What then still follows in the explanatory statement, to allocate this outrageous accusation, is dismissed in the law as “extraneous considerations”, as Omissions that, but nothing at all have nothing to do with the case to be negotiated. Here now a little Potpourri of this judicial attempts to make responsible motorcyclists for everything that happens to them: “The economic damage caused by motorcycle accidents amounted in 1997 to 2.7 billion mark.” Even if’s would have been ten billion, this argument will never pull. “Not because some of the economic damage”, which is created when playing football or skiing, is significantly higher. But because economic”interests in transport law have no decisive role to play. That judge still sometimes based their judgments on the well-being of the economy, although nothing is new, changes not because a clear however that they independently need to speak right thereof. “A further charge, the District Court makes the motorcyclists: they drive the motorcycle exclusively for fun”. Hurtig further on the way to the fun-free society, where all its purpose “must meet, is expected: the proportion of fully zweckfreier trips was estimated at 90 percent.” A number that should also apply to car trips in recreational areas.

“Yet: A group of people, artistic do to blame is not just stupid, with all due respect, it is simply unconstitutional, contrary to this argument” but the right to free development of the personality. And also the right to free movement. With which means of transport of citizens now must perceive this, it is not from can now be truly in – the basic law. Who lost in the great as the Frankfurt judge loses sight of the small, the actual accident and the statements of the witnesses to sometimes. Which are obviously contradictory. So witness specifies E., the accident was avoidable because he, also, discovered and safe have slowed down and 15 metres behind the fallen GSX 1300-pilots, the cyclist in time before crossing the road on a motorcycle. The cyclists in turn thinks, the motorcyclist should have not so brutally done to iron, because he had already arrived at this time on the other side of the road. “Which is why the perception on the part of the injured biker – surprisingly and without having to stop” the cycling road crosses – surely a certain plausibility comes to have. In an appeal hearing, this sentence should be collected lightly.