BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A group of young people were featured riding cross country on four-wheeled

motorcycles in the programme Ansett NZ Time of Your Life, broadcast on TV3 on 2

June 1996 at 7.00pm.

Ms M Fraser complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast of the

programme, and of promos in the week leading up to the programme, breached

broadcasting standards because they showed four-wheeled motorcycle riders who

were not wearing helmets.

In its response, TV3 advised that the activity featured was offered by a company in

Nelson and, because it was on private land, there was no legal requirement for the

operators to offer or supply safety helmets. It therefore declined to uphold the

complaints. Dissatisfied with that response, Ms Fraser referred the complaints 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 complaints.

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 complaints without a formal hearing.

One of the items on Ansett Time of Your Life which was broadcast on TV3 on 2 June

1996 at 7.00pm, showed a group of young people, including one of the programme's

presenters, riding four-wheeled motorbikes on farmland near Nelson. None were

wearing helmets. The item was promoted, on several occasions, in the week prior to

the broadcast.

Ms M Fraser complained to TV3 first about the promos for the programme, arguing

that it was highly irresponsible to show the group riding without helmets, and for the

presenter to state that four-wheel biking was 'great for hooning'. Pointing out that

laws had recently been enacted to require riders to use helmets, Ms Fraser argued that

TV3 was in breach of the principles of law and further, that it gave the wrong

impression to children about observance of safety rules.

In a second letter, written after the broadcast of the programme, Ms Fraser repeated

her concern about the irresponsible behaviour shown, explaining that as a member of

her family had been affected by head injuries suffered when riding a bicycle, she felt

very strongly that it was reckless to promote riding without helmets. She added that

she had written previously about the programme promos in the hope that TV3 would

have included a message at the end of the programme advising viewers that helmets

should be worn.

When it assessed the programme, TV3 considered the complaint under standards G1,

G5 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

during their normally accepted viewing hours.

Acknowledging Ms Fraser's concern about the lack of safety helmets, TV3 advised

that an investigation into the matter had revealed that because the operation was

carried out on private land, there was no legal requirement for the operators to offer or

supply safety helmets. It added that it had also checked with the police who

confirmed that advice was correct. Although it sympathised with Ms Fraser's

concerns, it declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

The Authority accepts that technically it was legitimate for TV3 to decline to uphold

the complaints. Since the bike riding was on private property, there was no legal

obligation for the riders to wear helmets and, in the case of an accident, liability would

rest with the tourist operators. However, the Authority has strong sympathy with

the complainant and considers that it is desirable for a programme in this time slot to

show safe practices. It believes it was unfortunate that bike riding without helmets

was promoted, especially since it would not necessarily have been clear to all viewers

that it was on private property and that the legal requirement to wear a helmet was

therefore waived.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 September 1996

Appendix I

Ms M Fraser's Complaints to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 30 May 1996

Ms M Fraser of Wellington complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the promo

for its programme Ansett NZ Time of Your Life breached broadcasting standards. The

promo, which advertised an upcoming programme, showed the presenter and other

members of the group riding four-wheeled motorbikes without helmets.

Ms Fraser complained that it was highly irresponsible to show them without helmets,

as apart from the law being broken, there could be serious effects if an accident

occurred.

In a second letter, dated 4 June, after the programme was broadcast on 2 June, Ms

Fraser expressed her disappointment that there was no acknowledgment on the

programme that riding without safety helmets was illegal. She pointed out that for

nearly ten years it had been an offence to ride motorcycles without a helmet. She

argued that standards G1, G5 and G12 were breached. The letter continued:

In this enlightened age and with the laws nearly ten years on, I would also

reiterate how highly irresponsible it was to feature the presenter and other

members of the group riding the motorbikes without safety helmets. Given

that this is a promotional show encouraging people to join this recreation I

would think it would be more than responsible for the makers of the

programme to get the rules right.

Ms Fraser noted that because she had a family member affected by a head injury

caused by a bicycle accident, this was an important issue personally. She advised she

was even more concerned by the message in the promos which suggested that the bike

riding was 'great for hooning'.

She concluded that TV3 should broadcast a message to clarify these points and the

current law.

TV3's Response to the Complaints - 13 June 1996

TV3 declined to uphold the complaints. It stated that after receiving Ms Fraser's first

letter, advising it of the problem in the promos, it had investigated the matter. It was

advised that there was no legal requirement to wear helmets as the activity was carried

out on private land. This was confirmed by the New Zealand Police.

TV3 acknowledged Ms Fraser's concern for safety, but did not believe the broadcast

breached broadcasting standards.

M Fraser's Referral to the Authority - 9 July 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Ms Fraser referred the complaints to the

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

Ms Fraser stated that TV3's response was unsatisfactory and that G5 and G12 had

not been satisfactorily covered, noting:

This was a programme promoting unsafe practices, eg a fun and dangerous

sport without undue care and attention to safety - or explanations as to why

they were not required.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 15 July 1996

TV3 advised that it had no further comments to make.