WTF does being the same have to do with fault in a collision?
It's okay if your logic is "just because." I simply wanted to know how you arrived at your belief.
Laws pertaining to risk are all relative, and can vary with locales. Just the other day did 80 across West Texas. If I got in a collision at 90 I could be held at fault because I was travelling in a manner legally deemed to be unsafe.
Likewise I am legally obliged to buckle my seatbelt, and in some places wear a helmet depending on mode of transportation because of relative risk.
Motor vehicles cannot legally be sold without expensive design features intended to protect the occupants in the event of a collision.
Likewise, slow moving vehicles such as Amish buggies and farm machinery are in many locales deemed a risk to other travelers in motor vehicles and are required to have large reflective triangles and warning lights to protect both the occupants and the occupants of other vehicles.
When I presume to ride a bicycle on a public roadway I accept the fact that I am assuming an egregious level of risk to myself and would not be inclined to hold others responsible for injuries I suffered as a result.
I also recognize the fact that merely by being out there I present a distracting road hazard to motorists and put them at risk of a collision they do not want.
You believe motorists should be held liable for not seeing something as often hard to see as a cyclist traveling at an enormous disparity in speed. I do not.
When I’m out there, it’s all on me.
Seems logical to me.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
