Whatever, chief. I'm not tuned into the truth station so I must've missed an important announcement. Next time I'll make sure that I don't discuss any details of any accident lest I find myself on the wrong side of someone's bad attitude.

If you noticed, I joined our discussion in full swing. The topic at hand seemed to be whether a rider in this particular situation would or would not be declared at fault and and eligible to pursue damages. Maybe it was a throwaway comment, maybe I shouldn't have taken the bait, nevertheless, that was the topic. (Actually perception of the situation shifted in the course of the discussion, but then that's what a discussion is for, right?)

And for the record, I didn't blame Schiek for the accident. I said he was probably at fault based on the initial description of the accident. That's a legal opinion (from an admitted non-expert) which is can be greatly at odds with the concepts of fairness or real-world blame. Even if the accident had happened as I initially understood it, I wouldn't blame person driving/riding the trailing vehicle though in just about every case the judge would find them at fault.

Damn, people can't just talk about stuff. Everything's gotta be some sort of pissing contest. WTF.