... and Ive just bought a bike 
this
We're specifically talking about full auto fire.
If I want to target a person on (or in) vehicle the rules are clear enough.
in the full auto case, they say that damage is resisted equaly which in my book means same damage value (ie after good cover, inisde vehicle defence modifiers)
in other words, you need to hit vehicle to hit all the passengers inside.
as of now and until further notice. if a passenger is inside the vehicle (ie. car, tank, coocon inside a drone) the vehicle armor stacks with passenger armor, for motorcycle and similar, vehicle armor offer no protection.
this is what I said couple of weeks ago, after lengthy discussion relating to what consists of being inside vehicle and on vehicle.
that's point one
point two is that the rules are not clear, why would I apply vehicle armor from second last sentence if the first sentce say that if you attack passenger the vehicle is unaffected. the same set of rules fueled discussion not that much time ago.
you show me pictures of motors, that I could call tanks on their own, with the main difference being they have two wheels or three not four like the tanks proper. and yet there is a difference between being inside the vehicle and on it. if you sit on your doberman drone or just jump on it and catch something to not fall to the the ground - should I consider your behind drone armor or not? because technically you're driving it motor-style, heck you might even be jumped-in inside the VR and strapped on the drone.
point three is that I don't consider it an abuse of the rules stating that driver of a bike decide to dodge the bullets by maneuvering the vehicle instead of dodging in person, provided he doesn't do both. If you go melee you can use dodge skill or your melee/unarmed/weapon skill to reduce net hits of an attack. so there is an example of similar behaviour within the rules. it's not against the rules, it's rather their applicance in different way. If you have a mean to steer the vehicle, why should you dance on the motor instead of using it's greater speed to dodge bullets. BUT it is my interpretation of RAW.
point four is that I might be wrong in this ruling. Why did you agree (or at least voiced no objection) to my interpreatation of combat rules that allowed consecutive attacks by number of gangers going out of the smoke area? they should act on their respective initiatives, roll it and act upon it. it's clearly against RAW. point four is that since the rules are so clear, we should play by them ...let's roll back the situation, there are five gangers on the bikes, they won't use shock lances, or smoke grenades, by RAW they don't stand a chance against any three punks on the street so because they wouldn't make it past last corner being that stupid. they won't do anything surprising. just drive and and pass you by.... if you decide to attack them, you roll your dices, roll mine as well let me know how this thing ended,
lastly, it's becoming increasingly difficult to pose a challenge without increasing numbers of opponent to dozens or increasing their 'ware level to the point of hundred thousands nuyen per street level ganger with mage in every squad. I might have reached the boundaries of my GM skills and to keep things interesting (despite my interpretation of what is within RAW) I might have gone cheap with breaking the rules (by your interpretation of the same)... it's also becoming increasingly time consuming .. I know I was the one to delay for the last few days (went to my home city, visit parents, had my baby girl sick (nothing serious, but she is my one and only and I am 500 km away from our doctor)), but when I am back to the IC and I am wondering whether -2 or -3 modifer for called shot against wheel of the bike moving at 60 kph will or will not launch a discussion on raw, I just save it for the next day...
