09-14-2019, 03:24 PM
For people who aren't cyclist, and who aren't engaged in the subject of active transportation infrastructure, this might seem like a strange debate, but it's in response to a pattern that's been observed in reporting on collisions between drivers and pedestrians and in particular drivers and cyclists. Reporters go out of their way to avoid describing the driver's behavior in any way that might imply culpability on their part to the absurd point where the driver might as well as be a passive observer in the incident. Reporters (and police in their accident report), however, don't offer the cyclist or pedestrian the same benefit of doubt. The pedestrian was on their phone, or was wearing dark clothing, or the cyclist didn't have lights on their bikes, or they weren't wearing a helmet. Nevermind that none of these actions would be breaking any laws, they tend to be reported on anyway. Any news about charges etc. usually gets overlooked as it's after the news story (if it makes the news at all).
I don't think this is malicious on the part of reporters and police, or part of some grand conspiracy, but the outcome is a sort of narrative in the public discourse of irresponsible behaviour on the part of cyclists and pedestrians instead of focusing on the drivers who ought to be held to a greater standard due to the danger they pose with heavy vehicles, and the fact that typically collisions happen due to negligence on their part, not the victim. This is very much analogous to the discussion that has happened around rape, as ijmorlan pointed out.
Helmets are a sore spot, in particular, because research does not seem to support that they significantly improve cycling safety and incidents of head injury amongst normal cyclists, they are not designed to protect a cyclist from collisions with vehicles, and research does seem to show that helmet laws actually drive people away from cycling and therefore indirectly make cycling less safe for those who continue to use their bikes. In a motor vehicle collision, whether the victim was wearing a helmet may seem relevant, but current research would point to that not being the case.
Reporting on whether the driver had a cellphone in their possession would be irresponsible reporting in that it implies the driver was negligent and using the phone. I would argue that reporting on whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet is equally irresponsible in that it implies to most readers that the lack of a helmet was a relevant in the injuries of the victim and that therefore they were irresponsible and negligent in not wearing it.
I don't think this is malicious on the part of reporters and police, or part of some grand conspiracy, but the outcome is a sort of narrative in the public discourse of irresponsible behaviour on the part of cyclists and pedestrians instead of focusing on the drivers who ought to be held to a greater standard due to the danger they pose with heavy vehicles, and the fact that typically collisions happen due to negligence on their part, not the victim. This is very much analogous to the discussion that has happened around rape, as ijmorlan pointed out.
Helmets are a sore spot, in particular, because research does not seem to support that they significantly improve cycling safety and incidents of head injury amongst normal cyclists, they are not designed to protect a cyclist from collisions with vehicles, and research does seem to show that helmet laws actually drive people away from cycling and therefore indirectly make cycling less safe for those who continue to use their bikes. In a motor vehicle collision, whether the victim was wearing a helmet may seem relevant, but current research would point to that not being the case.
Reporting on whether the driver had a cellphone in their possession would be irresponsible reporting in that it implies the driver was negligent and using the phone. I would argue that reporting on whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet is equally irresponsible in that it implies to most readers that the lack of a helmet was a relevant in the injuries of the victim and that therefore they were irresponsible and negligent in not wearing it.