3 ms·
Are you kidding? If a bicycle hits a car it might scratch the paint. If a bicycle hits a truck you'd be lucky if the truck driver notices. If the other vehicl
by jstanley 8y ago
Are you kidding?
If a bicycle hits a car it might scratch the paint. If a bicycle hits a truck you'd be lucky if the truck driver notices.
If the other vehicle hits the bicycle, the cyclist will be lucky to survive.
I know some cyclists take liberties on the roads. I'm sometimes a cyclist myself and I too get annoyed by cyclists. But it's a fact of physics that cyclists are much more vulnerable than any car driver.
- monkeywork 8y agotell that to my friend who had to get her insurance to cover body work to both the door and body panel of her car when a rider smashed in to her, got up and took off without having to have any responsibility for the damage. lucky if they notice ... lol fuck off. I'm not saying they are the same thing, or that cars are more vulnerable -- if you inferred that from my statement then you weren't reading, I simply stated that they can and do cause damage to property and people if they hit things.
- pessimizer 8y agoYou directly implied that the difference between the damage that bicyclists and cars cause when they collide with things was small enough that bicyclists and drivers should follow exactly the same rules.
- monkeywork 8y agoi do think they should follow the same rules if they are to occupy the same space.
- snarfybarfy 8y agoI agree they should. However if someone does not follow the rules then the fines need to be vastly greater for cars. You don't need to be Einstein to understand: E = m/2*v^2 A good start would be to place all the burden of liability on the driver with the heavier vehicle (maybe have a 20% difference in which it is split 50:50). The free market could then sort out insurance premiums.