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.

no, that isn't going to happen I don't think. It'll probably just make him more (understandably) annoyed, which isn't good.

Thanks, Plenty.

Ennis - partly yes, but it's much more than that. It's a question of attitude, recognition of 'rights to be there and protected by law', victim-blaming (you're all the same - I had a bad experience with one cyclist so you are all the same), and prob. mostly those who do everything to avoid being a 'victim' (lights, defensive riding, clothing, lights etc) still get hit and damaged at a rate comparable to DV stats.

Plenty - yes to most of what you say..BUT the difference is the 'desire to control' i.e. by virtue of size and power, 'I' will control what other road users (cyclists) can do, though legally I have no such power. I'll just exercise it through force'.

You know, I don't think I've read anything quite so crass and asinine in a very long time.

Dani - you should get out more.

How many cyclists who have been hit do you think blame themselves or don't admit they have been hit because they feel ashamed?

can't the deaths of cyclists be terrible in and of themselves without having to analogise them to deaths of women at the hands of their partners?

i agree that it feels crass - when i read the op i winced

i just don't understand what the point of making this analogy is, can anyone explain please?

Maat - I have noooo idea! Sounds like a bit of victim-blaming to me. I've been 'hit' 7-8 times, come off 3-4 times as a result - never where I have been at fault at all. So I can only answer your question from ime.

I have explained and Plenty has enlarged upon why I find the whole analogy flawed, because of the intentionality. I don't think you can get past that.

It is interesting that 2 cyclists die a week and that's roughly equivalent to number of women killed by expartners - it gives a feel for the scale of both problems. But it isn't an analogy because all or almost all of cyclist deaths are accidents.

An analogy is good if it helps people see one of the problems more clearly eg I don't think I can take £10 out of the wallet of someone who lent me £20 earlier because they are already "in the lending game". George Galloway might disagree..Which of the points you raise do you think is enhanced by your analogy?

or is this like thing where everything gets measured in london buses 'this stadium is the equivalent of 36 london buses laid end to end'

what other yardsticks shall we use - 1/8 a transatlantic slave ship crossing?

yuck yuck yuck

I don't understand it either chibi.

The only way it works is if car drivers are deliberately engaged in stalking one specific cyclist, intimidating them, and then physically assaulting them before killing them.

One, generally speaking, being an accident. The other being a deliberate policy of violence.

OP - its a crap analogy, and a crass, oblivious one at that. Do stop being so silly.

Your analogy might come close to being valid if the alternative to cycling meant giving up your job, uprooting your family, living in one room for a time with your kids, surviving on benefits, watching your back at all times, modifying your behaviour for the bulk of your daily life, going through a court case only to see the one driver that had it in for you get community service and be waiting for you after court and a hundred other things that are vastly different.

If there was one driver out to get one cyclist, your analogy would have some merit. As it is, you are just demonstrating your lack of understanding of dv.

You know the mansplaining thread? Bingo!

Well, no it isn't 'crass' - it's rooted in a power imbalance, and how that is acted out in a space which is limited and 'contested' and congested, especially where one section is maligned and less powerful.
Of course the intentionality element is strong and critical, but the other stuff about it being a random analogy (chibi) is weak.

Accidents? Well, not so. Accidents are preventable. As are DV and sexual assaults, IF the rights of the potential and actual victims are recognised.

But ,yes it has limitations!!

Foot - 'mansplaining' - I don't understand.

what is the point of making this analogy though? what purpose does it serve?

is it because you think that the general public are broadly sympathetic to victims of DV and agitate for DV to be taken seriously and perpetrators to be dealt with harshly (but fairly obv), and that by makinig this analogy similar might happen for cyclists?

Yes, it's a crap, offensive and pointless analogy.

If you want a motoring analogy the film is a bit closer but imagine the lorry driver is someone who is supposed to love and care for you. Add in all the stuff that FootLikeATractionEngine (great name btw) said. Oh and the self-blame and sense of shame that someone else mentioned.

I asked what use her analogy would have, already.
OP says usefulness would be about how society views cyclists and the evident attitudes toward them

So there you go. Cycling...it's a bit like being in a violent and abusive relationship really....

Or something. Fuck knows.

You commented on mansplaining and not my previous post?

as far as i can see, mostly people say that hitting/beating women is wrong, but damned if they mostly also can't find good reasons and justifications for it - even if it is well you could always just leave/why did you get yourself caught up in that in the first place

the only people i know who are really incensed are feminists

if you really want people to get worked up ablout cyclists and their safety you should probably make an analogy with some group that poeple are really fond of

maybe boybands, or kittens

good luck