Cycling Scotland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?

On 29/01/2014 08:25, JNugent wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?

I know. Much more fun to think of them as a moving target.

--
My name is Dave and I am a complete ****** because I ignore the fact
that most cyclists are also motorists who pay tax and insurance. I also
ignore the fact - or rather become insulting about the fact - that
cyclists are such a low risk that they are actually given their
insurance for free.

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?

Probably because of the similarities: bicycles are an outdated and unviable
means of transport that are likely to throw their rider into the road
without warning, their riders have to pay no road tax and they also think
they don't have to obey any laws. Kinda makes sense, really.

On 29/01/2014 08:25, JNugent wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?
"The advert, part of a campaign by Cycling Scotland, seeks to encourage
drivers to give cyclists the same space and care as they would give a
horse".

More interesting;

"But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be
shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible".

Correct. Now look for the standard cyclobollox;

"Cycling Scotland said wearing a helmet was not a legal requirement".

But it should be.

"Cycling Scotland also referred to its helmet policy, which discussed
the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting
uptake of cycling and "influencing a driver's behaviour to be less
careful when interacting on the road"."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Those old chestnuts again!

I wonder if Mr Crispin has any comments?

I'd understand if he didn't.



--
Dave-Cyclists VORH
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a
helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.

Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as
likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced
the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury
by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent".

On 29/01/2014 08:25, JNugent wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?
"The advert, part of a campaign by Cycling Scotland, seeks to encourage
drivers to give cyclists the same space and care as they would give a
horse".

More interesting;

"But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be
shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible".

Correct. Now look for the standard cyclobollox;

"Cycling Scotland said wearing a helmet was not a legal requirement".

But it should be.

"Cycling Scotland also referred to its helmet policy, which discussed
the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting
uptake of cycling and "influencing a driver's behaviour to be less
careful when interacting on the road"."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Those old chestnuts again!

I wonder if Mr Crispin has any comments?

I'd understand if he didn't.



--
Dave-Cyclists VORH
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a
helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.

Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as
likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced
the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury
by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent".

On 29/01/2014 18:16, Dave - Cyclists VOHR wrote:
On 29/01/2014 08:25, JNugent wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?
"The advert, part of a campaign by Cycling Scotland, seeks to encourage
drivers to give cyclists the same space and care as they would give a
horse".

More interesting;

"But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be
shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible".

Correct. Now look for the standard cyclobollox;

"Cycling Scotland said wearing a helmet was not a legal requirement".

But it should be.

"Cycling Scotland also referred to its helmet policy, which discussed
the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting
uptake of cycling and "influencing a driver's behaviour to be less
careful when interacting on the road"."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Those old chestnuts again!

I wonder if Mr Crispin has any comments?

I'd understand if he didn't.

horse... chestnuts...

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:14:41 +0000, Tarcap wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?

Probably because of the similarities: bicycles are an outdated and
unviable means of transport that are likely to throw their rider into
the road without warning, their riders have to pay no road tax and they
also think they don't have to obey any laws. Kinda makes sense, really.

My outdated and unviable means of transport serves me very well. it is
convenient economical and exhilarating.

On 29/01/2014 18:43, Dave - Cyclists VOHR wrote:
On 29/01/2014 08:25, JNugent wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25926572

"See Cyclist; Think Horse".

Why "horse"?
"The advert, part of a campaign by Cycling Scotland, seeks to encourage
drivers to give cyclists the same space and care as they would give a
horse".

More interesting;

"But the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it should not be
shown on TV again as not wearing a helmet was "socially irresponsible".

Correct. Now look for the standard cyclobollox;

"Cycling Scotland said wearing a helmet was not a legal requirement".

But it should be.

"Cycling Scotland also referred to its helmet policy, which discussed
the possible undesired outcomes of wearing helmets, including limiting
uptake of cycling and "influencing a driver's behaviour to be less
careful when interacting on the road"."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Those old chestnuts again!

I wonder if Mr Crispin has any comments?

I'd understand if he didn't.



"The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad
pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request
from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of
the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw
was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our
ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish
our decision on our website"

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:32:57 +0000, Sig wrote:

snip

"The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad
pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request
from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of
the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw
was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our
ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish
our decision on our website"


Does anyone know the address of the ASA so that people can write and tell them
there was nothing wrong with the original decision?


Judith

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 14:18:01 +0000, Malakai wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:32:57 +0000, Sig wrote:

snip

"The ASA has withdrawn its formal ruling against a Cycling Scotland ad
pending the outcome of an Independent Review. That followed a request
from Cycling Scotland, in which it argued that the ASA’s criticism of
the positioning of the cyclist was incorrect. The decision to withdraw
was made by the ASA Chief Executive in light of a potential flaw in our
ruling. Once the Independent Review process is complete we will publish
our decision on our website"


Does anyone know the address of the ASA so that people can write and tell them
there was nothing wrong with the original decision?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=asa+contact+us&l=1

Judith