nailingjello

Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?

Thanks for confirming my assumptions above. I don't agree.

It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

Wait until you find out What's playing second base.