View Poll Results: Please Choose Your Average Award Per Injured/Killed Person:

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • $0

    11 84.62%
  • $10,000

    1 7.69%
  • $50,000

    0 0%
  • $100,000

    1 7.69%
  • $500,000

    0 0%
  • $1,000,000

    0 0%
  • $1,600,000

    0 0%
Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 367891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 157 to 169 of 297
  1. #157
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    21,307
    Post Likes
    I wonder how many of those people got shot because they heard the noise of the gunfire and stood there... looking for the source... lol
    The bible is my constitution and the constitution is my bible.

    WE THE PEOPLE refers to THEM and not YOU.

    Chewbacca Mom 2016

  2. #158
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,966
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by corny View Post
    I wonder how many of those people got shot because they heard the noise of the gunfire and stood there... looking for the source... lol
    Most appear to be running..the ones that didn't crowd together looking to hide actually did the best



    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  3. #159
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,966
    Post Likes
    Ok... Now that is out of the way.

    Why did the chicken cross the road?
    To get away from GC !!!

    Sorry GC couldn't pass that one up... It is nothing personal.. just friendly humor.

    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  4. Likes Brian8383 liked this post.
  5. #160
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    13,338
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Glenn, I knew what I brought here and I was prepared for the responses. I did it mostly to help get inside the heads of the actual jurors. I wanted to know how a person can completely exonerate a company for not following written laws and safety standards. And I saw it happen here again amongst you guys. Not a single person here could answer that question. You were all totally consumed with my negligence and totally accepted or ignored theirs. To suggest that I would have crashed on cones, if they were set out, is just stupid. I encounter hundreds if not thousands of obstacles on every ride and have avoided every one of them. More warning as they were required to furnish me would have given me that one extra second I needed. But maybe you have to be a cyclist to understand that. My conclusion is that 'comparative negligence' is just too complex for the average person. AND, getting conservatives to award money is a very hard task too.

    As for asking the thread to be closed, sorry. It got out of hand when all my points were being ignored and all I was getting back was essentially 'your stupid, can't ride a bike and want to get rich.' A few times of that is OK but the same thing hundreds of times was over the top. Even 'K' thought so.

    As you know I am a contrarian here and I have shown to have thick skin...but I have my limits too. And BTW - I don't have a problem with most opposing views as long as they show some thought and aren't too disrespectful. The three I ignore here have crossed the line with me and don't deserve responses. Been there, done that.
    We didn't ignore your points. We dissagree with the.comparative negligence, like every ever judgement, is rated in a scale. Most law is not black and white. It's interpreted and those interpretations are weighed against situational facts.

    You ran into a parked vehicle and if you looked up ONE time in nearly a minute, AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, you would not have gotten yourself into the situation. And thanks God you didn't hurt anyone else badly.

    I can GARANTEE you would have ZERO sympathy for a woman driving down the road texting and hit a parked truck. It doesn't matter one bit if by the book, they should have had a couple orange cones out.

    I GARAN-FREAKING-TEE you would have NEVER said she deserves money if she got hurt.

    You are a liar if you say different.

    We dissagree with you. We agree with the majority of Americans most likely. We also agree with the jury. We dissagree with Grow up and take responsibility. Stop being a typical Californian and looking to blame everyone else.

    Why is this so hard for you to get? Becuase, like I said, if you were a woman chugging down the road and rear ended a parked vehicle becuase she was texting..... YOU WOULD AGREE WITH US.

    LOL.

    You are at such a level of dishonesty, you convince yourself of your bullcrap.

    And yes, you've been there and done that......and got your rear handed to you each time.

    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    “Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.”
    -Possibly said by Thomas Jefferson(but true even if he didn't)


    “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.”
    ― Definitely said by John Wesley

  6. #161
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    25,737
    Post Likes
    My favorite one is:

    To show the possum that it IS possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Guy View Post
    Ok... Now that is out of the way.

    Why did the chicken cross the road?
    To get away from GC !!!

    Sorry GC couldn't pass that one up... It is nothing personal.. just friendly humor.

    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  7. Likes Brian8383, Missouri Guy liked this post.
  8. #162
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    25,737
    Post Likes
    Yeah, I can't believe he is still trying to defend his perceived position of not being at fault.

    What if a few homeless guys were walking side by side, hauling their stuff behind themselves? From GC's point of view, they should leave a trail of cones behind, just so GC wouldn't run into them.

    Oh, and regarding GC's comments that we are just a bunch of keyboard warriors, and would never say the things we type to an actual real person, he is also wrong on that point. I have never said anything on here that I wouldn't say face to face. Point in fact:

    Got a rookie shadowing me for a month. We're going on the third week. First week was pretty rough. Because I told it too him straight up. He had an excuse for everything. Couldn't believe what a child he was. Second week got a lot better. A LOT. Don't have a clue what made him change, but it was quick. Wasn't going to coddle him. However it happened, he faced reality, and began becoming much more mature.

    I haven't changed. Been doing the same thing for decades. Maybe he just saw the light when someone spoke to him directly. And expected adult responses.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian8383 View Post
    We didn't ignore your points. We dissagree with the.comparative negligence, like every ever judgement, is rated in a scale. Most law is not black and white. It's interpreted and those interpretations are weighed against situational facts.

    You ran into a parked vehicle and if you looked up ONE time in nearly a minute, AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, you would not have gotten yourself into the situation. And thanks God you didn't hurt anyone else badly.

    I can GARANTEE you would have ZERO sympathy for a woman driving down the road texting and hit a parked truck. It doesn't matter one bit if by the book, they should have had a couple orange cones out.

    I GARAN-FREAKING-TEE you would have NEVER said she deserves money if she got hurt.

    You are a liar if you say different.

    We dissagree with you. We agree with the majority of Americans most likely. We also agree with the jury. We dissagree with Grow up and take responsibility. Stop being a typical Californian and looking to blame everyone else.

    Why is this so hard for you to get? Becuase, like I said, if you were a woman chugging down the road and rear ended a parked vehicle becuase she was texting..... YOU WOULD AGREE WITH US.

    LOL.

    You are at such a level of dishonesty, you convince yourself of your bullcrap.

    And yes, you've been there and done that......and got your rear handed to you each time.

    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  9. Likes Brian8383 liked this post.
  10. #163
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    napping on the couch
    Posts
    13,338
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Guy View Post
    Ok... Now that is out of the way.

    Why did the chicken cross the road?
    To get away from GC !!!

    Sorry GC couldn't pass that one up... It is nothing personal.. just friendly humor.

    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    But what if GC follows the chicken repeating over and over about orange cones, and how the chicken obviously doesn't understand. "There were supposed to be cones out! " he keeps repeating. The chicken actually researches itself and finds out GC is wrong. He tries to nicely explain it to GC, then GC gets agitated and insists the chicken doesn't know what it's talking about. The chicken tries to point GC to the verifiable facts. GC goes on a rant about Google and Lamborghinis. Then GC brings up other cases that dont resemble his case in the slightest way. The chicken then understands he's not dealing with a reasonable adult, yet he keeps asking for the opinion of the chicken.......Then what does the chicken do?

    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    “Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.”
    -Possibly said by Thomas Jefferson(but true even if he didn't)


    “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.”
    ― Definitely said by John Wesley

  11. Likes Missouri Guy liked this post.
  12. #164
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,966
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian8383 View Post
    But what if GC follows the chicken repeating over and over about orange cones, and how the chicken obviously doesn't understand. There were supposed to be cones out. The chicken actually researches itself and finds out GC is wrong. He tries to nicely explain it to GC, then GC gets agitated and insists the chicken doesn't know what it's talking about. The chicken tries to point GC to the verifiable facts. GC goes on a rant about Google and Lamborghinis. Then GC brings up other cases that dont resemble his case in the slightest way. The chicken then understands he's not dealing with a reasonable adult, yet he keeps asking for the opinion of the chicken.......Then what does the chicken do?

    Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
    And that's a wrap folks.



    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  13. #165
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    GC, you live in the Peoples Republic off California, you are soliciting responses from the real world. The PRoC has warning labels on almost everything showing it to be a cancer agent. I hear that they are generating a sticker to put on all faucets saying water is considered to be a cancer causing agent in the PRoC since all known cancer patients have drank water at some point in their lives. Ok, that may be a stretch but every year I see more labels on products that may get shipped to the PRoC, water has to be in the pipeline, pun intended.

    The point is you lost your court case in this environment, and you expect conservatives in Normalsville USA to agree with you? So why get upset when we disagree? Why carry on trying to change our minds. You have been shown the thought process that goes through the normal mind, it is based on common sense, "would the average person have know the risk they were putting themselves into"? That is the standard. The average person would not consider a crazy person carrying guns into a casino to shoot up a concert. The average person knows the risk of hot coffee. The average person understands the risk of riding a bike with only a short range of vision. Sure there can be extenuating circumstances that change this. In the case of the casino, all the security cameras as well as some other things could be one of these. In your case the fact of no cones has little bearing as if it were any other vehicle there still would have been no cones, plus the fact o f short term stoppage negates the need for cones.

    A common saying in the legal world is "Anyone that represents themselves has a fool for a client". The reason for this is people in general are too close to the subject of the law suit so they can not see it clearly. It happens to everyone, well mostly everyone. It is not very often you see a lawyer represent themselves, they know this saying to be true and wan the best representation so they hand off to another. Now, you had a lawyer in the court. Here you can not see the truths we are trying to explain, you are to close. This is similar to Dr's not doing surgery on family members, they are too close.

    Let it go, it has been drug out long enough.
    I disagree. You guys highly influence one another which is why I often refer to you as "The Borg." It isn't normal for folks to have the exact same views on things unless they are being influenced by others or if they want to be part of a group.

    Why I don't buy your guy's responses is partially for that reason and for another that came up again yesterday. I am working for a man who has worked for the City of Lomita his whole life. He works outdoors for Maintenance of the City Parks Dept. He sets up work sites and oversees vendors setting up work sites in public areas. He knows very well the importance of protecting the public from dangerous conditions. I asked him one question yesterday, "Does the City of Lomita have a higher responsibility to protect the public from dangerous conditions that they created than the public does?" He said "of course we do." Well, folks here says "no." And that is where we part ways. To say "no" is nuts.

    As an example of how things really work, which is me vs the typical insurance company, (I know, none of you see it that way) this man was recently hit from behind while in his City work truck and hurt badly. He was taken to emergency by EMT's and has been out of work for about one year now. He is messed up and maybe permanently disabled since he is nearing retirement age. Even though he was totally not at fault the insurance company will not pay and is fighting him all the way. He had to lawyer up and it's been an uphill battle for him too.

    Maybe you guys have no experience with insurance companies? Maybe you think they are magnanimous? Maybe you see them all as victims? Maybe you think they are always willing to pay when they are at fault? You definitely do not have experience with lawsuits, injuries, trials or sleazy lawyers.

    I would imagine that if an insurance company offered a person $5K and a lawyer got them to offer $50K, you'd all say that all the person should have been paid was $5K. So to me, that is nuts which comes from ignorance and hatred.

    I am now up to at least thirty professionals in this exact field who agree that comparable negligence does apply in my case. None of you measure up to the pros I've spoken with. So it is you guys that are in the minority in numbers and in status. So if you think H-Talk opinions are higher than those who actually work in the public with dangerous equipment and materials, you are very wrong.

  14. #166
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,112
    Post Likes
    Killing a cyclist is considered a misdemeanor.

    "In pushing for a jail term, prosecutors told the County Court in Bendigo that Rodda should have seen Lowndes, that she knew cyclists used the road she was driving on, and that her inattention behind the wheel was a contributing cause to the rider’s death. The defence, meanwhile, indicated that Lowndes had been wearing dark clothing and headphones at the time of the incident, and that he was riding nearly 1.5 metres from the edge of the lane.
    Judge Wendy Wilmoth ruled that a jail term wouldn’t be necessary for Rodda, instead ordering the 22-year-old to be assessed for a community corrections order."


    https://cyclingtips.com/2019/10/driv...to-avoid-jail/

  15. #167
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,654
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    I disagree. You guys highly influence one another which is why I often refer to you as "The Borg." It isn't normal for folks to have the exact same views on things unless they are being influenced by others or if they want to be part of a group.
    Human nature dictates the need to be part of something...to be accepted. But that's not what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that a group which holds similar values dear are 'the borg'. But that's a limited view. Your perspective does exist, but not in the broad sense you seem to present.

    In fact, if we were to apply your perspective, it would be more accurate to apply it to Liberalism. These days, Conservatism is highly criticized by a very vocal segment of society. Conservatives are deemed racist, bigoted and more...all the shallow terms typically flung from the Left. That would make Conservatism the 'harder row to hoe'. Liberalism is more like high school. Look at MsM. You could set your TV to rotate channels every few seconds and you could easily believe you were settled on one channel. The terms, the emotions, the conclusions...all in sync.

    That many of us hold the same foundational views is not surprising, nor is it 'group think'. If you want to see real group think, hang out at a Liberal forum. The contrast will be enlightening.


    I am now up to at least thirty professionals in this exact field who agree that comparable negligence does apply in my case. None of you measure up to the pros I've spoken with. So it is you guys that are in the minority in numbers and in status. So if you think H-Talk opinions are higher than those who actually work in the public with dangerous equipment and materials, you are very wrong.
    But the reality is that, unfortunately, you lost your case. Nothing will change that. I wonder what benefit you gain by hanging onto it, seeking opinions that bolster your view? Will it change the outcome? It seems like rumination that will only make you more miserable. Loss is an inevitable part of life. When we distract ourselves with the unfairness of it all, we do ourselves a disservice. Better to accept, learn what we can from the circumstance and move on, having eked out whatever growth is possible. Difficult but rewarding.

  16. #168
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    10,001
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    Killing a cyclist is considered a misdemeanor.

    "In pushing for a jail term, prosecutors told the County Court in Bendigo that Rodda should have seen Lowndes, that she knew cyclists used the road she was driving on, and that her inattention behind the wheel was a contributing cause to the rider’s death. The defence, meanwhile, indicated that Lowndes had been wearing dark clothing and headphones at the time of the incident, and that he was riding nearly 1.5 metres from the edge of the lane.
    Judge Wendy Wilmoth ruled that a jail term wouldn’t be necessary for Rodda, instead ordering the 22-year-old to be assessed for a community corrections order."


    https://cyclingtips.com/2019/10/driv...to-avoid-jail/
    Here is the comment that I think best applies to that court decision:

    "Much the same in the UK. The problem with our jury system in these cases is that the court and jury will likely be largely made up of motorists who will identify, and maybe sympathise, with the defendant. The victim doesn't stand much of a chance. We've seen a couple of proper sentences passed down recently, but it is still largely permissible to kill a cyclist using a car."

  17. #169
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,112
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Here is the comment that I think best applies to that court decision:

    "Much the same in the UK. The problem with our jury system in these cases is that the court and jury will likely be largely made up of motorists who will identify, and maybe sympathise, with the defendant. The victim doesn't stand much of a chance. We've seen a couple of proper sentences passed down recently, but it is still largely permissible to kill a cyclist using a car."
    Yep.

    I've heard, "sorry, didn't see you", more times than I care to remember. And I always followed the rules of the road and wear hi-viz. People just don't give a shit.

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 367891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •