Police Scotland victim blaming Campaign

[The utility cyclist]

Not read it, sorry.
It's more of the same I would think.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions.
The more vulnerable you are, the more you have to take care.

It's a jungle out there, and not everyone obeys the rules, so don't forget it.

Pushing the responsibility on to the vulnerable/weak has never ever worked in the history of mankind to increase their safety/reduce their vulnerability.
The responsibility has to be mostly on the shoulders of those posing the harm, if you can't see that then you really need to have a good long read about matters and get to grips with why your notion is way off the mark!

[Cugel]

That wasn't the message at a police presentation given to kids in my wife's school. It was more along the lines of "this is what will happen if you treat cars as toys". If you believe the police should just hide behind bushes and catch people at it, that is certainly one of their roles. But prevention is another.

Is it effective prevention? In the (possibly many now for more) years before they learn to drive, won't they have forgotten it?

In the meantime, is the message heard as "this is what will happen if you treat cars as toys so you'd better stay fearfully away from them"?

It seems rather too much like combatting knife crime by telling kids to respect knives. A double-edged sword, possibly literally.

They would have been kids nearing driving lesson age. Does it work? No answering that really, but on the day there were kids with tears in their eyes, and some of those were boys. It's got to be part of the answer.

Agreed - this police education about the horrors of so-called traffic accidents is a form of advertising: the manipulation of attitudes and resultant behaviour to serve an intent via emotional appeals of one sort or another. In this case the intent of the advert is to convince children that cars are dangerous things around which one should be very careful; or suffer their predations. Such an advert is in opposition to the far more prevalent pro-car type of advert in which raffish fellows drive about like lunatics to impress the opposite gender with their allegedly attractive irresponsibility.

So, the question then becomes, will this education not only install an appropriate attitude of fear and loathing for the car but also behaviours that are a good balance between being very careful of the tin death traps whilst still able to go about with relative freedom on, say, a pavement or a bicycle?

That's a difficult question to answer as different children will have different responses to the police safety "adverts". Some may become over-fearful; some may find attraction in themselves being a car-driving fear-monger; many will (hopefully) use the information with all their other upbringing & education to achieve a sensible balance between fear and freedom.

In some cultures the folk have long been tutored to be fearful rather than free, as the sad state of current politics in The West, along with it's mass media PR, demonstrates on a daily basis. Everyone seems to desire a risk-free life now - unless they are themselves the source of large risks to others. (Hop forward Mr Toad).

Cugel

[pwa]

Not read it, sorry.
It's more of the same I would think.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions.
The more vulnerable you are, the more you have to take care.

It's a jungle out there, and not everyone obeys the rules, so don't forget it.

Pushing the responsibility on to the vulnerable/weak has never ever worked in the history of mankind to increase their safety/reduce their vulnerability.
The responsibility has to be mostly on the shoulders of those posing the harm, if you can't see that then you really need to have a good long read about matters and get to grips with why your notion is way off the mark!

I'm pretty sure you two are in disagreement more because of the choice of words rather than the substance. Mick thinks (correct me if I am wrong) that at a pragmatic level one has to do whatever one feels might work to reduce the danger to oneself because nobody else is guaranteed to be acting as they ought to. I think we all kind of agree with that. You argue that those in charge of motor vehicles have a responsibility to those of us who might be harmed by them. I doubt Mick would disagree. I can think both of those things at the same time.

[Wanlock Dod]

...one has to do whatever one feels might work to reduce the danger...

Whilst I appreciate that it might not seem to sound too unreasonable at face value, are there any real options aside from getting out of the way? If there aren't then the message is basically "Cyclists get off the roads for your own safety."

[The utility cyclist]

Not read it, sorry.
It's more of the same I would think.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions.
The more vulnerable you are, the more you have to take care.

It's a jungle out there, and not everyone obeys the rules, so don't forget it.

Pushing the responsibility on to the vulnerable/weak has never ever worked in the history of mankind to increase their safety/reduce their vulnerability.
The responsibility has to be mostly on the shoulders of those posing the harm, if you can't see that then you really need to have a good long read about matters and get to grips with why your notion is way off the mark!

I'm pretty sure you two are in disagreement more because of the choice of words rather than the substance. Mick thinks (correct me if I am wrong) that at a pragmatic level one has to do whatever one feels might work to reduce the danger to oneself because nobody else is guaranteed to be acting as they ought to. I think we all kind of agree with that. You argue that those in charge of motor vehicles have a responsibility to those of us who might be harmed by them. I doubt Mick would disagree. I can think both of those things at the same time.

Taking more care invariably has no effect on outcomes and by doing so you fall in to the lure of the viscious circle. You do everything to try to accommodate/take account of actions that might harm you yet all this does is allow those posing the threat to carry on as per normal and feel that that's exactly what you will do and all others of your type in future. You cede and make allowances and you effectively train the monkeys that thta is how it will always be and they will never learn that their actions are wrong.
Again this is proven throughout history in all sorts of situations and never ever works except to justify the actions of the monkeys and push the vulnerable out and indeed continue to harm them.

Victim blaming as Police Scotland and many other police forces do (and indeed government and too many of the general public), creates an environment whereby if you don't do/wear X then if Y happens it's partly your fault, even if what you were doing without X would not have ended up with Y happening at all where it not for another party doing something wrong.

This is no different to CUKs nominated solicitors victim blaming nonsense over helmets. We have kept ceding throughout cycling history since the motor vehicle came about, compulsory rear lights, pushed off the roads on to cycle lanes (as far back as the 1920s/30s), pushed off many direct routes through sheers number and thus having circuitous journeys (just like the Dutch have now) not to mention the overt speed and reckless/dangerous driving from motorists, hi-visibility clothing (proven to do sod all) and then we have the big one in helmets.
Not only something that has done diddly squat to make people on bikes safer but removed freedoms, driven the focus away from those causing the harm, had a massive impact on being excluded from taking part in competitive and casual/non sports riding alike but has also caused a huge rift between people who share the same passion. A victim blaming tool, or taking more responsibility is now used to penalise and make criminals of people on bikes whilst taking away in large chunks the protection of the law and weakening justice massively.

So the 'taking more responsibility/care because we are vulnerable' line has not worked out at all, in fact it's only ever made matters worse!

[Mick F]

Not read it, sorry.
It's more of the same I would think.

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions.
The more vulnerable you are, the more you have to take care.

It's a jungle out there, and not everyone obeys the rules, so don't forget it.

Pushing the responsibility on to the vulnerable/weak has never ever worked in the history of mankind to increase their safety/reduce their vulnerability.
The responsibility has to be mostly on the shoulders of those posing the harm, if you can't see that then you really need to have a good long read about matters and get to grips with why your notion is way off the mark!

I'm pretty sure you two are in disagreement more because of the choice of words rather than the substance. Mick thinks (correct me if I am wrong) that at a pragmatic level one has to do whatever one feels might work to reduce the danger to oneself because nobody else is guaranteed to be acting as they ought to. I think we all kind of agree with that. You argue that those in charge of motor vehicles have a responsibility to those of us who might be harmed by them. I doubt Mick would disagree. I can think both of those things at the same time.

PWA, you have put it far better than I could, and you are spot on.

Thank you.

[The utility cyclist]

East Dumbartonshire rightly getting a kicking on Twatter after their victim blaming BS https://twitter.com/EastDunbPolice/stat ... 4430531584

[squeaker]

pushed off many direct routes through sheers number and thus having circuitous journeys (just like the Dutch have now)

Never cycled in The Netherlands so will have to take your word for that but at least their new developments seem to have their priorities right eg Houten and Groningen, unlike in the UK...

[The utility cyclist]

pushed off many direct routes through sheers number and thus having circuitous journeys (just like the Dutch have now)

Never cycled in The Netherlands so will have to take your word for that but at least their new developments seem to have their priorities right eg Houten and Groningen, unlike in the UK...

Not saying some of it isn't fantastic as clearly a lot outside of the towns and cities is and follow the highway however when you look at how less direct than the roads it is in many instances particularly in the built up areas, it just goes to show that wanting to make cycling safe and easy, segregated infra is not always as good as it could be, even in the countries that are leading the way.
You also have the problem of allotted space, there was a video uploaded here a few months ago about a particular trip (between towns IIRC) and whilst the video maker raved about it, personally I thought it highlighted how imperfect segregated cycle infra is compared to simply cycling on the road.
This is why I believe we should simply take back half the existing highway on through/main roads in towns and cities and make that 5-6m lane bi-directional for cycling (with priority at all turns) and on the other side of the carriageway one way only for motors (with a 20mph max speed limit for motors everywhere enforced by GPS/electronic limiter). This cuts down the costs for building crap infra that will inevitably be less direct and simply not wide nor safe enough.
Most cycle infra simply takes you further/longer, look at the Leeds Bradford 'infra, £23M wasted on a load of rubbish, too narrow and basically and obstacle course that made things more dangerous and more hassle to cycle than simply staying on the road, it's an absolute load of pants according to most, there's no consistency and it's a complete waste of money.

Mikael Coalville-Anderson talks a lot about direct lines of travel and people on bikes are not really any different to people on foot for the most-part, segregated cycle infra even in NL DK does not follow the direct lines that people want to travel in, thus it's less appealing than simply using a car that has a nice wide and uninterrupted route, this is the prime reason why the cycle lanes in Stevenage are an utter failure (not to mention the steep gradients, sharp turns and uninviting tunnels that are strewn with all sorts including undesirables.

[thirdcrank]

From the link:

... Pedestrians who walk when they are distracted by mobile phones are commonly referred to as Smombies (smart phone zombies) are at particular risk, and I am appealing to them to be aware of their surroundings at all times. ...

I'd have assumed that this bit at least would have met with the hearty approval of some on here.

[mjr]

This is why I believe we should simply take back half the existing highway on through/main roads in towns and cities and make that 5-6m lane bi-directional for cycling (with priority at all turns) and on the other side of the carriageway one way only for motors (with a 20mph max speed limit for motors everywhere enforced by GPS/electronic limiter). This cuts down the costs for building crap infra that will inevitably be less direct and simply not wide nor safe enough.

I'd vote for that, but at the moment, I suspect not enough would.

Most cycle infra simply takes you further/longer, look at the Leeds Bradford 'infra,

Why look at that failure rather than, say, Cambridge's or Norwich's new direct roadside cycleways funded from the same grant scheme? Oh, I bet it's because they don't support your point.

Mikael Coalville-Anderson talks a lot about direct lines of travel and people on bikes are not really any different to people on foot for the most-part, segregated cycle infra even in NL DK does not follow the direct lines that people want to travel in, thus it's less appealing than simply using a car that has a nice wide and uninterrupted route, this is the prime reason why the cycle lanes in Stevenage are an utter failure (not to mention the steep gradients, sharp turns and uninviting tunnels that are strewn with all sorts including undesirables.

While Stevenage's cycleways have some Danishish features, ones actually in DK are rather better than that and more direct - often more direct than the route a car could take, but at least the same distance as you can follow most major car routes if they're shorter because they generally seem to have cycleways alongside them. Here's a real journey I did in Denmark: Snekkersten to Fredensborg Palace. It's about 10 miles and the two routes are within 200m of each other's length, mainly because the cycle park is about that much closer to the palace than the car park!

[The utility cyclist]

Why look at that failure rather than, say, Cambridge's or Norwich's new direct roadside cycleways funded from the same grant scheme? Oh, I bet it's because they don't support your point.

Hence why I said most, even the cycle superhighway in London for the most part ends up criss crossing, is interrupted, isn't wide enough and takes you on an indirect route as opposed to the existing roads. Same as in Manchester, same as pretty much MOST infra which is what I said. Why did you focus on only two examples out of hundreds, I bet that's because it doesn't support whatever point you were trying to make, oh wait, you didn't have a point just trying to avoid the fact that UK cycling infra is actually a waste of money MOSTLY
Your two examples which I haven't seen/experienced are a drop in the ocean but according to the people who live there it's incomplete and has multiple flaws https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/ ... ncomplete/ https://www.norwichcyclingcampaign.org/cycling-the-ndr/
I haven't been into Cambridge for about a year, all I know from entering from the East via the A10/A1134 is that the cycle infra is shockingly bad/non existant. Either way decent infra is simply not representative is it? I focused on one that had had an awful lot of money spent on it and it's rubbish, just as most are.