of either situation

cantdecide

What if the stats showed that a particualar ethnic monority were significantly more likely to be responsible for fatal accidents??? Would it be okay then??

Cuddlesworth

tbh wrote: »

yes because the statistics would not have backed that up.

you're as well trying to argue that ads for pregnancy are sexist because they target women.

The full statistics don't, the partial statistics presented do.

Had the roles been reversed and the ad said, "Guys don't get into a car with a Women, per mile driven they are more likely to crash and injure you as a passenger" how long would the ad have remained on the air?

AugustusMaximus

cantdecide wrote: »

What if the stats showed that a particualar ethnic monority were significantly more likely to be responsible for fatal accidents??? Would it be okay then??

No way would that ad be allowed to run.

The only acceptible forms of discrimination in this instance would be against males or young drivers.

A campaign highlighting dangerous driving against old drivers simply wouldn't be allowed.

mike65

I'm not aware of any stats to show the number of fatalities per hours/kms driven when broken down between the sexes. Its a crude ad, and its highly questionable that its changing anything.

Mr. Presentable

We have seen the true stats before. Women drive circa 25% of miles driven, and are involved in circa 36% of accidents. Men are less likely to be in a crash - per mile! The problem is, when it happens, a male is likely to me going faster and therefore cause more damage.

tbh

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

tbh.

To my mind, the statistics have been grossly misinterpreted.

You don't think that in most situations where a woman and man share a car, that the man in most cases will do the driving.

You also disagree that the ad is offensive towards males, even in the slightest ?

I can only speak for myself, and it doesn't offend me, because it doesn't apply to me. I don't drive like a lunatic, so I'm not bothered. However, I would say that 92% of the assholes i meet on the road are men, so I can understand the reasoning of the ad. Young guys are more likely than young girls to "show off" in a car, even more so when theres a girl in with them.

I'll put it to you this way - If I had an 18-year old son, and an 18-year old daughter, I'd be more worried about my daughter getting into a car with an 18-year old boy than the other way around. it seems the statistics quoted would support this worry

mike65

tbh wrote: »

Young guys are more likely than young girls to "show off" in a car, even more so when theres a girl in with them.

I've read that a woman in the passenger seat has a calming effect. Its a car full of lads thats the greater threat.

AugustusMaximus

tbh wrote: »

I'll put it to you this way - If I had an 18-year old son, and an 18-year old daughter, I'd be more worried about my daughter getting into a car with an 18-year old boy than the other way around. it seems the statistics quoted would support this worry

No they don't. The statistics fail to include the variant of % of times the male driver in the couple decides to drive over the female person.

That variant is VITAL is drawing a conclusion.

If in a married coupe, the man drives 75% of the time, then surely it it more likely that the next accident will be caused by the husband.

cantdecide

There's only one stat that would make the ad reasonable. 100%. If not, it's sexism IMO.

tbh

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

No they don't. The statistics fail to include the variant of % of times the male driver in the couple decides to drive over the female person.

That variant is VITAL is drawing a conclusion.

If in a married coupe, the man drives 75% of the time, then surely it it more likely that the next accident will be caused by the husband.

it's not aimed at wives getting into a car with their husband, it's aimed at teenagers.

the simple fact is, if someone is showing off in a car, by speeding and overtaking dangerously etc, it's way more likely - ime - to be a young man than either an older man or a woman.

NewApproach

tbh wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, and it doesn't offend me, because it doesn't apply to me. I don't drive like a lunatic, so I'm not bothered. However, I would say that 92% of the assholes i meet on the road are men, so I can understand the reasoning of the ad. Young guys are more likely than young girls to "show off" in a car, even more so when theres a girl in with them.

I'll put it to you this way - If I had an 18-year old son, and an 18-year old daughter, I'd be more worried about my daughter getting into a car with an 18-year old boy than the other way around. it seems the statistics quoted would support this worry

I'd be more worried about lending my car to my 18 year old daughter than my 18 year old son. I wonder will the insurance companies start up an ad campaign blaming careless women drivers for the rise in insurance premiums due to all their small minor crashes, which obviously go unrecorded in all the statistics because they're not fatal?

AugustusMaximus

tbh wrote: »

it's not aimed at wives getting into a car with their husband, it's aimed at teenagers.

the simple fact is, if someone is showing off in a car, by speeding and overtaking dangerously etc, it's way more likely - ime - to be a young man than either an older man or a woman.

Do you think that young women drive exactly as much as young men ? I would hasten a guess that they don't, by a long way.

And do you think that ad would be allowed if statistics showed that say for instance, black people were more dangerous drivers that all others.

I can see the tag line now.

N***** drives, you die.

A stark, yet non offensive tag line.

tbh

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Do you think that young women drive exactly as much as young men ? I would hasten a guess that they don't, by a long way.

No, probably not. But I think if you took a sample of 100 young guys, and 100 young girls, the girls would be safer than the guys. It's biology. guys are biologically wired to take more risks. Guys - especially young guys - are biologically wired to show off - thats just a fact of life.

And do you think that ad would be allowed if statistics showed that say for instance, black people were more dangerous drivers that all others.

I can see the tag line now.

N***** drives, you die.

A stark, yet non offensive tag line.

fair point - but I still say, the ad doesn't offend me.

bogtotty

tbh wrote: »

It's biology. guys are biologically wired to take more risks. Guys - especially young guys - are biologically wired to show off - thats just a fact of life.

No they're not. There's nothing in our biology that wires men to take more risks than women. There are some individual differences that cause some people to be greater risk-takers, but those traits are also present in women. Showing off is more of a societal thing - it's 'cool' for young drivers to have a flash car, to overtake, to gun the engine etc. More and more young girls are getting in on that scene too, and pretty soon the stats (and insurance premiums) will start to reflect that.

Cuddlesworth

tbh wrote: »

No, probably not. But I think if you took a sample of 100 young guys, and 100 young girls, the girls would be safer than the guys. It's biology. guys are biologically wired to take more risks. Guys - especially young guys - are biologically wired to show off - thats just a fact of life.

Being more likely to crash is a myth, but the idea of it is creating deaths because of a expectation for it to happen. The fact is insurance company's are pricing males 18-25 out of the market and the ability to drive. Meanwhile the second highest accident group (female 18-22) are driving more and more and their stats are going up and up.

At least they have the benefit of knowing that as long as they are driving they won't die ehh?

Wertz

cantdecide wrote: »

What if the stats showed that a particualar ethnic monority were significantly more likely to be responsible for fatal accidents??? Would it be okay then??

Of course it would...once they were white. :pac:

The BCC have completely missed the point of the complainants and the general distaste toward the ad and are, of course, only too willing to toe the RSA line about safety > everything else.
As mentioned ad infinitum in the many threads on these forums about it, it's not the stats which are being picked up on, it's the (mis)interpretation being drawn from the stats to suit the ageneda of the insurance companies and to make the RSA look like a relvant body, and the horribly phrased/acted ad campaign.

This is just another whitewash where regulations are bent to suit certain agendas and to hell with anyone who has a problem with that.
It would be very interesting to see if this ad campaign had any notable effect on the road death stats during and after it's run...of course I'd have to see independent figures and statistics because the RSA don't have a good track record on presenting relevant statistics...

CR 7

I'm all in favour of this ad. It's made me consider who i'll get into a car with, and personally i'm a lot more nervous about getting into a car with a female driver. I hadn't really thought about this before. Thanks RSA.

Eoin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The fact is insurance company's are pricing males 18-25 out of the market and the ability to drive.

Insurance has gotten cheaper and cheaper for males in that age bracket over the last 8 years or so.

Cuddlesworth

Wertz wrote: »

It would be very interesting to see if this ad campaign had any notable effect on the road death stats during and after it's run...of course I'd have to see independent figures and statistics because the RSA don't have a good track record on presenting relevant statistics...

Every time I see the RSA proudly talk about their achievements in road safety I always think of the below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2zXSaDFi7o