A case in point:
What’s wrong with this picture – beyond illegally passing while speeding on a blind curve, or the preposterous helmeted guy trying to negotiate a crowed public street on a friggin’ Segway? C ‘mon! Helmet... Segway... He’s not even moving faster than the bloody pedestrians!
Not only does this ad encourage dangerous driving like so many ads before it, but it once again requests that you not consider why you make your transportation choices other than to ask you what’s more fun. The assumption is of course that the answer is a fast car, and in particular one that is driven with reckless abandon. Speed = Fun. Fun = Speed! What is also interesting in this ad, however, is that they have chosen to mock those who might choose otherwise.
They would likely argue that they are not mocking at all, but that they are merely wanting to point out the better choice, or differentiate themselves from the competition. But of course anyone who has made the choice to ride a bike or use public transit (I can’t speak to the ridiculous man with the Segway... so I think these things are pointless -- sue me) has likely already made that choice for reasons financial – therefore the car industry isn’t interested – or, for whatever personal reason, they believe it to be the better choice – again, a crowd that would be of little significance to the car industry. So why slag the biking, public transit crowd (I’m surprised we didn’t see a pedestrian awkwardly spill into a huge puddle) if you really are only speaking to the speed-loving car-addict horde anyhow? Is it possible that they think they have something to worry about?
Mahatma Gandhi said’ “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” A very likeable quote, but if there is anything to that sequencing then we know we’ve passed the being ignored phase, and with the kind of resources that the auto industry could bring to bare, I find it difficult to imagine that this is the “fight” stage. So they laugh. And of course, they lie.
Do they really think that even the dullest motorist thinks that cycle commuters don’t bother with rain gear and can’t hold a straight line in traffic. And you’ll notice no mention of rain, or crowds (or even any suggestion of commuting) when their gleaming white-knight is high-speed slaloming along his practically abandoned highway. My daily commuting experience is quite the opposite. It’s not uncommon to find myself pedaling gleefully past lines of frustrated, seething motorists (oh, I've seen the glares). And some of them in very swanky high-end autos that I’m sure are capable of speeds that they rarely get to experience due to those maddening real-world traffic laws.
Automakers spend almost $9 billion annually in advertising in the United States to promote their products, including $6.5 billion on television advertising. Young male drivers are the demographic group targeted by automobile commercials and is the very demographic group that is involved in 70 per cent of driver deaths in North America. Advertisers in Canada are supposed to be bound by the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards which in part states, "Advertisements must not display a disregard for public safety or depict situations which might encourage unsafe or dangerous practices, particularly when portraying products in normal use." But neither the automotive nor television industries follow any specific guidelines on automobile commercial content, including the depiction of potentially dangerous behaviour, such as speeding. In contrast, the advertisement of other adverse health behaviours, such as tobacco and alcohol use, is limited by either voluntary codes of conduct or legislation. This is the case even though the total annual economic cost of motor vehicle crashes has been estimated at between 7.5–20 billion dollars in Canada and 230 billion dollars in the United States.
So the fight is coming if it isn't already here, and if Gandhi has anything to say about it; we win.
Hold onto your helmets kids, it's going to be a rough ride.