Police ask pedestrians to wear hi-vis following spate of road deaths in Scotland

eburtthebike wrote:

swldxer wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

That's a very sad series of events. Is that an example of a killer helmet?

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

From that article "A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone"

Dear lord, you really are doubling down on your 'helmets kill people' nonsense aren't you. I would ask whether you're that stupid, but we both already know the answer.

swldxer wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

That's a very sad series of events. Is that an example of a killer helmet?

 

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

That doesn't answer my question. Are these examples of killer helmets? Inanimate and unthinking, but also somehow murderous, objects?

Ah, philosophy.  What about a killer storm?  Killer roads?

Helmets are inert and only do something in the right environment?  A killer virus?  OK - viruses are arguable - they have (micro)purpose I suppose?

From the opposite direction - killer bees?  Killer MRSA?  Too clever AND animate!

Maybe we can only say "killer" in retrospect?  In which case... yes, killer helmets as they have killed people as described, or no, though some people (children) have died from the effects of helmets, helmets don't kill people because they have no intention to do so, any more than killer storms, or many killer drivers when they set out for a drive... hmm... It's a poser, I guess we'll have to ask perce.

Personally I think awareness of risk of death adds some savour to life - we're all mortal - but playing with *that* should be a personal choice and it shouldn't increase danger to others.  I don't think we should accept that going outside, cycling, walking, crossing a road should add to everyone's risk entirely for the convenience of a particular group - and that's just fine.

So like most people I'll apply a bit of PPE - hey, I *can*, it gives me a feeling of agency, or apotropaic power.  But I want those in responsible positions like the police, or who can influence the more effective levels of public safety like councils / road authorities / government - to spend their energies at those levels, not just reminding us that we might want to avoid being in a collision.  Teach kids to tie up their shoe-laces, yes - don't let some people dig holes in the pavements then tell everyone else "mind you don't trip"!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Killer roads?

Funny you mention this, as I seem to remember an article on here about poor infrastructure causing road deaths, and multiple commenters called out a very similar thing. HP included if I remember correctly.

And of course, as soon as the media reports on a vehicle KSI'ing someone (and not a driver), that gets called out pretty quick, and rightly so.

It's an interesting double standard, don't you think? It's almost like certain people consider inanimate and unthinking objects an active stakeholder in an incident only when it suits their own agenda. Funny that.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Funny you mention this, as I seem to remember an article on here about poor infrastructure causing road deaths, and multiple commenters called out a very similar thing. HP included if I remember correctly. And of course, as soon as the media reports on a vehicle KSI'ing someone (and not a driver), that gets called out pretty quick, and rightly so. It's an interesting double standard, don't you think? It's almost like certain people consider inanimate and unthinking objects an active stakeholder in an incident only when it suits their own agenda. Funny that.

It's quite simple really. Inanimate objects can have an influence on incidents, but when there's an active participant involved, then it's more usual to cite them as the main cause. e.g. if someone gets stabbed, then you could bang on about killer knives, but it's more usual to focus blame on the person doing the stabbing.

With roads, there are poorly designed junctions that deserve the moniker 'killer', but most of the time, the poor standard of driving should be considered the major cause. That doesn't mean that roads/junctions shouldn't be investigated for poor designs after incidents, but the more important point is to examine the poor driving as often that's the thing that most people have control over i.e. it costs a lot to redesign junctions and it's remarkably simple for drivers to not use a phone or to pay attention.

With vehicles, there has been a sustained media campaign since the 1930s or so to remove the agency of drivers from incident reports and to use words such as 'accident'. We still see it today with reporters mentioning the car, but not the driver. That's why it's important to call out such use of language as it's been designed to protect the car industry and doesn't help to address the causes of collisions.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's quite simple really. Inanimate objects can have an influence on incidents, but when there's an active participant involved, then it's more usual to cite them as the main cause.

Well that does rather underline my point, quite nicely, thank you.

When a vehicle is involved in a death, you seem to be of the opinion that the vehicle is not the 'main cause'. But when a helmet is involved in a death, you (and especially eburt) seem to be of the opinion that the helmet is the main cause, and therefore come out with absolute clangers about helmets causing deaths, including the links provided above.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Well that does rather underline my point, quite nicely, thank you. When a vehicle is involved in a death, you seem to be of the opinion that the vehicle is not the 'main cause'. But when a helmet is involved in a death, you (and especially eburt) seem to be of the opinion that the helmet is the main cause, and therefore come out with absolute clangers about helmets causing deaths, including the links provided above.

You're misrepresenting our opinions yet again.

Look, you're trying to see things in a purely black/white view and that's simply not how the world works. I know you've got a major issue about helmets, but that doesn't mean that you have to keep banging on about them all the time and try to twist everything into some kind of helmet/anti-helmet argument.

There's a specific reason that we should push back against all the poor reporting of "car hit pedestrian" as that should be reported as "car driven into pedestrian" due to the bias that has been in place for so long. It's still fine to consider "deaths by car" though. Similarly with helmets, it makes far more sense to consider the causes and active participants of collisions, but it's also fine to examine cases where a helmet may have contributed to fatalities in the same way that they can prevent fatalities.

There's usually multiple causes for incidents, so if you go around blaming everyone for "double standards" for examining more than one cause, you're going to look foolish.

Quoting you verbatim is not 'misrepresenting' anything. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

For example, when you say "but it's also fine to examine cases where a helmet may have contributed to fatalities" you mean something different to when eburt talked about helmets causing deaths.

But I'm going to call out, again, the suggestion that a helmet can be a 'cause' of an incident. A helmet is an inanimate and unthinking objects and can cause an incident no more than a knife can cause a stabbing.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Quoting you verbatim is not 'misrepresenting' anything. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it. For example, when you say "but it's also fine to examine cases where a helmet may have contributed to fatalities" you mean something different to when eburt talked about helmets causing deaths. But I'm going to call out, again, the suggestion that a helmet can be a 'cause' of an incident. A helmet is an inanimate and unthinking objects and can cause an incident no more than a knife can cause a stabbing.

How about a dishwasher/knife combo?

https://archive.ph/VhSor

https://www.scotsman.com/news/woman-31-dies-after-falling-dishwasher-2470684

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Quoting you verbatim is not 'misrepresenting' anything. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it. For example, when you say "but it's also fine to examine cases where a helmet may have contributed to fatalities" you mean something different to when eburt talked about helmets causing deaths. But I'm going to call out, again, the suggestion that a helmet can be a 'cause' of an incident. A helmet is an inanimate and unthinking objects and can cause an incident no more than a knife can cause a stabbing.

How about a dishwasher/knife combo?

https://archive.ph/VhSor

https://www.scotsman.com/news/woman-31-dies-after-falling-dishwasher-2470684

Are you serious? Still no! The cause of death would not be 'presence of knives'. The cause would be someone falling onto knives. The falling is the cause, not the knives existing.

Yup - someone wears a helmet which explodes on impact - or rather with straps which are a strangling hazard for children, or fits a car with spikes on the wing mirror, or designs a cycle path which takes you at a shallow angle across some tram tracks, or which has a confusing layout and also blocks sight of interacting road users from each other... I think treating these artifacts as a given and simply saying it's up to people to deal with the effects is a bit foolish. We can do both - but the source is the creator / designer.

I think the problem here is assuming that the current situation is fixed. Maybe the police should be advising us "there are always violent / criminal people *and we can't really help* so best not to look at anyone funny. Be safe, don't be seen! Don't stand out from the crowd! "?

In the case of protective effects not being very protective for a given level of threat eg. making yourself "more visible": to work out where to start on this one you just have to ask "will this help if a driver doesn't look?" Or "would many people be killed at night if a driver was going at 8mph?". I think helps pinpoint the source of the danger. Then just apply the hierarchy of hazard controls in order!

So which would you say is more reasonable:

A) firearms should only be used in a safe and controlled manner.

B) everyone else should take 'personal responsibility' and wear body armour all the time.

Of course that's a false equivalence: body armour actually stops bullets

I'd say that firearms should only be used in a safe and controlled manner, but that people should be aware of areas where there is increased risk and take appropriate precautions; e.g. not taking a stroll across restricted sections of Salisbury plains.

Is that really such a hard thing to ask?

Or are you going to come back with "but it's my RIGHT to walk across a live fire training area!"

False equivalence! Riding on roads is decidedly *not* the same as walking across the Salisbury plains during firing, seeing as bullets are designed as implements of damage and always used for that purpose, whereas cars are......oh, wait

Not only that, but roads are not a restricted area for cyclists (with a few noted exceptions). No red flags flying to warn of cars in operation, no access times published in the local papers, no use of machines designed to kill and maim. The difference is clear.

If someone set up a shooting range on my doorstep and every street I absolutely would.
And I would insist that the burden of responsibility is on the person shooting.

I've just read the individual stories of all the incidents and I do now get the frustrations over the comments made by Scottish Police.  It's easy to associate situations with what one's used to personally, I actually avoid built up areas and main roads when commuting and often ride country roads when dark.  But these incidents come across as being in situations were any kind of hi vis or reflective clothing should not have been expected to be worn.

Avoid places with no witness, it can be more dangerous, I have had "incidents" in those places.

You could be roaring drunk, lying prostrate in the road, butt naked and covered in coal dust. If I drive over you, that's my fault. My failure to observe, to be alert, to drive at an appropriate speed that I can see to be clear. If it's not you, then it could be someone's cat, a pothole that could damage my car or any number of highly anticipatable hazards. The mitigating circumstances might see me avoid prosecution, but it's my fault.

Edited: Not to say that a strobe beacon clenched between your cheeks wouldn't be appreciated, as I'd far sooner see you at the earliest opportunity rather than at the minimum distance for a safe stop.

That's fair enough, I'm not saying the drivers aren't at any fault.  We all want this ideal world where drivers are fully 100% on the ball, textbook driving but we are all aware that that isn't the case, so I don't see the problem in wanting to keep myself safe by making myself visible to drivers and other road users and why suggesting that rubs people up the wrong way. Im doing this for myself not off the back of advice from Scottish police.

Mungecrundle wrote:

You could be roaring drunk, lying prostrate in the road, butt naked and covered in coal dust. If I drive over you, that's my fault. My failure to observe, to be alert, to drive at an appropriate speed that I can see to be clear. If it's not you, then it could be someone's cat, a pothole that could damage my car or any number of highly anticipatable hazards. The mitigating circumstances might see me avoid prosecution, but it's my fault.

Edited: Not to say that a strobe beacon clenched between your cheeks wouldn't be appreciated, as I'd far sooner see you at the earliest opportunity rather than at the minimum distance for a safe stop.

Have you ever heard the phrase "it takes two to tango"?

It's an interesting definition of 'fault'. If both parties have a list of things that they could reasonably have done, or perhaps should have done, are they not both at fault?

NotNigel wrote:

it gives them more chance to drive appropriately to the conditions.

You mean in some circumstances it might give them time to slow back down to the speed limit? 🙄

One nearly killed me the other day, he was *that* close... whooshing by me and on his phone. I shouted at him but I just got a dirty look - and they don't pay road tax...

Dbloke wrote:

Pedestrians need to be taxed and have license plates............... 

 

and wear helmets... and have MoT and insurance.