Police Scotland victim blaming Campaign

[Wanlock Dod]

So people going into schools and telling young people about the misery that irresponsible driving causes is a waste of time?

How effective has this approach been? Has it resulted in an excellent safety record? It sounds to me like a case of looking like you are doing something whilst at the same time maintaining the status quo. I very much doubt that it is school kids who are causing most of the deaths on our roads. The Polis Scotland approach just follows the same theme of ignoring the fact that motorists need to look where they are going and try to make it the responsibility of pedestrians and cyclists to look after their own safety, although there is no suggestion of quite how one does that.
Be safe be seen kids.

[pwa]

So people going into schools and telling young people about the misery that irresponsible driving causes is a waste of time?

How effective has this approach been? Has it resulted in an excellent safety record? It sounds to me like a case of looking like you are doing something whilst at the same time maintaining the status quo. I very much doubt that it is school kids who are causing most of the deaths on our roads. The Polis Scotland approach just follows the same theme of ignoring the fact that motorists need to look where they are going and try to make it the responsibility of pedestrians and cyclists to look after their own safety, although there is no suggestion of quite how one does that.
Be safe be seen kids.

How much worse would it be if they didn't do things like talking to school kids? And as I pointed out earlier, the month before the OP article the same website had a piece on irresponsible driving.

Every year I hear about people being run over while walking drunk along an unlit road. Now we can and should look at how the drivers in these cases could have avoided collisions. But if you are really intent of preserving life you have to take all preventative action, including alerting potential victims to the need to keep a sensible head on when they get ratarsed. If you or I had a friend who was completely blathered and wobbling all over the place we would not allow them to start strolling off down a particularly dodgy country road with no lighting. No matter how much we felt the drivers of vehicles on that road should be held responsible for our friend being hit. We would not allow our friend to die to prove a point. Asking folk to take care of themselves in such circumstances is a good thing to do.

[Paulatic]

My own force are at it today.

[squeaker]

My own force are at it today.

Ooh Er...They drive on the left in Scotland? Or was that photo to encourage cyclists to stay out of the door zone

[Wanlock Dod]

...people being run over while walking drunk along an unlit road...

These are just people walking down a road who are getting mown down by people who are driving too fast for the conditions and without consideration for other road users. The drunkenness is an irrelevance, and personally I would far sooner they walked than used their cars whilst drunk.
The police could try educating the grown ups who are actually the ones driving around doing virtually all of the killing. It's refreshing to see that D&G police are suggesting that motorists should look where they are going, rather than advising cyclists to get out of the way.

[pwa]

...people being run over while walking drunk along an unlit road...

These are just people walking down a road who are getting mown down by people who are driving too fast for the conditions and without consideration for other road users. The drunkenness is an irrelevance, and personally I would far sooner they walked than used their cars whilst drunk.
The police could try educating the grown ups who are actually the ones driving around doing virtually all of the killing. It's refreshing to see that D&G police are suggesting that motorists should look where they are going, rather than advising cyclists to get out of the way.

A young woman died on a dual carriageway near here a few months ago. Yes, you can and should look at what the driver did and didn't do, but she was drunk, was seen by another driver a short time earlier weaving around the carriageway, on a road on which pedestrians are banned and, in my experience, almost never present. There is no reason to walk it, with good pedestrian routes either side. If she had been my daughter or a friend and I had seen her setting off down that road in that condition in the early hours I would have pleaded with her not to. The police asking people to take care when they are drunk is okay by me.

If you look at just that one small article from that site you can run away with the idea that they are just telling vulnerable users to take care, without asking the same of drivers. But take the time to look at other articles and you will find just the sort of thing you are talking about, notably that piece from the previous month on irresponsible driving that I pointed out. The OP article is just the latest in a series of pieces on road safety. View it in context and it looks different.

[Cugel]

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.

Quite so.

Personally I would hang, draw and quarter Toads going about dangerously in their kill&maim mobiles. (Only in a VR simulator, of course). I would be a martinet were I The Beak in a traffic-offense court.

But, as you mention, reality has a large say in our best-process for weighing risk likelihood and the cost of a risk realising. Pragmatism thus advises us to take serious precautions when cycling, in the current motorist-dominated culture, despite being of no significant danger to ourselves or motorists, but rather the potential victims of Toad as he poops about.

If only the risks were reduced by savage Toad prosecutions and effective preventative sentences! We could be more free in our cycling behaviours. Of course, many Toads are also cyclists and would, if feeling more free of risk themselves, go about frightening the horses to an unacceptable degree. Some already do.

Cugel, never relying on rights, or even the privileges, to self-preserve.

[mjr]

So people going into schools and telling young people about the misery that irresponsible driving causes is a waste of time? You are wrong on that one.

But they don't do that much, do they? They more often go in and scare children away from playing in the streets or crossing roads and tell them to "be safe be seen" without ever teaching them any methods to do Jedi mind control on motorists and make some drivers actually [rude word removed] look for anything that is unlikely to hurt them! Out of my way! Beep beep!

[pwa]

So people going into schools and telling young people about the misery that irresponsible driving causes is a waste of time? You are wrong on that one.

But they don't do that much, do they? They more often go in and scare children away from playing in the streets or crossing roads and tell them to "be safe be seen" without ever teaching them any methods to do Jedi mind control on motorists and make some drivers actually <i>[rude word removed]</i> look for anything that is unlikely to hurt them! Out of my way! Beep beep!

TBH I don't know whether the police up there go into schools and tell kids about dangerous driving, but they certainly did have an article on "irresponsible driving" the month before the article in the OP. I know some police forces go into schools to talk about this. Bryn was saying that the police should not be educating, and I disagree with that. I see great value in youngsters being shown the grim reality of fun in cars gone wrong. The funerals, the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again. Hard hitting stuff.

[mjr]

Bryn was saying that the police should not be educating, and I disagree with that. I see great value in youngsters being shown the grim reality of fun in cars gone wrong. The funerals, the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again. Hard hitting stuff.

Why do the police have to show that? I think police should be policing and educators should be educating - but the curriculum is controlled mostly by motorists so the message may well be "respect the cars and stay out of their way" and not "look at the death and destruction that cars do every day".

[pwa]

Bryn was saying that the police should not be educating, and I disagree with that. I see great value in youngsters being shown the grim reality of fun in cars gone wrong. The funerals, the grieving families who will never see their loved ones again. Hard hitting stuff.

Why do the police have to show that? I think police should be policing and educators should be educating - but the curriculum is controlled mostly by motorists so the message may well be "respect the cars and stay out of their way" and not "look at the death and destruction that cars do every day".

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. Having an officer in front of a class describing how she had to do the knock on the door of a victim's family was something worth doing.

[mjr]

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.

[pwa]

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.

[Cyril Haearn]

One place where "educate, inform and entertain" might make sense is shared paths
Plenty of people think they should walk on the left in the UK. Walking on the right makes sense (HC!), any half-intelligent person should understand that
Where the path is wide enough to have a left and a right of course

[The utility cyclist]

My own force are at it today.

And then be told to wear hi-vis and a helmet right, because that is the police force's stance in the UK, you only have to look at the noodle on the bike And this advice is right on point with their victim blaming statement as I pointed out. My original point is absolutely correct, police are full of words but actually when it coomes down to it they blame the victim and deflect the blame from those that harm by using helmet/hi-vis lies/bullcrud.

Or are you not aware of exactly that ocurring when the MET blamed Michael Mason for his death, when other cases have mentioned straight away lack of helmet or bright clothing and indeed I read one case where the police even said the rear light which was on wasn't very bright despite it complying with the law. Dark clothing,well that's why you were knocked off despite your lights being like a lighthouse.
Sorry but those words are empty comparative to what actually occurs to believe otherwise is naive in extremis.

And to add it should say passing too closely is a criminal offence and will result in a prosecution, it only puts the vulnerable at risk, why are they saying it puts all road users at risk when that's another lie the police come up with to make it seem like it should be a balanced approach when it simply isn't?