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.

Plenty - I wasn't using, or asking for a driving analogy. I've seen Duel, and it;s a scary film. IF that works as an analogy for DV for you then fine. But that doesn;t do anything about cyclists/dv.

Why do we have to do something about 'cyclists/dv'? What even is 'cyclists/dv'?

you are very attached to your analogy

had you considered that some of the people who are finding your comparison of cyclists killed by drivers with women murdered by ther partners crass may have done time at the business end of your DV analogy?

Can you imagine being a cyclist in a duel situation?

Plenty - you don't have to do anything about any cyclist/dv analogy. You can think it's crap, but no action needed.

I too think you were very proud of your analogy. You're going to keep arguing even though you know we're all right about it being rubbish, aren't you?
As a point of pride?

I have said (repeatedly) that it has it's limitations ( even in the title!). It isn't a matter of 'pride'. Some stuff posted re intention is great , imo, some not so. It's something I had mused upon as cycling along. Yes I have been a victim of DV, albeit fairly mild in comparison, but some of the factors at play are echo-y of the battles that cyclists have. No more than that.

An analogy works when it sheds light on an issue. DV is so misunderstood and so rife with myths and judgements, I cannot for the life of me understand why you would choose it to shed light on the 'plight' of cyclists.

And to use a topic such as DV as a clumsy tool to explore road safety issues is, well, clumsy at best.

You need to do some actual research into domestic violence. The fact that you don't understand how crass and harmful this analogy is speaks volumes about your understanding of domestic violence.

Yes Dani, that's already been said.

Some of it works as an analogy, some doesn't. It isn't a 'pet theory' , just some observable comparators. So I'll leave it at that.

The only purpose it serves is to shine a light on your lack of understanding.

Although we could keep the analogy going via women/cyclist only spaces and a wariness of men/vehicle users, if you like.

It really doesn't work. Aside from the intent issue, you also need to take into account the fact that not all cyclists who get injured are totally free of blame. Eg. someone cycles directly in the path of a car without warning, they are likely to get hit.

So if you use cycling accidents as an analogy for DV then you run the risk of saying that some victims of DV aren't free of blame.

You can take any two phenomena and draw analogies between them - it's not difficult.

The question is: why would you? There's only any point (other than just trying to appear clever) if it throws genuine new light and develops understanding. Which your analogy doesn't.

Sorry, I'm all for encouraging new ways of thinking about subjects, but your theory is pointless and irritating and borderline offensive.

Unhombre, interesting. I get it.

I agree with PoPG's last sentence above.

A good analogy will add insight and aid understanding. This analogy is pretty 'empty' and useless. The fact that is needs to be explained kinda shows that.

HW
x