The point everyone tries telling you is, by being vigilant and trying to spot early signs of other drivers fucking up, you can make allowances in your current path to be in a better position to avoid an accident if the other person actually ends up fucking up.
If all of your accidents happened because you had no time to brake.... Then I'd counter to say you weren't being vigilant enough and missed the signs. Yes, you may have been in the right, their insurance paid you out and the cops ticketed the other person..... But you still ended up eating asphalt.
They happen a lot quicker if you go in unprepared though. Anyone will try and avoid an accident once it is imminent; but defensive riding is about not being in that position to begin with. If you have accidents that happen too quick to even brake you are clearly not riding in a defensive fashion.
Learn to read, plebby; I claimed nothing of the sort.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
You also said you were on your bike, while the bridge head on was in your car wasn't it? or are there a couple that category too? In any case, I'm referring to one you mentioned a while back, open up you accident files, subcategory 'motorcycle vs car', subcategory 'my fault'; though I suspect it may have been misfiled under 'their fault' or 'act of god'...
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Or we understand that point and counter with it being our responsibility to do our utmost to avoid said situation.
We acknowledge that we personally will not be able to avoid every single situation but believe all situations are avoidable.
It is only a question then of:
Does the rider / driver in the given situation have the necessary tools for the job?
Is the driver / rider in that situation willing to do everything in their power to avoid a situation in the first place?
What is the balance on that vs never going riding?
People have been run over by locomotives while sleeping in their beds. So far I have avoided this, for those that have been run over this was "unavoidable" so which is true is it unavoidable or avoidable?
Clearly those who sleep in homes near railway tracks have done more to avoid this fate than a homeless person sleeping on the tracks in a rarely used tunnel.
Someone who lives further from the railway has done even more to mitigate the risk.
Each has chosen an exposure level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks