Total BS
07-24-2002, 12:59 PM
#42
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Let me get this BS straight:
By this logic, if I am to go out onto the Garden State Parkway, with no helmet (Illegal in NJ) and smack my bike into a bridge at 180, my wife can sue the State Troopers for not pulling me over?
What a load of crap.
Since she's insisting that the local cops never enforced the speed limit, they should hand her a bunch of tickets to make up for all the times they "Looked the other way." That should take care of it.
By this logic, if I am to go out onto the Garden State Parkway, with no helmet (Illegal in NJ) and smack my bike into a bridge at 180, my wife can sue the State Troopers for not pulling me over?
What a load of crap.
Since she's insisting that the local cops never enforced the speed limit, they should hand her a bunch of tickets to make up for all the times they "Looked the other way." That should take care of it.
07-24-2002, 07:06 PM
#43
Registered
Right on Rainman!! good analagy!!.........I emailed OSO about having a poll for or against the lawsuit, havnt got a reply, Its no use sitting here *****ing among ourselves and not doing anything proactive like a bunch of women, Ill tell you an interesting story.........
We have this large forest owned by the province up here and a bunch of tree huggers wanted to ban ATVs and dirt bikes from it saying they were wrecking the forest with their knobby tires and such. Well after a bunch of debates it went to our highest court for a final decision and the court sided with the bikes saying they didnt damage the forest any more than the horses from the horseback riding they have there. What shocked me was that it was reported in the papers that officials from several provinces and five or six states (Michagan and Calif are two I can remember) were awaiting the results of the court decision!!!! Thats why I am way up here in Canada worrying about what happens in California...............Doug
We have this large forest owned by the province up here and a bunch of tree huggers wanted to ban ATVs and dirt bikes from it saying they were wrecking the forest with their knobby tires and such. Well after a bunch of debates it went to our highest court for a final decision and the court sided with the bikes saying they didnt damage the forest any more than the horses from the horseback riding they have there. What shocked me was that it was reported in the papers that officials from several provinces and five or six states (Michagan and Calif are two I can remember) were awaiting the results of the court decision!!!! Thats why I am way up here in Canada worrying about what happens in California...............Doug
07-24-2002, 08:40 PM
#44
No offense, but I think several people here are missing the point of "assuming the risk". I have seen a bunch of posts that concern the wearing of safety gear. Are those people saying that if the people in the boat had been wearing safety gear, then the suit might have been on firm footing???
We go fast in our boats. We know how fast we will (or hope to) go. I have a problem with people that believe the government should protect me from myself. Should surviving spouses be able to sue the Air Force, because the pilot of a fighter jet was allowed to go too fast. They wear safety gear. Should Dale Earnhardt's widow sue? If he could have made a 250mph lap, I bet he would have. These are dangerous activities we choose to participate in. Safety gear or not, is the government responsible? (Just trying to keep every one on track.)
Next, from whom do you think this sport has more to fear? The local governments that may pass speed laws, or the insurance companies that are going to quit insuring anything with more than t-330hp's. That is the real danger of this suit. Insurance companies share data ahout claims almost instantaneously, and I promise your premiun will go up (or be cancelled) a year or two before your local lake passes a new speed limit. Insurance companies are starting to cancel homeowner's policies for insureds that make claims. We need to ask them if they are here to insure against accidents, or collect premiums until one comes along (and then try to avoid liability).
We go fast in our boats. We know how fast we will (or hope to) go. I have a problem with people that believe the government should protect me from myself. Should surviving spouses be able to sue the Air Force, because the pilot of a fighter jet was allowed to go too fast. They wear safety gear. Should Dale Earnhardt's widow sue? If he could have made a 250mph lap, I bet he would have. These are dangerous activities we choose to participate in. Safety gear or not, is the government responsible? (Just trying to keep every one on track.)
Next, from whom do you think this sport has more to fear? The local governments that may pass speed laws, or the insurance companies that are going to quit insuring anything with more than t-330hp's. That is the real danger of this suit. Insurance companies share data ahout claims almost instantaneously, and I promise your premiun will go up (or be cancelled) a year or two before your local lake passes a new speed limit. Insurance companies are starting to cancel homeowner's policies for insureds that make claims. We need to ask them if they are here to insure against accidents, or collect premiums until one comes along (and then try to avoid liability).
07-24-2002, 09:11 PM
#46
Platinum Member
Platinum MemberThread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
told my Wife (at the time! the Boat business is tough on a marriage) and oldest Kid if they ever had to drag me out a Boat I was testing dead! Remember I was doing what I loved to do and No one was forcing me! Had a friend killed in front of me! That also is all part of what we do for a living! We get used too it slowly but still do!!
See in the good Counselor Coles eyes we each need A Cop sorry Troutly eerr Peace Enforcement Officer as a Minder beside us Daily so we can not hurt ourselves!
Best Regards to everyone but Mr. Cole
See in the good Counselor Coles eyes we each need A Cop sorry Troutly eerr Peace Enforcement Officer as a Minder beside us Daily so we can not hurt ourselves!
Best Regards to everyone but Mr. Cole
07-24-2002, 10:32 PM
#48
Registered
It's a sad state of affair, but those of use who don't do anything wrong (not saying these guys did !!!) are going to pay the price no matter what happens with the law suit.
Think about it we live in a Country that someone can stick a cup of coffee between there legs, sue and WIN !?!?!?!?!? That's just plan F#$KED UP !!!
Second it's in a State that could somehow find OJ innocent of Murder Chargers, by liable for the deaths !!!
You would think with everything else going on in todays world this crap wouldn't go on, lawyers should not be allowed to advertise, or sollicite business.
Doug
Think about it we live in a Country that someone can stick a cup of coffee between there legs, sue and WIN !?!?!?!?!? That's just plan F#$KED UP !!!
Second it's in a State that could somehow find OJ innocent of Murder Chargers, by liable for the deaths !!!
You would think with everything else going on in todays world this crap wouldn't go on, lawyers should not be allowed to advertise, or sollicite business.
Doug
07-24-2002, 10:35 PM
#49
Originally posted by RumRunner
...lawyers should not be allowed to advertise, or sollicite business.
Doug
...lawyers should not be allowed to advertise, or sollicite business.
Doug
BTW -- I agree with you about OJ, but, DAMN, that coffee WAS hot.
