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