In order of right of way, On Foot, On Bike, On Horseback, In Car.

It makes sense, the consequences to me as a cyclist to a car hitting me are far more severe than to the driver so the onus should be on the driver as the operator of the two tonne metal box.

And that applies only if you are not poor?

Also that seems wrong ( see United states vs other countries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

No one is disputing that well known fact.

I am asking why this applied to "because USA". Do other countries not let rich people choose better lawyers?

In which country does this not apply? What makes this apply only to US?

> Of course that is to be expected in USA, since drivers are constantly so protected, unless they are poor.

I am referring to this @jessaustin. How is rich getting lenient sentences across the board relevant here? What does that have to do with driving.

In USA, while crime in general is punished harshly, killing people with a car is a good way not to do any prison time and pay minimal fines. It's an issue of fairness, especially when poor people routinely see e.g. "taillight out" citations they can't afford to pay turn into years-long struggles with the criminal persecution system. If this topic interests you, look into the various reports about Ferguson MO.

Your questions in this thread, while aggressive, never hit upon exactly what troubled you about my initial short parenthetical comment that I only wrote to qualify the overall short post. Was it "USA", "drivers", "poor", "protected", or "negligence"? Was there any one word you would have removed?