Should Katman shut the fuck up?

[MSTRS:Me]

If I told you I was going to beat the crap out of you and then remove one dollar from your wallet for every item of clothing your brother happened to be wearing at the time you'd no doubt abuse him for not being stark bollock naked?

If you feel the need to aportion blame then let's at least place it where it belongs, eh?

I quite like that little analogy. I'm assuming the players are me the biker, you the avoidable accident I had, my brother a fellow rider.
Put in those terms, I look at it a little differently...
My brother is innocent, so why would I abuse him? My brother would be the one to feel aggrieved. He may blame me for not avoiding your fist.

[MSTRS:Me]

RE: this poll, should it be taken into account that 30 people have Katman on ignore? Presumably they don't have the opportunity to vote if they can't see KM's posts.

Sure add them to the "yes" vote - that'll still only be 64 v. 106

Don't need to see his posts to see/vote the poll.
And how do we know why the 30 have him on ignore, and which way they'd vote?
For all we know, some of them think the rest of us deserve the continuing 'abuse'.

[Spearfish]

Post two hundred and thirteen.....

[Ocean1]

I quite like that little analogy. I'm assuming the players are me the biker, you the avoidable accident I had, my brother a fellow rider.

Close. You, ACC and a fellow rider.

There's little point in blaming your brother, it's ACC's action that sees you charged for the cost of both of your fuckups, not his.

[MSTRS:Me]

Close. You, ACC and a fellow rider.

There's little point in blaming your brother, it's ACC's action that sees you charged for the cost of both of your fuckups, not his.

Are you saying that both me and my brother had offs, but ACC only charged me extra?

[Eyegasm]

reckoned both parties were at fault in ANY accident... I cant quite agree with him

I can see where he is coming from.

So should Katman, As katmans stance about being avoidable doesn't matter whether you hit someone or you were hit by someone. So therefore both parties in an "accident" are at fault.

For example a car doing a u-turn then being hit by another car/motorcycle.
Car doing the u-turn is at fault for not making sure it was safe to turn. Car/motorcycle is at fault for not noticing the tyres turning (FFS BS) or indicators.

So therefore both parties at fault.

Makes perfect sense.

[oneofsix]

I can see where he is coming from.

So should Katman, As katmans stance about being avoidable doesn't matter whether you hit someone or you were hit by someone. So therefore both parties in an "accident" are at fault.

For example a car doing a u-turn then being hit by another car/motorcycle.
Car doing the u-turn is at fault for not making sure it was safe to turn. Car/motorcycle is at fault for not noticing the tyres turning (FFS BS) or indicators.

So therefore both parties at fault.

Makes perfect sense.

yes, but now apply the percentages. The cop over the hill was he more at fault than the guy on the bike? The asian 4wd driver who after being followed by two bikes trying to pass her pulls over on the straight piece of road without indications, what percentage of the blame can REASONABLY be on the rider for thinking she pulled over to let them past, remember the front wheels don't turn until the last second, she doesn't turn her wheels and then stop as soon as the wheels turn she is gone. No body language, body language would imply turning the body no she just moves the hands as she pushes the right foot down. Katman 'fault' is that he seems to make it always 100% the rider, therefore no discussion on other things that can improve safety.

[Katman]

So therefore both parties at fault.

I have never said that there are not many times when fault must be shared. I have also never said that there are never times when fault doesn't lie with the motorcyclist.

I have however always said that we need to compensate for the inadequacies of other road users if we wish to stay in one piece.

The problem with half the drongos on here is that they don't understand basic English and instead choose to put words in my mouth.

[Crasherfromwayback]

and instead choose to put words in my mouth.

Oi...better than what you often offer to put in our mouths!

[Maha]

''The problem with half the drongos on here''....

And so it starts....

Careful Steve, some of them voted for ya....

Caring Maha xx

[Katman]

Katman 'fault' is that he seems to make it always 100% the rider, therefore no discussion on other things that can improve safety.

I actually don't give a shit about 'fault'.

I'm more concerned about what could reasonably be done to 'avoid'.

[oneofsix]

I actually don't give a shit about 'fault'.

I'm more concerned about what could reasonably be done to 'avoid'.

then you fail cause you fail the reasonable part of your statement.

[Katman]

then you fail cause you fail the reasonable part of your statement.

Really? Expecting people to ride with their eyes truly open and their brains truly engaged is being unreasonable?

[oneofsix]

Really? Expecting people to ride with their eyes truly open and their brains truly engaged is being unreasonable?

Are you also a conspiracy theorist? you reasonable sounding question belies your unreasonable expectations when discussing actual accidents.

[Ocean1]

Are you saying that both me and my brother had offs, but ACC only charged me extra?

You're being deliberately obtuse. Which, added to your native capabilities with regards to comprehension is a formidable barrier for any simple analogy to overcome.