Danger! Danger!

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:50:18 AM UTC, 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 classic case is Lotus. An American jury gave millions against them in a case in which the car had been through several owners who hadn't maintained it, had been extensively modified by amateurs, etc -- and still the jury held Lotus responsible. Lotus, a small company ever on the verge of bankruptcy, chose to leave North America to avoid that sort of existential foolishness.

Andre Jute
There's stupid, and then there's an American jury

On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:49:32 -0600,
AMuzi wrote:
On 2/4/2020 12:11 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:06:00 -0600,
AMuzi wrote:

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.

Sincerely sorry to hear that. It's impossible to appreciate the
atrocities of the U.S. legal system in liability until you've been
dragged through it. Being deposed or examined on the stand is a
terrible--but instructive--experience.

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA

On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather t
you judge it to be or not.

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather t
you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no sense and are there only to make cities money.

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 22:18:42 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

Years ago one of the more prestigious U.S. universities did a study of
drinking and what they found was the physical effect, i.e. reflexes,
coordination, reaction time, etc., was a factor of body mass and
amount of alcohol consumed in a period. Regardless of whether you sit
there quietly or put a light shade on your head and dance around the
room physically your degree of "drunkenness" is dependent on your body
mass and the amount of alcohol you consume.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 3:39:05 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

What you mean is .08% BAC. LD50 for alcohol is .4% BAC. You're definitely dead at .8% AND SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING!!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 15:39:03 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

Err TOM! I keep telling you that it is better to keep silent and
perhaps be thought a fool then to speak and prove it.

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:31:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 15:39:03 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

Err TOM! I keep telling you that it is better to keep silent and
perhaps be thought a fool then to speak and prove it.

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.
--
cheers,

John B.

For someone that was telling us that he was a crew chief on bombing missions in a B50 if I were you


I would remain silent.

I see that the terrorists are getting closer to you. Maybe you ought to get one of those guns that you think are only for criminals.

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:06:52 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 3:39:05 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

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?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

What you mean is .08% BAC. LD50 for alcohol is .4% BAC. You're definitely dead at .8% AND SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING!!

-- Jay Beattie.

I got a decimal point wrong - so sue me.