I've had the pleasure of meeting both TMN and Pat "more than 5mph" and can safely say that they are both splendid people.
I can appreciate
@Pat "5mph"'s point that there is a perception that cyclists who don't dress up in the helmeted radioactive lemon uniform are less cautious with their, and other's safety - and that this isn't her own opinion! But I also certainly understand
@User13710's point that this is a deeply offensive attitude. Understand and agree with, because this assumption that those who don't wear the hi-vis are willfully negligent
is insulting. In fact, it's worse than that: it's a particularly odious form of victim blaming. It is this sort of pernicious reasoning which all too often leads to the attitude: "it's only a cyclist, it got what it deserved" that not merely infests that cesspit which is the Daily Mail but all too often informs police indifference to bullying - or worse - by motorists. Sadly, you don't need to look far on this forum for examples of the latter.
This, I think, has been a side effect of helmet promotion. It is the inevitable consequence of shifting the duty of care from motorist to cyclist. Once you have accepted the idea that it is the
cyclist who must bear the burden of risk mitigation it is a very small step to shifting the
blame onto the weaker party. Put simply, promotion of hi-vis and helmet wearing is promotion of the concept of the car as king. Picture a fume-filled gridlocked road going nowhere- forever.
