Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
19-01.-2005, 01:53 AM
|
#16 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:u3tpu051i01qa0okb7dsj8lnldj1f7mpr6@4ax.com,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> typed: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:33:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, > you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:- > >> The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and >> others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was >> not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to >> those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the >> majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to >> campaigners. > > This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the > one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car > advertising. Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) A |
|
|
19-01.-2005, 01:53 AM
|
#17 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:u3tpu051i01qa0okb7dsj8lnldj1f7mpr6@4ax.com,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> typed: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:33:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, > you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:- > >> The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and >> others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was >> not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to >> those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the >> majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to >> campaigners. > > This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the > one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car > advertising. Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) A |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 01:53 AM
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:u3tpu051i01qa0okb7dsj8lnldj1f7mpr6@4ax.com,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> typed: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:33:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, > you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:- > >> The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and >> others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was >> not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to >> those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the >> majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to >> campaigners. > > This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the > one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car > advertising. Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) A |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 01:53 AM
|
#19 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:u3tpu051i01qa0okb7dsj8lnldj1f7mpr6@4ax.com,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> typed: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:33:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, > you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:- > >> The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and >> others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was >> not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to >> those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the >> majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to >> campaigners. > > This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the > one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car > advertising. Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) A |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 03:29 AM
|
#20 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
"Ambrose Nankivell" <$firstname+n$@gmail.com>typed
> In news:u3tpu051i01qa0okb7dsj8lnldj1f7mpr6@4ax.com, > David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> typed: > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:33:55 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, > > you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote this:- > > > >> The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and > >> others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was > >> not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to > >> those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the > >> majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to > >> campaigners. > > > > This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the > > one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car > > advertising. > Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a > car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was > only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed > to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea > of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) > A Mine *was* upheld, but not until the advertising campaign had run its course. I objected to the 'Now you can play in the traffic' slogan. Can't remember which car it was though... -- Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware. |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 03:46 AM
|
#21 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
[snip] >> >>This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the >>one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car >>advertising. > > > Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which claimed a > car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, when in fact it was > only safest for adult occupants, not child occupants. The rejection failed > to appreciate that I'd stated that quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea > of advertising cars as safe that pissed me off in the first place, but...) > I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by pointing out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other cars. Saab agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans to anyway). Peter -- www.amey.org.uk |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 04:22 AM
|
#22 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:3551htF4g5ko0U1@individual.net,
Peter Amey <pnanews@amey.org.uk> typed: > Ambrose Nankivell wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the >>> one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car >>> advertising. >> >> >> Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which >> claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, >> when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child >> occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that >> quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe >> that pissed me off in the first place, but...) > > I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by > pointing out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other > cars. Saab agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans > to anyway). I mentioned pedestrian safety as well. Doubtless that confused my argument. Here's what I wrote: *** The car is claimed to be the safest vehicle in its class according to EuroNCAP. It is pictured on a beach with a young family walking away from it. While the Scénic is the best model tested by EuroNCAP in its class in terms of adult safety, the Ford Focus C-MAX scores 1 star more for child protection, and for pedestrian safety, it (the Scénic) is described as average, and disappointing for a newly designed model. I see this as potentially misleading buyers into thinking that it will offer most protection for their children, and its failure to mention the (relatively high) danger it poses to pedestrians as potentially encouraging complacency, as well as failing to fully substantiate the claim. *** Could have done without the last part of the last sentence, but otherwise fairly coherent. Maybe a lengthier description would have helped. A |
|
|
|
19-01.-2005, 04:22 AM
|
#23 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
In news:3551htF4g5ko0U1@individual.net,
Peter Amey <pnanews@amey.org.uk> typed: > Ambrose Nankivell wrote: > [snip] >>> >>> This is presumably a different Advertising Standards Agency to the >>> one which routinely rejects nearly all complaints about car >>> advertising. >> >> >> Phew, I thought it was just mine. (Complained about an ad which >> claimed a car to be safest in class showing a picture of a family, >> when in fact it was only safest for adult occupants, not child >> occupants. The rejection failed to appreciate that I'd stated that >> quite clearly. Obviously it was the idea of advertising cars as safe >> that pissed me off in the first place, but...) > > I had some success against Saab's claim of "safest in class" by > pointing out that it scored less well on pedestrian safety than other > cars. Saab agreed not to use the ad again (but probably had no plans > to anyway). I mentioned pedestrian safety as well. Doubtless that confused my argument. Here's what I wrote: *** The car is claimed to be the safest vehicle in its class according to EuroNCAP. It is pictured on a beach with a young family walking away from it. While the Scénic is the best model tested by EuroNCAP in its class in terms of adult safety, the Ford Focus C-MAX scores 1 star more for child protection, and for pedestrian safety, it (the Scénic) is described as average, and disappointing for a newly designed model. I see this as potentially misleading buyers into thinking that it will offer most protection for their children, and its failure to mention the (relatively high) danger it poses to pedestrians as potentially encouraging complacency, as well as failing to fully substantiate the claim. *** Could have done without the last part of the last sentence, but otherwise fairly coherent. Maybe a lengthier description would have helped. A |
|
|
|
20-01.-2005, 10:36 AM
|
#24 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: [Long] ASA vs CTC
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote:
.... | >10. challenged whether the leaflet''s criticism of the claims "Cycle | >helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" and | >"Over 70% of child cyclist deaths involve head injury" and the claims | >"In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no | >detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use ... The | >research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised for | >comparing two quite different groups of cyclists" were misleading, | >especially because the latter two claims implied objective peer-view | >criticism, not opinion; | >10. Complaints upheld | | Which is bizarre, because they also held in a separate case that these | figures could not be justified! | | This refers to a "myths and facts" section. If you look at what they | are saying, and this is also based on the exchanges of letters | beforehand, they do not dispute that the things presented as myths are | (a) claims made by the pro-helmet lobby and (b) insupportable; neither | do they dispute that we have robust evidence to support each of the | claims made as "fact" - their beef was (and for the life of me I | cannot see this) that the acknowledged facts do not negate the | acknowledged myths. | | There was a lot of argument about this and they were very clear: they | accept that the myths are myths, that the judgment of them as myths is | largely based on the facts presented, and that the facts are facts, | but not that the facts contradict the myths. Go figure. It reads to me as an argument from authority: that the leaflet appears to claim an equal authority for the facts (aka "concerned but informal pointing out of troublesome contrary indicators") against the existing authority for the myths (aka "objective peer-reviewed research") and that it's that that's misleading. I guess the legal mind distinguishes between "proven in law" and "proven in experience & clear inspection of the bleeding obvious". I imagine some subtle re-wording would do the trick but I can't quite torture my mind into seeing what that might be. -- Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph.html |
|
|
Linear Mode
