Are bikers really discriminated against?

Message

Shiv · #1 Unread post by **Shiv** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:35 pm

It seems that in every case where a cager hits a motorcyclist and maims them/kills them/or just merely hits them, they get off lighter than if they had hit another cager.

Or that's the impression I've been getting from reading various articles and what not.

I can't imagine our law system being so...unjust (that was a half-serious comment).

And if they are discriminated against, why? Because bikers are a chosen way to drive and thus we have to be held liable for other's accidents because had we not been on the bike in the first place we would've never been hurt, or not as badly?

Only reason I can think of.

Mustang · #2 Unread post by **Mustang** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:18 am

I think you're dealing with the perception of a bigger legal problem.

Accidents involving motorcycles tend to make the news quicker than other types because there's usually (and unfortunately) a casualty involved. Its the old news saying, if it bleeds it leads.

The lax sentencing for traffic offenses is an overall problem across the country. It was just two months ago they finally arrested an unlicensed driver here in south florida after he caused two motorcyclists to crash with pretty dire consequences. Prior to this accident he'd been stopped or charged with four other traffic accidents (involving other cars) two of which resulted in minor injuries and a lot of damage. Yet every time he was allowed to walk away from the accident promising to show up in court, which he never did.

To answer the point of your post...
Maybe its through rose colored glasses but I don't think bikers are treated any worse by society...

I do think most people don't know how to react to bikers though

2wheel · #3 Unread post by **2wheel** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:44 am

Sometimes politicians get off easier:

http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/2006/janklow.asp

Shiv · #4 Unread post by **Shiv** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:25 am

Politicians always get off easier so there's no surprise there.

Hell, Stewart got to choose her own prison to go to and then she served, what? 3 months? 6? Something like that. And she's not even a politician!

Mustang · #5 Unread post by **Mustang** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:28 am

2wheel wrote:Sometimes politicians get off easier:

http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/2006/janklow.asp

Disgusting on so many levels.............

Loonette · #6 Unread post by **Loonette** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:34 am

Who cares about Martha Stewart. She didn't kill anyone. They should have stripped her of all her financial holding though.

As far as Janklow - there's not a bigger hunk of cud on the face of the Earth. I'm surprised he hasn't yet been met with an "unfortunate accident". Seems there'd be a lot of folks out there willing to take care of his unfinished business.

If he had been a diplomat from another country, he wouldn't have even had to go to jail at all - or even face a courtroom. It just sucks.

Cheers,
Loonette

Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:54 am

am i to understand that equal justice for all is a lie???

Venarius · #8 Unread post by **Venarius** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:36 am

No, I see it too. Motorists do something stupid, get a motorcyclist killed, and then only get a traffic violation fine. Its rediculous. The only thing I can think is that they can only give traffic violations unless they can prove it was intentional or something. Or maybe they just think that its the motorcyclists fault for being unprotected...after all, if they were in a car when the jackass turned in front of them, They probably would have lived.

Either way, I think its ludicrous. If you are responsible (through stupidity or not) for killing someone through your direct actions...you should be severely punished, not a slap on the wrist and given a "Lane violation" ticket