Suspended licenses, unlicensed, or improperly licensed driver?

On 2016-08-11 11:20, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 10:27, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's
illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission
of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any
difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million
illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all).
You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half
(i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some
10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that
seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey
the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of
those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try to
follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people understand
that minorities are more represented in the prison system than
non-minorities.


Well, they get there because they haven't followed the law and committed
some sort of serious offense. I doubt that there is any discrimination
where offenses are weighed more with illegal immigrants than anyone
else. So a higher rate means a higher percentage are not following the
law when it comes to felonies.


http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

It's not that the offenses are necessarily weighed more for minorities,
illegal or not.


I do agree with them that we have a (way) too high general incarceration
rate for a civilized country. Or about 10x that of other such countries
and that is just sick.

However, I do not buy into racial discrimination stuff. Everyone knows
what the core reasons for getting into trouble are but discussing that
in detail would go far OT here. Suffice it to say that men hightailing
it after having fun and thus shirking their responsibility as dads is
almost _the_ core reason. This is one of the tough issues that, for
example, NAACP conveniently does not mention because it debunks a lot of
their claims:

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data...185,13/432,431

IIRC in recent times only one former presidential candidate has dared to
bring that up, Mitt Romney. Rightfully so because this needs to be fixed.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Duane writes:

On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try
to follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people
understand that minorities are more represented in the prison system
than non-minorities.

Illegal immigrants are also likely to be younger (working age) than
legal residents, and may be more likely to be male (not sure on that).
Both are correlated with incarceration.


--

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:23:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

Depends on what they are in jail for. If they're in jail for being
illegal aliens, that inflates the perception of illegals being "rapists
and murderers," etc. Now, if they are in jail for crimes other than
being in the US illegally and are over-represented then that might be a
point.

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey
the (other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of
those immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

I have a limited experience with undocumented immigrants; those I have
met have been hardworking, industrious, employed and... taxpayers.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:54:44 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000 criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".

Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The Prison systems population does not reflect the population make up,
and probably never has. I didn't bother the go to any depth but in
2010 Whites made up about 64% of the general population of the U.S.
and comprised about 39% of the prison population. Hispanics made up
about 16% of the general population and 19% of the incarcerated.
Blacks made up about 13% of the general population and some 40% of the
prison population.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:47:49 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-08-11 11:20, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 10:27, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's
illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission
of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any
difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million
illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all).
You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half
(i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some
10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that
seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey
the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of
those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try to
follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people understand
that minorities are more represented in the prison system than
non-minorities.


Well, they get there because they haven't followed the law and committed
some sort of serious offense. I doubt that there is any discrimination
where offenses are weighed more with illegal immigrants than anyone
else. So a higher rate means a higher percentage are not following the
law when it comes to felonies.


http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

It's not that the offenses are necessarily weighed more for minorities,
illegal or not.


I do agree with them that we have a (way) too high general incarceration
rate for a civilized country. Or about 10x that of other such countries
and that is just sick.

But, and I didn't bother to research this, I doesn't believe that the
U.S. does have any higher imprisonment rate than other "civilized"
country. What the U.S. has is a very much higher crime rate..

Which very much begs the question of "civilized".

Australia, for example with their draconian gun laws has a murder rate
of something like 1/100,000 while the U.S. with their much more
lenient gun laws has a murder rate of 4.5/100,000.
But, Australia has a robbery rate of 21.5/100,000 while the U.S.
robbery rate is 113/100,000

However, I do not buy into racial discrimination stuff. Everyone knows
what the core reasons for getting into trouble are but discussing that
in detail would go far OT here. Suffice it to say that men hightailing
it after having fun and thus shirking their responsibility as dads is
almost _the_ core reason. This is one of the tough issues that, for
example, NAACP conveniently does not mention because it debunks a lot of
their claims:

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data...185,13/432,431

IIRC in recent times only one former presidential candidate has dared to
bring that up, Mitt Romney. Rightfully so because this needs to be fixed.

[...]
--
cheers,

John B.

On 8/11/2016 4:14 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

snip

I have a limited experience with undocumented immigrants; those I have
met have been hardworking, industrious, employed and... taxpayers.

The "taxpayer" part is a key reason why the federal government is
reluctant to do more enforcement. The income tax, Social Security, and
Medicare taxes that are collected are significant, and yet those paying
these taxes can't get benefits. The states are left with unfunded
mandates yet the states have no power to deport anyone. All of this is
just how the companies that exploit the undocumented immigrants want it.
If they were granted residency then they'd start demanding better pay
and benefits.

On 08-11-2016 02:01, John B. wrote:
with the Insurance Adjuster. I can't remember a single instance in
some 20 years that an insurance company tried to cheat us. I do

Many, if not most, insurers in USA will pay fairly promptly according to
contract. But there are some that will procrastinate, argue, and split
hairs to hang on to their money (and yours).

But once they have paid you, if it's a sizable amount, you can bet
they'll put the screws to whoever should have paid (if anyone).

--
Wes Groleau

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:16:23 -0500, "W. Wesley Groleau"
wrote:

On 08-11-2016 02:01, John B. wrote:
with the Insurance Adjuster. I can't remember a single instance in
some 20 years that an insurance company tried to cheat us. I do

Many, if not most, insurers in USA will pay fairly promptly according to
contract. But there are some that will procrastinate, argue, and split
hairs to hang on to their money (and yours).

But once they have paid you, if it's a sizable amount, you can bet
they'll put the screws to whoever should have paid (if anyone).

You are confusing me. If you have a contract for insurance than
doesn't that contract specify the conditions under which money is to
be paid, proof of loss or damage required for payment to be made, the
period of time required to assess the evidence prior to payment being
made and so on?

I'm not familiar with U.S. insurance contracts but certainly the
mandatory and optional policies we have here certainly do that.

And, if the contract does list specifics than doesn't one have a civil
case against the company if they do not comply with the terms in the
contract?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 8:54:44 AM UTC-6, Mike A Schwab wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:20:46 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-6, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:22, jbeattie wrote:

I have uninsured motorist coverage on my car policy. Question: Does
anyone know whether that policy would also cover my on my bicycles? Also
for my own liability in case I mess up and cause an accident? Since by
now my cycling mileage per year has become 3x that of my car mileage it
begins to matter.

Your homeowner's policy would cover that -- which has an exclusion for aircraft, auto and watercraft, but not bikes. Your auto insurance policy covers you when driving a scheduled vehicle or (depending on the policy) any motor vehicle you use with the permission of the owner, except for vehicles regularly provided to you (so you don't get a policy covering one vehicle to insure a fleet). UIM/UM coverage applies when you are injured by a motor vehicle, even if you are on foot or on a bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

As a pedestrian or bicyclist, in a collusion with an automobile, you are covered by your Automobile (or bicyclist non-owner) vehicle insurance, including medical and underinsured / uninsured provisions. If stolen, homeowners covers. Otherwise medical covers you and if a road defect you insurance (or you) can sue the department owning the road.

I've never seen an auto policy that covers your liability as a bicyclist. In fact, not every policy has "drive other car" coverage -- meaning that not every auto policy will follow you if you borrow or rent another car. Check you policy before blowing off the rental car liability and damage collision waiver, etc.

Again, I'm talking about liability coverage, e.g. you hit someone while riding your bike. Auto policies typically will not cover that. If you have an auto policy that has a "drive other bikes" provision, you have a pretty special policy. Let me know what carrier issued that policy because I would like to see the policy form. My son doesn't have renters insurance and could use a policy like that.

Your auto insurance will provide UM/UIM if you are hit on your bike. It will also provide no-fault PIP coverage, although state laws differ in terms of which policy is primary.

-- Jay Beattie.

Am 12.08.2016 um 14:49 schrieb jbeattie:
Again, I'm talking about liability coverage, e.g. you hit someone
while riding your bike. Auto policies typically will not cover that.
If you have an auto policy that has a "drive other bikes" provision,
you have a pretty special policy. Let me know what carrier issued
that policy because I would like to see the policy form.

In Europe, most (middle-class) people have (or should have) a "general
purpose" liability insurance costing 100$ per year which includes
bicycle liability but excludes car liability. It this completely
different in the US?

Who pays up in the US when your children accidentally injure (e.g.
blind) another child while playing on the play ground (chance of
happening extremely low, damage extremely high)?