Waterloo Region Connected
Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 11:43 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: I guess we will agree to disagree.

I knew the legal vs. illegal argument would be made, but as mentioned by Rob, that's how things change. 

I see it as a fact.  They were/were not wearing a helmet.  They had/did not have a bell.  Bike was/was not road worthy. 

To me victim shaming is more of something that effects zero percent of the outcome.  ie. "She was dressed like she wanted it.".  I guess the argument can be made that the helmet didn't effect the outcome, so maybe I'm wrong....

Coke

Whether the helmet affected the injuries is unknown (nobody knows if a head injury was even involved), but it did not affect the collision itself.

Reporting the lack of a helmet absolutely DOES have an effect on readers intrepretation of the story.  So given that the reporter doesn't even know if a helmet is relevant, but reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Whether the helmet affected the injuries is unknown (nobody knows if a head injury was even involved), but it did not affect the collision itself.

Reporting the lack of a helmet absolutely DOES have an effect on readers intrepretation of the story.  So given that the reporter doesn't even know if a helmet is relevant, but reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story.

Exactly. Wearing a helmet may be good advice in the event of a crash, but it seems unlikely to affect whether or not a crash occurred. So the story should be that yet again a motor vehicle has injured a cyclist. If the cyclist was making some crazy illegal maneuver, that would be much more relevant.

Although even then, the motorist could be a factor — imagine if a cyclist does some technically illegal move such as riding on a crosswalk and gets run over by a motor vehicle blowing through a red light at full speed. For example, I’ve even been known to cross Erb and Caroline diagonally, parallel to the LRT tracks, while the gates are down. Technically, I’m violating railway crossing protection devices; but in fact I never get anywhere near the tracks, and cars are supposed to be stopped by the gates, so it shouldn’t be dangerous (really the protection and indeed the whole intersection is just badly designed — what I do or something similar should be explicitly allowed). If I were to get hit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the emphasis being on my harmless violation rather than on a motorist who drove right through a crossing arm.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - clasher - 09-12-2019

Wearing a helmet while driving would likely reduce head injuries for drivers in crashes but that fact is never mentioned in stories about car crashes.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Whether the helmet affected the injuries is unknown (nobody knows if a head injury was even involved), but it did not affect the collision itself.

Reporting the lack of a helmet absolutely DOES have an effect on readers intrepretation of the story.  So given that the reporter doesn't even know if a helmet is relevant, but reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story.

That assumes intent on the part of the reporter to shame the victim. I suspect a more likely scenario is that he or she just incorporated all the information that was included in the police report.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-12-2019, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Whether the helmet affected the injuries is unknown (nobody knows if a head injury was even involved), but it did not affect the collision itself.

Reporting the lack of a helmet absolutely DOES have an effect on readers intrepretation of the story.  So given that the reporter doesn't even know if a helmet is relevant, but reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story.

That assumes intent on the part of the reporter to shame the victim. I suspect a more likely scenario is that he or she just incorporated all the information that was included in the police report.

I don't think the intent matters, what matters is the effect.

If the effect is victim blaming, I don't think it matters what the intent was.

And regardless, someone provided that information (the police).


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - robdrimmie - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 02:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't think the intent matters, what matters is the effect.

This is an excellent point. Thank you for raising it.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 02:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-12-2019, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: That assumes intent on the part of the reporter to shame the victim. I suspect a more likely scenario is that he or she just incorporated all the information that was included in the police report.

I don't think the intent matters, what matters is the effect.

If the effect is victim blaming, I don't think it matters what the intent was.

Maybe it doesn't matter. But your message implied intent/malice on the part of the reporter.

"the reporter (...) reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story"

See Hanlon's Razor.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - MacBerry - 09-12-2019

I have learned over the years, in these forums, not to reply or write views in certain forums because  writers  with varying viewpoints  from some members will be bullied or writer shamed by some members who believe their version is the correct one and those  who doesn't share their views are incorrect.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 09-12-2019

(09-12-2019, 08:48 PM)MacBerry Wrote: I have learned over the years, in these forums, not to reply or write views in certain forums because  writers  with varying viewpoints  from some members will be bullied or writer shamed by some members who believe their version is the correct one and those  who doesn't share their views are incorrect.

There is a lot of truth to those words.

But this place isn't as bad. There are some forums that get very heated and with personal attacks and a lot of false statements and backtracking. But of course, we have seen it here with certain threads. For sure there are some that I won't respond to if I know their reaction is going to vile. Mind you, we probably all think "we're" right and the other person is wrong if there is a disagreement.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - jeffster - 09-12-2019

(09-10-2019, 02:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2019, 02:17 PM)creative Wrote: “Police add that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision.”
This is hardly publicly shaming. It was just a fact stated by the police, most likely when asked by the reporter. WRC

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.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-13-2019

(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.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Rainrider22 - 09-13-2019

(09-13-2019, 07:08 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-12-2019, 10:42 PM)jeffster Wrote: 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.
It is still a discussion because you refuse to accept that people have varying opinions that don't align to what you perceive as correct !!!


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-13-2019

(09-13-2019, 08:50 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:08 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.
It is still a discussion because you refuse to accept that people have varying opinions that don't align to what you perceive as correct !!!

Not all opinions are equally valid, I find it absurd to suggest that someone isn't shaming a victim, when they immediately proceed to hold that victim up as an example of "doing dumb things", and complaining about "gullible" people.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - Coke6pk - 09-13-2019

   

By definition, those people will be deceived or cheated.  Call it victim shaming if you want... but there is a greater public good in shaming them then.

I guess if Danbrotherson is right, we should never advise of Nigerian Scams, Fraudsters, Pickpockets using distraction and other con's, as doing so would shame the victims.  The victims (who normally quote "I feel so stupid now" or "I can't believe I did something so dumb") may have feelings that outweigh the opportunity to prevent other people from having similar feelings when they too become victims.

No need to educate people on what some might consider common sense (ie. put batteries in your smoke detector, get insurance if you want your things replaced, look up from your phone before stepping into traffic)… the best education is becoming a victim yourself.

News should no longer cover the fact that "Driver of vehicle was on sidewalk / bike lane / hotel lobby", its embarrassing for the driver.  No more news articles about people being robbed while selling phones on Kijiji... everyone should be allowed to go into a dangerous situation blindly.

Coke

[/sarcasm]

   


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 09-13-2019

(09-13-2019, 11:14 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: By definition, those people will be deceived or cheated.  Call it victim shaming if you want... but there is a greater public good in shaming them then.

I guess if Danbrotherson is right, we should never advise of Nigerian Scams, Fraudsters, Pickpockets using distraction and other con's, as doing so would shame the victims.  The victims (who normally quote "I feel so stupid now" or "I can't believe I did something so dumb") may have feelings that outweigh the opportunity to prevent other people from having similar feelings when they too become victims.

No need to educate people on what some might consider common sense (ie. put batteries in your smoke detector, get insurance if you want your things replaced, look up from your phone before stepping into traffic)… the best education is becoming a victim yourself.

News should no longer cover the fact that "Driver of vehicle was on sidewalk / bike lane / hotel lobby", its embarrassing for the driver.  No more news articles about people being robbed while selling phones on Kijiji... everyone should be allowed to go into a dangerous situation blindly.

Coke

[/sarcasm]

Well, at least now we've gotten past the point of denying we're shaming, and I'll let someone else handle the issue of whether it's "dumb" "idiotic" and "against common sense" to not wear a helmet...