BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In commenting on road safety, one of the Ice TV presenters said, "The two-second

rule's rubbish. Forget about that". He proposed imagining one's leg hanging over the

front bumper as a means of thinking about driving at a safe speed. The remarks were

made at about 4.05pm on Saturday 15 June 1996.

Ms Philps complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remark

was inaccurate and irresponsible, especially given the age of the target audience.

Explaining that the approach had been used by the presenter as a means to attract the

attention of teenage drivers, and that road safety was the point of the comments, TV3

declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Ms Philps referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Road safety was referred to on Ice TV – a programme targeted at teenagers – when one

of the presenters commented, "The two second rule's rubbish – forget about that". He

suggested instead that drivers should imagine one of their legs hanging over the car's

front bumper as a guide in measuring a safe distance from the car in front in the case of

an emergency stop.

Because of the importance of the two second rule, Ms Philps complained to TV3 that

the tone of the item was distasteful and the comment was irresponsible.

TV3 assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. They require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the

presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence

viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

Maintaining that the presenter's comment was an "irreverent joke" designed to attract

the attention of teenagers who believed that they were invincible drivers, TV3 said the

image was used in attempt to get young drivers to slow down. The item concluded, it

added, with the other presenter stressing the importance of the two-second rule.

With regard to the specific standards, TV3 said the item was concerned with the need

for young drivers to keep a safe distance and thus was not inaccurate. As this item

stressed road safety, TV3 considers that the standards, other than standard G7 which

did not apply, had not been contravened.

When she referred the complaint to the Authority, Ms Philps expressed the view that

TV3 did not have a right to re-write safety procedures with images she regarded as

"sick". She also objected to the patronising tone of TV3's reply.

While the Authority understands Ms Philps' concern that the specific comment

seemingly displays scorn towards road safety, it believes that she has taken the

remark out of context. Having viewed the exchange, the Authority is in no doubt that

road safety was the underlying theme. The exchange complained about began by

dismissing the formal rules and replacing them with language which, it was believed,

teenagers could appreciate. Although the manner of the exchange differed from the

official reasons advanced for road safety, the content in fact endorsed official road

safety messages. Accordingly, the Authority concludes, standards G1, G5 and G12

were not breached.

As standard G7 applies when technical deception is employed, and as that did not

occur on this occasion, the Authority declines to uphold that aspect of the complaint.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 October 1996

Appendix

Ms Philps' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 17 June 1996

Cheryl Philps of Palmerston North complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd

(through the Broadcasting Standards Authority) about a comment made by a presenter

on Ice TV at about 4.05pm on Saturday 18 June 1996.

The presenter had said, "The two-second rule's rubbish - forget about that". Ms

Philps described the comment as irresponsible, especially given the age of the target

audience.

In a second letter dated 5 July, Ms Philps pointed out that young people were

required to be aware of the two-second rule when they sat the test for a driver's

licence. They were not required to know about putting one's leg over the bumper as

an imaginary buffer, which the presenter had advanced as an alternative to the two-

second rule.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 July 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, G1, G5, G7 and G12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, TV3 wrote:

The Ice TV "two second rule" item dealt with the serious issue of getting our

teenagers to slow down on the road. John's irreverent joke at the top was a

means to get teenagers, who are notorious for believing they are invincible on the

road, to pay attention to what he and Nathan had to say.

TV3 added:

And it was effective; by saying exactly what one of the teenage drivers they

were trying to reach might in fact have said John gains an identification with

them. His image of the leg across the bumper was an effective means to visualise

to the young driver that they are in fact physically vulnerable, even inside what

many see as an impenetrable fortress - their car. The whole point of this image

was to get young drivers to slow down.

TV3 also pointed out that the other presenter had concluded by stressing the

importance of the two-second rule and, TV3 maintained:

This may not have been how you would have liked to put the message across,

but the Committee believes ICE TV's teenage audience responds to a different

approach - one that may not be particularly effective with an adult audience.

In relation to the specific standards allegedly contravened, TV3 said that the exchange

had been concerned with the need for drivers to slow down and, thus, it was factually

accurate. As it had also stressed the need for teenagers to think about their physical

vulnerability, standard G12 was not contravened.

TV3 acknowledged that the segment began by making light of the two-second rule, but

the item had later reminded viewers of its importance specifically and road safety

generally. Accordingly, standard G5 was not transgressed.

As it considered that standard G7 did not apply, TV3 concluded that no standards had

been breached.

Ms Philps' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 August 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Ms Philps referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

She said that she considered the presenter's image of dangling a leg over the bumper as

"sick" and stated that TV3 did not have the right to rewrite safety procedures on a

whim "just because they don't think that young people will listen" to the formal

procedures.

Ms Philps considered the tone of TV3's letter to be patronising in suggesting that she

as an adult could not understand the programme's approach to young people.

Describing herself as an avid viewer of children's programmes as they could be both

pleasurable and informative, she said that did not apply to what she had seen on Ice

TV.

Dealing specifically with TV3's reply, she said the criticism of the two-second rule

was presented as a serious fact and she asked how TV3 was able to judge the alleged

effectiveness of the alternative approach adopted. She commented on some other

points and concluded:

The audience trusts and believes in the presenters, who are after all trying to

influence the audience. I believe they have misused their position and power by

not having due regard for the consequences of their statements.

TV3's Report to the Authority - 9 September 1996

TV3 advised that it did not wish to comment further.