Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

October 28, 2009

In a move to make the roads of Canada safer, Advertising Standards Canada has handed down a ruling that ads cannot depict cars exceeding the speed limit, car chases in a residential setting or other unsafe driving practices.

A story in Canada's Globe and Mail details the ruling and clarifications to existing guidelines It also gets comments from various car manufacturers about their ad policies and how the new rules may affect them.

But where it gets interesting is a paragraph later in the story:

And some of the worst offenders are not even in the car business. An ad for the new Forza Motorsports 3 video game – which is rated E, suggesting it is acceptable for all ages – features cars swerving out of control, rolling over, and smashing into each other. Some car industry executives point to Hollywood movies and even tire manufacturers as airing unsafe depictions.

In looking closer at the ruling on the ASC site, the clarification seems directed at motor vehicle advertising and not at virtual world racing or games. We have contacted ASC to see if video game publishers would be prohibited from advertising any type of unsafe driving in their games, which could eliminate advertising for many rally or racing games. We'll post an update if and when we get an answer.

Update: Janet Feasby, vice president of standards for the ASC, repsonded back to our inquiry about video game ads, and as suspected the guidelines were designed for ads showing the depiction of driving cars and other motorized vehicles and not to the depiction of driving in products such as a video game.

However, she did offer a clarification:

Clause 10 (Safety) of the Code applies to the advertising of any category of product. It states that: “advertisements must not without reason, justifiable on educational or social grounds, display a disregard for safety by depicting situations that might reasonably be interpreted as encouraging unsafe or dangerous practices, or acts.

 

If ASC received a complaint from a consumer alleging that driving or racing scenes in a commercial for a video game could encourage unsafe behaviour, ASC would review the commercial against Clause 10. And, as directed by Interpretation Guideline #1, “in assessing the impression likely to be conveyed by an advertisement, ASC will take into consideration the use and application in the advertisement of the elements of humour and fantasy.”
Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

That would cover just about every racing game, NASCAR commercial, and a lot of car ads, most notably the ones that show people getting in horrible wrecks and walking away unscathed to hammer home the point that the car does a good job of protecting the occupants in a collision.

This doesn't sit well with me.

 

"That's not ironic. That's justice."

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

Too bad every racing game has a disclaimer that the game includes driving that is unsafe and should not be performed on the back of the game case and on/after the license screen.

http://www.deathvanquished.com

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

...Wow. I didn't picture Canada to be such a nanny state. Guess they take after the UK...

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

It's Canada. A country where it is illegal to drive a post-1990 vehicle during the day without daytime running lights turned on.

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

That isn't the law.  All cars post 1990 sold in Canada do have to have daytime running lights (which I don't think is necessary) but if you drive a pre-1990 car, you can't get fined for not having your headlights on.

That said, this is yet another law being passed purely in the interest of protecting the stupid among us.  If you are so moronic as to think it is safe to imitate every action you see in advertising, I'm sorry but the gene pool is better off without you.  The objective of government in my view is not to pass legislation to accomodate for the lowest common denominator of humanity.  It is government's job to raise the bar, not to accomodate how low it is.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

[I]f you drive a pre-1990 car, you can't get fined for not having your headlights on.

What happens if you drive a post-1990 car without the DRLs turned on?

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

DRLs are hard-wired into post-1990 cars made for sale in the Canadian market.  They can't be disabled without modifying the car and I do believe that is illegal.  If you own a US car and drive it to Canada on a vacation, you aren't required to have your lights on during the day I don't believe.  I do know that a friend of mine who had a 1984 Grand Prix he had turned into a muscle car didn't have DRLs and confirmed with a cop one day that he wasn't required to install a set or to leave his headlights on during the day.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

FYI, I bought a European import for use in the U.S. which had DRLs that came on whenever the engine was started. I asked the dealer to turn them off but he declined, citing "liability" concerns. Did some homework and found a third-party software maker who sells a program for $100 which allows the user to reprogram the vehicle's microprocessor as they choose. Now, I don't have DRLs on all the time. Or those annoying "ding-ding-dings" when a warning light (e.g., low windscreen washer fluid) comes on, either.  

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

It's Canada, the country where the cheif justice says a law that says "person" includes fictional characters and in the same sentance says that "person" has a clear definition given in the Canadian criminal/legal code.

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

New commercial idea...

Simulated Sedans/SUV driving posted speed limit, then slowing down for the upcoming traffic jam. Laying on the horn.

Announcer: You want to play this game?  Didn't think so.

Show fancy sports cars/muscle cars/rally cars all standing still or reving engines

Announcer: *insert game name here*, Not your drive to work!

and for grins, and disclaimer stating the government doesn't think your mature enough to handle images of cars racing.

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

Agreed!!! Ads showing dangerous police chases like these need to be taken off the air immediately!!!  Won't someone please think of the children!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0id9fUYb95A

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

But don't you have to move for it to be dangerous driving?

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

Whatever happened to disclaimers? Car commercials often tell you that professionals are pulling off the stunts. Do they follow that sort of thing in Canada?

I think distracting billboards and buildings would be more dangerous placed near busy streets. Although what distracts people is subjective. I know in my town you can't show flashy animated ads on the large LED billboards, but still images are fine.

 

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

Apparently they want people who want to roll a car to do it in real life instead of in a video game???

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving
Because people are so stupid that copy everything on TV I think politicians think everyone is so stupid that have to censor everything

Never underestimate the power of idiots in large amounts.

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving
I'm pretty sure this new guideline is just to stop car manufacturers from showing their vehicles hitting ramps and e-brake parallel parking. Which is still stupid, but I doubt it'll effect video games.
Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

I'm not sure what car advertising is like in other countries but I can't remember the last time I saw a car ad up here that portrayed anything that way.  Most of the ads here are of cars driving down winding mountain roads or through busy cities, rarely looking like they're going more than 50Kph.  In many of the ads, the vehicles are just in scenic shots where they aren't moving at all.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
blog.digital-lifeline.ca

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

 I'd have to agree with Canada on this one.  My cousin once ran over three schoolgirls because he saw a commercial.  

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

The update made me smile, it's good to see common sense being applied rather than a blanket term being used to zealously ensure safety.

Why can't other political legislators and groups do the same?! :)

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

So basically, Discovery Canada can't advertise Canada's Worst Driver anymore... no wonder I didn't see any commercials for it until the week it started.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Re: Canada Cracks Down on Ads Showing Unsafe Driving

I love the picture to this article, a bug eyed woman behind the wheel!!

Women behind the wheel, the very DEFINITION of unsafe driving!

"God, is that you?"

"No! It's a me, Mario!"

ECA IconA PUBLICATION OF THE ECA RSS IconSUBSCRIBE User LoginLOGIN / REGISTER

Crispy Gamer




       

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 03/18/10 at 09:41pm
ZippyDSMlee: And not taxing the 30-500K bracket so much, sure you make 500K at the end of the year add in life thats minus 200K add in the company you made there's another 200K.
Posted 03/18/10 at 09:39pm
ZippyDSMlee: Flamespeak: we should be taxing the ultra rich alot more(those that have more than 10 million in wealth),.
Posted 03/18/10 at 08:04pm
Flamespeak: I never understood why someone should work hard to get a lot of money, just to be punished with more taxes for doing so.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:44pm
hayabusa75: Isn't the upper class supposed to be footing most of this bill?
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:05pm
Austin_Lewis: Of course, that ignores the fact that for the next 4 years, the people will be taxed without 'benefit' from the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 06:04pm
Austin_Lewis: If we go by the CBO's past estimation failures, they're about 300% short on the actual cost.
Posted 03/18/10 at 05:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: *punt*Roll call, whos on and how are you doing?
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Login or register to post shouts