Almost choked on my coco!

DrG82 wrote:

It doesn't really sound like victim blaming to me, sounds like good advice. As good you may be on your bike there are idiots around and in this case his safety gear (especially the airbag) probably saved his life. And if people want to debate the effectiveness of motorbike leathers, helmets and spine supporting airbags then that's upto them.

Yes, PPE is a good idea when you can't otherwise deal with the danger presented in a situation, but personally I'd've thought that focussing on not driving too fast for the conditions would be of more benefit. If the motorcyclist was instead a cyclist (with or without a helmet), then would it be acceptable to state that motorcycle PPE would have saved their life (assuming they got killed)?

hawkinspeter wrote:

DrG82 wrote:

It doesn't really sound like victim blaming to me, sounds like good advice. As good you may be on your bike there are idiots around and in this case his safety gear (especially the airbag) probably saved his life. And if people want to debate the effectiveness of motorbike leathers, helmets and spine supporting airbags then that's upto them.

Yes, PPE is a good idea when you can't otherwise deal with the danger presented in a situation, but personally I'd've thought that focussing on not driving too fast for the conditions would be of more benefit. If the motorcyclist was instead a cyclist (with or without a helmet), then would it be acceptable to state that motorcycle PPE would have saved their life (assuming they got killed)?

So what would you recommend the police say? go on have a ball, ride around in shorts and T-shirt and ignore the fact that some people drive like tools and you'll be toast if they get you.

When you leave your bike somewhere do you lock it up? is that victim blaming? would you just leave your bike out unlocked because of the principle of not wanting to be cowed by victim blaming?

Are safety features on cars victim blaming?

If I had 80 hp on my bike and the ability to go 100+ mph with little effort I'd happily wear a load of PPE, as it is it's rather unreasonable for a cyyclist

DrG82 wrote:

So what would you recommend the police say? go on have a ball, ride around in shorts and T-shirt and ignore the fact that some people drive like tools and you'll be toast if they get you.

When you leave your bike somewhere do you lock it up? is that victim blaming? would you just leave your bike out unlocked because of the principle of not wanting to be cowed by victim blaming?

Are safety features on cars victim blaming?

If I had 80 hp on my bike and the ability to go 100+ mph with little effort I'd happily wear a load of PPE, as it is it's rather unreasonable for a cyyclist

I think the point being made is that it's inappropriate for the police to be recommending ways to reduce the effects of crime rather than focusing on reducing the crime itself.

Whenever the police or politicians place the emphasis on PPE it's essentially an admission that they are unable to provide safe roads because they are unable/unwilling to enforce existing laws or legislate for better ones.

I personally wear PPE for that exact reason.

DrG82 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

DrG82 wrote:

It doesn't really sound like victim blaming to me, sounds like good advice. As good you may be on your bike there are idiots around and in this case his safety gear (especially the airbag) probably saved his life. And if people want to debate the effectiveness of motorbike leathers, helmets and spine supporting airbags then that's upto them.

Yes, PPE is a good idea when you can't otherwise deal with the danger presented in a situation, but personally I'd've thought that focussing on not driving too fast for the conditions would be of more benefit. If the motorcyclist was instead a cyclist (with or without a helmet), then would it be acceptable to state that motorcycle PPE would have saved their life (assuming they got killed)?

So what would you recommend the police say? go on have a ball, ride around in shorts and T-shirt and ignore the fact that some people drive like tools and you'll be toast if they get you.

When you leave your bike somewhere do you lock it up? is that victim blaming? would you just leave your bike out unlocked because of the principle of not wanting to be cowed by victim blaming?

Are safety features on cars victim blaming?

If I had 80 hp on my bike and the ability to go 100+ mph with little effort I'd happily wear a load of PPE, as it is it's rather unreasonable for a cyyclist

I would expect them to be highlighting the dangers of driving too fast and should be warning motorists about how selfish and inconsiderate it is to drive at excessive speed.

PPE has its place and is very much recommended for motorbikes (dress for the slide, not the ride) but it shouldn't be the main focus when there is clearly very dangerous driving happening. It'd make more sense to highlight PPE when a motorcyclist misjudges a corner and goes over a wall or similar.

Locking bikes up is a simple deterrent, but it mainly prevents opportunistic thieves - determined thieves can cut through most locks in seconds with a suitable tool. It'd be nice if police could focus lots of resources on preventing/catching bike thievery, but realistically bikes are just property and can be replaced so I wouldn't expect police to prioritise that over more serious crime. As such, it makes sense for police to do bike-marking and advise people to always use locks (though I do think that honey-bike schemes can be effective).

The thing is that drivers don't usually set out to maim, injure and kill so it makes a lot of sense to teach drivers about the dangers that they are bringing to other road users. That's what's getting missed out by focussing on PPE.