Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 - Page 53

scenes showing the vehicle travelling on public roads and when it is travelling on the beach, it was not possible to gauge the speed of the vehicle or to assess whether the vehicle would be traveling at speeds in excess of the relevant speed limits. Overall the Board was of the view that the driver appeared to be in full control of the vehicle at all times and the vehicle did not appear to travel at speeds which would be dangerous, inappropriate or illegal. Driving practice that may breach the law Clause 2(c) of the FCAI Code requires that advertisements for motor vehicles do not portray driving practices or other actions which would if they were to take place on a road or road-related area, breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory in the relevant jurisdiction in which the advertisement is published or broadcast directly dealing with road safety or traffic regulation. In the Board’s view the depiction of safety features of a motor vehicle does not represent the promotion of unsafe driving practices (Mazda Australia Pty Limited – 0413/14). In this case concerns were raised that the driver used only the wing mirror and blind spot mirror to change lanes. Noting the controlled actions of the woman driving, and that she checked side mirrors at the sound of a blind spot alert, the Board was of the view that most members of the community would understand that the addition of the extra features within the vehicle were there as driver aids and were not the sole mechanism to be used when driving. The same view was taken about an advertisement promoting the benefits of a reversing camera and other features of a vehicle (Honda Australia Pty Ltd – 0412/14). The Board agreed the intention was to show that the car advertised had more features and inclusions that made it better than similar style vehicles and that one of the inclusions of the vehicle was the reversing camera. Dog restraint laws for each state and territory vary, although there are restraint requirements when transporting an animal on the open back of a vehicle or utility vehicle, as well as rules against Review of Operations 2014 operating a vehicle with an animal in the driver’s lap. In considering an advertisement which depicts a dog jumping into the back seat of a car (Nissan Motor Co (Aust) Pty Ltd – 0202/14) the Board took into account that the dog is seated in the middle seat of the second row of the vehicle and does not distract the driver. While also noting there is a strong recommendation to have dogs restrained inside a vehicle in order to avoid unnecessary harm, the Board took the view that overall the advertisement did not depict unsafe or illegal driving practices. Window tinting was also considered in relation to Clause 2(c) (Nissan Motor Co (Aust) Pty Ltd – 0316/14). Laws regarding tinting windows of vehicles vary between each State and Territory. Noting the advertisement was viewed in NSW, the Board considered the advertisement in relation to the rules applied in that State. In the advertisement it was possible to see the interior of the car and in the Board’s view the windows did not appear to be darkened through illegal tinting and the advertisement did not depict, condone or encourage the illegal practice of blacked out windows in motor vehicles. Environmental damage Clause 2(e) of the FCAI Code requires that advertisements for motor vehicles do not portray deliberate and significant environmental damage, particularly in advertising for off-road vehicles. Concerns that an advertisement depicted images of driving in environmentally sensitive locations and encouraged hoon behaviour were dismissed (Isuzu – 0 408/14). In this case the Board view was that while some people may consider that environmental damage can be caused by any incursions by people in vehicles into off-road areas, the vehicle in the advertisement was shown driving over sand and through streams in a cautious manner which was not intentionally damaging to the environment. Another advertisement (Mitsubishi Motors Aust Ltd – 0506/14) where the vehicle is driven on a beach was viewed by the Board in a similar light. In this case the Board was of the view that driving a vehicle on a beach where such driving is permitted does not depict, encourage or condone intentionally damaging the environment. Clause 4 of the FCAI Code was also applied to two advertisements in addition to Clause 2(e). Clause 4 relates to depiction of off-road vehicles and states: An advertisement may legitimately depict the capabilities and performance of an off-road vehicle travelling over loose or unsealed surfaces, or uneven terrain, not forming part of a road or road related area. Such advertisements should not portray unsafe driving and vehicles must not travel at a speed which would contravene the laws of the State or Territory in which the advertisement is published or broadcast, were such driving to occur on a road or road related area. Showing a 4WD (Nissan Motor Co (Aust) Pty Ltd – 0144/14) or SUV (Isuzu - 0138/14) driving through off road terrain is not of itself a depiction that is viewed by the Board as environmentally damaging. In the advertisement for the 4WD the vehicle is taken on country roads, through a cornfield and through a warehouse facility. The SUV is shown driving on a sealed road before turning on to an unsealed gravel track, traversing a creek crossing and driving down a rocky track before turning in a grassy field. The Board was of the view the paths taken by the vehicles in both advertisements were indicative of the types of terrain that would be within the capabilities of the vehicles advertised and as such the advertisements did not depict deliberate and significant environmental damage and did not breach clause 2(e) or clause 4 of the FCAI Code. Other provisions There were no complaints in 2014 considered under the other provision of the FCAI Code 2(d) relating to issues such as driving when fatigued or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 51