-
I recall there was a long discussion on another topic about this, in fact I think it's an entire topic about this, @Oliver Schick probably know what I'm rambling on about.
On another note, do anyone know which Belgian style winter cap that have a massive flap to cover your ear?
At the moment I got the LMNH one and it just about cover my ear, Rapha's own barely, the bearing aids take up quite a considerable amount of room.
-
This is the thread Ed just mentioned: http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/258761/
IMO it's because drivers have an applied social privilege that means any wrongdoing they might commit isn't really their fault. The default road user is the driver of a vehicle, therefore it'd be preposterous to say 'all car drivers run over people", so their agency is conveniently removed in instances where they do. Because saying "this car driver drove over a cyclist" is exactly the same as saying "all car drivers drive over cyclists", obviously.
You are reading a single comment by @stevo_com and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
edscoble
bothwell
@stevo_com
Why do we (people in general but especially the press) describe collisions as "cyclist vs car/lorry/bus/van/truck"? Why apportion humanity to one and not the other? Every time I read it it sounds like it is the vehicle itself that is responsible/affected rather than the sentient being behind the wheel. Why not say "a bicycle and a car collided" or "a cyclist and the driver of a car collided" and then describe how either party is affected. The former being more accurate as the latter could have happened while they were both out walking somewhere.
Genuine question.