[Xzylvador]

I don't really have a problem with him using the bike instead of his body to dodge, if the bike's more mobile.
Seems like he can choose: keep bike steady and dodge himself, or do a maneuver with the bike and use its speed & agility to dodge. He picked the last.
Whatever the RAW (uncertain and not going to start that thing again), it certainly seems to fit fluff wise.

[Netzgeist]

I see things the same way as Xzyl. Both ways of dodging seem plausible, so it appears to be a matter of choosing one.

But there's one thing I'd think it's better for us to address here, so that we can all go by the same rule when the situation come again.
Usually, when a character is attacked twice in the same character IP (as was this case, John using both his simple actions to shoot the same guy), I roll the first dodge, then soak and apply damage, and then repeat the process to the second one. In doing so, if the character is injured in the first attack, his dodge on the second could suffer a damage penalty. If we roll they all together and then apply damage, then that's not the case.
Again, I can understand the reasoning for ruling it both ways, and it seems to me as a matter of tuning the lethality level of the game rather than any other thing. So I just want to know which way we are going so that we are all on the same page and in the next situation I will know how to properly roll the dice.

[Sichr]

I`m back. I`d like to hit the front whell (not the tire, more the "front axle(im not sure if it is the right word...)") What would be modifier for called shot?

[Sichr]

And IMO RAW:

DAMAGE AND PASSENGERS

Attacks must specifically target either the passengers (in which case,
the vehicle is unaffected) or the vehicle itself (in which case, the passengers are not affected). The exceptions to this rule are ramming, full-automatic bursts and area-effect weapon
attacks like grenades and rockets—these attacks affect both passengers and vehicles. If an attack is made against passengers, make a normal Attack Test, but the passengers are always considered to be under Good Cover (though the Blind Fire modifier may apply to the attacker as the situation dictates.) Passengers attempting to defend an attack inside a vehicle suffer a –2 dice pool modifier to their dodge, since they are somewhat limited in movement. Additionally, the passengers gain protection from the vehicle’s chassis, adding the Armor of the vehicle
to any personal armor the characters are wearing. Called shots may be used to circumvent one armor or the other but not both. In the case of ramming, full-auto and area-effect attacks, both pas-sengers and vehicles resist the damage equally.

Is simple.
No blind fire since IMO he is visible on the bike, it is obvious that he is sitting on the bike seat (not like in the car, where passenger may be hidden)
-2 for gangers dodge if he is trying to dodge
Add vehicle armor to his own (since there was no called shot AFAIK)
Additional -1 dodge for second burst

Called shot to ignore bike armor (HD Scorpion) would mean -4

[Sichr]

BTW for defence pool:
RE+Handling or RE+Handling+Pilot skill if Vehicle is attacked

OR

RE-2+4(full cover) or RE-2+Dodge+4(full cover) if passenger is attacked / tries to dodge... (and possibly +2 for running)

[Sentinemodo]

BTW for defence pool:
RE+Handling or RE+Handling+Pilot skill if Vehicle is attacked

OR

RE-2+4(full cover) or RE-2+Dodge+4(full cover) if passenger is attacked / tries to dodge... (and possibly +2 for running)

marked is what I used Re + handling + pilot (skill + specialization) + running.

as for armor, he is ON the vehicle, not behind it, not inside it. no vehicle armor for him. 

[Sichr]

BTW for defence pool:
RE+Handling or RE+Handling+Pilot skill if Vehicle is attacked

If vehicle is attacked. IIRC Snakebite said "one of the bikers". Clearly the next part applies.

OR

RE-2+4(full cover) or RE-2+Dodge+4(full cover) if passenger is attacked / tries to dodge... (and possibly +2 for running)

marked is what I used Re + handling + pilot (skill + specialization) + running.

as for armor, he is ON the vehicle, not behind it, not inside it. no vehicle armor for him.

You know rules are clear. If you wat to avoid hitting vehicle armor, you use called shot. Abstraction. Sometimes you push as hard as you can for rules that are missions optional, but sometimes you are trying to ignore rules that are Core.
You are IT specialist. Take that paragraph and draw flow chart for it. Why are you trying to impose optional houserule when text is that clear?

[Xzylvador]

Why be so hard on a rulescall the GM and the player in question both agree with (and which imo, makes sense too)?
Rule zero & cinematic game ftw.

[Sichr]

So what are rules for? Inspiration?
EDIT: How would we solve the situation next time? We wil seek this conversation to have a look and then we will have some conversation about how that situation is/is not simillar to this one, and if the whole applies or if it is necessary to find another interpretation of rules?

[Xzylvador]

SR4A is the muse to the artist that is Sentinemodo :p

[Sichr]

I`ll recall this next time my PC does things right, hits the wall with tank, with pre-calculated risk, and then he get almost killed by different interpretation of rules.

[Xzylvador]

Which bears no similarity to this situation -at all-.
Hell, the whole encounter is mostly fluff...

Anyhow, really don't feel like having this discussion again.

[Sichr]

You know, I understand that this area of rules is not that relevant for you in this game, since it isnt related to any social interaction and whatever else silk is capable of. For me, on the other side, this is crucial, since my field of interrest in this game lies almost exclusively in the area of vehicle combat.

... and Ive just bought a bike

[Netzgeist]

Usually I'm not very talkative when rules-wielding is the topic, but this time, I'm a proponent of calling the official rules as they are terrible and completely nonsense. When I read about this specific topic, it seems to me that the responsible for the core rule book had just forgot that the term vehicle means a little bit more than a car or a plane.
I understand how Sichr is argumentative on the "going by the book" way (that couldn't be made more clear than you did on the game where I first introduced Gentleman John as a character), but here the GM in me is being quite annoyed. Hell, I guy receiving armor for standing in a bike make no sense at all (and if we take in account the way Sent just described the dodge maneuver of the guy, it would make even less sense to consider vehicle armor to him). And even though rules are an abstraction, one of the things I like about Shadowrun is that it's not so simplistic as D&D and the like.

When we were playing the War in Heaven, Sent introduced a House rule regarding astral visibility that was not cannon, but fluff-wise made sense. Part of the GM work, besides narrating interesting stories, is to improvise the ways of making these stories possible and more entertaining to all - at least to a part of me, that means, among other things, sharpening some rough edges of the rules, in a way that they can make more sense. As always, I guess that's Sent's call, but in a debate about "official core rules" against "simple yet realistic rules", I am all for what makes sense.

[Sichr]

http://www.gods-inc.de/macavity/IsleOfShadows/vehicles/bikes.html

Find Scorpion on that page
tell me how much it doesnt protect man sitting on it.

This and Honda Viking...Ive seen this pictures long ago in Street samurai Catalog in 2nd Ed. And it makes complete sense to me that this bikes provide armor to those driving them.