CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
A couple of photos I took this morning -
There was another child in front on a scooter.
Shows there are alternatives to
'Too far for her/him to walk'
'Need the car to get to work'
Also shows it will be a while before most parents think the roads are suitable...
I still think we don't exploit our children enough in campaigning for roads safe enough for them to ride on.
A couple of fairly young children (siblings I guess) passed by on scooters as I was taking the car out the drive.
They stopped to give way to me ( I was still well back from the pavement) so I had to wave them across. They waved a thank you.
I was expecting a parent to be following on foot, but as far as I could see they were on their own.
It's probably good that they are cautious around cars and driveways given the way many drivers treat that little bit of pavement as a right of way.
I still think we don't exploit our children enough in campaigning for roads safe enough for them to ride on
The inverse certainly seems to be prevalent.
Several times recently, Lothian & Borders Police have been quoted as regarding children being run down by motorists in residential areas as being "tragic accidents".
Our mainstream media is certainly minded to isolate each child maimed or killed on the road as an isolated tragic accident, but whatever gives the police the right to make such subjective comments is beyond my comprehension.
My sister, who lives on a ratrun street in London, asked her council what it would take to get the street closed off at one end, as had happened for a street nearby. The reply was, basically, that only happens if a child is killed on the street. So she's thinking of lining up all the kids on her street & photographing them & asking people which one they think should die. A bit gruesome, but possibly effective...
sally,
same vein as those bollards in the style of a child - last one I saw had been run down by a car in a ratrun!!
There is nothing subjective in L&B using the phrase "tragic accident",
The death of a child is tragic. Stop.
The alternative to "accident" in these circumstances is "crime" which may be what you prefer. However for the police to say that without investigation is irresponsible and dumb.
Oh, was I the only one to have a mild intake of breath at the conjunction of "exploit" and "children"?
The trouble with using a word like 'accident' is that to a few ears it implies something that may not be the case: something unfortunate that could have happened to anyone, with no fault attached.
They could just say it's tragic, which would be unarguable. Or not risk editorialising at all.
Thank you for the link SRD.
The point it misses is that the use of any less neutral term could prejudice a successful prosecution. Which is why the police use it.
From the Guardian article:
"I have some sympathy with his argument but accident is a neutral term – a drink-driver may be negligent and dangerous, but even they don't deliberately set out to kill anyone."
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. If a drink-driver chooses to get behind a wheel after drinking, it is a conscious choice to place themselves and others at a proven elevated level of risk. I think the fact that the use of "accident" with no inference of accountability in what appears to be reported as a set of clear cut circumstances where a vulnerable road user has been injured or killed by another person's choice is the part that most riles me. However, I digress.
In a culture where art-forms are continuing to push socially acceptable boundaries year-on-year (horror film content, pornography content, the use of otherwise unrelated sexualisation in marketing), perhaps it's time for the marketing of road safety campaigns to show the ugly truth of road deaths and casualties? I don't think that humanising "accidents" is having the desired impact.
The police don't use the term "accident". They use "collision" - which is still neutral, but doesn't imply some act of God that no-one could do anything about.
Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland: Road policing Framework: http://www.acpos.police.uk/Documents/Policies/RP_Framework_2009-2012.pdf
@remberbuck
accident is not a neutral term.
it implies an act of god.
it implies that no responsibility applies.
there are no accidents.
there are only actions and consequences.
I prefer "incident". It implies agency, and thus choices, decisions that led to it occurring.
What I meant by exploit is using them to campaign - I was thinking of things like getting my son to write a letter to Fife Council asking how he should cycle to school. Take a photo of him standing at the side of the A985 trying to cross with his bike and send it to the Dunfermline Press. That sort of thing. I was reminded of it re-reading this thread.
No accidents? Ever? I fell off my bike in the snow on Monday. I'm pretty sure it was an accident.
It has also been mooted for POP that we deliver letters addressed to each individual MSP from their constituents. If some of them were from children, I think that would be pretty powerful (and good publicity too - especially with the local press). Bearing in mind that kids can't vote...
I fell off my bike in the snow on Monday. I'm pretty sure it was an accident
do you mean that you didn't mean for it to happen, so you had no responsibility whatsoever for the action?
i'm sure that you personally don't equate the term "accident" with "i didn't mean for it to happen, therefore i'm just not responsible for it", but in our infantile culture that is the recognised implication.
I've said before - in the grand scheme of things, when cyclists and pedestrians are being killed, when enforcement is haphazard, when sanctions are laughable.... I couldn't give a toss whether you say 'accident' or 'incident' or 'collision'. I'd prefer efforts to be steered towards stopping it happen in the first place, than expend energy on semantics.
Fine. All the newspapers of the world say 'incident' from tomorrow. So the next cyclist who dies, dies in an 'incident' rather than an 'accident'. They don't not die because we changed the word.
And 'exploit' + 'children' doesn't automatically mean Jimmy Saville!
They don't not die because we changed the word.
i disagree. eventually that is exactly what happens.
because semantics define the human world, and guide our responses to actions of human agency.
"They don't not die because we changed the word.
i disagree. eventually that is exactly what happens.
because semantics define the human world, and guide our responses to actions of human agency. "
Going to have to agree to disagree. If you change the word that's reported and do nothing else we will not wind up with that creating no deaths on the roads, no matter how many years down the line we go.
Harsher penalties applied more often are going to have a much more immediate and definite effect than the BBC saying "A cyclist died in an incident..."
Yes, there I was pootling along and my front wheel slid out from under me. Now, you could say, "ah but you were silly enough to be cycling in the snow so you should have identified the potential for slipping and taken any of a number of mitigating actions to lessen or obviate the risks of slipping. I therefore find that it was not an accident and that you, Mr Instography, are responsible for your own bruised hip and that little tear in your nice jacket." But that would be taking the notion of agency to a level that was getting quite silly and, more importantly, quite dangerous.
Anth's correct about the semantics but the reason that the semantics are important is in cases where, for example, people will try to make cyclists active agents in their own "incidents". Not wearing helmets, hi vis, being there at all. If we accept that the potential for incidents can always be anticipated and mitigated in some way then we have to be prepared for that to be turned back on us and for contributory negligence to be part of the consideration of how and where blame should be ascribed.
If you change the word that's reported and do nothing else
I'm certainly not arguing that you do nothing else
@instography
Sure its happened to me also. I didn't just regard it as an accident, that's all.
It was a predictable incident, I ruined my jacket at the elbow and bruised my hip and that was my fault.
Now, you could say, "ah but you were silly enough to be cycling in the snow so you should have identified the potential for slipping and taken any of a number of mitigating actions to lessen or obviate the risks of slipping. I therefore find that it was not an accident and that you, Mr Instography, are responsible for your own bruised hip and that little tear in your nice jacket." But that would be taking the notion of agency to a level that was getting quite silly and, more importantly, quite dangerous.
No it would not. It is pretty clear that it was your own fault, even if you did not intend to fall off.
Its a possibility that you might fall off every time you get on your bike, the odds of that are increased by certain conditions. To say its your own fault you fell is taking things a little far.
If you fall down the stairs because you tripped over your own feet is that an accident? Its entirely predictable you could fall down the stairs its just a matter of probability.
"If you fall down the stairs because you tripped over your own feet is that an accident? Its entirely predictable you could fall down the stairs its just a matter of probability."
How big are your feet and were you wearing clogs?
If you fall down the stairs because you tripped over your own feet is that an accident?
nah, that's just paying insufficient attention to the task at hand
you could have come up with a better one, steveo..
how about
an instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing
can't argue with that
Language is an amazing thing - how we describe something affects how we think of it.
The most interesting example are the names of colours - one can see the distinct colours one can name. Some African tribes have a different set of names and can distinguish colours I can't and vice versa.
Its importance is recognised in other areas, and I've used it extensively in both accessibility and service improvement in the Uni.
Of course, resultant changes in behaviour do not arise from changing the word, but from changing the thinking...
Robert
"an instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing
can't argue with that"
That's what nappies are for. It's a reasonably foreseeable risk especially if you've been near children, junk food outlets, animals or other humans who've been breathing or perhaps sneezing. If you crap your pants it's your own fault if it ruins your day. You might not have been able to stop it, although with planning you can avoid most of those things, but you could have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk that soiling yourself would lead to a smelly, wet mess that would be publicly humiliating. The simple precaution of wearing a discrete but effective nappy could avoid the worst effects.
If we are to pursue this line we have to accept that in every circumstance all possibilities are reasonably foreseeable and steps can be taken to avoid those possibilities or at least to minimise their impact. Everyone is at least partially responsible for every ill that befalls them. The pedestrian's death could have been avoided if they had anticipated the possibility of the driver mounting the pavement and stayed at home. The child's death is partly their own fault - they are old enough to have had basic road safety training but they failed to listen and properly absorb it. They failed to implement it and instead allowed their attention to be distracted by the friend shouting from the other side of the street. It's partly their parents' fault. They gave birth to them in the first place, failing to properly consider all the stupid things they might do, then they failed to teach them proper road sense before allowing them onto the street. They then failed to supervise from a reasonable distance, far enough to give the illusion of independence but near enough that they could rush forward and save their child's life. Idiots.
The cyclist brought it all upon themselves. They cycled on the road for one thing. The possibility of being killed is easily anticipated and readily avoided. They could have had more lights. They should have made themselves more visible. Although cycle helmets offer a little protection, they could have worn a downhill helmet or a motorcycle helmet, anticipating the possibility that a car might drive straight into the back of them. Body armour could have helped.
Dear Lord, I feel sorry for the motorists.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts