Complaints against Sixt Rent a Car adverts for condoning dangerous driving through the use of mobile phones have been rejected by the advertising watchdog.
Eleven complaints against two TV adverts and a video were received by the Advertising Standards Authority after they were aired in March.
They argued that the adverts were irresponsible, “because they condoned or encouraged dangerous or irresponsible driving behaviour prejudicial to safety and in breach of the legal requirements of the Highway Code”.
One TV advert showed a woman telephoning her father from a hospital room to tell him she had had triplets. Her father took the call from the driving seat of a stationary car. His right hand was out of sight but he held the phone in his left hand and replied “That’s nothing”.
He threw the phone behind him and placed both hands on the steering wheel. The shot widened before he drove off, showing that the car had been stationary on the forecourt of a Sixt hire centre.
The second TV advert showed a woman telephoning her parents to tell them she had decided to move in with her “spirit guru and lover, Keith”.
Her mother took the call from the driving seat of a stationary car. She held the steering wheel in her right hand and the phone in her left hand and replied as the man in the first advert. She put the phone down and placed both hands on the steering wheel.
As in the first advert, the shot widened before she drove off, showing that the car had been stationary on the forecourt of a Sixt hire centre.
The video advert showed a woman telephoning a man. She said “I’m pregnant. It’s yours. I’m keeping it”. The man took the call from the driving seat of a stationary car. He had both hands on the steering wheel and no phone was visible. He replied in the same way as the other adverts. The shot also widened before he drove off, showing that the car had been stationary on the forecourt of a Sixt hire centre.
Sixt argued that the TV adverts had a “surreal tone” and it was unlikely that viewers would see them as realistic examples of driving styles.
The company considered the video advert to be “lighthearted and surreal and that it had a grotesque style that suggested it was not real life”.
Rejecting all the complaints, the ASA ruled that it “considered viewers were likely to understand that the ads presented surreal scenes”.
The ASA added: “Nevertheless, the use of mobile phones in cars and when driving had been a high-profile issue recently and we considered ads should not condone or encourage dangerous or irresponsible driving behaviour that would breach the Highway Code.
“We noted that the Highway Code stated that drivers ‘must exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times’. It prohibited the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving and advised that hands-free equipment, while not prohibited, was likely to distract attention from the road.”
The ASA noted that both TV adverts featured drivers using hand-held mobile phones in vehicles “that were safely parked on the forecourts of Sixt hire centres”.
“In each case the drivers put the phones down and placed both hands on the steering wheel before driving off. At that point in each of the ads, the drivers were in moods of quite high excitement, but we considered that it was nevertheless clear that the phones were put down before the drivers drove off and that, when he or she did so, they were exercising proper control of their vehicle.”
The driver in the third advert was using a hands-free phone and held the steering wheel with both hands during the call.
“Bearing in mind the subject matter of the call, and that the other occupants of the car – presumably the man’s wife and children – would have heard it, the driver unsurprisingly appeared to be in a mood of quite high emotion,” the ASA said.
“However, the car was again safely parked on the forecourt of a Sixt hire centre for the duration of the call. It was clear that the call had ended, and that the driver therefore was not being distracted by it, before he drove off.
“We therefore concluded that the ads did not condone or encourage dangerous or irresponsible behaviour prejudicial to safety and in breach of the legal requirements of the Highway Code, and that they therefore did not breach the [advertising] code.”