Video: Sussex Police use CCTV footage of motorist knocking 12-year-old girl off bike in safety campaign

@700c:

I don't think I was making a call for peer-reviewed research.

My point was that hi-viz and/or lighting that can paint a drone strike from space are both useless unless motorists also **pay f-ing attention**.

I agree, maybe they'd help - and, as I said, I wear hi-viz when its not a bright day - but in the case of that particular video, I really don't believe that they would have.

That is all.

KiwiMike wrote:

@Hoski - The internet really is crap for mistaking intent, isn't it?

I am not trivialising anything. I am highlighting how odious it is to have an officer of the law *trivialise* what could have very easily been the death of a child by using it as an excuse to trot out victim-blaming tropes. Clearly others saw nothing wrong with what the officer said, or their use of this video in this way. Others agree with me that he was totally out of order. You read it as trivialising something that obviously is not. I'm a husband and father of two girls. Do you seriously expect me to think like that?

A mechanism people frequently use when challenging statements from people in positions of authority is to replace the word 'cyclist' (or another minority) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black' or 'Woman' to highlight the minority-bashing, victim-blaming culture embedded in our institutions. Specifically, NOT to trivialise individual or historic wrongs, but to highlight how society now finds such trivialisation or victim blaming of other groups abhorrent, but not those on two wheels. By holding a mirror to and challenging these statements or phraseologies we begin to educate others, and hopefully to change the culture.

It is with no small surprise that I read posts from 'fellow cyclists' that see nothing wrong with current Police approaches. But as has been said, 'cycling is a broad church'.

Victim blaming?

The driver was prosecuted by the police. Convicted by the court and sentenced at the upper end of the sentence guideline for the circumstances of this incident.

Seems to me the right person was not only blamed but punished.

Who blamed the victim again ?

oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

Sadly some live in their little worlds where they dont have their perceived view of the world and they of course are always right. It is a shame they dont actually bother to come up with the modern world or indeed the laws of the world.
We need to ensure we also follow the rules, most do but some dont.

The tax thing is just moronic and shows a lack of awareness, same can be said for peoples views of cyclist positioning (something that isnt aided by sheer number of cars on the road) but it doesnt help when cyclists jump red lights, needlessly cycle unhelpfully.....

The problem with the road at the end of the day isnt motorists, cyclists or even pedestrains but simply W**kers! People who think they own the road and have a devine right ot be where you are, truthfully it doesnt matter to these guys what your mode of transport is, they just hate everyone on the road.

Shit does happen on roads and that will never change but it's the w**kers that needlessly crank up the heat and make it worse.

KiwiMike wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

Blimey. Do you feel better.

Let's try again.

Who was reported for the crime?
Who was charged?
Who was prosecuted?
Who was convicted?
Who was fined?
Who had 3 points added to their licence?
Whose insurance premium will go up next year and for the next 5 years?
Who had to pay costs?
Who had to pay the victim surcharge?

Who fails to understand that the police were using a pretty run of the mill careless driving incident on video to make a general point about how easy it is to make a stupid mistake if you don't look carefully enough and what the consequences are for other road users (and you) if you do.

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

It's on a par with programmes showing people how easy it is for crooks to pick your pocket or nick your bag and what you can do to reduce their chances of nicking your bag or picking your pocket.

No more no less.

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

Please quote the peer-reviewed sciency stuff showing the Hi-Viz reduces collisions. I'm sure a lot of people will want to see it. Particularly the Hi-Viz industry, who - strangely - don't cite any evidence their products improve safety. Rather like the helmet industry, come to think of it...

But I digress. For further proof of the victim-blaming-wrapped-up-as-safety-message bent of this whole thing, look no further than the follow-up article, including comments from the driver himself: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11187568.Driver_who_knocked_down_girl_cyc...

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Spot the two 'buts' in there? This person clearly believes they were not fully responsible. Sure, they have admitted liability - but I bet only because it was on tape.

And I disagree with your comparison that this is akin to taking sensible anti-theft precautions. Theft is a calculated action, minimised by sensible precaution. Road collisions are more often than not the fault of one party, and no amount of precaution or clothing on the part of the other will save you - unless, as requested, you do have that Hi-Viz-works proof. The fact that the Police still bang on about it being an equal responsibility is corrosive. It's victim-blaming.

No more no less.

KiwiMike wrote:

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

And how many cars do you see driving around which are almost exactly the colour of the road or clouds or rain?

Nobody in the safety industry ever goes on record saying that from now on, all cars will only be manufactured in bright and/or hi-viz colours, and yet if hi-viz really made that much difference then it would do so for all modes of transport.

(in the interests of total disclosure - I commute to work by bicycle, and I wear a hi-viz coat if its raining, and a helmet because my wife said she'd kill me otherwise).

KiwiMike wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

Please quote the peer-reviewed sciency stuff showing the Hi-Viz reduces collisions. I'm sure a lot of people will want to see it. Particularly the Hi-Viz industry, who - strangely - don't cite any evidence their products improve safety. Rather like the helmet industry, come to think of it...

But I digress. For further proof of the victim-blaming-wrapped-up-as-safety-message bent of this whole thing, look no further than the follow-up article, including comments from the driver himself: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11187568.Driver_who_knocked_down_girl_cyc...

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Spot the two 'buts' in there? This person clearly believes they were not fully responsible. Sure, they have admitted liability - but I bet only because it was on tape.

And I disagree with your comparison that this is akin to taking sensible anti-theft precautions. Theft is a calculated action, minimised by sensible precaution. Road collisions are more often than not the fault of one party, and no amount of precaution or clothing on the part of the other will save you - unless, as requested, you do have that Hi-Viz-works proof. The fact that the Police still bang on about it being an equal responsibility is corrosive. It's victim-blaming.

No more no less.

You first. Tell me where I say you have to wear high viz clothing. Or was that a Blue Peter response you prepared earlier.

Queensland Uni have done some work but that is dusk and low light based.

TRL have also done some work on it. The conclusion is that it is not hi viz per se but the level of contrast against a background that aids visibility such that white and/or black may work very well in certain circumstances. Hi viz is Hi viz because it uses colours that are likely to contrast with most backgrounds.

Increasing your visibility not necessaily by Hi viz clothing is a good idea. I use lights even in the day. I even do that when I am driving. Positioning is also a means of increasing your visibility. Likewise having a sensible idea of what drivers can see and what they are focusing on at the time is helpful. Cycling makes me a better driver and driving makes me a better cyclist.

Don't be so obessesed with one or the other. In my view on an open road wearing clothes using lights that aid your visibility from a distance is not a matter of being seen or not being seen. It's more a matter of being seen and being "noticed" a little bit earlier. You may want to explore the concept of seeing without noticing. The brain is hierachical. We see huge amounts. We notice much less.

In advanced driving we have a mantra that has the acronym TTR. Time To React. In most cases we mean by providing that time for yourself, but you should also provide it for others. If you help yourself to be noticed a bit earlier a driver may well start thinking about passing you a bit earlier. They may make a better job of it. Some won't bother but some may. And people with poor vision shouldn't be driving but they are. Likewise people with poor reactions. Of course they'll see you without the hi viz. But they may notice you earlier. TTR aids road safety al round.

I have been riding properly since my early teens joining a club in 1973. I've been a driver since I was 17 in 1979. I have driven professionally all over the world. I don't wear a helmet but I do use day time lights and I think about what I wear.

BTW "Victim blaming" is such a crass phrase. It's philosophically dishonest. It's based on a false dichotomy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The victim of a collision is not automatically absolved of blame just because some people think the term "Victim blaming" is a form of check mate in an argument. It's a logical fallacy. Saves you having to think too much is all and tidies everything into a lazy binary choice.

Why don't you stop using it and deal with the more complex realities of these matters.

oozaveared wrote:

Let's try again.

Who was reported for the crime?
Who was charged?
Who was prosecuted?
Who was convicted?
Who was fined?
Who had 3 points added to their licence?
Whose insurance premium will go up next year and for the next 5 years?
Who had to pay costs?
Who had to pay the victim surcharge?

Who gets to go back on the road?
Who is just one of a significant proportion of road users who will make identical mistakes?
How many road users came away with the impression that cyclists should wear hi-viz?
Who will be injured in similar collisions?
Who will be killed in similar collisions?
How many more motorized vehicles will be on the road in the future?
How will that affect the number of such incidents?
Why are the penalties in law so low for such serious incidents?
Will the victim feel comfortable on the road in the future?

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

There is probably very little you can do to improve your safety in similar circumstances: car drivers run into huge, brightly coloured obvious things all the time.

And I think that's at least part of where the diverging opinions on this come from, there's a desire to believe that we have significant control over events. It helps to think that the victim (which could be me) was not doing something (which I do) and therefore that despite the awful situation it probably won't happen to me.

Inevitably these accidents will happen due to the over use of motorized vehicles. Compounding the injury to the victim with insult is just crass.

allez neg wrote:

Kiwi - yes, I know the context of your post. I didn't see any victim blaming in what plod was quoted as saying in the article - just commonsense stuff. If, say, there were a spate of burglaries in the area, along with hoping plod would make efforts to catch the bad guys, I wouldn't see any problem or take offence if plod also issued general security advice to householders - I see no difference here.

As a observation I'm finding the generalised near hysterical tone in many posts and the general witch hunt of cars and other road users on this site a bit tedious, frankly.

None of us want these accidents to happen but sadly they do down to a whole host of issues from simple distraction to an inability to accept we're not upto it anymore.
I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of use are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

As far as i can, the driver made a mistake, accepted his punishment (albeit weak) and now the police are using this example to make a point to other drivers and also serve to remind cyclist that it's best otmake yourself as visibile as possible.

SB76 wrote:

allez neg wrote:

I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of us are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

How bloody refreshing! That's where I come from as well.

birzzles wrote:

I once almost hit a runner while cycling. She was in black running down my side of a country lane with headphones on. How in hells name was I to see her? Same thing happened to me with a woman on a horse under dappled sunlight, car almost got her as well, but I swear she was invisible. A horse!

I understand where your coming from but.

Cycling to work last week came round a blind corner and face to face with a Cow that had got out of its field. Yes it was daylight, yes i could see the cow, if i had been driving fair chance i would have hit the cow. Likewise last weekend i had a group of 7 or 8 lambs dart across the road in front of the bike.

You simply can't assume anything. Your the driver your actions do have consequences, you can't blame the victim because you ****ed up. Just because the speed limit may be 60 doesn't mean it is safe to drive at 60. Its called driving to the conditions.

birzzles wrote:

A few weeks ago I saw a middle aged woman drive along a straight a road in day light into a big sign saying road closed. I saw the whole thing from a side junction.

Quite often there is a lot going on for the motorist to contend with, unfamiliar roads and traffic, and pedestrians, so it can be hard to see everything.

It can be hard to see everything. But that's the responsibility you take on when you drive - you accept that what you are doing could seriously harm others, and that you should put yourself in a position that allows you not to do that unless someone else does something that supersedes it (like running out in front of you). If you don't have time to take everything in, slow down. It's not that hard.

In this instance it simply sounds like she was distracted. It is her responsibility to manage that distraction, either by ignoring it or stopping. Lucky for her she didn't do any real damage, by the sound of it.

birzzles wrote:

Yesterday I saw a guy get out of a car shaking so badly he could hardly stand. I think he had some sort of disease.

Clearly, if his disease impairs his ability to drive safely, he shouldn't drive. That may make his life even more difficult, yes, but having a difficult life is not a reason to allow someone to put others in danger.

birzzles wrote:

If you don't take all the precautions you can, you can only blame yourself.

I full disagree. If you don't take the precautions you reasonably should, you may reasonably be partly to blame. Anything stronger than that is just making excuses for other's poor behavior. Would I knowingly put myself in significant (but faultless) danger to prove a point? No. But that doesn't mean that the danger (or it's consequences) is my fault in the first place.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that significant responsibilities can still arise from everyday tasks? It seems that it's a good excuse to say 'I am willingly doing something potentially dangerous to others, but I do it all the time so I don't need to take a lot of care when I do it'. I can't help but think that a strict/presumed liability regime is required to change that attitude.

KiwiMike wrote:

In other news from Kent Police:

The assailant, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of attempted sexual violation and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the woman escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being perfectly sober, the male completely failed to respect the woman's right to not be assaulted.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other potential assailants near us.

"This footage shows a man to blame but there have equally been incidents where women have been assaulted after wearing provocative clothing and drinking heavily.

"My message to all women is don't dress sluttishly, don't drink and keep a vial of pepper spray in your hand at all times - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of assaults where women suffer serious harm or are killed happen after drinking whilst dressed inappropriately.

"I would urge all women to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their clothing before going out.

"Whether you have a right to not be raped or not, by getting a good understanding of the predatory people and their tactics, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

Hmm, where to start - the arguable trivialisation of rape in the above post, or the obvious issue of intent, or lack thereof.

I've hit a car as a result of a momentary lapse of attention, but I've never accidentally raped or sexually assaulted anyone.

@Allez Neg: how about taking it as what it was obviously meant as: an example of how victim blaming of cyclists for their maiming or death is standard practice amongst Police forces? And how it would be seen as callous / utterly unacceptable to use the same phraseology in relation to other crimes which have relatively recently moved into the sphere of being taken seriously. I do not seek to juxtapose the harm caused by sexual assault vs that caused by a 2,000kg vehicle moving at speed. I want neither to happen to anyone, and want both taken seriously by Police/CPS.

KiwiMike wrote:

In other news from Kent Police:

The assailant, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of attempted sexual violation and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the woman escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being perfectly sober, the male completely failed to respect the woman's right to not be assaulted.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other potential assailants near us.

"This footage shows a man to blame but there have equally been incidents where women have been assaulted after wearing provocative clothing and drinking heavily.

"My message to all women is don't dress sluttishly, don't drink and keep a vial of pepper spray in your hand at all times - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of assaults where women suffer serious harm or are killed happen after drinking whilst dressed inappropriately.

"I would urge all women to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their clothing before going out.

"Whether you have a right to not be raped or not, by getting a good understanding of the predatory people and their tactics, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

I know this has already been said - but this is a disgusting trivialisation of sexual assault. Please don't use something as horrific as rape to make a point.

Intent is really important - negligence is very different from actively seeking to harm another person.