Originally Posted by
HBxRider
If a driver is texting his buddy while driving and swerves off to the right and hits:
A) Your car. Then he is at fault. He's responsible for his mistake. He has to pay the damages.
B) You on your bike. It's your fault, because you knew the risks you take being on a bike, and you decided against decent common sense to do it anyway.
This is really what you are saying. That the type of object he struck is the factor that absolves him of all responsibility, fault, and obligation.
No...he still has responsibility, is at fault, and is WRONG in his actions both times. How I choose to absorb his wrongness i.e., how easy of a target I present and how much damage I am willing to sustain in any mishap is MY choice alone.
If the drunk nicks my car, I gotta deal with insurance and a body & fender shop. If he nicks me, I might be ruined for life...or dead. The DIFFERENCE in these two outcomes is MY choice. So the range of results goes from "no big deal" all the way to the other end of the range at "dead". Am I totally not responsible for bombing down a mountain on my bike and breaking my neck solo? Cycling with cars is the same kind of danger except now I am putting the onus for safety on SOMEONE ELSE knowing full well that many motorists are dangerous and inept. Would I bomb that same mountain if there were snipers shooting at me on the way down too? Hardly.
We make choices every day. We might pay for those choices. If you choose to do something marginally dangerous knowing full well the dangers that exist (you do know there are inherent dangers to cycling in traffic don't you?) then SOME of the fault must lie with you. You chose the vehicle and are guaranteed nothing when you start turning those cranks.