 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Why you should always carry your camera with you:
I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" http://upload.pbase.com/slack/rock_incident Someone _is_ going to pay for this :-) :-) -- Slack > I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an > accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Slack Probably your insurance company. In NZ we get one free windshield replacement per year if required. Colin Another NZer eh? Not the Colin I used to know from the photo flight in the RNZAF by any chance? > Another NZer eh? Not the Colin I used to know from the photo flight in the > RNZAF by any chance? Not everyone in NZ is named Colin <g> Toa > > Another NZer eh? Not the Colin I used to know from the photo flight in the > > RNZAF by any chance? > > Not everyone in NZ is named Colin <g> > > Toa Not all NZers have that privilege {:-) Colin D > Another NZer eh? Not the Colin I used to know from the photo flight in the > RNZAF by any chance? No, sorry. Never got past ATC when they threw me out for pilot training 'coz of childhood asthma. Colin D. Now Colin D as per the header, as there is now another Colin using Colin as his sig. > No, sorry. Never got past ATC when they threw me out for pilot training > 'coz of childhood asthma. Have you taken up flying privately since then anyway? Cheers, CC > > No, sorry. Never got past ATC when they threw me out for pilot training > > 'coz of childhood asthma. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > CC I did have a go, at Paraparaumu, for a PP licence, mostly in a low-wing Rallye those days, about 45 - 50 years ago now, with Bryce Nairn and another instructor I can't remember. Got as far as circuits and bumps, but ran out of cash - low-paying radio tech job, young family, etc. Bit late now, though. I'm 71 tomorrow (Thursday). Colin D. > I'm 71 tomorrow (Thursday). > Colin D. WOOHOO Have one for me will ya Toa > > I'm 71 tomorrow (Thursday). > > Colin D. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Toa Roger, will do. I had most of the big ones last year, but I'm not averse to a few more {:-) Colin D. >>>No, sorry. Never got past ATC when they threw me out for pilot training >>>'coz of childhood asthma. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Colin D. It's Tuesday here in Southern California. Would it be appropriate for me to wait until Thursday here before wishing you a Happy Birthday, or would you accept my sincere wishes for you to have a Happy Birthday now. :) > >>>No, sorry. Never got past ATC when they threw me out for pilot training > >>>'coz of childhood asthma. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to wait until Thursday here before wishing you a Happy Birthday, or > would you accept my sincere wishes for you to have a Happy Birthday now. :) I'll take 'em any time you like to give 'em, Nick. Thank you. Colin D. > Bit late now, though. I'm 71 tomorrow (Thursday). Don't be too sure - check this out ... http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050527tn.html Oh - and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! > > Bit late now, though. I'm 71 tomorrow (Thursday). > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh - and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! Thank you. Mama-bird Johnson, 95 and still instructing!!! That couldn't happen in this country, too much red tape. But interesting how some people can, and some can't. Genes, I guess. Colin D. Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed trucks carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked a rock fell off this truck and cracked your windshield, who would have guessed that might happen...  SignatureStacey > Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed trucks > carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked a rock > fell off this truck and cracked your windshield, who would have guessed > that might happen... Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to catch him. I guess you've never witnessed a bouncing rock at 65 mph. -- Slack >> Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed >> trucks carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead > of me. BS. SignatureStacey > Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead > of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to > catch him. I guess you've never witnessed a bouncing rock at 65 mph. So you created a dangerous situation just to get information that is, in essence, meaningless. > > Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead > > of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to > > catch him. I guess you've never witnessed a bouncing rock at 65 mph. > > So you created a dangerous situation just to get information that is, in > essence, meaningless. What a bunch of f.cking pricks. So Slack should just be a pussy like you guys and forget about it? Greg >>>Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead >>>of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What a bunch of f.cking pricks. So Slack should just be a pussy like you > guys and forget about it? That's what car insurance is for, so you don't have to worry about stuff like this. I've never had a problem with my insurance company paying for stuff like this. You certainly don't need to go racing after the culprit, trying to turn on the camera, adjust the zoom, etc; all while risking the lives of other motorists just to get a couple of shots that prove absolutely nothing. This was just an accident, not someone purposefully causing mischief. > >>>Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead > >>>of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > prove absolutely nothing. This was just an accident, not someone > purposefully causing mischief. With a $500 or more deductible if one even has comprehensive insurance? Yes, it was an accident and the company responsible for the accident should pay for it. You think it's cool for heavy equipment to drop huge chunks of dirt clods on a well-travelled freeway. If the company has any ethics they'll pay for Slack's windshield without second thought. You're absurd. Greg > Yes, it was an accident and the company responsible for the accident > should > pay for it. You think it's cool for heavy equipment to drop huge chunks > of > dirt clods on a well-travelled freeway. If the company has any ethics > they'll pay for Slack's windshield without second thought. Unless the trucker was negligent, there's no case. Negligence means not taking the same care anybody else would have. >> Yes, it was an accident and the company responsible for the accident >> should [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unless the trucker was negligent, there's no case. Negligence means not > taking the same care anybody else would have. If you drive down the road with sh_t flying off your vehicle you are being negligent. Be accountable for your actions; what a concept! > Unless the trucker was negligent, there's no case. Negligence means not > taking the same care anybody else would have. You must have missed the mention elsewhere in the thread: you're supposed to clean off the treads of the construction equipment before putting it on a flatbed and going on the highway, for precisely this reason. The driver was responsible to make sure that was done so that his load was safe. Not doing so isn't a crime, but it's definitely negligent, because "the same care anybody else would have" means the normal professional driver who knows how to drive a truck carrying construction equipment, who should have known to do that. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>> Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths >>>> ahead [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > like this. I've never had a problem with my insurance company paying > for stuff like this. You have a magical insurance company whose dictionary doesn't include words like "deductible"? Our gov't-run insurance outfit here in BC just the last couple years upped the deductible for windshield claims to $300 ($200 if you increase your premium). It would cost me very little more just to pay for the replacement myself. > This was just an accident, not someone > purposefully causing mischief. If someone - the truck driver, the cat driver, whoever - had properly hosed down the cat before hitting the highway with it, it would be a lot less likely to happen. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0529-2, 07/21/2005 Tested on: 7/24/2005 9:46:16 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com > I've never had a problem with my insurance company paying for stuff like this. I have. I pay extra for no-deductible on glass, and they still gave me a fifteem minute inerrogation about who's vehicle the stone came from. In my case, the stone had likely come from one of three trucks that were quite a ways ahead of me, but could also have been kicked up by one of three cars travelling in the lanes either side of us. We never saw it coming, so there was no way of knowing where it came from. Still, they insisted on extensively interrogating both me and my wife about where the stone came from. It was our first claim in 20 years, for crying out loud. To the OP: My experience has been that our insurance company will gladly take care of everything if you can pin it on this trucking company. They love that. Austin > > Hey Genius, he was two lanes over and more than enough car lengths ahead > > of me. The pictures were taken about 15 minutes later after I sped up to > > catch him. I guess you've never witnessed a bouncing rock at 65 mph. > > So you created a dangerous situation just to get information that is, in > essence, meaningless. Every post I've seen from you has been a snipe. Get a grip, and a life. Colin D >Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed trucks >carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked a rock >fell off this truck and cracked your windshield, who would have guessed >that might happen... Plus, it makes a great excuse for getting out of speeding tickets, "Officer, I just wanted to get away from the truck, it was spitting rocks at my windshield." > >Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed trucks > >carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked a rock [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Officer, I just wanted to get away from the truck, it was spitting > rocks at my windshield." So 4 lanes of traffic should just sit a mile behind a truck going 55 mph on a 75 mph freeway. You guys crack me up. I have sped by many trucks in the lane furthest from the offender just so I didn't suffer a cracked windshield. You morons have no idea how long a large, hard object bounces after falling off of a truck. Greg > Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed trucks > carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked a rock > fell off this truck and cracked your windshield, who would have guessed > that might happen... Please don't be a moron if you can help it: A rock falling off the back of a truck at freeway speeds has enough kinetic energy to affect cars hundreds of yards away. While the initial momentum of the stone is indeed in the direction of the truck's travel, all it takes is one odd bounce or two off an irregularity in the road to change the projectile's direction of travel, as is the case with a billiard ball bouncing off a rail. Something like this must have happened for the stone to have done as much damage as it did, since otherwise the guy's car and the stone would have had close to zero relative velocity had the stone just fallen off the truck. Newtonian physics-- who would have guessed it might apply to events in the real world? >> Or would the message -Why you shouldn't follow close behind flatbed >> trucks carrying earth moving equipment- be more appropriate? I'm shocked >> a rock fell off this truck and cracked your windshield, who would have >> guessed that might happen... > > Please don't be a moron if you can help it: You might try that yourself.. > A rock falling off the back > of a truck at freeway speeds has enough kinetic energy to affect cars > hundreds > of yards away > . And you KNOW it came from this truck how? Given the damage I'd suspect it came from the OPPOSITE lanes of travel or was something thrown up by another car running over something that was stationary in the roadway. > Something like > this must have happened for the stone to have done as much damage as it > did, since otherwise the guy's car and the stone would have had close to > zero relative velocity had the stone just fallen off the truck. Exactly why I doubt it came from a truck traveling in the same direction close by. > Newtonian physics-- who would have guessed it might apply to events in the > real world? The try applying it yourself. SignatureStacey > I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an > accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" > > http://upload.pbase.com/slack/rock_incident > > Someone _is_ going to pay for this :-) :-) Yup, excrement occurs. It's only a scratch, I wouldn't piss around with a replacement. If you leave it alone, next week's door ding won't hurt so bad. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an >> accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a replacement. If you leave it alone, next week's door ding won't hurt > so bad. Trust me, it aint no scratch. The cracks are baseball sized and nearly went thru the windshield... scared me pissless. I have a couple other small cracks, from a tractor trailer too, I wrote those off; No big deal, but this one is very different. Anyway, this same thing happened to a good friend. His offender had one of those stickers: "How's my driving" with an 800 number, which made it easy. He called the number and they promptly sent him a check. They told him it happens fairly frequently, especially here in L.A. -- Slack > > I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an > > accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a replacement. If you leave it alone, next week's door ding won't hurt > so bad. That's not a scratch. Those cracks will eventually migrate across his windshield. Greg >>>I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an >>>accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Greg Yup, those little lines will grow longer and longer until they reach the edges. So what? According to Slack, it'll happen again soon enough, so what's the rush all about? Trust me, the insurance company isn't going to care how nor when the damage occured, so those images are meaningless to them. Note to Slack: Since this issue is so important to you, next time you see a situation that places you at risk like this, get away from it. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' [ ... ] >> That's not a scratch. Those cracks will eventually migrate across his >> windshield. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to care how nor when the damage occured, so those images are meaningless >to them. I don't know about where he is, but here in Virginia, such a ding in the windshield would cause it to fail the *mandatory* annual safety inspection. So ignoring it is not an option. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. In Texas, windshield damage will fail a safety inspection only if the damage obscures the drivers view or allows water/air incursion into the passenger area. The windshield of my rat car has several chips in it, and has been passing inspections for years. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an > >>>accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to care how nor when the damage occured, so those images are meaningless > to them. How do you even know Slack has comprehensive insurance to cover something like this? > Note to Slack: Since this issue is so important to you, next time you > see a situation that places you at risk like this, get away from it. Maybe he was already trying to? The danger was probably not evident as the rock probably came from one of the dirt clods on the treads of the tractor. Greg >>>>>I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an >>>>>accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > How do you even know Slack has comprehensive insurance to cover something > like this? Well, if he doesn't, he's screwed. Full stop. This is a perfect example of what Comp is for. Another full stop. I suppose Slack will have to chime in with his/her explanation of the purpose of a freeway chase. >>Note to Slack: Since this issue is so important to you, next time you >>see a situation that places you at risk like this, get away from it. > > Maybe he was already trying to? The danger was probably not evident as the > rock probably came from one of the dirt clods on the treads of the tractor. I suppose we'll never know where the alleged dirt clod originated. Personally, I see this often enough around here to know better than stay close behind a death trap like the one in the images. Story: Back when I was a tailgater, I lost an entire windshield after the car in front kicked up a rather large piece of ripped tire tread. With comp deductible of $500, I bought a new windshield all by my little self that same afternoon for $280 installed. As I said, excrement occurs. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an >accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" > > http://upload.pbase.com/slack/rock_incident > > Someone _is_ going to pay for this :-) :-) I don't see who, other than yourself. Stuff happens. It isn't like a truck was hauling rocks without a cap. > >I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an > >accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't see who, other than yourself. Stuff happens. It isn't like a truck > was hauling rocks without a cap. Wow, you sure are a naive f.cking moron. Did you even bother looking at the treads on the tractor? BTW, caps? Where do you live, Disneyland? Greg >>>I was trying to write the necessary info down without causing an >>>accident... when I had a revelation, "Grab the XT, dumb a.s!" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Greg The bed of a gravel truck is often covered with a "cap" which is presumed to be a reasonable precaution to reduce the chances of loose rocks causing windshield damage as protrayed in Slack's images. Some states require a cap, some don't. How is looking at the tractor treads supposed to help? Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' [ ... ] >> Wow, you sure are a naive f.cking moron. Did you even bother looking at the >> treads on the tractor? >> >> BTW, caps? Where do you live, Disneyland? [ ... ] >The bed of a gravel truck is often covered with a "cap" which is >presumed to be a reasonable precaution to reduce the chances of loose >rocks causing windshield damage as protrayed in Slack's images. Some >states require a cap, some don't. > >How is looking at the tractor treads supposed to help? Before taking earth moving equipment onto the highways (on a flatbed, of course), you are supposed to clean the treads, so chunks of rock don't fall off and do just what happened here. If a policeman had been handy, the driver of the truck would have been written up and fined. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > Before taking earth moving equipment onto the highways (on a > flatbed, of course), you are supposed to clean the treads, so chunks of > rock don't fall off and do just what happened here. > > If a policeman had been handy, the driver of the truck would > have been written up and fined. Wow, one person in this thread with common sense other than me and Slack. Greg > [ ... ] > >>> Wow, you sure are a naive <snip GT's pleasantries> > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If a policeman had been handy, the driver of the truck would > have been written up and fined. And he still may, should the OP or his insuror file a complaint and he were to testify. Not ruddy likely, my view. Insurance companies have learned the ecomomies of settling between or among themselves. The last two accidents I know about, the insurors talked to each other and agreed to pay their own customers' costs, even before the customer was queried. Just for information, in California the _only_ items coming off a vehicle that are not prohibited by law, are clear water and feathers from _live_ birds. With regard to camera-ing as a danger to others on the road, I'll bet the whingey complainers have sipped a coffee or soda, or adjusted a mirror or twisted shorts, or changed CDs or stations, and never given it a second thought. An otherwise respectable photography-forum poster was traumatized by my on-the-road pictures. My technique is no more dangerious to others than is the inattention he and his fellow-whingers spread about themselves as they drive, and photography is thoughtfully developed and conscientiously practiced, and has never had a deleterious effect on anyone's safety, including mine. I mean to say, if there is any danger at all, I choose to miss the shot. I have probably a couple hundred useable shots in my From-On-The-Road file and have missed by design or poor technique hundreds more. You may already have seen these pages, featured in a Los Angeles Times article a couple years ago, that suggest I am among the _least_ dangerous drivers on the road: http://home.san.rr.com/fsheff/incars.htm SignatureFrank ess > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > flatbed, of course), you are supposed to clean the treads, so chunks of > rock don't fall off and do just what happened here. Yup, that's one nasty piece of equipment. > If a policeman had been handy, the driver of the truck would > have been written up and fined. > > Enjoy, > DoN. Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack gonna do? mope around for a week? Note to Slack: go buy a new windshield, send us more pics of the new one so we can all sleep better. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack gonna > do? I assume he'll call the company like any normal person would. Greg > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message >> Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack gonna >> do? > > I assume he'll call the company like any normal person would. You mean like a normal "It's someone else's fault" American would do. SignatureStacey > >> Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack gonna > >> do? > > > > I assume he'll call the company like any normal person would. > > You mean like a normal "It's someone else's fault" American would do. I don't see how loose gravel/rocks hitting his windshield is his fault. Seriously now. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> You mean like a normal "It's someone else's fault" American would >> do. Who said that? SignatureFrank ess >> >> Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack >> >> gonna do? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't see how loose gravel/rocks hitting his windshield is his fault. Neither is him running over a tire tread laying in the hiway. Who's "fault" is that? The people who made the tire, the person who sold the tire, the guy who bought the tire? What if someone else had run over the rock the fell off an unknown truck and then it flew up and hit his windshield. Would it be someone else's fault then as well? How about it's part of the risk of driving on a public road and he accepts responcibility for it himself? SignatureStacey > >> >> Well, maybe so, but that didn't happen, did it? So, what's Slack > >> >> gonna do? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Neither is him running over a tire tread laying in the hiway. Who's "fault" > is that? If the owner of the tire saw big chunks of rubber falling off before he went for his last drive then that person is at fault. Otherwise, no one. Simple. > The people who made the tire, the person who sold the tire, the > guy who bought the tire? > > What if someone else had run over the rock the fell off an unknown truck and > then it flew up and hit his windshield. Would it be someone else's fault > then as well? It would be the truck driver for breaking the law by not cleaning his equipment or not covering it up. Do you have brain? Seriously? > How about it's part of the risk of driving on a public road and he accepts > responcibility for it himself? I accept my responsibilities. I don't accept someone else's blatant irresponsibility. Do you actually go outside? Ever? If you do do you let everyone walk all over you? Greg > I accept my responsibilities. Sure you do. I'm sure everytime you drive on a dirt/gravel raod you get out and check your tire treads for stones before you get on the paved road. If you have EVER not done this, you are as guilty as this truck driver was and should be willing to pay for ANY windshield that was broken on any road you drove on afterwards. SignatureStacey > > I accept my responsibilities. > > Sure you do. I'm sure everytime you drive on a dirt/gravel raod you get out > and check your tire treads for stones before you get on the paved road. Actually I drive off-highway a lot and I do check my treads. Next. Greg >> I accept my responsibilities. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > should be willing to pay for ANY windshield that was broken on any road you > drove on afterwards. People drive on dirt roads and then don't check their tires afterwards? I guess you might get complacent if you have a truck or something, but I want to know I didn't damage them before I start doing highway speed again! I guess it shouldn't be surprising. People go out on the highway and drive at speed without checking their tire pressure and tread wear first, too. Crazy, but true. They also routinely exceed the maximum safe speed of their tires *while* the tires are underinflated. People do all sorts of stupid, dangerous things; the fact that other people also do them doesn't make them okay. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>>I accept my responsibilities. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stupid, dangerous things; the fact that other people also do them doesn't > make them okay. Yup, they do, and the sooner they get what's coming to them the sooner the rest of us get what they had. Darwin - you just gotta love the guy. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Yup, they do, and the sooner they get what's coming to them the sooner > the rest of us get what they had. Darwin - you just gotta love the guy. The problem with allowing Darwin to have his way on the highway is that people can take out *other* people with their stupidity, rather than just themselves. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Yup, they do, and the sooner they get what's coming to them the sooner >>the rest of us get what they had. Darwin - you just gotta love the guy. > > The problem with allowing Darwin to have his way on the highway is that > people can take out *other* people with their stupidity, rather than > just themselves. It's not perfect, but it's fair because Darwin doesn't make exceptions. Some people make exceptions for themselves by developing the discipline to avoid the same stupidity that eventually catches up with others. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Crazy, but true. They also routinely exceed the maximum safe speed of > their tires *while* the tires are underinflated. And then of course want to sue the tire maker or even the car manufacturer when they fail and they wreck the car/truck. It's can't be THEIR fault! :-) SignatureStacey > > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You mean like a normal "It's someone else's fault" American would do. So it was Slack's fault that someone who knows better didn't follow standard operating procedure thereby causing an accident. Do you come from "Blame the Victim Land" or "Let Everyone Walk All Over Me Land"? That is an absolutely pathetic attitude. I think I'll move to your land so I can live irresponsibly and take advantage of you: "Heh, I'm too lazy to tie down that 8 ft tall armoire on the back of my truck. Oh, damn, that bump was big. Oh, wow, the armoire isn't in the truck any more. I sure hope it didn't hit anyone. Oh, well, if it caused any damage it's their fault that I was irresponsible." Now I understand why you're treated like a moron here in r.p.d.s-s. Greg >>>"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > absolutely pathetic attitude. I think I'll move to your land so I can live > irresponsibly and take advantage of you: It's less an issue of pointing fingers trying to win the Blame Game, and more an issue of being realistic with one's expectations about the behaviour of others. From a realistic perspective, people sh.t on me every day, but I don't dwell on it to the point of involving anyone else for some pie-in-the-sky remedy. sh.t happens, get over it. > "Heh, I'm too lazy to tie down that 8 ft tall armoire on the back of my > truck. Oh, damn, that bump was big. Oh, wow, the armoire isn't in the > truck any more. I sure hope it didn't hit anyone. Oh, well, if it caused > any damage it's their fault that I was irresponsible." No, it's your fault, but unless someone is willing to offer their testament about what happened, your irresponsibility gets a free ride. Happens all the time in Texas, ie. step ladders, mattresses, spare wheels, etc. My neighbour got clobbered with the spinner from one of those Look-At-Me wheels a few months ago. Thankfully, he was not injured and insured - it took out a grill, A/C condensor, fan assembly, and radiator - $1750. Two years ago, my brother in Iowa smacked a truck tire left in the nighttime freeway - tore a front wheel assembly clean off and damaged the oil pan. Insured. I already mentioned my own windshield - uninsured. We've all seen these things, it's all part of modern urbana. sh.t happens. Get over it. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > We've all seen these things, it's all part of > modern urbana. sh.t happens. Get over it. Exactly, if you don't want this to happen, stay off public roads.. $20 says these same guys wouldn't own up to something falling off their truck and causing damage to someone else's vehicle. SignatureStacey >> > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > standard > operating procedure thereby causing an accident. Accident? > Do you come from "Blame > the Victim Land" or "Let Everyone Walk All Over Me Land"? That is an > absolutely pathetic attitude. I think I'll move to your land so I can > live irresponsibly and take advantage of you: BTW I live in America myself and am SICK of the fact no one in this country wants to accept ANY responcibility, it's ALWAYS "Someone's going to pay for this.." SignatureStacey > >> > "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > wants to accept ANY responcibility, it's ALWAYS "Someone's going to pay for > this.." Hypocrite. Nice job supporting the irresponsible one that can't follow the vehicle code. Greg > BTW I live in America myself and am SICK of the fact no one in this country > wants to accept ANY responcibility, it's ALWAYS "Someone's going to pay for > this.." You know, you're right. I think I'm going to head down to the local park and tear around the playground at 70mph. Damn stupid parents shouldn't bring their kids down there if they don't want to take that risk. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >BTW I live in America myself and am SICK of the fact no one in this country >wants to accept ANY responcibility, it's ALWAYS "Someone's going to pay for >this.." On the bright side, there hasn't been one single accident anywhere in America for the last 50 years. This is quite an achievement. Nowadays whatever goes wrong, it's *always* somebody's fault.... It can be the government, the rich, the jews, the muslims, the video game industry - whoever you wish really. SignatureOwamanga! http://www.pbase.com/owamanga > Before taking earth moving equipment onto the highways (on a > flatbed, of course), you are supposed to clean the treads, so chunks of > rock don't fall off and do just what happened here. Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? > If a policeman had been handy, the driver of the truck would > have been written up and fined. For what? > Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular > vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? Yup. All we have is a photograph of a truck with a machine loaded on the back. No other evidence to suggest that the truck or it's load caused the damaged windscreen. You'll need corroborating evidence (eg witness etc) Toa > > Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular > > vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? > > Yup. All we have is a photograph of a truck with a machine loaded on the > back. No other evidence to suggest that the truck or it's load caused the > damaged windscreen. You'll need corroborating evidence (eg witness etc) Oh, please. There are gigantic dirt clods ready to fall off and break another windshield. At the very least the company should be called so the operator will start doing his job properly. Greg > "Toa" <toa@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > > Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular > > > vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > another windshield. At the very least the company should be called so the > operator will start doing his job properly. You didn't answer the question. Try again: where is the _evidence_ that the projectile came from the imaged truck? > > "Toa" <toa@nowhere.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You didn't answer the question. Try again: where is the _evidence_ > that the projectile came from the imaged truck? You don't always need direct evidence to convict a wrongdoer. And I'm amazed that you all are having such a problem putting two and two together. Oh, wait, maybe a frozen turd from an airliner passing overhead cracked his windshield. Or maybe it was a piece of space junk! Or an alien. Or maybe it was the truck in front of him with huge dirt clods falling from the treads of the tractor on the trailer. Duh. If you're suggesting that given the circumstantial evidence the trucking company wouldn't accept Slack's word then that is a sad commentary on the society in which we live. Greg > If you're suggesting that given the circumstantial evidence the trucking > company wouldn't accept Slack's word then that is a sad commentary on the > society in which we live. > Greg Innocent until "proven" guilty. Sure they "might" admit guilt but I doubt their insurance company would let them. Toa >> You didn't answer the question. Try again: where is the _evidence_ >> that the projectile came from the imaged truck? > > You don't always need direct evidence to convict a wrongdoer. And I'm > amazed that you all are having such a problem putting two and two together. A rock hits a windshield, and it therefore must have come from _that_ truck. Of course! > Oh, wait, maybe a frozen turd from an airliner passing overhead cracked his > windshield. Or maybe it was a piece of space junk! Or an alien. Or maybe > it was the truck in front of him with huge dirt clods falling from the > treads of the tractor on the trailer. Duh. Or maybe from a truck further up the highway, or maybe from the on-coming lanes, or any other plausible scenario (what is the probability that given a cracked windshield there is _a_ truck in view up the highway? what is the probability of just seeing a truck up the highway, given a crack or no crack?). We don't know, since the OP has not mentioned any of this. He just has a picture of a truck. > If you're suggesting that given the circumstantial evidence the trucking > company wouldn't accept Slack's word then that is a sad commentary on the > society in which we live. If someone came to me claiming I did something, and there was _NO EVIDENCE_ I did anything, you bet I would force the claimant to produce evidence before I make any admissions. That you (presumably) _would_ make such admissions is only a 'sad commentary' on the fact you are acting like a credulous moron. > If someone came to me claiming I did something, and there was _NO > EVIDENCE_ I did anything, you bet I would force the claimant to produce > evidence before I make any admissions. > > That you (presumably) _would_ make such admissions is only a 'sad > commentary' on the fact you are acting like a credulous moron. California state vehicle code 23114: (a)( )1 A vehicle may not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, covered, or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle. Greg > > If someone came to me claiming I did something, and there was _NO > > EVIDENCE_ I did anything, you bet I would force the claimant to produce [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, > or otherwise escaping from the vehicle. So you are going to admit the "California State Vehicle Code" as evidence? Or what? (Careful, you are close to progressing from "acting like a credulous moron" to actually being a "credulous moron".) > We don't know, since the OP has > not mentioned any of this. He just has a picture of a truck. Actually he said he was 2 lanes over and "well back" from the truck so it could havfe come from anywhere. I highly doubt he was stareing at a truck 2 lanes over to see it fall off. SignatureStacey >>>"Toa" <toa@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Greg Exactly. Hey, its worth a try anyway...ya never know unless you ask. Strike one this morning: Supposedly, the owner of KRR Trucking sold that truck a couple years ago. I'll find out if that's true. -- Slack > Exactly. Hey, its worth a try anyway...ya never know unless you ask. Your right, it might be worth making a phone call, it's not worth making a federal case out of it. A word of warning, if you make something "the principle of the thing" you will ALWAYS lose money. SignatureStacey > <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> You didn't answer the question. Try again: where is the _evidence_ >> that the projectile came from the imaged truck? > > You don't always need direct evidence to convict a wrongdoer. Yea and I'm the moron. You obviously have never been to court. The accuser has the burden of proof which isn't met by a photograph of a truck on the hi way. That windshield damage could have happened 6 months ago and he went out looking for a likely target to blame, I wouldn't be shocked if that's exactly what happened! His word isn't likely to win a verdict. SignatureStacey >> Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular >> vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? > > Yup. All we have is a photograph of a truck with a machine loaded on the > back. No other evidence to suggest that the truck or it's load caused the > damaged windscreen. You'll need corroborating evidence (eg witness etc) One assumes the driver (original poster) is a witness to the event. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > One assumes the driver (original poster) is a witness to the event. > Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com My understanding is he's also the claimant. If so I doubt that the owner of the truck could be held liable unless there's a witness that can corroborate the event as described, despite the photo. Toa > >> Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular > >> vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > One assumes the driver (original poster) is a witness to the event. Well, then, we might as well also assume the driver of the truck is also a witness. And since we are in an assuming mode, let's assume his testimony is something like this: "Yes, that is a picture of the truck I was driving that day. However, there where three other trucks ahead of me at this time. A rock could have come off any of them, or all of them, or even from vehicles in the on-coming lanes. There were also numerous passenger cars at the time, from which an object may have been accidently or deliberately released. Plaintiff has yet to produce images of any these vehicles, and even if he did, said images are not in themselves of evidence of anything but the presence of a truck at a particular place and time." Would an insurance company even bother to litigate a windshield though? One would think it would be more cost effective for them to just raise the claimants insurance rates. > > >> Where is your evidence that the projectile came from this particular > > >> vehicle? Where is the projectile itself? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > he did, said images are not in themselves of evidence of anything but > the presence of a truck at a particular place and time." And yet when you look at the original photo you see no dirt carrying trucks except for the one with HUGE CHUNKS OF DIRT ready to fall of it: http://www.pbase.com/slack/image/46619321/original > Would an insurance company even bother to litigate a windshield though? > One would think it would be more cost effective for them to just raise > the claimants insurance rates. Who says this would even be run through an insurance company? Slack very well may not have comprehensive coverage, or a large deductible, and the trucking company would probably just buy a windshield for Slack if there was anyone there with any sense. Greg > And yet when you look at the original photo you see no dirt carrying trucks > except for the one with HUGE CHUNKS OF DIRT ready to fall of it: > > http://www.pbase.com/slack/image/46619321/original If they were "ready to fall off", wouldn't they already have fallen off? Or what? You tell me, Mr. Omniscient One. Personally, I think the rock came from the pickup a lane over. Just look at it: it's black, therefore it must be guilty. > > Would an insurance company even bother to litigate a windshield though? > > One would think it would be more cost effective for them to just raise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trucking company would probably just buy a windshield for Slack if there was > anyone there with any sense. Did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in any dictionary? > Did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in any > dictionary? Any? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible Toa >> Did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in any >> dictionary? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Toa (Don't anyone make a sound) SignatureFrank S "Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump." —William Claude Dukenfeld > > And yet when you look at the original photo you see no dirt carrying trucks > > except for the one with HUGE CHUNKS OF DIRT ready to fall of it: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in any > dictionary? Neither does the word "responsibility" either. Blame the victim, moron. Greg G.T. proves he is incomprehensibly stupid: >> Did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in any >> dictionary? > > Neither does the word "responsibility" either. Blame the victim, moron. As usual, Mr. G.T., you demonstrate poor reading comprehension skills: I've said nothing about the "victim". I've only shown your arguments have no force -- indeed, you have yet to produce a sensible argument at all. Apparently you can't perceive the difference, so I have no choice but to conclude you are an ineducable dimwit. > G.T. proves he is incomprehensibly stupid: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all. Apparently you can't perceive the difference, so I have no choice > but to conclude you are an ineducable dimwit. Pot, kettle, black. Greg > > And yet when you look at the original photo you see no dirt carrying trucks > > except for the one with HUGE CHUNKS OF DIRT ready to fall of it: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rock came from the pickup a lane over. Just look at it: it's black, > therefore it must be guilty. Nice pulling the race card out of nowhere. Talk about being a moron. Greg > Well, then, we might as well also assume the driver of the truck is > also a witness. And since we are in an assuming mode, let's assume his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > he did, said images are not in themselves of evidence of anything but > the presence of a truck at a particular place and time." Okay, let's. Then let's assume that the judge has heard the testimony of the plaintiff, and seen the photographs clearly indicating that the truck, admittedly driven by the star witness for the defense, was being operated in violation of both the law and standards of professional responsibility, which laws and standards are intended to prevent exactly what happened here. Now, where is the preponderance of the evidence? > Would an insurance company even bother to litigate a windshield though? > One would think it would be more cost effective for them to just raise > the claimants insurance rates. It would be, but they don't do that for comprehensive claims. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Okay, let's. Then let's assume that the judge has heard the testimony > of the plaintiff, and seen the photographs clearly indicating that the > truck, admittedly driven by the star witness for the defense, was being > operated in violation of both the law and standards of professional > responsibility, which laws and standards are intended to prevent exactly > what happened here. Now, where is the preponderance of the evidence? In something of a state of irrelevancy. If we find someone shot dead with a gun, and, as a byproduct of the search for the culprit, we find someone who has, contrary to the law, improperly stored their firearms but no other links to the crime, do we charge this person with murder anyways? > > Would an insurance company even bother to litigate a windshield though? > > One would think it would be more cost effective for them to just raise > > the claimants insurance rates. > > It would be, but they don't do that for comprehensive claims. Well, various readings on the net suggest that making trivial claims does kick up the rate you pay. But I will defer here, as my personal experience is limited -- I would never bother to make a claim for a windshield or the like; the job of the policy is to get the insurance company to buy a fully wrecked or seriously damaged car, not to fix scratches etc. As a corrolary, the very idea of running a bogus shake-down operation on a truck company is completely alien to my philosophy. I'd only pursue this option I was absolutely sure it was their truck and the drivers negligence etc, and could _prove it_. According to this "G.T.", though, this is called "blaming the victim". > In something of a state of irrelevancy. If we find someone shot dead > with a gun, and, as a byproduct of the search for the culprit, we find > someone who has, contrary to the law, improperly stored their firearms > but no other links to the crime, do we charge this person with murder > anyways? No relevance; the standard of "proof" is entirely different for criminal cases. > Well, various readings on the net suggest that making trivial claims > does kick up the rate you pay. But I will defer here, as my personal > experience is limited -- I would never bother to make a claim for a > windshield or the like; the job of the policy is to get the insurance > company to buy a fully wrecked or seriously damaged car, not to fix > scratches etc. I've only made comprehensive claims for total loss of the car (hitting an animal). Those don't affect rates or anything else; they just give you a check. (I've lost two cars to deer; none to other cars. I actually have a much smaller deductible on my comprehensive coverage than my collision coverage; I don't mind paying if I'm the one who screws up.) > As a corrolary, the very idea of running a bogus shake-down operation > on a truck company is completely alien to my philosophy. I'd only > pursue this option I was absolutely sure it was their truck and the > drivers negligence etc, and could _prove it_. It would seem that the person *is* absolutely sure it was their truck. As for proving it, I guess if you think "CSI" is real and you require that level of evidence, he can't provide it. The evidence provided is enough for me to think he's justified in going to the company; they were in violation of highway safety standards and probably the law, and highway safety is a "thing" of mine since I do a lot of highway driving, so I'm glad to see him not letting them get away with it. Personally, I probably wouldn't bother, either -- but I would file the insurance claim since a windshield would easily exceed my comprehensive deductible. Which means that *not* pursuing it with the trucking company due to my own laziness would actually be a bad thing, since the insurance company would have to pay even though they shouldn't. However, the post did provide a good reminder that, sometimes, photos can have informational value. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> In something of a state of irrelevancy. If we find someone shot dead >> with a gun, and, as a byproduct of the search for the culprit, we find [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No relevance; the standard of "proof" is entirely different for criminal > cases. Oh please, I've been to small claims court multiple times by morons looking to have someone else take care of their problems. The judge wouldn't even consider this picture as a "fact" that the rock came from this truck. Like I said he could have had the windshield broken by kids throwing rocks at it weeks before and he just went out trolling for a person to blame it on. You don't think there are sleeze balls out there doing that kind of thing? The judge has to assume a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty, a picture of dirty tracks isn't proof of anything other than the tracks have mud on them. > It would seem that the person *is* absolutely sure it was their truck. Unless he saw the rock fall off the truck, he's just guessing it was. > The evidence provided is > enough for me to think he's justified in going to the company It's worth a phone call. If they don't accept responcibility, that will be the end of it though. SignatureStacey > However, the post did provide a good reminder that, sometimes, photos > can have informational value. You're absolutely right. Question is, is that information actually worth anything to anyone other than the photographer. In this case, I seriously doubt it. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > Okay, let's. Then let's assume that the judge has heard the testimony > > of the plaintiff, and seen the photographs clearly indicating that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but no other links to the crime, do we charge this person with murder > anyways? That is a PATHETIC analogy. Changing "improperly stored their firearms" to "carrying a smoking gun" is much closer to reality. Greg >That is a PATHETIC analogy. Changing "improperly stored their firearms" to >"carrying a smoking gun" is much closer to reality. And what he is doing is "shooting rubber bullets". Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message