Another bike down - "I didn't see him"

Easy, they do it because it's not as dangerous as they make it out to be
if anyone except them is doing it. If they're tearing down a suburban
street at 100kph they're just as likely to make a fuckup and run over a
2 year old kiddie as anyone else tearing down that street at 100kph is.
They pretend they have some special powers which make them immune to
this outcome in order to maintain their exclusion from the rules which
they expect everyone else to abide by.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Because a motorist who has had an accident because (s)he broke the
rules doesn't _get_ to look for a reason not to be responsible for
their irresponsible act. They're _at fault_. Workcover, by stark
contrast, is only responsible for your injuries because you (or,
rather, your employer... assuming you have one) paid them to be
responsible.

There's no similarity.

And when someone decides they want to drive over the top of you,
there's not always a more appropriate lane available. In any case,
when someone is obeying the law, the appropriate lane to be in is
whatever lane they darn well _want_ to be in. If someone _else_ breaks
the law, that someone else does _not_ get to say "it's his fault for
being in the lane _I_ wanted to use"

Because the law doesn't require it. For now, at least, we have that
much freedom of choice. Until the law _does_ require it (and won't
_that_ be a shitfight) It's irrelevant.

Unless it's a nighttime situation, of course.

I'm far from convinced that it makes a difference. I use bright wet
weather gear on the off chance that it does, but I do so because that
is my _choice_. If someone chooses to be inattentive enough to wipe me
out, the _only_ excuse I will accept is "but I was obeying the law and
you weren't"

 

Driver at scene: "he just appeared out of nowhere, officer. He must
have been going, like, umblety billion kph!"
Officer: "uh huh" in notebook "speed a factor"

 

Somehow, I don't think the notion that it's less offensive under civil
law to wipe out a biker clad in black leather than to wipe out a biker
in day glow orange is going to make drivers more attentive.

I have no argument with motorcyclists doing everything they can to
avoid an accident. What I will argue, is that a driver who has caused
an accident by breaking the law gets to point to legal behaviour on the
part of the rider in mitigation. Keeping drivers from failing to
notice motorcyclists means making certain that they understand that
should they fail to notice a motorcyclist and an accident results, they
will be held responsible for their failure to obey the law. Giving
them an "out" only reduces the importance (to the driver) of noticing
motorcyclists.

 

She was the one with all the fruit on her head.

 

Maybe it's a Sydney thing Paul, I know 2 people in the last 3 months
that have been T boned by cabs doing exactly that. The guy on the Rocket
3 got his leg mashed into the side of the bike and wrapped around the
block. The guy on the Sprint got skittled.

JL
(and that's just the actual hits, not the near misses)

 

Only dangerous to Triumph riders from the sounds of it.

Al

 

Hmmm, point well made Al, hadn't thought of that ! Looking at the wrong
data-point I guess.

JL

 

.... and to the guy on the yellow kwak in Sydney Rd near Albion St
lights this morning ... who cut into the bicycle lane and cut me off
.... my sincerest apologies for losing it. I take back everthing I said
about your family relations; There's no way I can be sure it's your
mothers website. It was just when you said "I didn't see you" I spat
chips.

 

"Nev.." wrote

Geez Nev, that was damn good.

Theo