I do believe in amongst the goggly eyed ones drivel last night he specifically said the increase was due to accidents were motorcyclists where responsible. Or words very similar to that, the meaning was quite clear.
Can that be proven statistically? I'm sure the original statements made to justify the hikes were based on the injuries from accidents not the cause.
Did he finally say something truthful about the motives?
He reminds me of one of those lizards that can lick it's eyes.
Good luck to the "inconspicuous" biker that was interviewed too..
I avoid them because they're halfwits and sadly their inability to ride motorcycles doesn't stop them trying. As long as any retard with an eftpos card can buy a superbike and a set of Alpinestar leathers for a few thousand dollars they will continue to make dicks of themselves.
I wonder how much of the problem they are though, and how many people who crash needlessly are simply learners finding out the hard way that the back brake is a really bad way to slow down or not to look at what scares them?
Don't blame me, I voted Green.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks