With the new highway code, motorcyclists have been added to the "vulnerable road users", together with pedestrians and cyclists. A step that deserves further investigation into the reasons behind this legislative choice, and especially the consequences for road circulation and accident dynamics.

Logic would suggest that a group defined as "vulnerable" deserves greater protection compared to other road users, not just in theory but especially in practice.

If motorcyclists, like cyclists, have been included in the "weak" category, it is because clearly the two-wheel balance, as well as the lack of a protective shell, places them in a much more precarious state worthy of attention compared to other road users.

In simple terms, for a cyclist or motorcyclist, it is much easier to fall even with a slight contact or sudden maneuver by a driver, and thus suffer injuries or damage, compared to those traveling on four wheels and protected by their vehicle's cabin.

The second consequence is that stopping or avoiding a sudden obstacle is much more complicated compared to a driver who, being on four wheels, simply needs to press the brake pedal.

Moreover, those traveling on two wheels must pay much more attention to all surrounding dangers (uneven roads, objects, wind, various obstacles). All factors that should always be considered when a cyclist, motorcyclist, or pedestrian becomes a victim of a road accident.

This clarification is not trivial, but stems from the fact that in reports drafted by Law Enforcement intervening in accidents, dynamics are often described and sanctions imposed without any consideration of the users' unequal conditions, resulting in significant injustices.

We have encountered cases where we had to challenge reports that sanctioned a cyclist who, despite riding regularly on a bike lane, with a traffic light green for bicycles, was hit by a driver who suddenly swerved, and according to the municipal police officer, "had not avoided the obstacle in time" (art 141 highway code).

In another case, the cyclist was fined for allegedly weaving through the street! In reality, the driver who hit him stated in the report that the cyclist was traveling regularly on his right, and during the overtaking maneuver, thinking he could pass, struck the cyclist, seeing the poor cyclist tumble roadside through the side window!

According to the municipal police officers, the cyclist was "obstructing traffic"!

In both cases, we filed an appeal, challenging the fines, including a complaint of falsity, restoring the correct application of the law, and both cyclists were subsequently compensated.

This is a phenomenon we are observing with increasing concern, not so much for the fines we invariably challenge, but for the poor understanding of regulations concerning vulnerable road users, or worse, for the manifest prejudice against cyclists, risking that the damage occurs not just at the moment of the accident but also in managing the subsequent insurance claim.

A negative report with an attached fine not only creates further damage to cyclists but also provides insurance companies with a pretext to deny compensation.

A clarification: what officers report in their reports is fortunately only valid for what they directly observe, while the reconstructed dynamics and potential sanctions can be challenged, and for this reason, it is crucial to immediately collect evidence and elements that can demonstrate our reasoning.

Meanwhile, it would be useful to update law enforcement officers and help them assimilate the concept of "vulnerable road user", not just abstractly but also in the reasons and practical implications of protection for two-wheelers that the law intended to establish.

Obviously, the common goal is certainly not to discredit law enforcement, who perform hard work on the roads every day, but to sensitize law enforcement operators to the issue, providing them with a more comprehensive view, perhaps from the saddle of a bicycle.