Victim blaming is part of human psychology, according to this article.

I find this really pertinent to the debate about cyclists, and how cyclist deaths are reported and discussed. As a society we have to blame the victim, otherwise we have to admit that the world is not fair, and worse (in the case of cyclists being killed) that we (motorists) are a part of making it unfair.

Also interesting was the observation that people are less likely to blame the victim of the actions of the perpetrator are clearly signalled. This I guess is because it is easier to not see the world as systemically unfair if you can see the event as isolated and 'abmormal'.

It plays into a lot of debate on this site about the way headlines are written, for example ('Car hits cyclist' etc). It's not something I've got much exercised over before, but perhaps it's a lot more important that I realised.

'Inattentive driver steers car into cyclist, causing serious injury' doesn't provoke the same victim-blaming reflex as 'Cyclist seriously injured when hit by car', for example. 

Views: 257

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Something like that? 

Out on your own driveway and BAM

I'm surprised the news article didn't mention about the lack of his helmet or moat or military grade fencing

At least they have this:

Chief Inspector David Hogg said the driver had veered off the road before she hit the man, who was in his driveway.

Normally it would have been something like: "Chief Inspector David Hogg said the car lost control and veered off the road before it hit the man, who was not able to get himself out of the path of the vehicle."

But then further down we have this:

[This bit looks ok]

Inspector Clarke also pleaded with motorists to look out for vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

[But then... BAM! blame the victims]

“We also strongly encourage cyclists and pedestrians to consider wearing high visibility clothing in low light conditions.

What we know (and apparently Mr Clarke doesn't) is that motorists don't see cyclists or pedestrians, not because they're not wearing hi-vis, but because motorists are not looking for them. If hi-vis was all that was needed, we wouldn't need the "road works ahead" signs, as all the workers are wearing hi-vis outfits. Anyway, rant over.

"At least they have this:

Chief Inspector David Hogg said the driver had veered off the road before she hit the man, who was in his driveway."

But in the very next sentence he says: "At this stage there's nothing to indicate that anything untoward was involved in the accident."

How can somebody so blatantly voice two contradictory opinions in consecutive sentences?

Maybe what he should have said was "At this stage there's nothing to indicate that anything untoward deliberate was involved in the accident killing of the pedestrian."

really? that 50kmh sign, how do you lose control of a vehicle at a 50kmh bend and land far in the bushes? 

speeding & texting & killing people on their own driveways are all standard entitlements

Peter, you're right in what you've said. I was merely suggesting that CI Hogg was trying to say that it was not a deliberate premeditated attempt to kill someone. As you rightly point out it was unacceptable negligence, and possibly caused by all or some of the speeding and texting you mentioned.

In UK 'serious negligence manslaughter'.

Very much in mind presently because a driver killed my niece's friend in a 20 zone on Saturday. A 15 year old on a seaside parade where drivers are required to avoid pedestrians.

Hog the policeman. Oink


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service