Quote:
Originally Posted by n4mwd
Don't get me wrong, this is not a ninjette.com problem, its a biker community problem. The problem exists on pretty much all forums, not just here. This is actually probably the best all around Ninja forums. But to answer your question....
Do you remember this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74526
The bikers were cut off by a pickup truck in KY, to get around him, they tried to pass him, but the pickup driver deliberately tried to run them off the road and into opposing traffic. There were several posters that wanted to fry the bikers because they had crossed the yellow line, yet the pickup did it numerous times and with malice. Although nobody actually got hurt in that one, its a good example of what I was saying.
Or this one:
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81348
A motorcycle cop was out riding with his buddy was killed when a dump truck violated his right of way by pulling across in front of him killing him. The bike's tank ruptured and both the cop and bike went up in a big fireball. Some posters inferred that the cop must have been speeding and deserved what he got.
And the list goes on. So yes, its a common thread here and on other forums. The presumption of guilt is on the biker.
I do agree that having good riding skills is very important, but not having them doesn't make it your fault when a cage pulls in front of you. The same is true of helmets and gear. Those are good to have in an accident, but not having them doesn't automatically make the accident your fault. Yet some people insist that it does. |
I remember pointing out that the KY truck could also have been trying to block them and that it was presumption to say that the video was proof that he was trying to kill them, but even that wasn't well received because the attitude in the thread was the exact opposite of what you describe. It's the same as
"cop intentionally tried crashing into me" thread. The cop did not try to crash into him intentionally (ridiculous). He jumped to the same conclusion because the cop acted with similar deliberation, but it's not even remotely believable that the cop wanted him dead for no reason. We see the same kind of things being said every day in the Trayvon Martin case. Even then, I simply disagreed with the truck driver's presumed intentions and never said anything about the bikers being at fault or deserving it.
Regarding gear vs. no gear, what people "insist" is that it makes the extent of the AFTERMATH of the gear-less accident partially your fault because it was predictable and either preventable or able to be minimized with minimal investment compared to the cost of your life. No one even pretended that it had any bearing on who was at fault for the accident itself. It's a good point and one that needs to be made: Fault for the extent of the aftermath does not equal fault for the accident.