Comment by ProllyInfamous
16 hours ago
>but also besides the point.
Hard disagree.
Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
16 hours ago
>but also besides the point.
Hard disagree.
Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
When vulnerable road users are killed in other countries there is strict liability. That is, the driver is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise.
In America it's the perfect crime.
"I'm so sorry officer I never saw them."
Case closed Lou.
~>here in America
Which is why yesterday, in my mid-sized Southern City: after a motorcyclist hit&ran off the Interstate (dead, into a guardrail; 35, helmet'd/licensed, obeying traffic laws), the local biker clubs put down their swords and rallied in the median well after the accident occurred (as my local newspaper noted).
With all these millions already-spent on Flock cameræ, and T-DOT having dozens more (of their own)... you'd think we'd'a'already caught these guys.!?
----
It's so sad that lack of accountability results in fleeing manslaughterers... but here we are.
You disagree with me agreeing with what you just wrote about it being more dangerous to go with motorcycles?
The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
Let me read both these comments some more, because after this one (above): I'm even more confused.
Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant?
----
I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.