Sue or go bankrupt?

with Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/1/2019 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/1/2019 3:00 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with John B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 14:46:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2019 8:59 PM, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 13:37:29 +0700, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:53:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 9:25:53 PM UTC-5, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 02:46:08 -0700, Chalo wrote:

Let's see who gonna clean up this.

The "armed resistance to enslavement" that Canada has seems to be
sufficient. But to me, the "armed resistance" of the U.S. seems
grossly excessive.
The U.S. runs around all over the world bragging about their
democratic government and bemoaning the fact that "that country"
doesn't have a democratic system "like we do" and now someone talks
about "armed resistance"Â* ... to a system that the U.S. promotes
internationally?
See it this way.Â* This 'democratic government' is so stable that
it's okay with 'armed resistance'.Â* Now, if US sells someone idea of
The DG the implementation couldn't possibly be stable without The
AR.Â* So unfortunate implementors will absolutely need The AR (for
sake of stability).Â* So emerges new marketplace.
Make your choice. I'd rather be a free Swiss than an enslaved
Tibetan. YMMV
There are also the free Canadians, Irish, Brits, French, Dutch,
Germans, Austrians, etc. etc. Freedom doesn't seem to require a "well
regulated militia," let alone a mass of undisciplined gun nuts.

Sure, there're many configurations to run things. Some are stable, some
are not, some are falling apart, some ended up in books nobody reads.
That doesn't mean that (so called) push for The DG isn't lame attempt to
create fresh marketplace for guns. What was your point again?

*CUT*

p.s. See? "You have to learn Disciprine! Disciprine comes from
within!"

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 3:51:42 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:38:54 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:57:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/1/2019 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Make your choice.
I'd rather be a free Swiss than an enslaved Tibetan.
YMMV

There are also the free Canadians, Irish, Brits, French, Dutch, Germans,
Austrians, etc. etc. Freedom doesn't seem to require a "well regulated
militia," let alone a mass of undisciplined gun nuts.

the U.S. does have the National Guard, but about 99.9% of American gun
owners have nothing to do with it, nor with any other "well regulated"
group.

True, but when the Bill of Rights was written conditions were a great
deal different than they are today. The "Continental Army", for example,
was wholly comprised of state militias and when it was suggested that
a national army, or national militia, be formed the First Continental
Congress rejected the idea.

There in is probably the whole justification for the right to bear arms;
to enable the formation of state militia to defend the state and nation.
similar to feudal times, when "the king" could request the barons(states)
to provide levies for his service.

That's what one would think if they read the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Cheers

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+ percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.




12

On 02/07/2019 11:05, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

I meant a horn on a bike. I understand a horn on a motor vehicle.

As a cyclist making a noise to let pedestrians (animals or whatever)
know you are there is fine, but you should do it so that they have time
to react appropriately. If you don't have time to do this you should
prepare to stop. According to reports he had plenty of time to see her
crossing the road, it's not like she jumped out.

I've never had a horn on a bike but I guess pushing a horn is time you
could have spent braking.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:46:28 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 07:57:17 +0700, John B. wrote:


Nope, if there were roses everywhere, the free droppings would be
shovelled off the streets gratis.

Think a little. Where would you shovel it to?

Sheesh, all the rose gardens along the road.

The main problem with the manure was that it would take a considerable
number of teams and wagons to haul what you sweep up and get it to
somewhere that you can dump it. A typical heavy freight wagon will
carry about 6 tons and requires a 8 horse team to haul that weight.

Now you're definitely making a mountain out of droppings. and as London,
and many other cxities didn't disappear under it, there must have been a
workable solution.

Strange that you are so sure of yourself in 2019, while the people who
were there "on the ground" so to speak, couldn't find a solution.
In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in
New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled
ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing
crisis posed by urban horses and their output.

Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50
years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.

Credibility? If you look hard enough, you'll find some one who agrees
with you.

Obviously the soltuin, if it was ever needed was found and it was so
simple that no one bothered to record it.

You do realise that you've missed the best comback; they didn't solve it,
the london of modern days is built on the remaind os the old London
covered with the droppings of horses.

In any case, the solution was bicycle, which do not leave as much manure
behind. behind

I see. You mean that all the 11,000 Hanson drivers bought bicycle to
haul their passengers? Or the several thousand horse drawn busses
converted to bicycles built for 25 as that is how many passengers a
horse drawn omnibus would seat.

Or perhaps you simply do not know what you are talking about.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 00:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 3:51:42 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:38:54 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 10:57:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/1/2019 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Make your choice.
I'd rather be a free Swiss than an enslaved Tibetan.
YMMV

There are also the free Canadians, Irish, Brits, French, Dutch, Germans,
Austrians, etc. etc. Freedom doesn't seem to require a "well regulated
militia," let alone a mass of undisciplined gun nuts.

the U.S. does have the National Guard, but about 99.9% of American gun
owners have nothing to do with it, nor with any other "well regulated"
group.

True, but when the Bill of Rights was written conditions were a great
deal different than they are today. The "Continental Army", for example,
was wholly comprised of state militias and when it was suggested that
a national army, or national militia, be formed the First Continental
Congress rejected the idea.

There in is probably the whole justification for the right to bear arms;
to enable the formation of state militia to defend the state and nation.
similar to feudal times, when "the king" could request the barons(states)
to provide levies for his service.

That's what one would think if they read the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Cheers

I think that the reasoning might be a result of U.S. history as about
a 150 years previously several colonies had laws that every adult male
must have a firearm and a supply of ammunition. I believe the penalty
was rather severe for disobeying.

For example, A 1632 statute of Plymouth Colony ordered that "every
freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and
each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other
serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes and other appurtenances
with what speede may be.... By the end of the following May, each
person was to own two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets, with
a fine of ten shillings per person who was not armed. 8

(In the early colonies a farmer might have an income of 10 pounds a
year, or 200 shillings. So one month would be in the neighborhood of
16 shillings)


--
cheers,

John B.

On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a startled rabbit
in the headlights thing. Instead, it's several seconds of no response at
all, followed by "Hmm. What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?"
followed by looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do it _way_ in
advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!" More importantly, I give
lots of passing clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Tom Evans wrote:
Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

I have an electric horn on my e-bike, and a couple of my other bikes have loud plunger horns. I use those to communicate with car drivers, who have both sound deadening and in-car music to help them stay oblivious and irresponsible.

Most of my bikes have a bell for communicating with peds and other cyclists.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:48:53 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:05 AM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:20:20 +0100, Tom Evans wrote:

On 28/06/2019 08:38, Chalo wrote:
My thinking is that the presumption of liability should rest with the
party who imposed the risk of harm (in this case, the cyclist. In 99+
percent of such cases, the motorist.) But in no case should
disproportionate legal fees (25x actual damages?) be the responsibility
of someone who had no influence whatsoever over the decision to incur
those fees.


Legal fees can be avoided by settling prior to it going to court. This
is what most insurance companies do. However, the 25x figure does appear
to show that the legal system isn't really fit for purpose.

Also, as someone who has in the past cycle commuted over this junction,
it does sound to me like the cyclist was riding stupidly and selfishly.

Sounding a horn close to an oblivious pedestrian is very likely to get
the rabbit in the headlight startled, random, response. Who has a horn
anyway?

Over here, all motor vehcicles.
Given that you get the same startled rabbit in the head lights response
froma bicycle bells, i think it is a stymied natural selection factors
that modern life is showing up.

In my experience, the response to a bicycle bell isn't a startled rabbit
in the headlights thing. Instead, it's several seconds of no response at
all, followed by "Hmm. What's that odd sound? Is it my cell phone?"
followed by looking around (perhaps after checking the cell phone),
followed by "Oh! It's a bike!" and perhaps some lateral movement.

I use mine from time to time to warn pedestrians, but I do it _way_ in
advance, and often back it up with "Bicycle!" More importantly, I give
lots of passing clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I've found that on the rial-trails around her that people when they hear a bicycle bell, for some inexplicable reason then stop and look UP! Are they looking for ET?

I find that just yelling YO! works a lot better.

Cheers