Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.

thenewspaper.com is just loaded with good stories for this group...

Yet another cite for those who think that the law isn't manipulated for
the benefit of insurance companies:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1280.asp

<...>
"Other changes to automobile insurance law would prohibit car enthusiasts
from taking a damaged vehicle to the repair shop of their choice.
Instead, those involved in an accident would have to accept only the
discount shops "preferred" by the insurance company responsible for the
claim. Similarly, injured motorists would not be able to seek treatment
from the best doctor in the field. Instead, their choice would be
restricted to those health facilities approved by the insurance company."
<...>
"Reilly's other changes would increase the amount of ticketing by police
officers. First, he would mandate a minimum number of roadblocks to be
set up at random to search motorists not suspected of any wrongdoing."
<...>

--------------------------------------------

Of course there is more automated ticketing with a slim margin and more
police state road blocks etc too...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:41 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>
>thenewspaper.com is just loaded with good stories for this group...
>
>Yet another cite for those who think that the law isn't manipulated for
>the benefit of insurance companies:
>
>http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1280.asp
>
><...>
>"Other changes to automobile insurance law would prohibit car enthusiasts
>from taking a damaged vehicle to the repair shop of their choice.
>Instead, those involved in an accident would have to accept only the
>discount shops "preferred" by the insurance company responsible for the
>claim. Similarly, injured motorists would not be able to seek treatment
>from the best doctor in the field. Instead, their choice would be
>restricted to those health facilities approved by the insurance company."
><...>
>"Reilly's other changes would increase the amount of ticketing by police
>officers. First, he would mandate a minimum number of roadblocks to be
>set up at random to search motorists not suspected of any wrongdoing."
><...>

You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:41 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >
> >thenewspaper.com is just loaded with good stories for this group...
> >
> >Yet another cite for those who think that the law isn't manipulated for
> >the benefit of insurance companies:
> >
> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1280.asp
> >
> ><...>
> >"Other changes to automobile insurance law would prohibit car enthusiasts
> >from taking a damaged vehicle to the repair shop of their choice.
> >Instead, those involved in an accident would have to accept only the
> >discount shops "preferred" by the insurance company responsible for the
> >claim. Similarly, injured motorists would not be able to seek treatment
> >from the best doctor in the field. Instead, their choice would be
> >restricted to those health facilities approved by the insurance company."
> ><...>
> >"Reilly's other changes would increase the amount of ticketing by police
> >officers. First, he would mandate a minimum number of roadblocks to be
> >set up at random to search motorists not suspected of any wrongdoing."
> ><...>
>
> You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
> and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
> we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.

Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
inconvenienced. Just one.

Otherwise, please STFU and DIAF.

HTH, HAND.

nate

On 22 Aug 2006 10:59:52 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:


>>
>> You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>> and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>> we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.
>
>Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
>inconvenienced. Just one.
>

Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: Speeders & Drunk Drivers
are MURDERERS >
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>On 22 Aug 2006 10:59:52 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>>> and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>>> we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.
>>
>>Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
>>inconvenienced. Just one.
>>
>
>Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
>walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
>shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.
>

Nice of you to address the issue, moron. No wonder you lose all your
arguments.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS, proud (and obvious) graduate of the South Hampton
Institute of Technology, polluted rec.autos.driving with this crap:

> Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
> walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
> shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.

Nice to see that even with the new nym, you are still as funny as ever
and equally adept at avoiding the issue and not answering the question.

Now then, why don't you just DIAF, loser?



--
C onsortium of
I mbeciles &
A ssholes

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 10:59:52 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>>>and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>>>we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.
>>
>>Name ONE person that I've killed, injured, or even mildly
>>inconvenienced. Just one.
>>
>
>
> Now that is really stupid. And i suppose we should also let people
> walk into banks with guns and leave them alone until they actually
> shoot someone!!! THINK YOU MORON.

What would be wrong with allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns?
It would be nice for a change to have people taking responsibility for
their own safety rather than having to rely on the police.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Hi. This is the meow-send program at usenet. I'm afraid I wasn't able
to deliver any clue to the following address: laura bush - VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE >
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.


>You deadly reckless drivers bring all this on yourself. Stop killing
>and maiming innocent people with your speeding and drunk driving and
>we wouldn't need police state tactics to stop you.

LMAO. If the police were stopping it, it wouldn't be happening. Just
like murder. Damned you're stupid, but you enjoy that obviously.


---

"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

--

El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...6999983?hl=en&

Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.

This is no joke.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:33:41 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>thenewspaper.com is just loaded with good stories for this group...

I notice that this publication is rather, shall we say, biased.
In this article,
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/08/896.asp
I notice that the article makes a point of saying, "The proposal would
require the insurer to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that
the availability of keys inside the vehicle "contributed to" the loss
in order to avoid payment. "
Well, since any such claim would be adjucated in civil court, a
preponderance of the evidence is the normal way to determine who wins.
And, anyone who thinks that leaving the keys in a car doesn't
contribute to the car's theft isn't thinking at all.
Yet, the tone of the article is to somehow show that the insurance
companies have an obligation to insure a client's stupidity based on a
decreased form of determining liability.

As for the key in the car thing, I personally (that means IMO) think
the payout should be decreased, based on the client's facilitating the
theft.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"