Well lighting doesn't move at the speed of light. But this just not worth the effort. My only point is, the biggest majority of accidents can be avoided with a little more observation. Take it for what you will.
'Not worth the effort', but again here you are bobby me old son, over a week later, shovel in hand, digging things up.
Firstly, an apology. Sorry, lightning (depending on atmospheric pressure and which part of the strike) doesn't move at
exactly the speed of light.
However, at roughly 100,000m/s, it's still
slightly out of human reaction times. Even if the rider was staring up at the sky, ever vigilant to that pesky lightning strike crosshair looming over him, at those speeds it doesn't matter that it isn't moving at the speed of light.
Because by the time the light from the bolt starting to move downwards had hit his eyes and that information has been transmitted from his retina to his brain that the strike was coming and evasive action is required, he's already been hit.
So regardless, it's something you can't foresee, nor is its strike location something you can predict.
Your post hasn't helped your case. It just means we have to do the numbers thing. And my point and scenario still stand bobby boy.
And you didn't say biggest majority. If you had, I'd have likely agreed with you. But you didn't. There was no majority, no leeway.
You said
all.
I've always been taught there's no such thing as an accident.
Sufficient due diligence would have prevented it
So my point is still this. In a perfectly logical and not at all impossible scenario of a dispatch rider crashing into and injuring a pedestrian after being struck by lighting, and in your world of absolutely zero unmitigatable accidents, who is at fault? Who wasn't paying due care and attention?
Who fucked up when some poor bastard gets struck by lightning and crashes his bike into some poor old lady? What due diligence could the rider have shown in this situation that would've negated this accident? Or would you like him to ride down the road weaving around like he's trying to avoid gunfire every time the sky is a bit dark and rumbley? Or must he have stayed indoors cos the weatherman says it's gonna be a stormy night?
I need to know, because lessons need to be learned. Laws changed, practices adjusted, mindsets altered. And of course, where there is a blame, there is a claim. And that old lady is looking for a claim bobby. Cos that bike really hurt when it hit her and
someone is to blame.
So does she sue the rider, for not avoiding a bolt of lightning moving faster than his brain can process stimuli? Does the rider sue her, for getting in his way as he's careering out of control after being banged with a few hundred thousand volts? Do we sue God for acting maliciously and aiming the strike at the rider? Do we make a law stating that all riders need to either ride around staring at the sky whilst making themselves difficult to hit with evasive actions (because apparently that helps to avoid lightning strikes), or one banning all motorcycle riding in inclement weather?
Or is it an
accident and we (you) accept that sometimes
shit just happens and there's no amount of due diligence or vigilance that will change that.
The defence rests your honour.