Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 71 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-16-2004, 08:28 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> >> My plate's been showing an expired sticker for a couple of years now
>> >> (though it's actually properly registered).
>
>> >OK, I'll bite: How's that work?
>
>> I keep forgetting to put the sticker on it.
>
>Horse****. Tell us the real reason you haven't done it.

OK, I really did it to make a liar out of you. I knew, when I first
failed to put the sticker on, that you would in the future make a post
where you claimed that people with expired stickers are quickly
caught. Satisfied now?

(I still haven't done it, but by now I've misplaced the sticker)

06-16-2004, 08:40 AM

>Zoot Katz [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>I think you'd have a hard time convincing the driver's insurance
>company of it. Providing the driver hasn't caused any physical damage
>to property that can be used for evidence nor been cited for any
>driving infractions.
What kind of case would you have to build to
>charge them with anything? How far would an investigation go?

---snip---

You'd be mistaken in your opinion that the insurance company would successfully
defend such a claim. In more egregious cases they don't even try. Based on my
direct personal knowledge, they simply pay out. And assuming they are still on
the scene, why do you think a person whose illegal actions caused the crash
*wouldn't* be charged with the traffic violations? Besides, I thought we were
talking about responsibility. You are confusing responsibility with liability.
Someone is always responsible when a murder occurs. Not all murders are solved
and in unsolved murders no one is held liable. Does that in any way make a
murder not a murder or the killer(s) less responsible?

>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>Who gets sued?

Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
they?" <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 08:40 AM

>Zoot Katz [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>I think you'd have a hard time convincing the driver's insurance
>company of it. Providing the driver hasn't caused any physical damage
>to property that can be used for evidence nor been cited for any
>driving infractions.
What kind of case would you have to build to
>charge them with anything? How far would an investigation go?

---snip---

You'd be mistaken in your opinion that the insurance company would successfully
defend such a claim. In more egregious cases they don't even try. Based on my
direct personal knowledge, they simply pay out. And assuming they are still on
the scene, why do you think a person whose illegal actions caused the crash
*wouldn't* be charged with the traffic violations? Besides, I thought we were
talking about responsibility. You are confusing responsibility with liability.
Someone is always responsible when a murder occurs. Not all murders are solved
and in unsolved murders no one is held liable. Does that in any way make a
murder not a murder or the killer(s) less responsible?

>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>Who gets sued?

Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
they?" <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 08:40 AM

>Zoot Katz [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>I think you'd have a hard time convincing the driver's insurance
>company of it. Providing the driver hasn't caused any physical damage
>to property that can be used for evidence nor been cited for any
>driving infractions.
What kind of case would you have to build to
>charge them with anything? How far would an investigation go?

---snip---

You'd be mistaken in your opinion that the insurance company would successfully
defend such a claim. In more egregious cases they don't even try. Based on my
direct personal knowledge, they simply pay out. And assuming they are still on
the scene, why do you think a person whose illegal actions caused the crash
*wouldn't* be charged with the traffic violations? Besides, I thought we were
talking about responsibility. You are confusing responsibility with liability.
Someone is always responsible when a murder occurs. Not all murders are solved
and in unsolved murders no one is held liable. Does that in any way make a
murder not a murder or the killer(s) less responsible?

>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>Who gets sued?

Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
they?" <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 08:40 AM

>Zoot Katz [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>I think you'd have a hard time convincing the driver's insurance
>company of it. Providing the driver hasn't caused any physical damage
>to property that can be used for evidence nor been cited for any
>driving infractions.
What kind of case would you have to build to
>charge them with anything? How far would an investigation go?

---snip---

You'd be mistaken in your opinion that the insurance company would successfully
defend such a claim. In more egregious cases they don't even try. Based on my
direct personal knowledge, they simply pay out. And assuming they are still on
the scene, why do you think a person whose illegal actions caused the crash
*wouldn't* be charged with the traffic violations? Besides, I thought we were
talking about responsibility. You are confusing responsibility with liability.
Someone is always responsible when a murder occurs. Not all murders are solved
and in unsolved murders no one is held liable. Does that in any way make a
murder not a murder or the killer(s) less responsible?

>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>Who gets sued?

Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
they?" <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 08:40 AM

>Zoot Katz [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

wrote:

>I think you'd have a hard time convincing the driver's insurance
>company of it. Providing the driver hasn't caused any physical damage
>to property that can be used for evidence nor been cited for any
>driving infractions.
What kind of case would you have to build to
>charge them with anything? How far would an investigation go?

---snip---

You'd be mistaken in your opinion that the insurance company would successfully
defend such a claim. In more egregious cases they don't even try. Based on my
direct personal knowledge, they simply pay out. And assuming they are still on
the scene, why do you think a person whose illegal actions caused the crash
*wouldn't* be charged with the traffic violations? Besides, I thought we were
talking about responsibility. You are confusing responsibility with liability.
Someone is always responsible when a murder occurs. Not all murders are solved
and in unsolved murders no one is held liable. Does that in any way make a
murder not a murder or the killer(s) less responsible?

>Say, legally riding you hits a legally walking pedestrian whilst
>avoiding a distracted driver. You're both injured. There's no other
>witnesses to the incident. The driver is long gone. Neither of you has
>a plate number and somewhat conflicting accounts.
>Who gets sued?

Again, liability versus responsibility plus you're throwing something else into
the mix. Distractions are not the same as intentional violations of the law.
You're mixing apples and oranges, civil and criminal. Perhaps if I can ever
convince you to stop doing that you'll stop making over the top, blanket
statements like, "It's always the driver's fault. They were driving weren't
they?" <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-16-2004, 11:09 AM

"Hunrobe" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com...
> >"loki" [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> wrote:
>
> >And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
> >are polite and have public healthcare?
>
> That and they are always trying to pass off Canadian money as *real*
dollars.

You'd be amazed how many Americans will accept Canadian Tire money as legal
tender.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

06-16-2004, 11:09 AM

"Hunrobe" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com...
> >"loki" [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> wrote:
>
> >And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
> >are polite and have public healthcare?
>
> That and they are always trying to pass off Canadian money as *real*
dollars.

You'd be amazed how many Americans will accept Canadian Tire money as legal
tender.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

06-16-2004, 11:09 AM

"Hunrobe" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com...
> >"loki" [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> wrote:
>
> >And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
> >are polite and have public healthcare?
>
> That and they are always trying to pass off Canadian money as *real*
dollars.

You'd be amazed how many Americans will accept Canadian Tire money as legal
tender.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd

06-16-2004, 11:09 AM

"Hunrobe" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com...
> >"loki" [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> wrote:
>
> >And Canadian Canada Geese are just like American Canada Geese except they
> >are polite and have public healthcare?
>
> That and they are always trying to pass off Canadian money as *real*
dollars.

You'd be amazed how many Americans will accept Canadian Tire money as legal
tender.

--
'And then one day you find,
Ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun' -pink floyd