Comment 100953

By Jeremy S (anonymous) | Posted May 05, 2014 at 12:28:35 in reply to Comment 100930

Please let me explain my analogy. There are laws that govern our behaviour and if/when someone breaks a law and gets killed, then, despite the circumstances created by another person (train or car operator), the victim is at least partially responsible for their own tragic death. Laws apply to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. These laws alone will not prevent fatalities and better urban planning will reduce fatal encouters, but if everyone simply obeyed the laws (fantasy world, I know) there would be minimal fatal encounters between automobiles and cyclists.

Please note I am NOT saying the pedestrian/cyclist is usually at fault and the the driver is rarely at fault. What I am saying is, I object to the notion that pedestrains/cyclists can be absolved of their actions simply because they have more to loose. A statement like "Group A is never to blame and Group B is always to blame." is a big red flag that someone is more interested in their personal agenda than reason. Not an easy person to collaborate with to solve a touchy issue.

Has everyone seen the movie "The Sweet Hereafter?". It deals with a person's compulsion to lay blame in the wake of tragic circumstances. Powerful movie. Sort of applies to this whole conversation. Don't not watch it just because you don't agree with me :)

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools