Quote:
Originally posted by MarkC
You guys are missing his point.
|
Exactly. MarkC has explained it three times, and a lot of you guys are still not getting Dr. Rozzi's point. Try reading it again. He's not saying what you think he's saying; his point is perfectly valid.
We knock squids for wearing T-shirts, shorts, tennis shoes, and no gloves. Do you think they're responsible for the severity of their injuries,
regardless of who caused their accident?
Do you think a skydiver carries some responsibility for dying when his parachute fails in some way?
Do you suppose we could take some
credit for avoiding injury or death because we choose to drive (for example) a Volvo?
The doctor's point is we own some responsibility if we get more seriously hurt or killed than would normally occur if we had been in a car. He's not saying the motorcyclist
caused the accident. Who's at fault doesn't change the result; dead is dead. His point is the motorcyclist's choice isn't mitigating his risk; the motorcyclist's choice of vehicle influenced the outcome.
Some thoughts...
I don't see things improving a whole lot if two motorcycles are involved in a collision vs a car and a motorcycle.
The doctor never said "might makes right," or any argument to that effect.
Being a pedestrian or a bystander isn't a valid comparison. Walking is a completely different mode of transportation where choosing between two and four wheels is relevant. I don't think we want to sit in cars to eat at cafes, either.
The doctor never said the van driver wasn't responsible for causing the accident. In fact, he said the opposite. He's saying the motorcyclist is
partially responsible for travelling in a vunerable way which increases the odds of injury or death.
The doctor's not analyzing if the accident was avoidable or not. What difference does it make? The point is, accidents happen and the outcome can be influenced by the vehicle chosen.
Kurt was
stupefied, not confused. No lack of clarity. "Protect yourself or pay the consequences" was Dr. Rozzi's editorial title, not the newspaper's headline.
Anyway... I'm expecting a lot of grief for this, so bring it on! I'm just looking for some rational discussion here.