Should I complain to ASA about "road tax" in car ads?

daymobrew

We all know that motorists frequently use the "you don't pay road tax" (sic) line at cyclists. Almost all car related ads I see and hear talk about "road tax" too.

I am thinking of reporting these ads to the Advertising Standards Authority to get them changed to say "motor tax"

Anyone see any flaws in this?

Lusk Doyle

daymobrew wrote: »

We all know that motorists frequently use the "you don't pay road tax" (sic) line at cyclists. Almost all car related ads I see and hear talk about "road tax" too.

I am thinking of reporting these ads to the Advertising Standards Authority to get them changed to say "motor tax"

Anyone see any flaws in this?

Is it not carbon emissions tax?

buffalo

I like it. Get the RSA to give feedback too.

Idleater

Seconded
It's rife in print media advertisements and plain wrong. I disagree with your us and them sentiment, that doesn't factor for me at all, many cyclists drive and pay motor tax and not road tax so the text in the add is just wrong.

buffalo

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Is it not carbon emissions tax?

https://www.motortax.ie/

edit: "The licencing for motor tax of new cars registered from 1st July 2008 is determined on the basis of the CO2 emissions level of the car, based on seven CO 2 bands."

So not far wrong Lusky.

marketty

Got a great deal when I bought my Peugeot, free 'road tax' for life

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

https://www.motortax.ie/

edit: "The licencing for motor tax of new cars registered from 1st July 2008 is determined on the basis of the CO2 emissions level of the car, based on seven CO 2 bands."

So not far wrong Lusky.

YES! Thanks Buffaly!

Seweryn

buffalo wrote: »

"The licencing for motor tax of new cars registered from 1st July 2008 is determined on the basis of the CO2 emissions level of the car, based on seven CO 2 bands.".

Level, but not the amount, which is where the idea of motor taxation fails.

buffalo

Seweryn wrote: »

Level, but not the amount, which is where the idea of motor taxation fails.

I guess taxes on petrol fill that gap to some extent - the more you use your motor, the more you pay.

Seweryn

buffalo wrote: »

I guess taxes on petrol fill that gap to some extent - the more you use your motor, the more you pay.

If you use your car a lot and the tax is reasonably low, then yes.

If you cycle on daily basis and have a lovely, inexpensive estate car to bring you with the bike into different places, say once a month, and the tax is €1,600 per year, then it gets completely out of proportion.

sconhome

Once they dont start taxing cyclists based on CO2 emissions.

monkeypants

amphkingwest wrote: »

Once they dont start taxing cyclists based on CO2 emissions.

I probably produce more methane than CO2 anyways.

Iwannahurl

monkeypants wrote: »

I probably produce more methane than CO2 anyways.

Much worse, in planetary and personal terms...

monkeypants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Much worse, in planetary and personal terms...

Especially for anyone slipstreaming.

Iwannahurl

daymobrew wrote: »

We all know that motorists frequently use the "you don't pay road tax" (sic) line at cyclists. Almost all car related ads I see and hear talk about "road tax" too.

I am thinking of reporting these ads to the Advertising Standards Authority to get them changed to say "motor tax"

Anyone see any flaws in this?

Flaws? What kind of flaws could you imagine?

I think it's worth making a complaint to the ASAI, if only to point out the factual error. Ads must not be untruthful or misleading, afaik.

However, I am also of the view that a cultural myth persists with regard to "road tax" and that it leads some motorists to believe that they have purchased higher status and superior rights on the public highway. It is just one small aspect of our Car is King culture, but deserves to be addressed anyway.

Ads using the term "road tax" perpetuate the myth, and are factually incorrect in any case.

Go for it, I say. Bear in mind that the ASAI recently decreed that ads can't depict cyclists without helmets, even if it's just a family cycling in the park. The ASAI needs to be educated about these issues.

Your complaint might also help, just a little, to eradicate attitudes like this:

quietriot wrote: »

Another thing that I find extremely annoying is a lot of cyclists. The first bunch are those who cycle on the road, right beside a cycle lane. I usually try and drive right up beside them quickly to give them a bit of a fright, and if there's traffic ahead I'll pull into the curb so they can't cycle past and have to hop into the cycle lane. Those lanes cost money, they're there to be used so either use them or get off the f-ing road. When we start taxing cyclists like we do motorists, then they can have a say on how the roads are used. For now, follow instructions.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Much worse, in planetary and personal terms...

The planet obviously doesn't care how the carbon is distributed.

Lusk Doyle

Ask them while they're at it to get the motorists in said ads to wear helmets and hi-viz jackets :pac:

daymobrew

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Flaws? What kind of flaws could you imagine?

I think it's worth making a complaint to the ASAI, if only to point out the factual error. Ads must not be untruthful or misleading, afaik.

I couldn't think of any flaws in my plan but wanted to be sure I hadn't overlooked anything glaringly obvious.

kenmc

I already moaned about it. deaf ears. Citroen at the time I think it was.

tomasrojo

I think some people in the UK made a similar complaint to the equivalent authority there. I don't think the equivalent authority cared.

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

monkeypants wrote: »

I probably produce more methane than CO2 anyways.

Much worse, in planetary and personal terms...

Though methane does have a lower atmospheric residency time.

I wrote a whole Masters thesis in which I attempted to calculate how much methane Pollardstown Fen emits. I can't remember how much it was now. I do remember how much I enjoyed cycling out to Pollardstown Fen at four a.m. though, and how pretty the mist rising off the fen at the break of dawn was.

Iwannahurl

kenmc wrote: »

I already moaned about it. deaf ears. Citroen at the time I think it was.

How long ago was that, and what was the content of your complaint?

By the way, I can't find anything on the ASAI website using the keyword "tax". Does that mean their bulletins do not include complaints that were not upheld?

kenmc

can't really remember, it was over a year ago I'd say.

manwithaplan

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think some people in the UK made a similar complaint to the equivalent authority there. I don't think the equivalent authority cared.

In fairness to them, it's pretty hard to.

Lashed

Here it is again:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/senator-fined-1850-for-persistently-driving-without-road-tax-3331984.html

Dermot Illogical

Lashed wrote: »

Here it is again:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/senator-fined-1850-for-persistently-driving-without-road-tax-3331984.html

What else would you expect from that sloppy rag?

sconhome

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

What else would you expect from that sloppy rag?

Oh you're talking about the paper

daymobrew

Here is the complaint that I submitted to the ASAI:

The ad mentions: low road tax.
This is misleading, or simply incorrect, because no vehicle is subject to ROAD TAX but rather MOTOR TAX.
Every radio, print and television ad for vehicles incorrectly mentions ROAD TAX.

The issue is that cyclists are attacked verbally and in print by drivers for not paying ROAD TAX, with the implication that they should not be on the road. The attacks are often very aggressive and intimidating.

I would like to see all motor vehicle advertising use the correct term - MOTOR TAX. Note, to renew your vehicle tax disc you go to motortax.ie, not roadtax.ie.

I used the Lexus RX Hybrid ad on the back of the Irish Times Magazine or December 15 2012 as the example case.

fat bloke

Lashed wrote: »

Here it is again:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/senator-fined-1850-for-persistently-driving-without-road-tax-3331984.html

It is ironic that many people pay a higher annual motor tax charge than her fine for persistent tax evasion.

Ironic and sh1tty

daymobrew

I got a reply from ASAI but they are not going to take any action as they feel that do not feel that the error is likely to mislead consumers.
I would have to concede their decision. I think that I should contact SIMI (though they refer to Road Tax on a page about Motor Tax)

The function of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland is to ensure that advertisers comply with the requirements of the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing in Ireland. We are prepared to investigate complaints concerning advertisements that may be considered to be in breach of the Code. We examined the issues from the point of determining if the matters raised by you were likely to be misleading to consumers.

In this case, while we appreciate your concerns we do not feel that the advertisement is likely to mislead consumers. The Code requires that an advertisement be assessed in the light of its probable effect and when taken as a whole. We note your concerns, however, we do not consider that the term "road tax" is materially misleading. We will convey your concern at this issue to the advertiser involved without disclosing your identity.

While we are not in a position to pursue your complaint we are grateful that you took the time to let us know your concerns in the matter.

Cookie_Monster

however, we do not consider that the term "road tax" is materially misleading.

I wonder what they do consider misleading then, the must have a very soft view of what does.

adamski8

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I wonder what they do consider misleading then, the must have a very soft view of what does.

misleading people and advertising using the wrong term are very different and i can see why its not in their remit.

Iwannahurl

ASAI Code: 2.1 Marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

What's truthful about pretending that Motor Tax is actually "Road Tax"?

enas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

ASAI Code: 2.1 Marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

What's truthful about pretending that Motor Tax is actually "Road Tax"?

It is "truthful" in the sense that everyone understands it's motor tax that's being referred to. It would be "untruthful" if they said for example that it has a low road tax, where people understand it has a low motor tax, but where that wouldn't be the case, and the advertiser argued that "sure road tax doesn't exist, it was just a colloquial term for [whatever cryptic tax that no one heard about]". Quite far-fetched I concede, but that's the idea I believe. Their answer sounds fair enough to me I have to say.

buffalo

enas wrote: »

It is "truthful" in the sense that everyone understands it's motor tax that's being referred to. It would be "untruthful" if they said for example that it has a low road tax, where people understand it has a low motor tax, but where that wouldn't be the case, and the advertiser argued that "sure road tax doesn't exist, it was just a colloquial term for [whatever cryptic tax that no one heard about]". Quite far-fetched I concede, but that's the idea I believe. Their answer sounds fair enough to me I have to say.

Oddly, they could truthfully claim that a vehicle has "no road tax", and be accused of misleading people! :pac:

Iwannahurl

enas wrote: »

everyone understands it's motor tax that's being referred to.

Why refer to it as "Road Tax" then?

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why refer to it as "Road Tax" then?

For the same reason so many people call Spock "Dr Spock" when he's actually "Mr Spock". It's just a common mistake, and one that has become ingrained in our language. This line of questioning leads nowhere, ask instead, how do we fix it?

Idleater

buffalo wrote: »

For the same reason so many people call Spock "Dr Spock" when he's actually "Mr Spock". It's just a common mistake, and one that has become ingrained in our language. This line of questioning leads nowhere, ask instead, how do we fix it?

I passed a sign for "fast lane closed ahead" on the way home yesterday and despaired a little.

Cienciano

Idleater wrote: »

I passed a sign for "fast lane closed ahead" on the way home yesterday and despaired a little.

LOL, went past that sign too, for the life of me I can't remember where it was (was it the south quays towards heuston?). But I remember thinking that boardsies would go mad about it!

Seweryn

Idleater wrote: »

I passed a sign for "fast lane closed ahead" on the way home yesterday and despaired a little.

Who designed that sign you would think.

:rolleyes:

Idleater

Cienciano wrote: »

LOL, went past that sign too, for the life of me I can't remember where it was

Just after st John's road, but it's a common sight nowadays

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

For the same reason so many people call Spock "Dr Spock" when he's actually "Mr Spock". It's just a common mistake, and one that has become ingrained in our language. This line of questioning leads nowhere, ask instead, how do we fix it?

Such a line of questioning might lead nowhere on Boards, but that is to be expected.

I would suggest that mistakenly referring to the paediatrician rather than to the Vulcan does not instil a sense of entitlement of any sort, whereas the notion of "Road Tax" leads more than a few motorists to believe that they have purchased superior privileges that give them all sorts of priorities over other road users.

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Such a line of questioning might lead nowhere on Boards, but that is to be expected.

I would suggest that mistakenly referring to the paediatrician rather than to the Vulcan does not instil a sense of entitlement of any sort, whereas the notion of "Road Tax" leads more than a few motorists to believe that they have purchased superior privileges that give them all sorts of priorities over other road users.

Yes. But you posted it on boards. We are all agreed on that. You're preaching to the converted here. Let's move on to resolving the issue. Like the OP tried to.

Beasty

Iwannahurl wrote: »

whereas the notion of "Road Tax" leads more than a few motorists to believe that they have purchased superior privileges that give them all sorts of priorities over other road users.

Do you really think referring to it as "Motor Tax" will change their attitude? Really??

Iwannahurl

Just spotted this on an AH thread, fwiw:

Cienciano wrote: »

The cyclists can go and pay some road tax before they start complaining

Iwannahurl

Beasty wrote: »

Do you really think referring to it as "Motor Tax" will change their attitude? Really??

Compare:

Cienciano wrote: »

The cyclists can go and pay some road tax before they start complaining

Cienciano wrote: »

The cyclists can go and pay some Motor Tax before they start complaining

Iwannahurl

And it goes on:

animaal wrote: »

It's officially titled "Motor Tax", but road tax is a perfectly valid description for what it actually is - a tax for using the public roads.

coolbeans

Beasty wrote: »

Do you really think referring to it as "Motor Tax" will change their attitude? Really??

Things should be known as what they are, not what they are not. OP is right to complain.

enas

buffalo wrote: »

Oddly, they could truthfully claim that a vehicle has "no road tax", and be accused of misleading people! :pac:

Yes, you put it in a much more illustrative way.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And it goes on:

I fairness, it is "a tax for using the public roads", but to be complete, you have to say it's "a tax for using a motor vehicle on the public roads" (since just owning a car doesn't make you liable to the tax -- it's only if you intend to use it on the public roads).

About the wider issue. As others said, you're preaching to the converted here. However, let's just assume that motor tax was even abolished altogether. What would those people say? "cyclists start paying some insurance", "start getting some mandatory training", "stop going faster than cars in traffic queues", "spend hours looking for a parking spot and pay dearly for it", etc., the choice is there. It seems to me we're just fighting a symptom rather than a root cause with this road tax vs. motor tax issue. But that's just my opinion, and I do highly respect the OP for the actions he did.

Keep_Her_Lit

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why refer to it as "Road Tax" then?

Anyone in the business of flogging cars is better served by the misnomer "Road Tax".

"Road Tax" is just something you have to pay if you use the roads. It's inevitable, part of life ... like cold, dark, damp, windy days during an Irish ... summer.

"Motor Tax", OTOH, is more discriminating and hints at the possibility of alternative, un-taxed means of using the roads. Can't have that!

In reality, I doubt that many interested parties have actually sat down and made a conscious decision to eschew "Motor Tax" in favour of "Road Tax".

As already pointed out, the terms are interchangeable for many people. Even I used to be like that ... until I started reading Boards . Now I vigourously police my language, never allowing THAT phrase to escape my lips.

Cookie_Monster

Beasty wrote: »

Do you really think referring to it as "Motor Tax" will change their attitude? Really??

well when you repeatedly scream at people correcting them when they say road tax, occasionally beating it into them, they may finally get it...