09-13-2019, 07:08 AM
(09-12-2019, 10:42 PM)jeffster Wrote:(09-10-2019, 02:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It absolutely is, it bears no impact on the reporting, a helmet will not prevent a collision, nor did the reporter see fit to ask/report on head injuries. If you cannot see how including an unrelated but inflamatory piece of information in a report is public shaming well, I can't help you there.
Only thing I will say: cyclist seriously injured (which is news worthy, because we all know, if it bleeds, it leads), cyclist was not wearing helmet (so publicly letting people know that perhaps the injury was preventable). It's possible had the cyclist had worn a helmet this would have not made the news. It was a factor in the outcome.
This is no different than when there are serious injuries in a car accident, the news?: "Occupants were not wearing seatbelts". Did not wearing seatbelts cause the accident? No. But it was a huge factor with their injuries, the outcome.
This also applies when there is a house fire and people are injured or killed, the news?: "No working (and/or installed) fire detectors.." Did the lack of working fire detector create a fire? No. But it was a factor in the outcome.
Lastly, someone does have a house fire, has working alarms, no injuries, but they lose everything. The news? "Occupants had no insurance." What that a factor in the fire? Nope...NOPE NOPE! Having insurance COULD BE, but not this.
My thought that the paper passes along this info, as a reminder to everyone of the importance of wearing helmets, buckling up, having working fire alarms/detectors, and having home insurance. And I am sure it has saved some lives, both physically and financially.
Public shaming? I don't think so. Public education? Yes.
Can you imagine if the news never told us about all these people buying bitcoin or iTunes cards to pay the Canada Revenue Agency? I bet you would see a lot more people being dragged into this. People doing stupid thing isn't really newsworthy, but in a case like this, it is. Some gullible people need to be reminded not to do dumb things like that.
I think you pretty much are proving this *is" victim shaming. "people doing stupid thing" "gullible people need to be reminded not to do dumb things".
So yeah mentioning the helmet is shaming the cyclist (victim) for doing "dumb" things. How is this still a discussion.
By the way, you have no idea if this would still be reported. You don't know what the injuries are you are assuming they are head injuries because you believe wearing a helmet will usually mean one can walk away from being hit by a car. This belief isn't based in fact.