helmets from Why wear black?

[mikeymo]

Your theory on helmets and hi viz,for it is only a theory without any foundation or fact.
In other posts you mention rape in relation to womens revealing clothing(short skirts low tops,etc) by your logic women should be banned from wearing such clothing so they don't attract attention from potential rapists.

I saw the reference to rape (not by you, I know), but didn't respond. I was going to say that he didn't write quite what you say he wrote, but a quick search of the forums reveals that this rape comparison is a worryingly frequent tactic on his part.

It's disgusting of the person who attempted to use that as some sort of "argument". It's not comparable in any way at all, but demonstrates the increasingly wild and irrational posting of that particular poster.

In a public forum it demonstrates massive insensitivity to bring up the subject of rape, in response to a post from a total stranger about a completely unrelated subject, without knowing how rape has impacted that stranger's life.

According to UK law, only men can rape. But both men and women can be victims of rape.

It's worth imagining what actual rape survivors might think about having their experience compared to enforced helmet wearing.

[reohn2]

Your theory on helmets and hi viz,for it is only a theory without any foundation or fact.
In other posts you mention rape in relation to womens revealing clothing(short skirts low tops,etc) by your logic women should be banned from wearing such clothing so they don't attract attention from potential rapists.

I saw the reference to rape (not by you, I know), but didn't respond. I was going to say that he didn't write quite what you say he wrote, but a quick search of the forums reveals that this rape comparison is a worryingly frequent tactic on his part.

It's disgusting of the person who attempted to use that as some sort of "argument". It's not comparable in any way at all, but demonstrates the increasingly wild and irrational posting of that particular poster.

In a public forum it demonstrates massive insensitivity to bring up the subject of rape, in response to a post from a total stranger about a completely unrelated subject, without knowing how rape has impacted that stranger's life.

According to UK law, only men can rape. But both men and women can be victims of rape.

It's worth imagining what actual rape survivors might think about having their experience compared to enforced helmet wearing.

I don't wish to divert the thread's main subject.
The point I was making,possibly not clearly enough,was that in other threads TUC has mentioned that rape cases should not in any way reflect in what a woman was wearing at the time,and which I agree with him on that POV.
But to then restrict the freedom of cyclists to wear what they like by law ie; helmets and hiviz,by making unfounded assumptions and theories that such a law would make cycling safer is preposterous in the extreme and seems double standard IMO.

[mattheus]

I was going to say that he didn't write quite what you say he wrote, but a quick search of the forums reveals that this rape comparison is a worryingly frequent tactic on his part.

It's disgusting of the person who attempted to use that as some sort of "argument". It's not comparable in any way at all, but demonstrates the increasingly wild and irrational posting of that particular poster.

Perhaps it's a common comparison because it is the clearest example of victim-blaming in modern UK. It therefore seems like a powerful discussion point.

In a public forum it demonstrates massive insensitivity to bring up the subject of rape, in response to a post from a total stranger about a completely unrelated subject, without knowing how rape has impacted that stranger's life.

I agree that this is a possible problem, and worth thinking about. But I'll point out 2 mitigations:
- rape is not a taboo subject; it is frequently mentioned in radio news headlines, it is a frequent occurrence in prime-time TV dramas.
- if one is making the point that rape victim-blaming is a bad thing, that seems like a positive post. It would be a different matter if a poster made a crass joke about rape.

It's worth imagining what actual rape survivors might think about having their experience compared to enforced helmet wearing.

Sounds like pure conjecture on your part.

According to UK law, only men can rape. But both men and women can be victims of rape.

What is the relevance of this?

[Oldjohnw]

I'm not involved in the helmet discussion s but I will make the is point:

There is NOTHING that should be compared with rape. Or victims of rape.

[mattheus]

I'm not involved in the helmet discussion s but I will make the is point:

There is NOTHING that should be compared with rape. Or victims of rape.

That is a very sweeping statement; are you really sure it holds up? It also sounds like quite an Orwellian restriction. I would say that context is everything.

[Oldjohnw]

I can't help wondering in what context rape is a lesser evil than enforced helmet wearing/banning.

[mattheus]

I can't help wondering in what context rape is a lesser evil than enforced helmet wearing/banning.

Ah, but that's not the comparison being made - at least not that I've ever seen. (Do you have a citation? It sounds like a bizarre thing to write.)

I shall paraphrase the more common type:

mandating PPE for cyclists whilst allowing killer drivers to escape serious punishment, is pure victim-blaming;
rather like telling women to not wear provocative clothing.

[mattheus]

Here you go, just found a post by Utility Cyclist. It's quite clear he is not saying that ANYTHING is as serious as rape - probably quite the opposite:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=134910&p=1438856&hilit=rape#p1438856

[RickH]

only thing that that proves is the company is elf and safety bonkers. I believe in the efficacy of hi vis, but wearing on the footpath like that, ridiculous. I'd wonder if they have a sign warning them that the kettle might have hot water.

As an aside, poll time again. How people have those 13A plug socket "safety" plug in covers plugged in at home in case of toddler invasion? download.png

As in they seem like a good idea but are potentially lethal, compromising the safety features of the 13A socket - link.

We've got several organisations, that used to require fitting them, to change their policy over the years, including Bolton Social Services.

[Wanlock Dod]

Your theory on helmets and hi viz,for it is only a theory without any foundation or fact.
In other posts you mention rape in relation to womens revealing clothing(short skirts low tops,etc) by your logic women should be banned from wearing such clothing so they don't attract attention from potential rapists.

I saw the reference to rape (not by you, I know), but didn't respond. I was going to say that he didn't write quite what you say he wrote, but a quick search of the forums reveals that this rape comparison is a worryingly frequent tactic on his part.....

Would anybody care to explain why this isn’t a reasonable analogy?

[Mike Sales]

Your theory on helmets and hi viz,for it is only a theory without any foundation or fact.
In other posts you mention rape in relation to womens revealing clothing(short skirts low tops,etc) by your logic women should be banned from wearing such clothing so they don't attract attention from potential rapists.

I saw the reference to rape (not by you, I know), but didn't respond. I was going to say that he didn't write quite what you say he wrote, but a quick search of the forums reveals that this rape comparison is a worryingly frequent tactic on his part.....

Would anybody care to explain why this isn’t a reasonable analogy?

I think that it is a reasonable analogy, but seems to be too emotive for some and so causes a diversion from the point.
I often point out that the police are keen to get cyclists to wear hiviz, and even give it out free, but seldom if ever exhort drivers to follow HC 126.
Rape is a deliberate crime and so differs from driving dangerously enough to make an accident much more likely, Nevertheless it seems to me that putting the onus on the vulnerable to try to avoid the bad behaviour of the dangerous, whilst not tackling the dangerous on how to avoid harming others is a serious and comparable dereliction.
Driving too fast for visibility is very common and the root reason why hiviz is thought to be important.
Perhaps advising stab vests instead of tackling knife carrying would be a better comparison to make.
The fact is, there are very few situations in which carelessness with no evil intention can still kill strangers, and these situations tend to be strictly controlled. Driving is a special case, an exception. Which is why there are so many casualties.

[Wanlock Dod]

Quite so.
We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

[Oldjohnw]

Quite so.
We don’t expect women to protect themselves from dangerous rapists.
We don’t expect folk in London to protect themselves from dangerous attackers with knives.
We don’t expect American school children to protect themselves from dangerous gunmen.
Why therefore do we expect people riding bikes to protect themselves from dangerous drivers?

That sounds like you think that helmets/certain clothing does offer protection after all.

[Wanlock Dod]

The analogy with stab vests or bulletproof vests seems less robust because we as a society have not yet promoted their use, whereas within the last few decades rape alarms really were a real thing and subject to some promotion. We seem to have moved on from there such that rape is now unquestionably unacceptable and not something that women ought to have to be fearful of. I am sure that our society is better as a result of that.

Motorists choose not to drive carefully, but because such a large proportion of the population drive we tend to make excuses for dangerous behaviour by motorists.

[Mike Sales]

The analogy with stab vests or bulletproof vests seems less robust because we as a society have not yet promoted their use, whereas within the last few decades rape alarms really were a real thing and subject to some promotion. We seem to have moved on from there such that rape is now unquestionably unacceptable and not something that women ought to have to be fearful of. I am sure that our society is better as a result of that.

Motorists choose not to drive carefully, but because such a large proportion of the population drive we tend to make excuses for dangerous behaviour by motorists.

Driving really is a unique case, so an exact analogy is not available.
In no other sphere are people allowed to do something which is so inherently dangerous to the general public with so little control. If any other activity killed so many there would be demands for restricting the danger, not feeble advice to try protect the endangered.