Re: CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Brent Hugh) writes:

> Anybody besides me think it would be worthwhile to send a few letters
> to Cafferty and to CNN suggesting that this would be a wise way for
> them to deal with this situation?

I suppose it wouldn't hurt, and it would be a way to express
one's concerns. But if they do something like that, I'd
really rather they truly mean it. It would be really nice if
they come up with the idea themselves, and then follow up on it.
It would also be nice if Cafferty did his part in this /as well
as/, rather than part of, his community service.

But somehow I don't see it happening.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Rivermist]

what a lame punishment

"Brent Hugh" > wrote in message
om...
> Jack Cafferty is a CNN morning news anchor. Apparently in May he made
> an abrupt turn and hit a cyclist. The cyclist was thrown to the
> ground but the bicycle was hooked to Cafferty's car and he dragged it
> through at least two traffic lights, with people following him and
> hollering at him to stop.
>
> Cafferty claimed that he saw the bicyclist fall over but didn't
> realize that he wsa the cause of the crash.
>
> According to a story by a Newsday reporter:
>
> "Cafferty was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, reckless
> driving, assault and harassment. He was allowed to plead guilty to a
> traffic violation: Operating a motor vehicle knowing or having cause
> to know property damage had been caused. He was sentenced to 70 hours
> of community service, with six months to complete it, and a $250 fine.
> He also made restitution."
> (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/06cafferty.html)
>
> Here's my point: We have a well-known celebrity-type person who claims
> that he didn't mean to do it, claims that he didn't realize he did it,
> and claims that he's remorseful as all get out.
>
> If all that is really true, then he needs to become the posterboy for
> a "Share the Road with Bicycles" campaign--talk about it, make ads,
> financially support it, do stories about it on CNN, etc etc etc.
>
> Anybody besides me think it would be worthwhile to send a few letters
> to Cafferty and to CNN suggesting that this would be a wise way for
> them to deal with this situation?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Doug Purdy]

"Tom Keats" wrote
> if they do something like that, I'd
> really rather they truly mean it. It would be really nice if
> they come up with the idea themselves, and then follow up on it.
> It would also be nice if Cafferty did his part in this /as well
> as/, rather than part of, his community service.

I'd find "instead of " ok. I'd prefer his community service to be reviewed
by a panel of cyclists, say officers of bike clubs or LAB and they make
recommendations to the court that his punishment be reduced or increased.

If he worked really hard to get out of the $250 dollar fine he'd probably
convince himself and others.

Doug
Toronto

[Pete]

"Rivermist" > wrote in message
...
> what a lame punishment
>

Years ago, I got in a motorcycle accident. I was JRA, and the idiot ran a
red light, hit me, and left the scene. Cops caught him a few blocks later.
He had no idea whether I was dead or alive as he drove off.

20 yr old person of non-US descent (gotta be PC), ran a red light, hit and
run, drunk, unregistered weapon in the car, no insurance.

He was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving. Got a $400 fine,
probation, and had to go to drunk school.

Things haven't changed much

Pete

[smokey]

jack cafferty is a joke. his only function at CNN is to read the
latest White House press release after having the make-up person cover
the brown stains on his nose. come to think of it, that describes a
big chunk of the CNN news organization. yes, the punishment is
ridiculous; what else do you expect in this society?
smokey
(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
> Jack Cafferty is a CNN morning news anchor. Apparently in May he made
> an abrupt turn and hit a cyclist. The cyclist was thrown to the
> ground but the bicycle was hooked to Cafferty's car and he dragged it
> through at least two traffic lights, with people following him and
> hollering at him to stop.
>
> Cafferty claimed that he saw the bicyclist fall over but didn't
> realize that he wsa the cause of the crash.
>
> According to a story by a Newsday reporter:
>
> "Cafferty was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, reckless
> driving, assault and harassment. He was allowed to plead guilty to a
> traffic violation: Operating a motor vehicle knowing or having cause
> to know property damage had been caused. He was sentenced to 70 hours
> of community service, with six months to complete it, and a $250 fine.
> He also made restitution."
> (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/06cafferty.html)
>
> Here's my point: We have a well-known celebrity-type person who claims
> that he didn't mean to do it, claims that he didn't realize he did it,
> and claims that he's remorseful as all get out.
>
> If all that is really true, then he needs to become the posterboy for
> a "Share the Road with Bicycles" campaign--talk about it, make ads,
> financially support it, do stories about it on CNN, etc etc etc.
>
> Anybody besides me think it would be worthwhile to send a few letters
> to Cafferty and to CNN suggesting that this would be a wise way for
> them to deal with this situation?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Brent Hugh]

(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...

> If all that is really true, then he needs to become the posterboy for
> a "Share the Road with Bicycles" campaign--talk about it, make ads,
> financially support it, do stories about it on CNN, etc etc etc.
>
> Anybody besides me think it would be worthwhile to send a few letters
> to Cafferty and to CNN suggesting that this would be a wise way for
> them to deal with this situation?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

For what it's worth, here's a letter someone from the St. Louis Bike
Fed wrote CNN. I wrote a similar letter. If even eight or ten others
take the time to write, there's just the chance it will turn on a
small light in the sub-reptillian organs they carry around near the
upper ends of the bodies and call brains.

It seems to me, anyway, it's worth a try . . .

----
Bicyclists across the country have been watching with interest the
story of your morning anchor Jack Cafferty and his recent unfortunate
encounter with a cyclist. While I am disturbed by the comments of his
lawyer, as quoted in Newsday, that "this was never anything more than
a traffic violation," if Mr. Cafferty is open to even slightly more
introspection on the matter, he might be able to use his celebrity
status to raise awareness among your audience on the need for
motorists to share the roads with cyclists. Autos making sudden, and
often unsignaled, turns across the paths of cyclists are a fairly
common cause of injury to cyclists. Motorists need to be reminded of
the fact that they are sharing the roads with a variety of users --
pedestrians as well as cyclists -- and that operating a large, heavy
piece of machinery through this environment requires a high degree of
alertness and care. There is a very widespread reluctance among
motorists to see things this way. Since Mr. Cafferty's sentence
includes 70 hours of community service, perhaps he could make
arrangements to use his name recognition to help shape public
awareness on this subject.

Russell A. Willis III
Policy Task Force Chair
St. Louis Regional Bicycle Federation
----

--Brent
bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

[Doctor Phibes]

(Brent Hugh) wrote in message >...
> Jack Cafferty is a CNN morning news anchor. Apparently in May he made
> an abrupt turn and hit a cyclist. The cyclist was thrown to the
> ground but the bicycle was hooked to Cafferty's car and he dragged it
> through at least two traffic lights, with people following him and
> hollering at him to stop.
>
> Cafferty claimed that he saw the bicyclist fall over but didn't
> realize that he wsa the cause of the crash.
>
> According to a story by a Newsday reporter:
>
> "Cafferty was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, reckless
> driving, assault and harassment. He was allowed to plead guilty to a
> traffic violation: Operating a motor vehicle knowing or having cause
> to know property damage had been caused. He was sentenced to 70 hours
> of community service, with six months to complete it, and a $250 fine.
> He also made restitution."
> (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/06cafferty.html)
>
> Here's my point: We have a well-known celebrity-type person who claims
> that he didn't mean to do it, claims that he didn't realize he did it,
> and claims that he's remorseful as all get out.
>
> If all that is really true, then he needs to become the posterboy for
> a "Share the Road with Bicycles" campaign--talk about it, make ads,
> financially support it, do stories about it on CNN, etc etc etc.
>
> Anybody besides me think it would be worthwhile to send a few letters
> to Cafferty and to CNN suggesting that this would be a wise way for
> them to deal with this situation?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
>
> --Brent
> bhugh [at] mwsc.edu

>
The sad fact is society could care less. It's all about cars. I'd say
at least 50% of all ads are for automobiles. Automobilists kill quite
a few people each year due to gross neglegence. The penalty for
vehicular homicide is below manslaughter. It's a slap on the wrist.
It's as if the car did it not the driver. I'd like to take it a step
further. If the government can force tobacco companies to put warning
labels on their ads they can remind automobilists with every ad that
they share the road. That they are extremely dangerous, pollute our
air, cause health problems such as asthma.

Oh but they couldn't do that...why everyone knows oil rules the
world...

I do my part...maybe we need a class action lawsuit against car makers
or insurance companies that dont screen anything but the wallets of
their insured.

[Paul Southworth]

In article >,
Doctor Phibes > wrote:
>
>>
>The sad fact is society could care less. It's all about cars. I'd say
>at least 50% of all ads are for automobiles. Automobilists kill quite
>a few people each year due to gross neglegence. The penalty for
>vehicular homicide is below manslaughter. It's a slap on the wrist.
>It's as if the car did it not the driver.

....like an agressive dog. Would be nice if all cars
that ever bit anyone were immediately destroyed.

--Paul

[Doctor Phibes]

(Paul Southworth) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Doctor Phibes > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >The sad fact is society could care less. It's all about cars. I'd say
> >at least 50% of all ads are for automobiles. Automobilists kill quite
> >a few people each year due to gross neglegence. The penalty for
> >vehicular homicide is below manslaughter. It's a slap on the wrist.
> >It's as if the car did it not the driver.
>
> ...like an agressive dog. Would be nice if all cars
> that ever bit anyone were immediately destroyed.
>
> --Paul

lol that'll be the day, said john wayne
The laws have to be challenged is the real solution. In my state PIP
will only cover $8000, after that you're going up against the
insurance company who will try to make it seem like you "cut him off".
Or maybe they'll suggest you ran the car down from infront lol I think
there might be a way to force insurance companies to do serious
background checks on prospective clients. Do felons aquire guns very
easily? lol I'm willing to bet more people are killed by cars than
guns. i'm all for age restrictions on automobilists. Anyone under 21
should not be driving. I am also in favor of having foreignors who
fresh off the boat transfer their licence. That's got to stop. If they
can't speak or write english they shouldn't be driving. I don't care
if they're on vacation. Weed out the roads and they have to be safer.

I'm all for destroying bad bad cars...I suggest further they broadcast
the executions on court tv ;-)

[Hunrobe]

(Doctor Phibes)

wrote in part:

>If they
>can't speak or write english they shouldn't be driving.

I hope you realize that if the test necessary to weed out the illiterate were
graded on spelling, punctuation, and grammar you'd be refused a driver's
license.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Arpit]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:50:26 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Rivermist" > wrote in message
...
>> what a lame punishment
>>
>
>Years ago, I got in a motorcycle accident. I was JRA, and the idiot ran a
>red light, hit me, and left the scene. Cops caught him a few blocks later.
>He had no idea whether I was dead or alive as he drove off.
>

Did they catch him themselves, or did you have to ring them?
>20 yr old person of non-US descent (gotta be PC), ran a red light, hit and
>run, drunk, unregistered weapon in the car, no insurance.
>
>He was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving. Got a $400 fine,
>probation, and had to go to drunk school.
>
>Things haven't changed much
>
>Pete
>

[Doctor Phibes]

(Tom Keats) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Hunrobe) writes:
> (Doctor Phibes)
> >
> > wrote in part:
> >
> >>If they
> >>can't speak or write english they shouldn't be driving.
> >
> > I hope you realize that if the test necessary to weed out the illiterate were
> > graded on spelling, punctuation, and grammar you'd be refused a driver's
> > license.
>
> I kinda "get" that Doctor Phibes don't drive (me iether).
> If so, it don't matter anywayz ;-)
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

thanks tom! It goes beyond dotting your i's and crossing your t's. You
can't understand another culture by learning their language out of
book that fits in your back pocket. There is a common sense factor
that's lacking with certain people who come to America. I think US
licences are granted too easily. It's worse when a person is allowed
to transfer their foreign licence here when more than likely their
foreign licence was awarded much easier. This is just what I've seen
in my own experiences. People from other cultures, even other cities
or states think differently. My main point is the actual driving test
needs to be more difficult. It has to be more comprehensive and should
require a driver be retested every 4 years at least. Not just
foreignors, everyone who wishes to drive.

[Doctor Phibes]

Joshua Putnam > wrote in message news:<MPG.199f764f81a8cd3e9896f4@localhost>...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > I think
> > there might be a way to force insurance companies to do serious
> > background checks on prospective clients.
>
> It's already standard for insurance companies to do background checks on
> prospective clients -- a check for past convictions with the DMV, and a
> check for involvement in past claims with the Comprehensive Loss
> Underwriting Exchange, which tracks insurance claims from most insurers.
>
> But it's not the job of an insurance company to take away the license of
> a bad driver. That's the DMV's job.
>
> The insurance company can decline to insure you, but that won't stop you
> from driving -- a good fraction of the drivers on the road are uninsured
> already, one more won't be noticed before he hurts someone. Or they can
> charge you a lot more for your insurance, but that won't stop you from
> driving badly, either, it's just a recognition that your driving costs
> other people more money.
>
> If you want someone's background to stop them from driving, you need to
> make that the law, not an insurance regulation.
>>
>
Insurance companies are a scam. They should be regulated more to
perform more than those kind of checks. I seriously they actually look
at the car they're insuring! lol I mean these idiots here have their
cars set up illegally ie; heavy tinted windows, shocks lowered,
partly removed so the car's frame hovers a few inches above the
street. The police will not enforce these obvious violations that
endanger the safety of others on the road.

I don't own a car myself but I believe a person in my state has to
cover some basic insurance. I could be wrong about that but I doubt
it. You dont belong on the road if you're operating such a dangerous
device without insurance. The insurance companies should not be
insuring those who could be a danger to others. The actual car should
be inspected, the person should have to undergo a drug test. Why
random drug testing would be good.
>>
>
>
> > I am also in favor of having foreignors who
> > fresh off the boat transfer their licence. That's got to stop. If they
> > can't speak or write english they shouldn't be driving.
>
> Preposterous. What does speaking or writing English have to do with
> driving skills? It's entirely possible to get a U.S. license without
> reading or speaking English. Turn signals and traffic signals don't
> depend on language skills, they're color-coded and geomtrically
> standardized -- a red octogon means stop whether it says "STOP" or
> "ARRET" or doesn't have words on it at all.

>>
>
Ummm if you can't read english how do you understand street signs,
exit signs, highway signs? You're driving erraticly. Those people make
sudden and unpredictable manuevers. I'm not just picking on foreignors
it's all drivers as I stated above. There needs to be more testing,
more often. Maybe if it becomes more difficult to get a license more
people will commute by bike making are air a little cleaner and other
country a little less fat. Funny thing as a cyclist I'm color blind to
those so called universal signs. All signs are red, go when safe.

[Joshua Putnam]

In article >,
says...
> Joshua Putnam > wrote in message news:<MPG.199f764f81a8cd3e9896f4@localhost>...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> > > I think
> > > there might be a way to force insurance companies to do serious
> > > background checks on prospective clients.
> >
> > It's already standard for insurance companies to do background checks on
> > prospective clients -- a check for past convictions with the DMV, and a
> > check for involvement in past claims with the Comprehensive Loss
> > Underwriting Exchange, which tracks insurance claims from most insurers.
> >
> > But it's not the job of an insurance company to take away the license of
> > a bad driver. That's the DMV's job.

> Insurance companies are a scam. They should be regulated more to
> perform more than those kind of checks. I seriously they actually look
> at the car they're insuring! lol I mean these idiots here have their
> cars set up illegally ie; heavy tinted windows, shocks lowered,
> partly removed so the car's frame hovers a few inches above the
> street. The police will not enforce these obvious violations that
> endanger the safety of others on the road.

Well then, there's your problem -- the police won't enforce the laws.

If a car is licensed for street use, that means the Department of
Licensing has approved it for use on the streets. Unless you want to do
away with the police and the Department of Licensing, why not have them
do their jobs themselves, rather than asking insurance companies to
duplicate work the government is supposedly being paid to do already?

> I don't own a car myself but I believe a person in my state has to
> cover some basic insurance. I could be wrong about that but I doubt
> it. You dont belong on the road if you're operating such a dangerous
> device without insurance. The insurance companies should not be
> insuring those who could be a danger to others. The actual car should
> be inspected, the person should have to undergo a drug test. Why
> random drug testing would be good.

But it's not insurance companies out there driving official cars with
lights and sirens and carrying guns to get dangerous drivers off the
roads. If someone is doing something illegal, you call the police, not
their insurance agent.

Yes, insurance is mandatory in most states. And believe me, if you could
get half the uninsured motorists in my town to come on in and get
insurance, I'd be all in favor of it. But I can't force them to buy
insurance, and neither can any other insurance company. That's up to
(again) the police and the DMV.

> > > I am also in favor of having foreignors who
> > > fresh off the boat transfer their licence. That's got to stop. If they
> > > can't speak or write english they shouldn't be driving.
> >
> > Preposterous. What does speaking or writing English have to do with
> > driving skills? It's entirely possible to get a U.S. license without
> > reading or speaking English. Turn signals and traffic signals don't
> > depend on language skills, they're color-coded and geomtrically
> > standardized -- a red octogon means stop whether it says "STOP" or
> > "ARRET" or doesn't have words on it at all.

> Ummm if you can't read english how do you understand street signs,
> exit signs, highway signs?

There's a huge difference between reading and speaking English and simply
being able to recognize English place names. I suppose Washington State
should require all drivers to know French, in case they're trying to go
to Des Moines or Mt. Rainier or Salmon la Sac. How many Native American
languages should we require them to know, do you suppose, in case they're
going to Seattle, Puyallup, Issaquah, or Klahowya? Somehow, English-only
drivers manage to read all those signs anyway.

You don't need to know the language to recognize names on street signs,
or to identify highway signs, or to interpret traffic control signs. The
Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices is specifically intended to
make signs intelligible without knowing the language at all.

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

[Pete]

"Arpit" > wrote

> >Years ago, I got in a motorcycle accident. I was JRA, and the idiot ran a
> >red light, hit me, and left the scene. Cops caught him a few blocks
later.
> >He had no idea whether I was dead or alive as he drove off.
> >
>
> Did they catch him themselves, or did you have to ring them?

A witness (another car at the stop light) took off after him, and chased him
down. The cops were a few blocks down the street.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Joshua Putnam > wrote:

> The insurance company can decline to insure you, but that won't stop you
> from driving -- a good fraction of the drivers on the road are uninsured
> already, one more won't be noticed before he hurts someone. Or they can
> charge you a lot more for your insurance, but that won't stop you from
> driving badly, either, it's just a recognition that your driving costs
> other people more money.

> If you want someone's background to stop them from driving, you need to
> make that the law, not an insurance regulation.

The lack of insurance, or even a drivers license won't keep bad drivers
off the road. As long as the cops won't catch them, and they usually
won't, there is no problem. In Michigan, a license suspension/revokation
means practically nothing. The legislature is toying around with the
idea of penalizing drivers with a yearly fee based upon the number of
points on their record. The fee is ridiculously low, much lower than
one month's SUV payment. All it guarantee's is the rich can drive like
maniacs with impugnity while the poor rotten drivers will drive without
insurance and a license. Only seizure of the vehicles owned by those with
suspended and revoked licenses will make a real difference. Whenever
that idea is mentioned everyone gets upset.

The penalties aren't just weak for hitting a cyclist. You can kill SUV
drivers too and get off on probation.

http://tinyurl.com/jnkd
--
Eric

[Doctor Phibes]

>
> Well then, there's your problem -- the police won't enforce the laws.
>
> If a car is licensed for street use, that means the Department of
> Licensing has approved it for use on the streets. Unless you want to do
> away with the police and the Department of Licensing, why not have them
> do their jobs themselves, rather than asking insurance companies to
> duplicate work the government is supposedly being paid to do already?
>
> > I don't own a car myself but I believe a person in my state has to
> > cover some basic insurance. I could be wrong about that but I doubt
> > it. You dont belong on the road if you're operating such a dangerous
> > device without insurance. The insurance companies should not be
> > insuring those who could be a danger to others. The actual car should
> > be inspected, the person should have to undergo a drug test. Why
> > random drug testing would be good.
>
> But it's not insurance companies out there driving official cars with
> lights and sirens and carrying guns to get dangerous drivers off the
> roads. If someone is doing something illegal, you call the police, not
> their insurance agent.
>
> Yes, insurance is mandatory in most states. And believe me, if you could
> get half the uninsured motorists in my town to come on in and get
> insurance, I'd be all in favor of it. But I can't force them to buy
> insurance, and neither can any other insurance company. That's up to
> (again) the police and the DMV.
>
Believe me the police here are only interested in puting in 20 years
as easily as possible unless one of them is shot. Oh then they rally
around their "brother". Last cop who was shot gave a description of
the shooter, when that man had an alibi, the cop admitted he shot
himself! 200 cops, 200! where on the hunt, 4 helicopters. You could be
raped and bleeding to death in this city and they'd stop off on dunkin
donuts on the way.
>
>> There's a huge difference between reading and speaking English and
simply
> being able to recognize English place names. I suppose Washington State
> should require all drivers to know French, in case they're trying to go
> to Des Moines or Mt. Rainier or Salmon la Sac. How many Native American
> languages should we require them to know, do you suppose, in case they're
> going to Seattle, Puyallup, Issaquah, or Klahowya? Somehow, English-only
> drivers manage to read all those signs anyway.
>
> You don't need to know the language to recognize names on street signs,
> or to identify highway signs, or to interpret traffic control signs. The
> Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices is specifically intended to
> make signs intelligible without knowing the language at all.
>
I was just responding to that poster. What I meant was the cultural
differences are not just about language, language is part of the way
people think. It's also part of how people learn the rules of another
society and i dont think the people who immigrate from cape verde or
carribean take the time to know the rules of the roads, where they
apply to a dangerous device, their car. Just an observation.

[Mark Hickey]

(Doctor Phibes) wrote:

>Believe me the police here are only interested in puting in 20 years
>as easily as possible

Which is different from most other jobs... how?

> unless one of them is shot. Oh then they rally
>around their "brother". Last cop who was shot gave a description of
>the shooter, when that man had an alibi, the cop admitted he shot
>himself! 200 cops, 200! where on the hunt, 4 helicopters.

Just an observation.

If you want to see what anarchy looks like, let the impression be
formed that you can shoot a cop and get away with it. Sounds like
that particular cop was a dork - but I agree that it should be an
all-out manhunt IF there is enough reasonable evidence to go on. The
fact one cop lied doesn't change that (much).

> You could be
>raped and bleeding to death in this city and they'd stop off on dunkin
>donuts on the way.

Not the ones I've known. They may not hyperventilate over everything
that every citizen thinks is a crisis - but the cops I've known are
more civic-minded than most of us "citizens". FWIW, I wouldn't want
the job. More power to those that take it (for the right reasons).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Rick Onanian]

On 10 Aug 2003 10:16:11 -0700, Doctor Phibes >
wrote:
> Insurance companies are a scam. They should be regulated more to
> perform more than those kind of checks. I seriously they actually look
> at the car they're insuring! lol I mean these idiots here have their

Did you mean "I seriously _doubt_ they actually look..."?

> cars set up illegally ie; heavy tinted windows, shocks lowered,
> partly removed so the car's frame hovers a few inches above the
> street. The police will not enforce these obvious violations that
> endanger the safety of others on the road.

The aformentioned modifications, while they tend to look
rather silly and have a detrimental effect on the vehicle's
performance and comfort, and while they may be illegal,
rarely pose any more safety hazard than many legal unsafeties.

> I don't own a car myself but I believe a person in my state has to
> cover some basic insurance. I could be wrong about that but I doubt
> it. You dont belong on the road if you're operating such a dangerous
> device without insurance. The insurance companies should not be
> insuring those who could be a danger to others. The actual car should
> be inspected

In states where insurance is required, insurance companies
are required to sell insurance to everybody. There's in-depth
and rather strict laws, and procedures / organizations set up
to deal with the issue of insurance risks, often called the
"risk pool".

In Rhode Island, where I live, insurance is required to
register your vehicle. People buy insurance, get the car
registered, and then stop paying the insurance. Some do keep
the insurance, and pay through the nose for it.

The vehicles are inspected by the state. This is true in
every state in the US, I'm pretty sure. The state
inspections, despite appearing to do little, actually do
help. However, if somebody has an illegal modification,
they will undo it before the inspection, and redo it after.

> , the person should have to undergo a drug test. Why
> random drug testing would be good.

No, enforcement of safe driving would be good. Random
drug testing would be bad for a whole lot of reasons,
but we don't need that discussion here.

> Ummm if you can't read english how do you understand street signs,
> exit signs, highway signs? You're driving erraticly. Those people make

Agreed.

> it's all drivers as I stated above. There needs to be more testing,
> more often. Maybe if it becomes more difficult to get a license more

Agreed, especially noting the rash of elderly drivers
killing people lately. Every couple days, I hear about
another one, drove into a festival, drove the wrong way
down the freeway, whatever. Many elderly are fine drivers,
if a little slow, but many others are dangerous and
untested.

> people will commute by bike making are air a little cleaner and other
> country a little less fat. Funny thing as a cyclist I'm color blind to
> those so called universal signs. All signs are red, go when safe.

People will not commute by bike...especially the fat ones.

I find it disconcerting that people rarely consider color
blind people. Oh well...they make do with our existing
systems, I guess.

--
Rick Onanian

[Hunrobe]

(Doctor Phibes)

wrote in part:

>Believe me the police here are only interested in puting in 20 years
>as easily as possible unless one of them is shot. Oh then they rally
>around their "brother". Last cop who was shot gave a description of
>the shooter, when that man had an alibi, the cop admitted he shot
>himself! 200 cops, 200! where on the hunt, 4 helicopters. You could be
>raped and bleeding to death in this city and they'd stop off on dunkin
>donuts on the way.

What city are you talking about?