09-11-2019, 10:11 AM
(09-10-2019, 06:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(09-10-2019, 04:27 PM)creative Wrote: Did they say that wearing a helmet would prevent a collision? No! Does it say that the pedestrian was at fault! No! Were the police at fault for the collision. No! I’ve crashed my bike many times where a helmet saved me much more serious injury. WRC
Well, thanks for clarifying that you don't understand what victim blaming is...
Including irrelevant, unrelated information, that has an inflamatory and misleading effect on readers of the story is victim blaming.
Are you honestly going to sit here and argue that people will not judge the cyclist more harshly if they are hit while not wearing a helmet? You know they will. That's why including the irrelevant and unrelated detail of the helmet is victim blaming.
I don't know if I can agree with it being irrelevant and unrelated.
There is a difference between "A cyclist was sent to hospital after being hit by (the driver of) a car. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet" and "A cyclist received minor injuries after being hit by (the driver of) a car. The cyclist was wearing a helmet and declined medical attention."
You may think it's shaming... I see it as public education to encourage those who bike to wear a helmet.
This is very similar to when there is a car accident and they mention driver "was not wearing a seat belt" or "was under the influence of alcohol/drugs". You can say the fact the driver was drunk is not relevant, I say I want everyone to know what happens when you drink and drive.
Coke