Re: [ST] I stand corrected.....

[John Ulizzi <jaulizzi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Matthew Heyer <matthewheyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Couple of things here.  But my main point is in
> agreement with Eoin, with some legal thoughts.  Eoin
> makes a valid counterpoint to your assertion that
> the person in the vulnerable position is at fault
> for being in the vulnerable position (in your
> statement, that because the injuries are more severe
> to a biker because they choose to be on a bike,
> those injuries are that persons choice).  The point
> Eoin makes that there are differential levels of
> injury dependent upon the vehicles involved will be
> the case with almost all vehicles.  Does a person
> have less liability for the injuries inflicted on
> someone choosing to drive a Mini or the like?  The
> person driving the small car made that choice, and
> if they were in an SUV or large car (Crown Victoria,
> S-Class, etc) they wouldn't have been injured so
> badly - so then the liability is lifted?  Do people
> choosing to not purchase a vehicle that has a 5-star
> crash rating then "choose" to be more severely
> injured in a crash?  Or if they
>  choose to not have side-curtain airbags, do they
> assume the risks involved with an injury that those
> could have prevented?  No.  There will always be
> differing vehicles.  But as long as all of the
> vehicles meet the legal standard to be on the road,
> then all drivers of other vehicles assume the
> liability of their even purely accidental mistakes. 
> The playing field is leveled in the eyes of the law
> once a vehicle meets the requirements of being able
> to be placed on the road.

Well, yes. And I should have clarified that a little
better in my post, which I just reread. The liability,
as far as whose insurance pays what, was never in
question. And I agree with everything you say about
the playing filed being leveled in the eyes of the
law. Certainly, as in the case with the football
player, the lady car driver's insurance will. or at
least should, cover his injuries. I never meant to
imply that it shouldnt. My only point is that it would
be unfair to the driver of the car for the court or
anyone else to additionallly penalize her personally 
for the additional injurys the biker sustained because
he was a) on a bike, and/or b) riding without a
helmet.

I guess the bottom line, if you are riding a bike, is
to always think as though every other vehicle is
trying to kill you. Quote from a friend on another
list: 
"Sounds similar to the advice my Dad gave me when Iwas
learning to ride on the street 36 years ago. He used
to tell me to "assume that every car coming at you is
being driven by one of your ex-wives".

This guys' dad must be a pretty sharp guy...

>  
> And wearing a helmet in the Superbowl is not
> explicitly in a football player's contract - it is
> in the rules/laws of the game that they are
> participating in.

I would have no idea about this. That was an
assumption, but I figured it had to be required
somewhere. I am not a football fan....

John
>  
> Matt Heyer
> _______________________________________________
> Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
> Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com
> 


_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com