|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
August 10th 03, 08:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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 
|
| Ads |
|
#13
August 10th 03, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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.
|
|
#14
August 10th 03, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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
|
|
#15
August 11th 03, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
"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
|
|
#16
August 11th 03, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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
|
|
#17
August 11th 03, 11:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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.
|
|
#18
August 11th 03, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
(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
|
|
#19
August 12th 03, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
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
|
|
#20
August 13th 03, 08:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CNN anchor pleads guilty to hit-and-run of cyclist in NY
(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?
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
