Well no, it’s a straw man.

Should women wear long skirts to minimise their risk of getting raped?

No, because in this case there is a clear attacker and victim. Women have a fundamental right not to be raped, ever. It really is that simple.

Should folk be forced to wear hi viz to walk along a road in the dark?

Yes. Well, I don’t know about forced, but I think they should definitely be encouraged. There’s no ‘attack’ here, no-one has a right not to be in an accident, it’s unintentional by definition.

Therefore, it’s sensible for all road users to take simple precautions to reduce risk and improve safety for themselves and for those around them. Being visible, driving defensively, putting lights on your bike.

Should you be forced to wear a cycle helmet? No, but a vocal Edinburghian aside I think most would agree it’s a good idea.

No, because in this case there is a clear attacker and victim. Women have a fundamental right not to be raped, ever. It really is that simple.

Pedestrians and cyclists have a fundamental right not be be hit by a car.

I dont think that there is any such thing as an accident involving a car. If folk are not expecting there to be stuff that is hard to see on the roads at night then they shouldn’t be driving. Things are only unexpected because folk dont expect them. Nobody ever asks why folk werent expecting certain things though do they?

You still seem to be missing the point that we’re allocating blame for something which happened rather than suggesting sensible safety precautions, mr moderator. Pedestrians have a fundamental right not to be run into by a car, ever. It really is that simple.

That is a bloody good example when you think about it. Would wearing a longer skirt prevent someone getting raped? Maybe – we dont know. Should women wear long skirts to minimise their risk of getting raped? No, because that would be a moronic thing to ask them to do. Should folk be forced to wear hi viz to walk along a road in the dark? No – drivers should slow down and look where they’re going, just like rapists should keep it in their pants.

It’s a piss-poor example, as it turns a reasonable discussion into a “are in you favour of rape or not?” emotional slug-fest. Just for the record, I believe women should be able to wear what they like, when they like, without risk of rape. That’s quite a different matter to the risks inherent in shared road-use.

If you walk on a country road at night while wearing dark clothes you are effectively invisible from any distance over 10m. It doesn’t make much difference if you’re illuminated or not, you are camouflaged and don’t stand out. Unless the driver were going at 20mph he would have little or no chance of avoiding an accident. As a road user you have a responsibility to make yourself seen – and if you don’t want to, use the pavement.

Pedestrians and cyclists have a fundamental right not be be hit by a car.

Why do we want to stop cyclists running red lights, then? They should just cycle through with impunity, they’ve got a right not to be hit so we can just leave it to the motorists to avoid them.

You still seem to be missing the point that we’re allocating blame for something which happened rather than suggesting sensible safety precautions, mr moderator.

We seem to be having two parallel discussions, actually.

(I’m not sure how my status as a moderator has any bearing on anything, I’m still a forum user and speaking in that capacity.)

Because running red lights is against the law? What are your thoughts on raping someone who is stabbing a person at the time? Jesus wept. 🙄

Should folk be forced to wear hi viz to walk along a road in the dark?

Of course not only every other thing on the road should take some sort of reasonable precuation to make themselves visible and seen but you should dress like a stealth ninja because you

have a fundamental right not be be hit by a car.

and nothing you do will mitigate the likelyhood of this happening
FACT

Because running red lights is against the law?

And why would that be, do you think? Seems like a pointless law in light of this Divine Right Of Cyclists we’ve just established.

What are your thoughts on raping someone who is stabbing a person at the time?

My initial thoughts are “what a bloody bizarre and nonsensical question”, could you expand a little perhaps?

1) i highly doubt a high viz jacket would have helped in this instance, she was clipped whilst walking on the verge on a narrow winding country lane. The kind where the bends in the road hardly give you any time to react.

2) She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults…I can’t see the justification in denying her the money that she will need to lead a decent quality of life. That’s what insurance is there for.

If everyone wears hi-viz don’t drivers become immured to noticing it?

It’s against the law for the safety of the people who might get hurt, and for traffic flow reasons – probably. What does that have to do with “Divine Rights of Cyclists”? Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobody has a right to hit them with a car. Car driver might have no option but to hit them, but if it was proven that the driver took no evasive action when there way the opportunity to do so, the would be prosecuted.

As for the raping someone who is stabbing someone – it doesn’t matter what the stabber is doing at the time – rape is still rape.

My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

{quote]Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobodyour be has a right to hit them with a car.[/quopte]

Has anyone argued this?
The point is your behaviour will affect the risks and dangers when on a shared use road

Its not even a contentious issue its is blindingly obvious that this is the case

is it her fault NO
Could she have done somethign to mitigate it/reduce the risk – YES
Could the driver – YES
Who is to blame – the driver

My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

Bicycles are kind of classed as vehicles I believe and need to have lights.

1) i highly doubt a high viz jacket would have helped in this instance, she was clipped whilst walking on the verge on a narrow winding country lane. The kind where the bends in the road hardly give you any time to react.

Speculation? Unless you’ve looked into the accident spot.

2) She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults…I can’t see the justification in denying her the money that she will need to lead a decent quality of life. That’s what insurance is there for.

Agreed 100%.

I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

Do you only do things when the law tells you to? There’s no law on helmets either.

Do you only do things when the law tells you to? There’s no law on helmets either.

Besides the point, if there’s no law requiring high viz jacket use then how is she liable? If she wasn’t breaking any laws whilst the driver was then legally none of you have a leg to stand on I’m guessing.

Speculation? Unless you’ve looked into the accident spot.

Oh I’m sorry, I’d failed to notice that most of those putting blame on the girl in this thread were speculating as well.

I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

She’s a minor, so unless people want to apply the same responsibilities to minors as they do adults

Was it not obvious which part of your two parter i was answering

My kids need to use lights on their bikes at night – no distinction for them being young

The law does not always make a distinction based on age was the [ rather obvious IMHO] point i was making

I don’t believe there is a law stating you need to wear a high viz jacket at night on roads.

General guidance suggests that reflective clothing and walking facing the traffic is a good idea.

(Though I fully agree that as a minor she’s not legally responsible, and the insurance should pay up in full without complaint.)

It’s against the law for the safety of the people who might get hurt, and for traffic flow reasons – probably. What does that have to do with “Divine Rights of Cyclists”? Even when a cyclist is running a red light, nobody has a right to hit them with a car.

Nobody is exercising a right to hit someone with a car. (Well, for the purposes of this discussion, anyway; I’m sure there’s a psycho or two out there, but that’s not we’re talking about.)

As for the raping someone who is stabbing someone – it doesn’t matter what the stabber is doing at the time – rape is still rape.

I’m still not following what you’re getting at here, sorry. Unless you’re trying to melodramatically agree with me.

Almost no one goes slow enough to stop within their clear line of vision, in a motor vehicle or on a bike. Who can genuinely say that they never go above 40mph (or whatever it is) in a car on a country lane at night? Who always leaves the correct stopping distance from the car in front? Who never goes above 10mph going down a nice dry twisty bridlepath in case there is a walker round the next hedge hidden bend?

Well, I can (these days). It really p155es most people off. And therein lies the problem in today’s car-is-an-inalienable-right-above-all-else and time-is-of-the-essence society.

Having said that, I (and my offspring) always think to not wear dark clothes out at night on our local (dark rural) roads. I’m well hard but 1 1/2 tonne of metal car is well-harder still…

I think some of you are heartless bastards and I sincerely hope that by contesting this, Churchill will lose customers.

General guidance suggests that reflective clothing and walking facing the traffic is a good idea.

Agreed but it’s still not law like the use of bicycle lights are, I won’t get stopped and fined like I would by the police for cycling through Oxford with no lights.

So given that I think it’s pretty insane that Churchill are pursuing this given the bad publicity it’s going to get them.

Nobody is exercising a right to hit someone with a car.

There seems to be a quasi right to hit someone with a car given the lenient sentences that car drivers receive. If higher standards of driving were enforced there would be no issue with people not wearing hi viz clothing.

Some responsibility lies with the victim in this story.

A bit of common sense would have prevented her from being injured.

In the same way a female celebrity (can’t remember her name) recently said there would be less rape victims, if the girls didn’t put themselves in that situation to start with (on their own, late a night, drunk as a skunk, walking across a park with no lighting – duuuuuurrr!!).

But it’s all too easy to pass the blame onto someone else…

(FWIW my wife refuses to be alone in the house with workmen like gas inspectors, decorators, etc – I always have to be home – who knows what history they might have? Sad times… )

The law does not always make a distinction based on age was the [ rather obvious IMHO] point i was making

Also, if your children ran some old granny over on their bicycles whilst riding with no lights….I don’t think they would be held to the same degree of responsibility as an adult in a youth court.

Also, I think it’s utterly reprehensible that 10 year olds can be tried (except in extreme cases) can be tried in youth courts to begin with.

In the same way a female celebrity (can’t remember her name) recently said there would be less rape victims, if the girls didn’t put themselves in that situation to start with (on their own, late a night, drunk as a skunk, walking across a park with no lighting – duuuuuurrr!!).

Oh so it’s a woman’s fault a man raped her because she looked appealing. Go back to the cave you came from.

If she wasn’t breaking any laws whilst the driver was then legally none of you have a leg to stand on I’m guessing.

What law was the driver breaking?

I think some of you are heartless bastards and I sincerely hope that by contesting this, Churchill will lose customers.

Just so we’re clear (again); I’m not suggesting that the insurance shouldn’t be paying out. We can’t expect a minor to make the same critical decisions that we’d expect from an adult.

I’m talking about general road safety on shared use roads. What I’m getting at is that I don’t believe blame should automatically be weighted towards one type of road user solely because they’re bigger than another. Perhaps the use of the word ‘victim’ in relation to collisions between disparate vehicles is emotionally loaded and misleading? It’s the responsibility of everyone who uses the roads to try and minimise risk. That’s all.

A friend of mine committed suicide a few years ago(*). He walked in front of a truck on the M66. Who’s fault was it? Moreover, who was the victim?

(* – this is true, incidentally; not the kind of thing I’d make up.)

A friend of mine committed suicide a few years ago(*). He walked in front of a truck on the M66. Who’s fault was it? Moreover, who was the victim?

There’s a big difference here which I’m surprised you can’t see….your mate knowingly walked in front of a lorry…

At the end of the day insurance pays out if you crash a million pound Mclaren F1 into a tree – despite the accident being your fault. What’s the problem here again?

It’s the responsibility of everyone who uses the roads to try and minimise risk. That’s all.

And why should we punish a girl further for her part in this by denying her insurance money, when she’s already paid a high enough lesson by being permanently brain damaged?

No, but knowing such monsters exist in this world, why put yourself in that situation?

“Is it a good idea, being a young female, smashed off my face on booze, to walk across this empty city park with no street lighting and nobody around to hear me scream if I get attacked (however unlikely it might be) at 3am on a Saturday night?”

“Perhaps sharing a cab with a friend, even if it cost a few pounds, would have been a sensible choice.”

Hmmmm… let me think about that for a second.

No, but knowing such monsters exist in this world, why put yourself in that situation?

“Is it a good idea, being a young female, smashed off my face on booze, to walk across this empty city park with no street lighting and nobody around to hear me scream if I get attacked (however unlikely it might be) at 3am on a Saturday night?”

Hmmmm… let me think about that for a second.

But at the end of the day it’s men that are the problem and rapists should be held fully accountable for their actions and sentenced for being the dogs they are.

But at the end of the day it’s men that are the problem and rapists should be held fully accountable for their actions and sentenced for being the dogs they are.

Maybe so, but a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count (and reducing the victim count to zero is the idea).

Maybe so, but a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count (and reducing the victim count to zero is the idea).

I agree with that but the actions of the girl make the rapist criminally… no less responsible.

There’s a big difference here which I’m surprised you can’t see….your mate knowingly walked in front of a lorry…

Yes, that’s my point; so, what happened to his right not to be hit?

And why should we punish a girl further for her part in this by denying her insurance money, when she’s already paid a high enough lesson by being permanently brain damaged?

It’s generally a good idea to read all of a post before you reply to it.

Yes, that’s my point; so, what happened to his right not to be hit?

Intent

A bit of common sense would have prevented her from being injured.

No, a bit of common sense would have reduced her risk of being injured. There is no way of knowing that it would have prevented the accident.

Agreed – reduced, not prevented

a little common sense will go a long way to reducing the victim count

A woman has a right not to be raped. In a (clear cut) case of rape, the rapist is to blame. Always. They’ve committed a rather nasty, violent crime, and the victim cannot, should not be blamed for this. This is a right.

However, in the real world, bad men commit crimes. Therefore, it would be sensible for people to try and reduce risks. If I can switch to a less emotive example; I have a right not to be robbed, but I wouldn’t leave my phone on a table while I went to the bar, or walk through rough neighbourhoods at night with a laptop on display. Critically, *this is not about blame*. If someone did rob me, it’s not my fault, I didn’t deserve it, I am a victim of crime. The attacker couldn’t legitimately argue that it was my own fault for having expensive items on display. I could, however, perhaps have mitigated some of the risk.

Compare and contrast with a road accident. People involved aren’t (generally) victims of crime, even if someone not in a big metal box typically comes off considerably worse. There may well be blame, there may or may not be law breaking (driving without due care, running a red light, whatever), but you can’t just blanket assume the largest vehicle is at fault in the same way that you can in the case of personal crime. They’re different situations and not directly comparable.

Cougar speaks the truth….

The “phone on a pub table” example is good.

The “phone on a pub table” example is good.

Yeah, but if the phone was switched off and therefore not illuminated it would be less likely to be seen and subsequently nicked…

IGMC 😕

But more likely to be knocked off the table.

😆