09-11-2019, 02:17 PM
(09-11-2019, 10:11 AM)Coke6pk Wrote:(09-10-2019, 06:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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
This does not suport it. You are attempting "public education" the method which you are attempting to do that is by shaming the victim of a collision.
This is absolutely different from "drinking and driving" because unlike wearing a helmet, being drunk does make you more likely to crash.
As for seatbelts, you're right, I do think if a vulnerable road user was injured in a collision, I'd also object to randomly pointing out that they weren't wearing a seatbelt.
Even your example is false, you pretense the belief that a cyclist cannot be injured seriously if they are wearing a helmet. In this case, we do not even know if they sustained head injuries.