ASAI & cycle safety

kuro_man

Compliants to Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1106/breaking43.html

A complaint about a national press advertisement for a Unilever product was also upheld. An image in the ad depicted a family cycling without safety helmets. The advertisers were informed by the authority that the Road Safety Authority had expressed concerns about the depiction of cyclists without helmets. The advertisers said it had not been their intention to encourage unsafe practice and they would not use the image again.

Similar concerns arose in an television ad for Meteor, which showed a cyclist chasing after a bus while using his mobile phone. In this case, the RSA indicated it was of the view that the ad promoted “highly dangerous road user behaviour”. The committee found the ad to be in breach of section 2.29 of the code.
The advertisers indicated they would edit the scene in the ad to ensure the cyclist would in no way be depicted as promoting reckless behaviour.

galwaycyclist

kuro_man wrote: »

Compliants to Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1106/breaking43.html

In my view this is pretty disgusting behaviour by the RSA regarding helmets particularly given that they are excluded from the Advertising Standards Authority remit and can put out pretty much anything they like themselves.

tomasrojo

Where were the family cycling in the ad? I mean, if they were pootling along bare-headed in the park, is that a reckless scenario to depict?

kerry4sam

kuro_man wrote: »

Compliants to Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1106/breaking43.html

I am actually delighted with the following:

A complaint about a national press advertisement for a Unilever product was also upheld. An image in the ad depicted a family cycling without safety helmets. The advertisers were informed by the authority that the Road Safety Authority had expressed concerns about the depiction of cyclists without helmets. The advertisers said it had not been their intention to encourage unsafe practice and they would not use the image again.

.

I was thrown off my bike only last Sunday and were it not for my helmet, God only knows what condition I would be in tonight. The driver admited he was at fault that had me hop off the cars' bonnet and banged down on the ground head and shoulders first! :eek: Still cannot believe tbh! If I were not wearing my helmet when my head hit the ground, I shudder to think what the outcome would've been.

Two days on and both my legs and still killing me, swollen & bruised; and my neck, shoulders and arms are in pain also.

No way should anyone adverstise cyclists without wearing helmets imo. So Well Done to the RSA on this!

tomasrojo

Here we go again.

tomasrojo

I should clarify: I'm not belittling the previous poster's collision. I just dread where this thread is going from here.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

I should clarify: I'm not belittling the previous poster's collision. I just dread where this thread is going from here.

Might be no harm if it got locked at this point

ThisRegard

Well it's fairly obvious isn't ?
Full body armour has to be mandatory as the poster has sore legs and stuff.


But in all seriousness, it's ridiculous. Where does it stop with the RSA ? Would they report the Coffee by bike thread to the admins just in case Dirk was tempted to take a swig while on the go ?

tomasrojo

Perhaps they should lobby against sites such as this.

http://ridesabike.tumblr.com

This glamorising of unsafe cycling has to stop. Most of the misguided airheads pictured here are dead, you won't be surprised to hear.

AltAccount

kerry4sam wrote: »

I am actually delighted with the following:
.

I was thrown off my bike only last Sunday and were it not for my helmet, God only knows what condition I would be in tonight. The driver admited he was at fault that had me hop off the cars' bonnet and banged down on the ground head and shoulders first! :eek: Still cannot believe tbh! If I were not wearing my helmet when my head hit the ground, I shudder to think what the outcome would've been.

Two days on and both my legs and still killing me, swollen & bruised; and my neck, shoulders and arms are in pain also.

No way should anyone adverstise cyclists without wearing helmets imo. So Well Done to the RSA on this!

You got hit while on a bike? Surely we should ban all bikes rather than allow people to ride such dangerous contraptions with just a polystyrene bowl to protect them!

monument

Both listed here: http://www.asai.ie/viewbulletin.asp?BID=49

In fairness, the RSA did not report the ads -- their input was looked for after somebody else reported the ads.

So, will this also work for car adverts showing speeding on city streets?

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Where were the family cycling in the ad? I mean, if they were pootling along bare-headed in the park, is that a reckless scenario to depict?

From monument's link:

a family cycling on a very quiet path a park, moving at a leisurely speed.

tomasrojo

Well then, we have firmly entered the realm of the Safety Neurotic.

buffalo

monument wrote: »

So, will this also work for car adverts showing speeding on city streets?

Who wants to be the first to complain that there's a depiction of a driver not wearing a helmet?

kirving

AltAccount wrote: »

You got hit while on a bike? Surely we should ban all bikes rather than allow people to ride such dangerous contraptions with just a polystyrene bowl to protect them!

He didn't say that to be fair, no need to be so sarcastic. The helmet debate is extremely polarised, which shouldn't really be the case.

If you(anyone) had an accident yourself, you'd every bit of protection you could get - no question. You wouldn't be thinking about the wider debate around encouraging more people to cycle when your head has hit a windscreen and you're sliding along the ground.

I don't wear a helmet, for lots of reasons. I know that cycling is very safe, I always look out for myself and stay out of trouble where I can. I also know that a helmet/hi-vis does not equal safe cycling which is often portrayed as the case, so I'm not overly worried about what people think of me.

If I was knocked down however, I have no doubt my perspective would change, whether justified on statistics or not.

On the polystyrene joke, I can't believe people trust a kevlar bag full of explosives to help protect them in a car crash.

Cookie_Monster

Disgraceful that the RSA should be able to object to something like that, absolutely frivolous.

Dermot Illogical

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Disgraceful that the RSA should be able to object to something like that, absolutely frivolous.

Nah, the mad thing is that ASAI are so brainwashed they consider "a family cycling on a very quiet path in a park, moving at a leisurely speed" to be "unsafe behaviour" unless helmets be worn.
I suspect that the cotton wool they believe cyclists should be wrapped in is stored safely between their ears.

Stark

Kevin Irving wrote: »

If you(anyone) had an accident yourself, you'd every bit of protection you could get - no question.

As in full face helmet and body armour? Obviously different levels of protection are called for in different scenarios. Riding a bike in a park is no more dangerous than going for a walk in the park yet we don't chastise people for going for a walk without safety gear.

kuro_man

hardCopy

kerry4sam wrote: »

I am actually delighted with the following:
.

I was thrown off my bike only last Sunday and were it not for my helmet, God only knows what condition I would be in tonight. The driver admited he was at fault that had me hop off the cars' bonnet and banged down on the ground head and shoulders first! :eek: Still cannot believe tbh! If I were not wearing my helmet when my head hit the ground, I shudder to think what the outcome would've been.

Two days on and both my legs and still killing me, swollen & bruised; and my neck, shoulders and arms are in pain also.

No way should anyone adverstise cyclists without wearing helmets imo. So Well Done to the RSA on this!

You said it yourself, God only knows, you've no way to quantify how the helmet helped or didn't.

Your neck and shoulders are now sore, why weren't you wearing a spine protector and HANS device?

Many activities (driving, walking, rugby, dancing, sex, running to name but a few) could arguably be made safer by wearing helmets but not all warrant the expense and inconvenience.

Chips Lovell

kuro_man

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Well said

Dermot Illogical

kerry4sam wrote: »

Two days on and both my legs and still killing me, swollen & bruised; and my neck, shoulders and arms are in pain also.

Neck pain may be as a result of wearing a helmet.

buffalo

http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/11/decision-of-the-advertising-standards-authority-of-ireland-to-require-unilever-to-pull-its-flora-advertorial-in-the-irish-daily-mirror-is-regrettable/

Solid piece. Particularly like the closing statements:

We would refer you to a recent advertisement on RTE 1 TV for KBC Bank that depicts a car pulling into a road-side cycle track delineated by a continuous white line. No vehicle is permitted to come into such a cycle track. It is a penalty-point offense. You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3NDZpbvC3o

In our view this advert should be ‘pulled’ because it depicts an illegal act under road traffic law. The point will not be lost on the ASAI that there is no law requiring cyclists to wear a helmet whereas there is a law against vehicles crossing into cycling facilities. In making this decision the ASAI was giving far too much credence to the views of the RSA.

manwithaplan

Helmets make it more difficult to tell if people in adverts are good looking. One or two ugly kids might slip through the net and then where would we be?

tomasrojo

manwithaplan wrote: »

Helmets make it more difficult to tell if people in adverts are good looking. One or two ugly kids might slip through the net and then where would we be?

I remember someone here saying that the general way children are depicting wearing helmets in the media (that is to say, incorrectly) is down to wishing to show as much of the child's face as possible.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I remember someone here saying that the general way children are depicting wearing helmets in the media (that is to say, incorrectly) is down to wishing to show as much of the child's face as possible.

Do all those dodgy helmet-depicting photoshoots fall under the ASAI's remit? Can we get them to quash every image of models with helmets on backwards, or politicians with their chin straps not closed?

ThisRegard

It would be interesting to see, if complaints were made on the same basis of the RSAs one as hinted at in the piece, i.e. everytime an ad depicts a motor vehicle involved in a dangerous or illegal activity, how the ASAI would handle it. Based on their helmet judgement they should have them all pulled.

doozerie

Just when you believe the RSA can't get any more stupid, or hysterical, they go and lower the bar once more.