[giantg2]

I do agree that empathy plays a big part.

However, just like with drivers, often times the cyclists have negligent (or reckless) factors against them as well, which is often used to downplay the contribution of any reckless or negligent actions of the driver. For example, about 20% of cyclist-vehicle fatalities involve cyclist DUI. About 60% of cyclist fatalities are not wearing a helmet despite recommendations and applicaible laws. That's why most cycling-vehicle deaths are handled in civil cases - a lower burden of proof and you can still get a payout even if the cyclist had some level of contributory negligence depending on the state.

[konschubert]

I am sure you don't mean it this way, but this suggests a false equivalency.

If a cyclist does not wear a helmet and gets killed by a driver running a red light, it is still 100% the driver's fault.

A kill is still a kill even if the victim didn't wear a bulletproof vest.

[jstarfish]

If we're talking US law, you are absolutely incorrect and making a false equivalence yourself. A murder victim is not a MVC victim.

Only the collision is 100% the driver's fault (in most states).

The death is up for debate. If you die because you weren't wearing a seatbelt/helmet, you were negligent, so fault is shared.

There is no law mandating everyone wear bulletproof vests. All states have seatbelt laws, and most have helmet laws.

[tonyedgecombe]

>and most have helmet laws

For cyclists?

[giantg2]

Most do have some cyclist helmet law. However, only a few have laws that apply to adults. Most are only applied to children of various ages.

[giantg2]

You may want to look into what I said about contributory negligence instead of strawmanning in this comment thread. It seems this is a pattern with you as you strawmanned in another thread here too.