Oldjohnw wrote:Just wondering.
If cyclists are in fact the not vulnerable of road users, why not wear brighter clothing, just on the off chance that you are even a tiny bit more visible?
You still don't get it do you, not only do the stats prove that 'safety aids' do not in fact increase safety, pushing the onus of responsibility to not get maimed or killed onto the vulnerable is heinous and disgustingly unjust, it is rarely if ever applied in other aspects of life.
Why is it pushed upon those on cycle or pedestrians even when we know it is an abject failure and used to absolve those that kill/maim (usually in motors) and indeed changes the way the law is applied such that it directly discriminates against the vulnerable.
Helimeds - Darwinism in action.
A 10 year old girl in A&E arrives with a stab wound, she's bleeding profusely and they can't stop the flow of blood, later we find that the child has died due to their injuries/ A nurse/consultant comes onto the TV screen, "this is the thing we tell all children, if you don't wear a stab vest this is the outcome, this is why wearing a stab vest is paramount, it's Darwinism in action really"
Sound horrific, it should do, but this is basically what the situation is with hi-vis/dark clothing and helmets etc, this is precisely what 24hrs in A&E do when it comes to people on bikes, it's what the police do, it's what insurers do, it's what government do. Blame the innocent parties and push the blame onto them instead of not looking at the root cause as to why it happened, a person with a knife, gun, car, blunt instrument or even cycle that acted criminally.