Domestic Violence and Cycling analogy - has limitations.

[unhombre]

I've just posted this on a cycling thread in 'Chat' - it's an analogy that I've often pondered upon over the years whilst pedalling along, but never articulated it. I'd be curious about how far this 'runs' re an understanding of cyclists experience and the experience of DV. It isn't perfect, for obvious reasons, (eg lots of cyclists are women, as a simple starter) but I'd thought it was at least slightly interesting for those who have thought about it. Any contributory thoughts?

Domestic Violence and Cyclist/drivers analogy:

ok. Chucking some obs. out, and they could be controversial in some quarters:

• approx. 2 cyclists per week are killed on roads. (this year that's slightly up), about the same as women being killed by ex- or current partners

• we are warned about what we wear will make us more risky. ( I always wear bright stuff with lights but still get hit as a quick eg.)

• we have as much right to share a common space with other road users, but the other road-users often fail to recognise that fact. ( female 'rights' in the home)

• a driver/ poster above somewhere used the phrase ' I am kind to cyclist's generally', a common thought process that indicates ' I am more powerful than you but I will make allowance' when in fact, in law, we are equal on the road. ( and legally for women in the home).

• at points of physical 'conflict' we are much more likely to come off worse.

• the culture of society and transport policy is skewed in favour of drivers. Similar to a patriarcal society for males.

• we are open to being abused because of 'who we are' by a more powerful, competing lobby.

• when we die, or get seriously injured, there is likely to be only one witness i.e the perpetrator.

This is just a quick analysis, and as I say the analogy isn't perfect at all and has limitations, but it does provide some reflection as I cycle along.

It's 'victim blaming' isn't it? and it applies to soooo many things
like the thread about a 15yo boy getting mugged (apparently that was the sister's fault for not giving him a lift by that's the same as saying it was his fault for not getting a lift)... or as you say, like DV, or like rape.. there are so many situations in which we blame the victim... because it's easier to believe we have control over our own situation and that people who suffer these things could have done something to avoid it.

As somebody said on tv - "if the answer is compulsory cycle helmets then we're asking the wrong question"
imagine if we said 'how can we stop so many women getting beaten by their partners? - 'i know, get them to wear body armour'

I agree with Lemarch
I don't think you can compare domestic violence with cycling, sorry.

I don't think it's victim blaming at all, quite the opposite. I says 'we do what we can' (usually) but this bad stuff still happens.

< and no of course, no intent to trivialise DV in any way>

pictish - which bit isn't comparable? As I say it isn't perfect at all, but poss. an interesting way of looking at the competing factors.

If you say so.

Lemarch - it fits it perfectly, surely! We are told that what we wear will reduce attacks, yet cyclists get to be knocked off bikes and sometimes killed whatever we wear. (speaking from experience re being hit). That the fault is with the victim, not the perpetrator.

Agree with lemarch. But the main problem is intentionality. On the whole, no driver is intending to hurt a cyclist, thougn there may be somr culpability through inattention etc.

On the whole, someone who hits their partner does intend to hurt them.

Ennis - yep true - one strong limitation.

What use would this analogy be?

pictish - usefulness would be about how society views cyclists and the evident attitudes toward them.

Lemarch - well, yes and no. It's a choice about how you conduct your life and what 'costs' you bear in making those choices.

Everything - law does say you should have lights as a cyclist in the dark. But still in the light, or the dark as well, cyclists get hit whatever they wear. Though of course the encouragement part is valid.

Everything I believe that cyclists are legally required to have lights at night.

You think your analogy could be instrumental in raising awareness about the plight of cyclists???

Lemarch - well it still IS a choice re biking to work and remaning in an abusive relationship. And of course I was saying it isn't a perfect analogy. Just a potentially interesting one.

You cyclists are just thinkers are you?
Ok then.

I should add a - seeings as I am chuckling at this thread, even though I probably shouldn't.

What Ennis said - But the main problem is intentionality. On the whole, no driver is intending to hurt a cyclist, thougn there may be somr culpability through inattention etc.

On the whole, someone who hits their partner does intend to hurt them.

You're comparing accidents with deliberate violence.

This is not just 'one strong limitation'. If your analogy is supposed to be 'about how society views cyclists and the evident attitudes toward them' then it just doesn't work. There is a world of difference between the attitudes of (some) motorists towards cyclists - carelessness and inattention - and the attitudes of men who are violent towards women - hatred, rage and a desire to control.

It is trivialising because it implies that DV is something that can just kind of happen when people are not paying attention. Given the way women explain away their injuries as 'accidents' or 'being clumsy', it's a pretty grim analogy when you stop to think about it.

Unhombre if your analogy was "women may feel vulnerable in a crowd of men like a cyclist does on a crowded road, because of the imbalance of physical power and non-transparent intent" I'd think it was closer to the mark.