In a couple of my discussions with police after making a report.. the subtext was very firmly.. "You knew the risks of cycling on this road - and you still chose to do it. Don't expect us to jump now that you've had a bad time."uart wrote:You know there's actually historical precedence for what you're saying there Comedian. There's pretty much a perfect analogy from last century in terms of the reluctance of police to pursue rape charges in cases where a prostitute was raped. While things have obviously changed in this regard due to pressure from the women's movement, I'm pretty sure it was something of a poorly kept secret at the time.Comedian wrote: This may be meandering off topic somewhat.. but further.. re aussies hating on cyclists. It's one of the few (only?) outgroups you can physically endanger or kill without fear of any meaningful reprisal.
Since the 1m law change in QLD (or at least since around the time it came in) I've seen the incidence of "shaving" and generally threatening driving go from occasional to the new normal. In general I believe this to be a deliberate behaviour. Yet, report these to the police and unless you happen to get a cycling cop they advocate for the driver and won't act. Further we've seen people with trucks hit and kill cyclists and say "I saw him but thought I missed him. Sorry". As far as our judicial system is concerned that seems to be adequate. I think if would be hard to explain to someone from outside. Oh well.
If you look at the thinking behind these two things you can see that it's pretty much the same in each case. In the case of the rape of a prostitute, the police thinking would have been that their virtue is so low that it's not really be worth protecting. In the case of cyclists it's probably along the lines that their regard for their own safety is so low (due to outgrouping and distorted perceived risk) that their safety is not really worth protecting.
So yes- I really do agree with your assertion. You chose to cycle - you were asking for it!
