“I think there are some big leaps being made here with regard to the ad’s message being misleading or in some way endangering cyclists. The ad poses a question. How people interpret it or act on it is not up for TriMet to determine.”
— Becky Witt, Public Information Officer for TriMet
As the debate continues over an ad campaign on a MAX train that asks, “Should cyclists pay a road tax?”, several people in the comments have wondered whether TriMet should have even allowed the ad in the first place.
Yesterday, I learned more about TriMet’s advertising policy from their Public Information Officer Becky Witt. In a nutshell, Witt says an Oregon court ruling prevents TriMet from picking and choosing what ads they run, yet their policy still allows exceptions for offensive ads or ads that could endanger public safety.
In an email exchange/interview last night, I asked to Witt more about this situation.
When it comes to ads, Witt likened TriMet to “an impartial third party” and wrote that:
“TriMet is considered a public forum wherein we do not get to judge the content or nature of advertising being purchased on our vehicles or shelters… we provide the means for people to share their message, whatever that might be, and we do not get to prohibit advertisements that are political in nature, advocacy ads or the like.”
This policy is not TriMet’s choosing. Back in June of 2008, in Karuk Tribe v. TriMet, the State of Oregon ruled that TriMet’s refusal of a “political” advertisement (view PDF of it here) was unconstitutional, on both state and federal grounds.
According to the ACLU, the judge in the case ruled that:
“…TriMet does not have to make its buses available for advertisements, but that if it does “it places itself in the same position as a government … (and) may not … violate the Oregon Constitution.” TriMet’s decision to deny an ad, the judge ruled, may not be based on the content of that ad.”
TriMet strongly disagreed with the ruling and an appeal is still pending review.
However, despite this ruling and TriMet’s contention that they are an impartial third party, their advertising policy still states that:
“TriMet will allow transit advertising submissions that are not misleading, do not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of its customers…”
PIO Witt explained that policy further by stating that,
“we still make exceptions for ads that we think may be harmful to vulnerable populations (youth, for example) or are offensive as that is applied to the first amendment/free speech laws in Oregon and federally. Typically, the ads we would question are ones… that we think would be harmful to the public.”
So, I asked DeWitt, does this mean we can assume TriMet felt like “Should cyclists pay a road tax?” was not offensive or misleading?
Witt replied:
“In the case of this ad today, I’m not sure we would have caught that as being offensive or a road-rage inciting ad. Having uncovered the ad’s purpose today, we now know that the intent was to create controversy and spur dialogue and debate. Does that make it offensive or harmful? Perhaps, but it wasn’t up to us to question the ad’s intention.”
I asked Witt whether or not they considered how that statement might fuel anti-bike sentiment and lead to more dangerous conditions on the road.
Witt:
“I think there are some big leaps being made here with regard to the ad’s message being misleading or in some way endangering cyclists. The ad poses a question. How people interpret it or act on it is not up for TriMet to determine.”
That is Witt’s opinion, but she also adds that about a dozen calls and emails have come from the community saying that this campaign is an “inappropriate discussion for TriMet to be involved in.”
Several people in the comments yesterday shared that sentiment, including reader Jimmy P who wrote:
“I wrote to Trimet. It’s irresponsible on their part to accept this kind of advertisement. It creates an unsafe environment for everyone on the road. And, it does it with blatant lies – implying we don’t pay taxes.
It’s irresponsible, it’s dangerous, and it shouldn’t be allowed.”
In the end, Witt maintains that Oregon courts are to blame, not TriMet:
“This feedback and situations like this are precisely why we haven’t wanted to be viewed as a public forum. Oregon courts have ruled that, at least for the time being, we don’t get a say in what we can run on our vehicles and shelters.”
At the crux of this issue is whether or not people (like myself) who feel that the ad campaign is offensive and inflammatory can expect that TriMet and the marketing company who bought the ad — both of whom are understandably much less tuned into the sensitive nature of road safety and behavioral issues covered on this site — should be expected to share and understand these sensitivities.
Hopefully if they didn’t “get it” before this, maybe they do now.
— Read TriMet’s Advertising Policy Standards here.
— Read more about the Karuk Tribe v. TriMet case here.