On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 4:50:18 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/4/2020 12:11 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:06:00 -0600,
AMuzi wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 3:46:36 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
Just received another four 700c tires from Summit Bicycles
because I ran out. The packing slip ends with:

Quote

"WARNING! Cycling can be dangerous! Bicycle products should
be installed and serviced by a professional mechanic. Never
modify your bicycle or accessories ..."

If I install the new tire myself and pump it to 100psi, might
we hear a muffled boom and see a mushroom cloud? And with all
the mods on my MTB I should be dead by now.

At least it didn't say not to eat the tires, or at least not
without a hot guacamole sauce :-)

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

It certainly seems ridiculous that people like Jay force these
sorts of things onto the public. Jay, didn't you say that you
work for a firm that handles personal injuries? At what point
does common sense end and the ability to blame someone else
begin?

I think there's more blame on plaintiff counsel than defense.

Besides that, the exact mechanism is more probably a discount
or threat of discontinuation from the insurance carrier. Risk
management has many aspects, a "Don't do that
- we told you so." statement being one, because the risk of
highest concern isn't the end user but rather the carrier.

Spot on, Andrew. Failure to warn is a big hammer for plaintiff's
attorneys in liability lawsuits--sometimes even when warning has
been made.


I became an expert through the school of hard knocks. Once
had a $5MM umbrella liability policy above general business
insurance. Bad idea- it's like spilled sugar to a cockroach.
'Failure to warn' cost my carrier six million dollars and my
coverage was cancelled despite our having no direct nexus to
the actual (uninsured drunk driver) event.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The problem with drunk driving laws is that they are applying them to someone that just had a beer because some people are uncontrollable drunks. None of the members of my family had their ability to drive impaired under the old standard. If anything they would drive more carefully because their reaction times might have been increased. Rather than cops being more observant of people's dangerous driving they simple reduced the legal alcohol limit by 20%.

What is the purpose of punishing someone who is driving carefully because they have alcohol in their system when they are struck by a sober person running a red light over the speed limit?