4 ms·
I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency. If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red ligh
by konschubert 3y ago
I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency.
If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red light, it is still 100% the driver's fault.
A kill is still a kill even if the victim didn't wear a bulletproof vest.
- giantg2 3y agoYou may want to look into what I said about contributory negligence instead of strawmanning in this comment thread. It seems this is a pattern with you as you strawmanned in another thread here too.
- jstarfish 3y agoIf we're talking US law, you are absolutely incorrect and making a false equivalence yourself. A murder victim is not a MVC victim. Only the collision is 100% the driver's fault (in most states). The death is up for debate. If you die because you weren't wearing a seatbelt/helmet, you were negligent, so fault is shared. There is no law mandating everyone wear bulletproof vests. All states have seatbelt laws, and most have helmet laws.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago>and most have helmet laws For cyclists?
- giantg2 3y agoMost do have some cyclist helmet law. However, only a few have laws that apply to adults. Most are only applied to children of various ages.