Cycling UK Forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25298354

I find big bloody trucks more terrifying to be honest....

the 'association of cycling with death'- once again blaming the victim.

Perhaps he leaked the speech to gauge the reaction. Boris is good at playing to the crowds.

rabmania wrote:the 'association of cycling with death'- once again blaming the victim.

This blaming the victim thing. Let's suppose, given the many assurances on this forum of just how safe cycling is in inner London during the rush hour even, that a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion, of the deaths of cyclists as a result of collision with an HGV are the result of negligence on the part of the cyclist. If the cyclist is to blame for the collision, and his own unfortunate death or maiming, is the cyclist still a victim? I don't think so. He is, of course, blameworthy, but he isn't a victim.

Even if a cyclist has right of way over the HGV, but decides to ignore obvious dangers to himself and takes what is clearly a risk, that remains a major brain malfunction on his part. The deceased is not always a victim, other than of his own stupidity, whether he's riding a bike or ignoring his cholesterol levels.

Shootist wrote:

rabmania wrote:the 'association of cycling with death'- once again blaming the victim.

This blaming the victim thing. Let's suppose, given the many assurances on this forum of just how safe cycling is in inner London during the rush hour even, that a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion, of the deaths of cyclists as a result of collision with an HGV are the result of negligence on the part of the cyclist. If the cyclist is to blame for the collision, and his own unfortunate death or maiming, is the cyclist still a victim? I don't think so. He is, of course, blameworthy, but he isn't a victim.

Even if a cyclist has right of way over the HGV, but decides to ignore obvious dangers to himself and takes what is clearly a risk, that remains a major brain malfunction on his part. The deceased is not always a victim, other than of his own stupidity, whether he's riding a bike or ignoring his cholesterol levels.

Definition of victim blaming, see above.

I think implying that people need specialist clothing, kit etc., is giving the message that cycling is scary and requires 'protection'

Mark1978 wrote:

Shootist wrote:This blaming the victim thing. Let's suppose, given the many assurances on this forum of just how safe cycling is in inner London during the rush hour even, that a proportion, perhaps a significant proportion, of the deaths of cyclists as a result of collision with an HGV are the result of negligence on the part of the cyclist. If the cyclist is to blame for the collision, and his own unfortunate death or maiming, is the cyclist still a victim? I don't think so. He is, of course, blameworthy, but he isn't a victim.

Even if a cyclist has right of way over the HGV, but decides to ignore obvious dangers to himself and takes what is clearly a risk, that remains a major brain malfunction on his part. The deceased is not always a victim, other than of his own stupidity, whether he's riding a bike or ignoring his cholesterol levels.

Definition of victim blaming, see above.

Just so that I am clear, are you suggesting that no cyclist killed has ever been to blame for his demise? Further, that even if the cause of his demise is attributable in no degree whatever to any other person, he is somehow not to blame merely because he is a cyclist? Is every dead person, no matter what the cause automatically beyond fault, a blameless victim, or does that apply only if he was riding a bike? I have to ask, because that seems to be very much the impression some people hereon give.

Shootist wrote:Just so that I am clear, are you suggesting that no cyclist killed has ever been to blame for his demise? Further, that even if the cause of his demise is attributable in no degree whatever to any other person, he is somehow not to blame merely because he is a cyclist? Is every dead person, no matter what the cause automatically beyond fault, a blameless victim, or does that apply only if he was riding a bike? I have to ask, because that seems to be very much the impression some people hereon give.

You are basically saying "he made a mistake so deserved to die". We should be in a position where both cyclists and HGV drivers can make mistakes, but nobody ends up being killed. So was he a victim even though he did something daft - yes!

Mark1978 wrote:

Shootist wrote:Just so that I am clear, are you suggesting that no cyclist killed has ever been to blame for his demise? Further, that even if the cause of his demise is attributable in no degree whatever to any other person, he is somehow not to blame merely because he is a cyclist? Is every dead person, no matter what the cause automatically beyond fault, a blameless victim, or does that apply only if he was riding a bike? I have to ask, because that seems to be very much the impression some people hereon give.

You are basically saying "he made a mistake so deserved to die". We should be in a position where both cyclists and HGV drivers can make mistakes, but nobody ends up being killed. So was he a victim even though he did something daft - yes!

That is absolutely not what I am saying. If you read the words it is clear that I am talking about a situation where the only person who 'makes a mistake' is the cyclist. Furthermore, I have not said, nor would I say, that anyone, with a few exceptions, 'deserves to die'. But if the person, cyclist or not, who is the only person who makes the mistake, i.e. he is negligent, then the death is nobody's fault but his own, and, IMO, he is not a victim, other than perhaps of his own stupidity.

Shootist wrote:That is absolutely not what I am saying. If you read the words it is clear that I am talking about a situation where the only person who 'makes a mistake' is the cyclist. Furthermore, I have not said, nor would I say, that anyone, with a few exceptions, 'deserves to die'. But if the person, cyclist or not, who is the only person who makes the mistake, i.e. he is negligent, then the death is nobody's fault but his own, and, IMO, he is not a victim, other than perhaps of his own stupidity.

It's true. And we don't know why most of these cyclists died, yet, as no further information has been released.

I will not blame either the cyclists, or the drivers without more information. However, I do blame government policies and infrastructure that have brought us to the point that HGVs are involved in such a disproportionate number of cyclist deaths.

It is victim blaming to talk about what cyclists should do. Because the danger should not be defined by the mere act of cycling.

An HGV can not run over anyone without the driver making a mistake - with the possible exception of someone actively trying to commit suicide.

Yes cyclists can make mistakes, but that mistake on it's own will not result in death (unless the hiss of air brakes gives you a heart attack)

Back to Bozzer Jozzer:

This current media release isn't so much victim blaming as a rather crude attempt to discredit peaceful protest.

This is the time of year when this buffoon-acting, sly-thinking, self-promoting politician would be best employed in a panto: playing one of the ugly sisters might just suit him.

Can't help wondering - could there be any way of contriving to declare Boris (actually born in USA) an Aussie citizen? You see my line of reasoning: if he could somehow swap jobs with that other Mr Johnson who's wreaking so much havoc for England, we'd have two benefits:
a) someone who can't possibly do any worse, as regards being in charge of cycling policy in London
b) a fighting chance of retaining the Ashes....
Can't go wrong!

I see the comments have now been withdrawn. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25298354)

So although we now know what he thinks, we also know that he is afraid to say it out loud.