Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
The Advertising Standards Authority has recently overturned one of its own adjudications. This is quite a noteworthy event and does not happen very often. A television ad by Cycling Scotland showed a young woman cycling down the road with on-screen text saying “See Cyclist Think Horse”. Five people challenged if the ad was irresponsible and harmful, because it showed a cyclist without a helmet or other safety attire, and she was cycling more towards the middle of the road rather than close to the curb.
The ASA upheld the complaints to a storm of protest from various cycling charities and Cycling Scotland submitted a Request for an Independent Review. The Independent Review procedure can be requested on two grounds – where additional relevant evidence comes to light that was available at the time, or shortly after the ad appeared but could not reasonably have been submitted in the course of the investigation and/or where it is alleged that there is a substantial flaw in the ASA’s adjudication or in the process by which that adjudication was made. This particular review was under the latter part. The ASA withdrew the initial adjudication and has now published the revised adjudication. So what caused the problem?
I think that to an extent, the ASA was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. The Highway Code says that a cyclist “should” wear a helmet. However, it does not say “must”. The fact that the Highway Code in itself fudges the issue is unhelpful. Most lawyers would take the view that “should” is a pretty strong exhortation. The Code does not say “can” or “you are advised to” or "it would be a good idea to". Anyway, Cycling Scotland argued that there were documented potential downsides to wearing a helmet (see the CTC’s report) and that it was not a legal requirement in any event. In addition, the positioning of the rider on the road was reasonable and realistic and followed national standards.
Clearcast, which pre-vets all broadcast advertising in the UK, said that the advertisement was focusing on care and safety in the form of giving space to cyclists on the road, and was communicating a positive message in that respect. In the end the ASA 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 might encounter cyclists on the road to educate them about the risks to cyclists’ behaviours, the ad was neither socially irresponsible nor likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.
One wonders why the ASA did not reach this conclusion the first time around when it first considered the complaints and why it did not attach more weight to the CTC report. It illustrates the limitations on the ASA staff’s expertise – they cannot be experts on the law in all areas, or on all sectors, and so sometimes reach controversial conclusions. Cycling Scotland received high profile support, including from MSPs and MPs. The ASA’s revised ruling also comes against the backdrop of a ruling in Germany that it was not negligent to cycle without a helmet, and therefore a cyclist who was injured in a collision with a car was not contributorily negligent.
Lessons to be drawn: the ASA can make mistakes. It is sometimes asked to weigh up competing priorities and evidence. But, the independent review procedure exists, the ASA will reconsider its decisions where the criteria for a review are met, and therefore it is well worth organisations considering asking for a review if they feel strongly about an adjudication having gone the wrong way.
0330 161 1234