I and a few others made a complaint to the ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) regarding a recent Toyota advert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbF8Z2y6irc which showed continual distracted driving, that being the driver sending and receiving messages to social media/individual. It was not made clear if the driver had to touch the screen to send/receive the messages to the recipient (initially shown touching the screen) but given it was not indicated otherwise this must have occurred to compose/send the conversation. Here is their (pathetic) response which in no way acknowledges the continued/sustained distraction which is contrary to UK law. Basically giving the green light to motor vehicle manufacturers to do what they like. I've appealed but they are a law unto themselves, particularly when they allow the government to advertise victim blaming and threaten the lives of cyclists by suggesting HGV drivers can flout the law/HC.
Disgraceful
Attachments
Last edited by The utility cyclist on 9 Aug 2018, 7:10am, edited 1 time in total.
Cyril Haearn wrote:Does the asa have any powers? Can/does it ban ads? Would be better if the ads were checked before they appeared
they can ban or have adverts edited, it's all very subjective, I'm contacting my MP because given the number of adverts from the motoring industry that include a media screen and distracted driving at the heart of the advert and ASA doing nothing they are clearly in the pocket of these people and not fit for purpose. I'm also contacting OFCOM, ASA are a disgrace and utterly useless. They provided no reasoning to counter why they shouldn't ban the advert
Surely the ads should be checked (censored?) **before** they appear Maybe ACPO could get involved and stop anything that even gets near to breaking the law or could be thus interpreted
Just made a note not to buy one of the vehicles involved
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
I complained to the ASA last year about a similar ad (this was for Jaguar / Landrover). My complaint was upheld. I have a PDF of the final adjudication (but can't attach it here, won't allow PDF for some reason)
ChrisF wrote:I complained to the ASA last year about a similar ad (this was for Jaguar / Landrover). My complaint was upheld. I have a PDF of the final adjudication (but can't attach it here, won't allow PDF for some reason)
What happened, a penalty or other punishment, was the ad withdrawn immediately?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
They were just told not to run the ad again. I've now converted the adjudication to text, below. Maybe this would help the OP's complaint to be revisited? The final sentence says it all.
FINAL RULING Jaguar Land Rover Ltd Case number: A16-357750 Abbey Road Whitley Coventry CV3 4LF Media: National press Sector: Motoring Agency: Guardian News and Media Ltd 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER Number of complaints : 2 Ad An advertorial for a car manufacturer seen on 24 September 2016 in a national newspaper featured text that stated, “DRIVE TIME IS NO LONGER DOWNTIME WITH Wi-Fi CONNECTIVITY, SMARTPHONE INTEGRATED APPS AND VOICE-CONTROLLED INFOTAINMENT SYSTEMS. IN-CAR TECHNOLOGY IS TRANSFORMING THE COMMUTE […] For busy executives, the car is increasingly becoming an extension of the work place [sic]. What was once a cocoon of time in limbo is being transformed into productive reclaimed time. Cleverly integrated in-car systems - such as those found in the latest Jaguar XE - let you work on the move without compromising safety […] The combination of smart technology built in to the car, and vehicle optimised smartphone apps, can help […] organise your next meeting and stay in touch with colleagues and family while on the move […] Wi-Fi connectivity - invaluable in transforming what would otherwise be downtime in a traffic jam or long hours on a motorway […] What kind of a difference does this technology make? Prof David Bailey of Aston Business School was an early adopter, and is a big fan. ‘The connected nature of the car is invaluable’, he says […] I can use the phone via the car […] With my phone connected via Bluetooth I can use the apps through the car […] and if I need to do an interview while I am going somewhere I can do it on the move and don’t have to stop for it’ […] allows the driver to view their calendar on the infotainment system in the vehicle […] It all means that the intelligently equipped modern car can operate an extension of your office, be a workplace on the move, and turn journey time into productivity […]”. Issue Two complainants objected that the ad was irresponsible because it encouraged unsafe driving practices. Response Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Jaguar) stated that the advertorial was written in conjunction with the Guardian and had not since been repeated or further distributed. Jaguar believed that the advertorial did not encourage dangerous driving and that it had specifically stated that any of the described functions of the car should be used ‘without compromising safety’. They explained that the advertorial was generally aimed at making ‘productive use’ of time in the car (subject to the preliminary safety message) by using the available functions that enabled the driver to ‘work’ on the move via hands-free communication as the law expected. The examples given in the advertorial included organising meetings and keeping in contact with colleagues. Furthermore, they stated that the wireless technology provided ‘live’ access to safety features such as weather reports, traffic information, satellite navigation, infotainment and climate control. Jaguar believed that accessing such features of the car via hands-free ergonomically benefitted the driver and reduced the risk of distraction, allowing them to keep their eyes on the road and that this had been reflected in a driver’s opinion that was featured in the advertorial. Furthermore, they believed that the driver’s reference to the possibility of having an interview via a hands-free conversation in the car was an ordinary example of one of the many uses of a mobile phone. Guardian News and Media Ltd stated that they had received one complaint regarding the advertorial, which they had responded to. Guardian News and Media believed that the advertorial did not condone or encourage unsafe or irresponsible driving, but rather that there was an emphasis on safety. They stated that the advertorial promoted the car’s integrated in-car system that would allow drivers to “work on the move without compromising safety” and that it made clear that voice control let drivers operate the car’s features while keeping their eyes on the road. Assessment Upheld The ASA understood that the advertorial was aimed at business executives and primarily promoted a car that included features allowing the driver to carry out work related tasks via hands-free technology and claimed could be done ‘without compromising safety”. We accepted that driving whilst using a hands-free mobile phone kit was not, of itself, illegal. However, we noted that the Highway Code stated that using hands-free equipment was likely to distract drivers’ attention from the road and advised that they used a voicemail facility and stopped to make or take calls. The Highway Code also advised that there was a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs and multi-media. We understood from The Highway Code that drivers could be stopped by police if they were considered not to be in full control of a vehicle because of being distracted, which could result to a motoring offence. This also applied for vehicles stopped at traffic lights or queuing in traffic. The advertorial featured the headline claim “DRIVE TIME IS NO LONGER DOWNTIME”. We considered readers would interpret this to mean that drivers could now perform various other tasks whilst driving. We noted that the advertorial then featured further claims explaining in what context motorists could multi-task whilst driving the advertised vehicle and included, “For busy executives, the car is increasingly becoming an extension of the work place”, “The combination of smart technology built in to the car, and vehicle optimised smartphone apps, can help […] organise your next meeting and stay in touch with colleagues and family while on the move”, “Wi-Fi connectivity - invaluable in transforming what would otherwise be downtime in a traffic jam or long hours on a motorway”, “allows the driver to view their calendar on the infotainment system in the vehicle” and “It all means that the intelligently equipped modern car can operate an extension of your office, be a workplace on the move, and turn journey time into productivity”. Furthermore, we noted that the driver’s opinion regarding hands-free technology in a car stated, “I can use the phone via the car” and “With my phone connected via Bluetooth I can […] do an interview while I am going somewhere [...] do it on the move and don’t have to stop for it”. Whilst we understood that the work related activities and communicating with family could be carried out in the car via hands-free technology, we considered that they were likely to distract a driver’s attention from the road and therefore preventing them from having full control of the vehicle. Therefore, we concluded that the advertorial was irresponsible because it was likely to encourage unsafe driving practices. The advertorial breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.5 (Harm and offence) and 19.2 (Motoring). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Jaguar Land Rover Ltd that their future advertising must not encourage drivers to carry out such tasks that were likely to distract their attention from the road, making them incapable of having full control of the vehicle.
To me the problem would be that they have manifestly failed to investigate at all. A "similar" complaint" is not good enough.
There is and interesting "Step 9" on the ASA website
In certain circumstances, advertisers or complainants can request a review of a ruling. Both sides have 21 days (from when they were informed of the ASA Council decision) to ask the Independent Reviewer of ASA rulings to review the case. But they must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process or ruling is apparent, or show that additional relevant evidence is available. If the Independent Reviewer accepts a request for a review he can ask the ASA Council to reconsider its ruling.
A few years ago there ws this ad about cyclist safety:
[youtube]84T2i5PCMxw[/youtube]
It was banned after complaints that the woman at 0:39 was not wearing a helmet and her road positioning was "inappropriate"
“We considered that the scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the recommendations set out in the Highway Code,” said the ASA.
“Furthermore, we were concerned that whilst the cyclist was more than 0.5 metres from the kerb, they appeared to be located more in the centre of the lane when the car behind overtook them and the car almost had to enter the right lane of traffic. Therefore, for those reasons we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.”
A series of complaints and a campaign saw the ruling overturned:
The ASA, in its statement, concluded that “because it was not a UK legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets and because the ad depicted a range of real life situations in which motorists may encounter cyclists on the road for the purposes of educating them about the risks to cyclists posed by poor driving behaviours we concluded that the ad was not socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.”
It seems (to me anyway) that we live in a crazy society where the ASA will readily ban an advert promoting a toy during children's programme times, or an advert for a 'calorie high' product, but think it's ok for motorists to be encouraged to use cars as entertainment centres
