Holy shatz! Cop stops bicycle! - Page 77 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-16-2004, 11:35 PM

16 Jun 2004 15:40:17 GMT,
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Hunrobe) wrote:
\szip
>>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>

Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
accountable.

I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
punishments given the killers that are caught.
--
zk

06-17-2004, 12:30 AM

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

wrote:

>Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
>off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
>I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

---snip---

Discussion on this subject with you is pointless. You're more interested in
spewing hate and coining what I'm sure you think are witty insults of anyone
that ever drives than you are interested in judging each incident on its
merits.

>In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

---snip---

Probably no one although it could as easily be the legal rider and the
pedestrian suing each other but who cares? You could be sued by a total
stranger because last winter they slipped on a patch of ice on a stretch of
sidewalk you cleared of 12" of snow. Once again you are mixing up liability and
responsibility.

>My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
>heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
>into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
>any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
>types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
>accountable.

---snip---

So your point isn't any different than another equally mistaken point made by
another, a poster you refer to as "dufus" and whose reasoning you don't accept?
Careful there, Zoot. That's dangerously close to calling yourself an
addlebrained dufus. Thankfully you threw in a few gratuitous insults otherwise
I'd suspect someone had forged your email address.

>I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
>and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
>punishments given the killers that are caught.

Okay, let's lock up for at least ten years anyone that is ever involved in a
traffic crash that seriously injures or kills anyone. Now what kind of
sentences shall the courts impose for *intentionally* causing severe injury?
Twenty years? What shall we do to coldblooded killers? Give them thirty years?
What about killers with multiple victims? At what point do we start torturing
offenders to death?
In any event, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you at least not
in this thread.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-17-2004, 12:30 AM

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

wrote:

>Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
>off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
>I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

---snip---

Discussion on this subject with you is pointless. You're more interested in
spewing hate and coining what I'm sure you think are witty insults of anyone
that ever drives than you are interested in judging each incident on its
merits.

>In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

---snip---

Probably no one although it could as easily be the legal rider and the
pedestrian suing each other but who cares? You could be sued by a total
stranger because last winter they slipped on a patch of ice on a stretch of
sidewalk you cleared of 12" of snow. Once again you are mixing up liability and
responsibility.

>My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
>heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
>into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
>any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
>types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
>accountable.

---snip---

So your point isn't any different than another equally mistaken point made by
another, a poster you refer to as "dufus" and whose reasoning you don't accept?
Careful there, Zoot. That's dangerously close to calling yourself an
addlebrained dufus. Thankfully you threw in a few gratuitous insults otherwise
I'd suspect someone had forged your email address.

>I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
>and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
>punishments given the killers that are caught.

Okay, let's lock up for at least ten years anyone that is ever involved in a
traffic crash that seriously injures or kills anyone. Now what kind of
sentences shall the courts impose for *intentionally* causing severe injury?
Twenty years? What shall we do to coldblooded killers? Give them thirty years?
What about killers with multiple victims? At what point do we start torturing
offenders to death?
In any event, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you at least not
in this thread.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-17-2004, 12:30 AM

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

wrote:

>Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
>off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
>I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

---snip---

Discussion on this subject with you is pointless. You're more interested in
spewing hate and coining what I'm sure you think are witty insults of anyone
that ever drives than you are interested in judging each incident on its
merits.

>In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

---snip---

Probably no one although it could as easily be the legal rider and the
pedestrian suing each other but who cares? You could be sued by a total
stranger because last winter they slipped on a patch of ice on a stretch of
sidewalk you cleared of 12" of snow. Once again you are mixing up liability and
responsibility.

>My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
>heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
>into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
>any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
>types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
>accountable.

---snip---

So your point isn't any different than another equally mistaken point made by
another, a poster you refer to as "dufus" and whose reasoning you don't accept?
Careful there, Zoot. That's dangerously close to calling yourself an
addlebrained dufus. Thankfully you threw in a few gratuitous insults otherwise
I'd suspect someone had forged your email address.

>I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
>and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
>punishments given the killers that are caught.

Okay, let's lock up for at least ten years anyone that is ever involved in a
traffic crash that seriously injures or kills anyone. Now what kind of
sentences shall the courts impose for *intentionally* causing severe injury?
Twenty years? What shall we do to coldblooded killers? Give them thirty years?
What about killers with multiple victims? At what point do we start torturing
offenders to death?
In any event, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you at least not
in this thread.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-17-2004, 12:30 AM

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

wrote:

>Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
>off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
>I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

---snip---

Discussion on this subject with you is pointless. You're more interested in
spewing hate and coining what I'm sure you think are witty insults of anyone
that ever drives than you are interested in judging each incident on its
merits.

>In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

---snip---

Probably no one although it could as easily be the legal rider and the
pedestrian suing each other but who cares? You could be sued by a total
stranger because last winter they slipped on a patch of ice on a stretch of
sidewalk you cleared of 12" of snow. Once again you are mixing up liability and
responsibility.

>My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
>heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
>into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
>any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
>types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
>accountable.

---snip---

So your point isn't any different than another equally mistaken point made by
another, a poster you refer to as "dufus" and whose reasoning you don't accept?
Careful there, Zoot. That's dangerously close to calling yourself an
addlebrained dufus. Thankfully you threw in a few gratuitous insults otherwise
I'd suspect someone had forged your email address.

>I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
>and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
>punishments given the killers that are caught.

Okay, let's lock up for at least ten years anyone that is ever involved in a
traffic crash that seriously injures or kills anyone. Now what kind of
sentences shall the courts impose for *intentionally* causing severe injury?
Twenty years? What shall we do to coldblooded killers? Give them thirty years?
What about killers with multiple victims? At what point do we start torturing
offenders to death?
In any event, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you at least not
in this thread.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-17-2004, 12:30 AM

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

wrote:

>Oh that's right, I forgot it's legal and perfectly acceptable to doze
>off or search for your cigarettes when you should be driving.
>I guess you've got to get caught killing somebody to get a fine.

---snip---

Discussion on this subject with you is pointless. You're more interested in
spewing hate and coining what I'm sure you think are witty insults of anyone
that ever drives than you are interested in judging each incident on its
merits.

>In the given example, you avoided the question. Who gets sued?

---snip---

Probably no one although it could as easily be the legal rider and the
pedestrian suing each other but who cares? You could be sued by a total
stranger because last winter they slipped on a patch of ice on a stretch of
sidewalk you cleared of 12" of snow. Once again you are mixing up liability and
responsibility.

>My point is, if bungwipe doesn't smack into something expensive or
>heavy enough to stop them and a cop doesn't see him run the cyclist
>into the pedestrian, perhaps breaking a law in the process, it isn't
>any different than dufus' proposition that bicyclists cause these
>types of accidents all the time and there's no way of holding them
>accountable.

---snip---

So your point isn't any different than another equally mistaken point made by
another, a poster you refer to as "dufus" and whose reasoning you don't accept?
Careful there, Zoot. That's dangerously close to calling yourself an
addlebrained dufus. Thankfully you threw in a few gratuitous insults otherwise
I'd suspect someone had forged your email address.

>I'm saying scud jockeys get away with deadlier dumb **** all the time
>and their victims' families are slapped in the face by the meaningless
>punishments given the killers that are caught.

Okay, let's lock up for at least ten years anyone that is ever involved in a
traffic crash that seriously injures or kills anyone. Now what kind of
sentences shall the courts impose for *intentionally* causing severe injury?
Twenty years? What shall we do to coldblooded killers? Give them thirty years?
What about killers with multiple victims? At what point do we start torturing
offenders to death?
In any event, I'm not going to discuss this any further with you at least not
in this thread.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

06-17-2004, 01:33 AM

"loki" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:lQ1Ac.282078$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net .cable.rogers.com...

> What is considered a reasonable tip down south?

Depends. In fine dining, 20%. Coffeeshop, 15%. And that's after taxes.

> I thought 15% before taxes was standard north and south.

Not anymore.

Dave

06-17-2004, 01:33 AM

"loki" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:lQ1Ac.282078$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net .cable.rogers.com...

> What is considered a reasonable tip down south?

Depends. In fine dining, 20%. Coffeeshop, 15%. And that's after taxes.

> I thought 15% before taxes was standard north and south.

Not anymore.

Dave

06-17-2004, 01:33 AM

"loki" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:lQ1Ac.282078$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net .cable.rogers.com...

> What is considered a reasonable tip down south?

Depends. In fine dining, 20%. Coffeeshop, 15%. And that's after taxes.

> I thought 15% before taxes was standard north and south.

Not anymore.

Dave

06-17-2004, 01:33 AM

"loki" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:lQ1Ac.282078$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].net .cable.rogers.com...

> What is considered a reasonable tip down south?

Depends. In fine dining, 20%. Coffeeshop, 15%. And that's after taxes.

> I thought 15% before taxes was standard north and south.

Not anymore.

Dave