Indeed. In Cape Town we have had a series of 'cyclist safety' drives in the last two weeks, all about telling cyclists to be more visible... Stopping cyclists at the roadside, etc.Even plans afoot by cyclists to monitor badly behaved cyclists in the interests of cyclist safety...
No stopping of drivers to tell them to look for cyclists...
Onward we go...
Surely blaming the victim is a bit last century?
On 01 Nov 2010, at 6:44 PM, "Oddy, Nicholas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It is interesting to note the language: dress brightly 'so that cars can see you' or 'traffic can see you'. Until now I thought that neither cars nor traffic were blessed with vision. I think that if the DoT were to write similar refering to cycles the term would be 'cyclists', not 'bicycles'. The problem is that cyclists still need to use their obsolete human vision, whereas cars, that much further up the evolutionary ladder, have made this redundant for motorists.
>
> Nicholas Oddy
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of Ian Perry
> Sent: Mon 01/11/2010 15:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: UK department for Transport blames children for car/pedestrian collisions[Scanned-Clean]
>
>
>
> The Department of Transport in the UK has been subjected to budget cuts, but still has the money to invest in new roads and "public educational" videos and games that try to explain that children are killed because of what they wear... and not because of the actions of adults in their choice of transport mode, vehicle, level of caution and speed at which they travel. The following is targeted at CHILDREN:
>
> http://talesoftheroad.direct.gov.uk/be-bright.php
>
> It is horrific to think that the UK government is employing people to spend money (no matter the economic situation) on educating another generation, and reinforcing to adults, that the primary role of a street is for the unrestricted use by motorised traffic.
>
> Ian Perry
|