Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Victim Blame

Is this the worst example of victim blame ever?

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/readthis.html

the author is a (Canadian) expert witness, so should have an objective mind.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

51 comments

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
1 like

I'm not knocking people who have a PhD, most of the people I work with have them and a fair majority of those that don't are working to get one.

When they get one, and a viva celebration is always a touching affair, they often big it up, but after a few months that tails off.

I'm trying to read a paper at the moment, review paper, big enough journal.  Both incredibly qualified, I'd take a punt of at least one of them being an FRS.  Both professors, proper british ones, posessors of a chair at good acedemic institutions.  One the head of an institution, the other of a large group in said institute.  Yet both only use their names, no letters before of after.

One of my previous PIs, prof, was a FRS, I only knew because of the mug he used at tea breaks time.  Even that was subtle.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 4 years ago
3 likes

This article... taking away the obvious bias and negative perception enforcement... cyclist are all hippy, law breaking, self entitled drunks, just incase you missed that... is very depressing but a good reflection of the populist view.

But to me there is a huge and obvious contradiction... he says that cyclist from their day to day experiences are far more aware of cars than cars drivers are of cyclists... he also says that nothing can be done to change motorists attention spans... but, a cyclist does not ride a bike because he has a greater attention span, that attention is learned from experience. So, to me a car driver can absolutely be taught to look more effectively... this is not all written in the stars as suggested, his view is to see blatant incompetence as acceptable.
I say it time and time again, driving is not hard... it's not hard to look, you just have to taught to do it, you have to understand and accept your responsibilities and feel that failure to do so will end in punishment.
Articles like this certainly do nothing to help the situation and the message is comparable to saying black people are born to have a lower social standing than whites because their brain is smaller... it's not right to have these views on race, and it's not right to believe that incompetence is acceptable if enough people act that way.

Avatar
Kapelmuur | 4 years ago
0 likes

A little strange reading this the day after attending a ceremony at which our daughter was awarded her PhD.

Any pressure on her to use the title 'Dr' is coming from the family.   We're the sort of people who a generation or two ago would not have thought of going to Univerity, let alone ataining a PhD, so it's a big deal for us.

Sorry if you think we're pricks, but if you've completed 7 years of dedicated scholarship, had articles published in learned journals, spoken at International conferences and had your first book proposal acceped for publication we may take some notice of you.

 

Avatar
Pilot Pete replied to Kapelmuur | 4 years ago
0 likes

Kapelmuur wrote:

...if you've completed 7 years of dedicated scholarship, had articles published in learned journals, spoken at International conferences and had your first book proposal acceped for publication we may take some notice of you.

Oh might you...

PP

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Kapelmuur | 4 years ago
0 likes

meh.

Avatar
Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
6 likes

Getting back to the original article, we study human factors very deeply in training airline pilots. Why? Because we need to be aware of our limitations, understand the systems that we use and their limitations, understand about observation, comprehension of data that we observe, understand how people interact - especially when they are sat side by side and not looking at each other! And of course learning how to overcome or deal with our human limitations and adapt our behaviours to deal with the issues that arise to ensure SAFETY.

Now that sounds like a load of waffle, and to a certain extent it is if you don’t understand the role of a pilot (which is managing the flight, not just flying the aeroplane (one part of it) or ‘pressing the autopilot button’, which is what most bystanders think we do - all the autopilot does is reduce workload and free up capacity for decision making - workload management being THE key to safe flight.

So I am a CRM (Crew Resource Management) instructor - I can teach and assess pilots in my airline’s operation. This is a human factors job, where I look at how a crew (captain and first officer) operate a flight, assess them and offer training input if any aspect could have been done better.

Why is the relevant? Well, I don’t have any academic qualifications in human factors, but my vast experience in relation to airline operations makes me fundamentally question the opinions of this ‘expert’ regarding cycle safety.

He reckons that drivers cannot get over their innate instincts to only look for dangers posed by vehicles that are not bicycles or motor cycles. I call horsesh1t on that one.

Why do we train pilots and look at root cause analysis when it comes to mistakes? Because pilots can LEARN a better way of doing something in order to IMPROVE their performance. The best way is via a facilitative form of debriefing post event - this means I act as a facilitator and merely ask questions to get the crew talking about the items I want to talk about in my observational notes from their assessed flight. They usually KNOW if they did something wrong, and they usually KNOW what they should have done differently to enhance their performance. Only if they don’t, or they are barking up the wrong tree will I offer training input, which revolves around root cause analysis - looking at WHY was the mistake made, where can we trace this error back to? And then we can look at mitigation and other ways to prevent the same error occurring in future. It’s called learning.

So, when a driver pulls out through not observing for cyclists and mortorcyclists, they inherently CAN learn from this mistake, and the way to do it is to specifically improve their observation and look for the unexpected. I bet the old lady who pulled out on me without even stopping at a give way and merely glancing each way will NEVER do that again - she was really shaken up.

So education of ALL drivers could improve this specific aspect of driving - emphasis during driving lessons, then harsher sentencing when these avoidable errors are made. Pilots have to be assessed and developed EVERY YEAR to keep exercising the privileges of their licence. Motorists have no such ongoing assessment/ training and thus peak some time after test as experience and confidence builds, but for the majority start to decline from there on in as they take greater risk, pay less attention (because they become complacent), think they are better than they are in reality and also think that they know it all, when in fact much of their knowledge is incorrect and they have never sought factual clarification.

Drivers are inherently human - they can be brilliant or crap, they can have a good attitude or a bad attitude but ALL (unless they have an impairment) can learn from their experiences - otherwise they would keep burning their hands by putting them in fires...

PP

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 4 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:

That's all well and good, but that thread of discussion was started by a dumbass claiming outrage at academics using their academic titles at their academic institutions, so not exactly lacking in context.

But they weren't academics, the poster said "junior admin staff". And the fact this happened at Oxford makes me much _more_ suspicious it's about a kind of snobbery rather than less so. I would suspect everyone there is quite insecure and overly-concerned with academic credentials.

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant. If by some miracle I'd actually finished mine, there's no way I'd have gone round using the title 'Dr' for anything other than directly-relevant work situations, any more than my friends do. OK, maybe on the occasions when I was stopped and searched by cops for no good reason, though I bet they'd have taken it as a medical doctor which would probably have made things worse somehow.

On the other hand, to repeat myself, the poster's use of 'shitty' to describe particular disciplines sounds like a stupid kind of snobbery itself. What does he consider a high-status subject?

Avatar
Pilot Pete replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=vonhelmet wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

I wish to be referred to as Captain on these fora from now on! 

Captain PP

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
2 likes

Pilot Pete wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

I wish to be referred to as Captain on these fora from now on! 

Captain PP

Only if you select a nautical based profile picture.

Avatar
Pilot Pete replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

I wish to be referred to as Captain on these fora from now on! 

Captain PP

Only if you select a nautical based profile picture.

Which would be equally as irrelevant as I can’t sail a boat!!!yes

Captain PP (with four stripes and two wings) - there you go, a profile picture!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Pilot Pete | 4 years ago
1 like

Pilot Pete wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

I wish to be referred to as Captain on these fora from now on! 

Captain PP

Only if you select a nautical based profile picture.

Which would be equally as irrelevant as I can’t sail a boat!!!yes

Captain PP (with four stripes and two wings) - there you go, a profile picture!

Aye aye, Cap'n.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
3 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=vonhelmet wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

And that's fine ... and, for what it's worth I agree with you ... but the fact remains that anyone holding that qualification is free to use the designation wherever they want to. 

I have a friend with a PhD who for the first several years would use the title anywhere and everywhere, even when people said it made him look a bit of a prick. His response was that he had worked hard to get so why would he not use it ... which is fair enough. 

He did, eventually grow out of it though.

Avatar
Pilot Pete replied to Jetmans Dad | 4 years ago
1 like

Jetmans Dad]</p>

<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

I just don't agree with using such titles when not relevant.

And that's fine ... and, for what it's worth I agree with you ... but the fact remains that anyone holding that qualification is free to use the designation wherever they want to. 

I have a friend with a PhD who for the first several years would use the title anywhere and everywhere, even when people said it made him look a bit of a prick. His response was that he had worked hard to get so why would he not use it ... which is fair enough. 

He did, eventually grow out of it though.

Exactly, using such a title out of context shows a lack of self confidence, some sort of social climbing, showing off etc. You will nearly ALWAYS come across as a prick! Which, I suspect is not the reaction that those who use them would actually want! How bizarre that they can be so ‘intellectual’ yet lack such basic awareness...

PP

 

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 4 years ago
1 like

There is a lot of patronising twaddle in his article. There's also a lot of arrogant twittery and comment about cyclsits being the architects of their own misfortune.

However, take a step back and think about some of the points he makes. Key issues are that he says drivers are not looking for cyclists and that cyclists are relatively small and hard to spot. This pretty much falls into line with the thinking that while most drivers aren't actually gunning for you if you're on two wheels (whether on a bicycle or motorbike too for that matter), they often don't expect you to be there, don't look properly and may miss seeing you and don't appreciate that a two wheeler behaves diffferently to a four-wheeled (or more) motor vehicle.

In other words, while it may not be your fault that a motor vehicle driver crashes into you, don't expect that they won't. As a rider you have to assume that motor vehicle drivers have not seen you and if they do, they still won't appreciate how you will behave.

Avatar
Cycloid replied to OldRidgeback | 4 years ago
2 likes

OldRidgeback wrote:

There is a lot of patronising twaddle in his article. There's also a lot of arrogant twittery and comment about cyclsits being the architects of their own misfortune.

However, take a step back and think about some of the points he makes. Key issues are that he says drivers are not looking for cyclists and that cyclists are relatively small and hard to spot. This pretty much falls into line with the thinking that while most drivers aren't actually gunning for you if you're on two wheels (whether on a bicycle or motorbike too for that matter), they often don't expect you to be there, don't look properly and may miss seeing you and don't appreciate that a two wheeler behaves diffferently to a four-wheeled (or more) motor vehicle.

In other words, while it may not be your fault that a motor vehicle driver crashes into you, don't expect that they won't. As a rider you have to assume that motor vehicle drivers have not seen you and if they do, they still won't appreciate how you will behave.

 

Thanks Oldridgeback for bringing the blog back on course.

I'm not that bothered about the credibility of the author's qualifications, it's what he's actually saying that is important. What is especially annoying is that he mixes some credible data from academic papers mixed with his own vitriol and believes that he has made a coherent argument.

My analogy, for shark read motorist.

"if you swim in shark infested waters, you must expect to be eaten, don't blame the sharks or expect them to change their behaviour, they're just being sharks. You must wear a hi-viz jacket, but it won't help. Whatever you do don't antagonise the sharks, you'll only make things worse for yourself"

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Cycloid | 4 years ago
4 likes

Cycloid wrote:

I'm not that bothered about the credibility of the author's qualifications, it's what he's actually saying that is important. What is especially annoying is that he mixes some credible data from academic papers mixed with his own vitriol and believes that he has made a coherent argument.

My analogy, for shark read motorist.

"if you swim in shark infested waters, you must expect to be eaten, don't blame the sharks or expect them to change their behaviour, they're just being sharks. You must wear a hi-viz jacket, but it won't help. Whatever you do don't antagonise the sharks, you'll only make things worse for yourself"

Hmmm...

Firstly, the sharks have to do a certain amount of training and then pass both a practical and written test on how to not eat swimmers (not everyone is cut out to be a shark). The sharks then have to notify the authorities if they subsequently have an illness that make them less able to see and identify swimmers.

I certainly wouldn't recommend wearing hi-viz or anything reflective around sharks - that'll just make them curious. I'd recommend that you stay below them in the water as their prey is usually found above them.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
2 likes

I'm just glad that no-one mentioned being a doctor of squirrel related studies.

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-strongly-squirrels-good.html

(Seems a good deal - get a PhD in psychology and then spend most of your time watching squirrels)

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
0 likes

No, you didn't mention IT at all or that it was lowly.
Nor that it wasn't a botany department.
You seem to be reading a lot of what you want into the situation.

Avatar
bikeman01 replied to Hirsute | 4 years ago
1 like

hirsute wrote:

No, you didn't mention IT at all or that it was lowly. Nor that it wasn't a botany department. You seem to be reading a lot of what you want into the situation.

 

I said ' junior departmental admin staff' 

 

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to bikeman01 | 4 years ago
0 likes
bikeman01 wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No, you didn't mention IT at all or that it was lowly. Nor that it wasn't a botany department. You seem to be reading a lot of what you want into the situation.

 

I said ' junior departmental admin staff' 

 

 

Yes, so nothing that you claimed in last half hour.

Avatar
Argos74 | 4 years ago
0 likes

Well, from reading the first two paragraphs, it looks like he just not qualified to be an expert witness in anything other than what flavour of crisps to buy. And even then, a certain level of cirumspection would be judicious.

I then read the rest of it. Jesus is disappoint.

Avatar
Hirsute | 4 years ago
0 likes

One of my friends years ago was running in town (I think he was on his way back from the park) and was approached by police due to a nearby robbery.
"Can I have your name sir?"
"Yes, it's Dr Owen."
"Right you are sir"

Avatar
vonhelmet | 4 years ago
0 likes

That's all well and good, but that thread of discussion was started by a dumbass claiming outrage at academics using their academic titles at their academic institutions, so not exactly lacking in context.

Avatar
Podc | 4 years ago
0 likes

Sounds like a Mr Loophole type using his qualifications to give an air of respectability to his jaundiced and prejudiced views.

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 4 years ago
0 likes

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Russell Orgazoid | 4 years ago
0 likes
Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

That's not how things work. Saying one stupid thing doesn't make everything else you say stupid.

Avatar
bikeman01 replied to vonhelmet | 4 years ago
0 likes

vonhelmet wrote:
Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

That's not how things work. Saying one stupid thing doesn't make everything else you say stupid.

It probably does. If you're prepared to say stupid things in print the chances are you say alot more stupid things verbally. 

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to bikeman01 | 4 years ago
0 likes
bikeman01 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:
Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

That's not how things work. Saying one stupid thing doesn't make everything else you say stupid.

It probably does. If you're prepared to say stupid things in print the chances are you say alot more stupid things verbally. 

Ok, so that's still not entirely true... either way, you'd be hard pressed to get a stupid PhD peer reviewed, so it still doesn't really hold.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

I couldn't read it all, it just seemed like a ridiculous screed attempting to justify his inadequacies as a driver while still believing himself to be a driving god and being able to act as a spokesperson for all other driving gods.

I am also suspicious of anyone who has to big up the fact they have a phd.

Avatar
bikeman01 replied to ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

I am also suspicious of anyone who has to big up the fact they have a phd.

A while back I contracted at Oxford University. It always made me laugh how many junior departmental admin staff had PHDs in shitty subjects like botany and insisted on using the title Dr.

Pages

Latest Comments