Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks - Page 50

07-19-2004, 11:56 PM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>, Ryan Cousineau
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
>cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
>against UMP if they can't pay.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk

07-19-2004, 11:56 PM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>, Ryan Cousineau
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
>cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
>against UMP if they can't pay.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk

07-19-2004, 11:56 PM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>, Ryan Cousineau
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
>cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
>against UMP if they can't pay.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk

07-19-2004, 11:56 PM

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ca>, Ryan Cousineau
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
>cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
>against UMP if they can't pay.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk

07-20-2004, 07:34 AM

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

07-20-2004, 07:34 AM

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

07-20-2004, 07:34 AM

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

07-20-2004, 07:34 AM

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

07-20-2004, 07:34 AM

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt