Journalism and cycling

P_1

Chiparus wrote: »

Amazing attitude.

Crims are ok, its the owners fault for not locking it up enough.

In this case the owner didn't lock it full stop. It's not victim blaming if the only reason for you being the victim is you being a blithering idiot

loyatemu

loyatemu wrote: »

how does this pay per km thing work - what's to stop me throwing the bike onto the train and getting off a stop early and cycling the rest of the way into the office?

Where I work it's based on an honesty policy and capped at 40km per day.
There's always Strava etc to back up any claims you make.
There's nothing to stop you using public transport part of the way as long as you admit it.

Grassey

tomasrojo wrote:

I do agree that a coherent network of cycling infrastructure is more important than small financial incentives.

That said... My current 35k commute by €0. 23 would yield me €8 a day, so about €1800 a year based on 230 working days. I'd gladly take!

Chiparus

P_1 wrote: »

In this case the owner didn't lock it full stop. It's not victim blaming if the only reason for you being the victim is you being a blithering idiot

It seems that it is acceptable to take something that does not belong to you if the owner has not secured it enough or at all.

That rationale could be expanded to the level of security of the property , so a use cheap lock - well its fair game.

I have met criminal scum with that attitude, if the owner did not secure it properly thay deserve to be robbed.

Definiton of victim blaming

rubadub

Chiparus wrote: »

Amazing attitude.

Crims are ok, its the owners fault for not locking it up enough.

Its not amazing at all, I imagine a lot of people share it, as evidenced in comments.

What IS utterly amazing is that you came away from reading my post thinking my attitude is that criminals are OK. Where in the name of fcuk you got that from is beyond me...

I cringe hearing this "victim blaming" shite all the time these days. PC gobshite-ery. People will be scared to tell their children not to accept sweets or lifts from strangers next, for fear of been seen as a dreaded "victim blamer" -"my child should be fully entitled to get into a car with a strange man and nothing should happen."

Sick to death of it.

Chiparus

rubadub wrote: »

Its not amazing at all, I imagine a lot of people share it, as evidenced in comments.

What IS utterly amazing is that you came away from reading my post thinking my attitude is that criminals are OK. Where in the name of fcuk you got that from is beyond me...

I cringe hearing this "victim blaming" shite all the time these days. PC gobshite-ery. People will be scared to tell their children not to accept sweets or lifts from strangers next, for fear of been seen as a dreaded "victim blamer" -"my child should be fully entitled to get into a car with a strange man and nothing should happen."

Sick to death of it.

Scumbag crims say they deserve to be robbed if they dont protect their property.

rubadub

Chiparus wrote: »

Scumbag crims say they deserve to be robbed if they dont protect their property.

some might, and so what? they are scum

-what the hell has that got to do with my other post that you quoted. It really seemed like you were making out like it was my attitude that "crims are ok"

Chiparus wrote: »

Definiton of victim blaming

Maybe that is your defintion, I would like to hear a more dictionary-like version of yours.

Here is one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them.

People make out like its an utterly shameful term or something. I do believe he is partially at fault for the harm that befell him, so have no problem if somebody called me a victim blamer if going by that definition. Evidently most police forces do too, which is why when I read about bait bikes they invariably lock them up, in case it is seen as entrapment in a court. Many insurance companies could be described as victim blamers and refuse to pay out due to such laughable negligence.

The gardai website has quite a bit of victim blaming advice on it, about locking bikes, cars, houses etc.

The man is worth millions, so can afford to be totally reckless, but now he is taking up garda time, and getting his free bit of publicity.

If he left a 50 note under a stone on grafton street "for some time" unattended does he deserve to have it nicked? -NO, should he expect or think it likely to have it nicked -of course! And I would hate to see shops having to check CCTV etc.

Chiparus

rubadub wrote: »

Its not amazing at all, I imagine a lot of people share it, as evidenced in comments.

What IS utterly amazing is that you came away from reading my post thinking my attitude is that criminals are OK. Where in the name of fcuk you got that from is beyond me...

I cringe hearing this "victim blaming" shite all the time these days. PC gobshite-ery. People will be scared to tell their children not to accept sweets or lifts from strangers next, for fear of been seen as a dreaded "victim blamer" -"my child should be fully entitled to get into a car with a strange man and nothing should happen."

Sick to death of it.

And any girl can wear what ever length skirt they like and get into whoever car they like -Would you blame the victim if they were raped?

Chiparus

rubadub wrote: »

some might, and so what? they are scum

-what the hell has that got to do with my other post that you quoted. It really seemed like you were making out like it was my attitude that "crims are ok"


Maybe that is your defintion, I would like to hear a more dictionary-like version of yours.

Here is one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming


People make out like its an utterly shameful term or something. I do believe he is partially at fault for the harm that befell him, so have no problem if somebody called me a victim blamer if going by that definition. Evidently most police forces do too, which is why when I read about bait bikes they invariably lock them up, in case it is seen as entrapment in a court. Many insurance companies could be described as victim blamers and refuse to pay out due to such laughable negligence.

The gardai website has quite a bit of victim blaming advice on it, about locking bikes, cars, houses etc.

The man is worth millions, so can afford to be totally reckless, but now he is taking up garda time, and getting his free bit of publicity.

If he left a 50 note under a stone on grafton street "for some time" unattended does he deserve to have it nicked? -NO, should he expect or think it likely to have it nicked -of course! And I would hate to see shops having to check CCTV etc.

So if soemone finds a wallet with money in it , they dont need to hand it in? You can take the money as well - they deserve to be robbed?

rubadub

Chiparus wrote: »

So if soemone finds a wallet with money in it , they dont need to hand it in? You can take the money as well - they deserve to be robbed?

Sweet mother of fcuking jesus, will you read the bit you highlighted in bold there again. Look out for the word deserve, maybe read it 3 times to be sure.

Are you a troll just winding me up or are you really that fcuking thick?

Mod note - No personal abuse. Any questions PM me do not respond in thread. nee

Chiparus

rubadub wrote: »

Someone with millions who does not give a flying fcuk it their bike is nicked. He was completely reckless and is now going to use up gardai time.

There were lots of replys on articles with people saying "that's victim blaming" if people called him and idiot and "what do you expect". I call it idiot blaming and negligence.

I always wondered if there is any time the gardai would not investigate a crime and make it clear to the person reporting they are going to do nothing, since the "victim" was so negligent. Like if I went into the gardai and said I left a €100 bottle of whiskey down by the canal at the barge pub for "some time" and it was nicked would they investigate? or if I left a 50 note under a stone outside the passport office.

So what if they have millions? Does them getting robbed make them more reckless?

And "negligent" - you mean at fault?

Chiparus

rubadub wrote: »

Sweet mother of fcuking jesus, will you read the bit you highlighted in bold there again. Look out for the word deserve, maybe read it 3 times to be sure.

Are you a troll just winding me up or are you really that fcuking thick?

Im not a troll , I just think you seem to feel that people who are robbed are somehow at fault and are wasting garda time?

Chiparus

Seems to me that if you own a bike in DUblin and you park it on the street, you should expect it to be robbed, therefore you are a fool for having a bike in Dublin.

tomasrojo

Healy-Rae has had a bike of very modest value stolen, and he is a millionaire.

He certainly deserves a certain amount of sympathy, but I don't feel like equating him with someone who was hit by a drunk driver in a van but who wasn't wearing a helmet.

tomasrojo

This article is quite interesting on victim blaming in the context of serious crimes and less serious ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/

Something as simple as hearing about a crime and thinking you would have been more careful had you been in the victim’s shoes is a mild form of victim-blaming.

I guess "what did HR expect?" is a form of victim blaming in this sense. But it's not the full-strength version you get in, say, traffic fatalities.

Chiparus

tomasrojo wrote: »

This article is quite interesting on victim blaming in the context of serious crimes and less serious ones.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/



I guess "what did HR expect?" is a form of victim blaming in this sense. But it's not the full-strength version you get in, say, traffic fatalities.

Very interesting article. I do believe that morals has a lot to play , certainly when I have talked to criminals , " it's their fault for not securing it" or they see it as a wealth redristribution rxcercise.

monument

Chiparus wrote: »

Very interesting article. I do believe that morals has a lot to play , certainly when I have talked to criminals , " it's their fault for not securing it" or they see it as a wealth redristribution rxcercise.

Rather than morals, is it not more to do with, as the article seems to suggest, cognitive distancing?

Thus why criminals who rob stuff usually don’t do so in their own back yard.

Or why why the average person unrelated to an event blames the victim — ie why were they inside the truck in the first place, I would not do that.

tomasrojo

The "Just World" framing seems pretty convincing to me too. It's wrapped up in "that's not going to happen to me, because I do X".

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

The "Just World" framing seems pretty convincing to me too. It's wrapped up in "that's not going to happen to me, because I do X".

Is there another angle on the Just World 'not going to happen to me' thing around the responsibility. I've seen people heads explode when I suggest that the fact that four out of five drivers break speed limits could be a contributory factor in cyclist/pedestrian deaths. Most people break speed limits, and it seems to most people really, really want to avoid any possibility of having to change their behaviour. So it's easier to blame the victim.

P_1

Chiparus wrote: »

So what if they have millions? Does them getting robbed make them more reckless?

And "negligent" - you mean at fault?

Ok perhaps being grossly negligent might be a better term to use but by Odin's Beard how bloody thick do yet need to be to leave a bike unlocked in Dublin and think ah shur it'll be grand?

P_1

Chiparus wrote: »

Seems to me that if you own a bike in DUblin and you park it on the street, you should expect it to be robbed, therefore you are a fool for having a bike in Dublin.

No you lock it and lock it well

CramCycle

The skeptic in me is more annoyed by the fact that it suits Healy Rae. Gets to play the "bad lot" in Dublin card, gets free publicity, shows constituents he still does the favours, it really is a win win for him.

Rechuchote

Chiparus wrote: »

Very interesting article. I do believe that morals has a lot to play , certainly when I have talked to criminals , " it's their fault for not securing it" or they see it as a wealth redristribution rxcercise.

Criminals I've talked to have several parallel excuses: 1) They're insured anyway so it's no real loss to them; 2) They'd do the same to me if they had the chance; 3) Life is unfair…

And it's not true that criminals don't rob in their own backyard. They do. Avoid moving into a street where you find the names of lots of neighbours allied with "judge", "court" and "sentence" in a search. Though of course you could move into Foxrock or Killiney and just have neighbours whose robbery of millions never got caught…

Rechuchote

http://www.clare.fm/news/man-dies-cycling-clare/

A cyclist has died while on a group run. +RIP+ and condolences to all who loved him.

eeeee

R.I.P., may he rest.

monument

Rechuchote wrote: »

And it's not true that criminals don't rob in their own backyard. They do. Avoid moving into a street where you find the names of lots of neighbours allied with "judge", "court" and "sentence" in a search. Though of course you could move into Foxrock or Killiney and just have neighbours whose robbery of millions never got caught…

Some do, some don’t.

That’s why that’s why I said *usually* don’t do so in their own back yard. There is, however, no accounting for sociopaths and definitely no accounting for psychopaths.

They mention medical episode so no car involved. Must have been very traumatic for his friends out with him to have gone back when they realised he'd been dropped and found him

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

They mention medical episode so no car involved. Must have been very traumatic for his friends out with him to have gone back when they realised he'd been dropped and found him

Guys

I am aware a regular on this forum was on the spin. The article is, I understand, not entirely accurate, but it's nothing that could have changed the consequences. Can I ask posters to avoid further discussion at this time

Thank You

P_1

Beasty wrote: »

Guys

I am aware a regular on this forum was on the spin. The article is, I understand, not entirely accurate, but it's nothing that could have changed the consequences. Can I ask posters to avoid further discussion at this time

Thank You

My sympathies and thoughts are with all involved

https://twitter.com/CharlieFlanagan/status/1010487132836724736