[rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 49, Issue 19

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Sun, 10 Dec 2006 @ 13:20 -0500, Phil Stracchino said:

> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > Sat, 09 Dec 2006 @ 17:33 -0500, Phil Stracchino said:
> > 
> >> I can see a considerable amount of sense in it, but it didn't pass.
> > 
> > I don't see any sense in it at all.
> > 
> > Nothing about riding a motorcycle implies better drivers.
> 
> The main point of it was to make sure all car drivers are aware of
> motorcycles and know, from a motorcyclist's perspective, how dangerous
> heavier traffic can be to a motorcyclist.  (Also, possibly, to let them
> get their early stupid mistakes out of the way on a 400lb vehicle
> instead of in a 300lb one.)

There are a lot of things besides motorcycles we could make drivers
aware of, and I can think of quite a few that are more important.

> > Motorcycle drivers are among the rudest and most dangerous drivers on
> > the road, in a car or on a cycle.
> 
> Thank you for that sweeping overgeneralization.  Excuse me while I go
> clean the tar off.

Thank you for not bothering to read.

I said it would vary depending on where you are.

The local accident stats back me up nicely. If you look at car
accidents, *NOT MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS*, those with motorcycle licenses
are in far more accidents, which neatly shoots down any idea that they
are somehow better or more courteous drivers.

Of course, as I said, this will vary depending on where you are.

Around here we have a high percentage of over-powered racing bikes
on the streets, with drivers who don't have the brains to control a
tricycle.

The idea that somehow motorcycle training or drivers will make better
auto drivers is where the gross generalization occured.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["It's a damn poor mind that can only think
of one way to spell a word." -- Andrew Jackson]