biotechpete Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 It's not victim blaming unless you are looking for an excuse for your actions. Proportional measures like requiring lights, pedal reflectors etc and requiring cyclist not to "cycle furiously" and not to cycle on footpaths - these all enforce laws onto cyclists and are not victim blaming. Requiring motorbikers to wear helmets is not victim blaming, even though many accidents they have are caused by others. The same would be true for cyclists. However the evidence is such that helmets don't seem to have any real effect in head injury rates for normal cycling, so not requiring them to be worn is prudent. Otherwise it's an infringement on civil liberty and an unnecessary cost. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 16:05 ---------- Do you think that we should stop requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets then? Yes OK, that was hyperbole, but you often see media and subsequent policy push the responsibility for safety onto the cyclists. I would argue that to say cyclists should wear helmets and hi-vis to protect them against being run over by cars/vans/lorries is just as 'victim blaming' as saying women shouldn't wear short skirts if they don't want to get raped. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 16:12 ---------- Do you think that we should stop requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets then? AFAIK, there is evidence that motorcyclists injuries are reduced by helmet wearing given that the speeds at which they travel are far greater than cyclists. The same is true of seat belts of course. It's mostly down to the collision speed/force. I wear a helmet because I travel at speed. Not everyone does and so not everyone should wear one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Yes OK, that was hyperbole, but you often see media and subsequent policy push the responsibility for safety onto the cyclists. I would argue that to say cyclists should wear helmets and hi-vis to protect them against being run over by cars/vans/lorries is just as 'victim blaming' as saying women shouldn't wear short skirts if they don't want to get raped. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 16:12 ---------- AFAIK, there is evidence that motorcyclists injuries are reduced by helmet wearing given that the speeds at which they travel are far greater than cyclists. The same is true of seat belts of course. It's mostly down to the collision speed/force. I wear a helmet because I travel at speed. Not everyone does and so not everyone should wear one. Are compulsory pedal and rear reflectors victim blaming then? When rail workers on the rail line have to wear dayglo orange - is that victim blaming? Or building workers? Victim blaming is where someone has to modify their actions to avoid or mitigate the criminal action of another. Women being counselled against short skirts etc. fits that description. Taking actions to mitigate against events or accidents that don't arise from someones criminal intent or inaction is not to me "victim blaming" it's a prudent course of action in the circumstance. Regardless, I think that people would be better off being encouraged to wear a helmet appropriately, which would be when cycling at speed. (or offroad MTB etc). I don't think you need to wear one to pop down the shops or cycle to the office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 A lot of cycle helmets are ill fitting anyway, they look like they'd fall off in an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Are compulsory pedal and rear reflectors victim blaming then? When rail workers on the rail line have to wear dayglo orange - is that victim blaming? Or building workers? Victim blaming is where someone has to modify their actions to avoid or mitigate the criminal action of another. Women being counselled against short skirts etc. fits that description. Taking actions to mitigate against events or accidents that don't arise from someones criminal intent or inaction is not to me "victim blaming" it's a prudent course of action in the circumstance. Regardless, I think that people would be better off being encouraged to wear a helmet appropriately, which would be when cycling at speed. (or offroad MTB etc). I don't think you need to wear one to pop down the shops or cycle to the office. So, given that there is evidence that high-vis is of no benefit to cyclists and therefore doesn't mitigate against 'accidents' you don't think encouraging them to wear it to mitigate the criminal action of dangerous driving isn't victim blaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Here we go again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexo Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Here we go again. Aye.... People who don't ride a bicycle think that those who do should be forced by law to wear a helmet. Thanks to Biotechpete for his rational posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky B Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 One large thing that seems to be overlooked is the many un-reported accidents that occur. People who fall off their bike, smack their head but don't incur any injury as it was relatively low speed. These people will not go to the hospital, report any injury, they'll just go home as they have probably just a small bump or bruise. Is the same true for people without a helmet, that fall off and smack their head on the floor?? Good point. For the record, I always wear a helmet! I don't reckon they'd be any use in an accident at any kind of speed, but it's ingrained in me now. There has been some evidence that motorists give cyclists more space if they're not wearing helmets... ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 17:07 ---------- Yet again and very predictable I suppose, a really good post about one subject (cycle helmets) has been hijacked into a car bashing thread. Obviously a helmet on a head is better than no helmet on a head. Lots of other road users are not cars, and they are often hit by cyclists. Strangely though, if a cyclist hits a pedestrian (old or young) the pedestrian should have paid more attention, nothing to do with how visible the cyclist is, if a car hits a cyclist Errm.......... Cars wearing Hi Vis jackets??? silly really, they are much bigger therefore more visible, they also make a noise so are easier to detect, nearly all current cars have daytime running lights too. Back on topic please. My bold. No it's not, necessarily. That is an opinion not borne out by scientifc studies. On the subject of pedestrians, am I the only one who finds the majority don't pay attention to their surroundings? I see this more when I'm on foot, as I'm sharing the same space more often, but it's incredible how many people just walk along staring at their phones (usually) and I have to walk around them as they're not aware anyone else is there until you're almost in their personal space. Incidentally, does anyone else get the urge to shout "boo!" at people like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 (edited) So, given that there is evidence that high-vis is of no benefit to cyclists and therefore doesn't mitigate against 'accidents' you don't think encouraging them to wear it to mitigate the criminal action of dangerous driving isn't victim blaming? As you may recall I once drove a landrover over a cyclist. Had he been wearing hi vis I suspect I may have seen him and been able to take action to at least reduce the impact. Nontheless I notice that you have taken my comments and decided to refine them purely to mitigating criminal actions. That's called moving goalposts and I thought better of you. I also never said that cyclist should wear hi vis - yet you falsely ascribe such a position to me. Are you being a little too hasty to scarify the evil car driver because that's what it looks like... ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 17:10 ---------- Aye.... People who don't ride a bicycle think that those who do should be forced by law to wear a helmet. Thanks to Biotechpete for his rational posts. No they don't. Please stop with the absurd comments. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 17:11 ---------- Incidentally, does anyone else get the urge to shout "boo!" at people like this I didn't until you said that..... I'll let you know how it goes. After I get let out for scaring people unnecessarily. Edited October 13, 2016 by Obelix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 So, given that there is evidence that high-vis is of no benefit to cyclists and therefore doesn't mitigate against 'accidents' you don't think encouraging them to wear it to mitigate the criminal action of dangerous driving isn't victim blaming? As a council worker, I have to wear hi-vis and steelies, I believe they do not make me safer; but a hi-vis would make a cyclist safer. The council must believe they make me safer, I bet they spend loads of money doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster Enforcing laws on cyclists is just victim blaming. All the evidence shows that if you want to reduce cyclist casualties you need to change driver behaviour. That is why West Midlands police are delivering a campaign to prevent dangerous overtaking. So the two wheeled lunatics should be able to do what they want on the roads ? ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 18:18 ---------- As a council worker, I have to wear hi-vis and steelies, I believe they do not make me safer; but a hi-vis would make a cyclist safer. The council must believe they make me safer, I bet they spend loads of money doing it. Councils are the worst offender for health and safety cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now