Blood on the streets

Jeez, you're a muggy cunt.

A view which appears to be shared by a fuck load of people.

I'll not be bothering to click view post, although I can derive as much as I need of your post from edscoble's reply to you.

Do the forum a favour and fuck off.

And no I am not trolling, but I am starting to think that you are trolling me.

A little bit of riding in primary might have helped in pretty much all of those situations.

Thefireuk might want to consider cycle training.

He's not blaming, he's saying primary might have helped. No blame assigned.

An example of blaming.

It's their fault that they were passed close because they weren't in primary

the real victims here are us, because it's started Jeez off again.

for that I blame TW2 and as he is also a victim of his own actions that most definitely is victim blaming.

We should've taken primary on the BB labour charge.

I blame smallpox on Jeez

#Randomblaming

By that logic this is not victim blaming -

 *"I'm very alarmed about cyclists wearing headphones," Mr Johnson told BBC London 94.9.*

• "I would not be against a prohibition or ban on cyclists wearing headphones.*
  
  

"Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along unable to hear the traffic."

Nowhere does he say that anyone is to blame for coming to harm for wearing headphones, he just says that in his opinion it is safer not to wear them.

Yeah, but he's got no evidence even of any correlation between the two (wearing headphones and getting injured), whereas riding in primary probably is correlated with reduced close-passes. That doesn't mean that if you ride in secondary the close pass is your fault (i.e., you haven't done anything wrong).

Man, you're on fire with your trolling.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340919

You can't pick and choose when it is OK to victim blame.

Only if there is victim blaming in the first place.

Dead Or Alive - You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) - YouTube

So victim blaming is fine if there is probably evidence out there to suggest that the victim was doing or not doing something that could have reduced their chances of harm coming to them.

No, victim blaming is never right. If you leave your house unlocked you have enabled a situation in which you are more likely to get burgled. But if you were burgled, the fault (moral, legal, whatever) would be entirely on the part of the burglar. It would not be your fault, you would not be asking for it or anything similar and it would be entirely wrong to blame you because you should be able to leave your house unlocked because doing so does not inherently lead to burglary.

Being hooted at might be unpleasant, but being less than a foot away from an HGV with wheels up to your waist is undoubtedly worse.

• The party line seems to be - "cyclists can do what the fuck they want on the road and are never to blame for anything that happens to them, unless they fail to ride primary or ride SS without two brakes in which case they can be blamed with impunity for whatever harm befalls them".
  
  

These are completely different things. One is about interacting with other road-users, the other is about making sure your bike is roadworthy with as much redundancy as possible for braking built in.

There are some proper hypocrite cunts on this thread.

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/tiler84/tiler841205/tiler84120500052/13797280-single-black-cooking-pot-isolated-on-white-background.jpg

Scenario - Someone is terrified because an HGV is passing them when it is not safe to do.

Is it victim blaming to imply that it is their fault for not riding in primary? Yes is my answer. What is yours?

I would argue that it is entirely reasonable to suggest that it would be better and safer to ride in primary, but if you are going to do that in the context of a video where someone had their life endangered by dangerous driving you should make it clear that there is no excuse for the appalling driving on show and that the cyclist was 0% at fault for the incident - with suggestions of how the cyclist could reduce the chance of it happening again only being made in the context of the speaker making it 110% clear that they are not victim blaming. Otherwise it is victim blaming.

But the cuntishness (or just plain ignorance) of the driver is just taken as read. It would just get incredibly tedious to always mention it in every bit of cycling safety advice.

So TW2 is only victim blaming because he didn't write exactly what you thought he should? it seems like the victim blaming is entirely of your own inference in that case. much like the lcc weren't doing enough to highlight safety on their website with the big fucking link on the homepage because you felt it needed to be a few cm's higher up the page in your opinion.

it seems like most of the time the reason you find yourself on the wrong side of the 'party line' is because you put yourself there on purpose and then put your finger in your ears and repeat your point again and again until everyone gets fed up of your pinpoint focus on a single tiny point of contention in the larger issue (that is generally wide open to interpretation anyways), calls you a cunt and puts you on ignore.

the fact it now happens about 3 times a week is why people assume you must be a massive troll.

Like I said Jeez, only if there's victim blaming in the first place, you'd have a legs to stand on.

You could direct all this repetitive arguing energy towards the politicians, trucking companies, etc, no?

What are you trying to achieve, at this point, Jeez?

Aneurysms for all!

You could direct all this repetitive arguing energy towards the politicians, trucking companies, etc, no?

This would, arguably, do more harm than good. :)

Better to keep him in his box here in our little fixie zoo.