If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
That's not possible
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
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" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
> 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. I can't think of one that isn't. > 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. It's a rather minor nit pick to use to try and discredit a source, when in fact, because they list their sources, one could easily skip and go upstream a notch. You'll find time honored mainstream news does a lot worse on a daily basis. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:51:02 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote: >In article >, Bill Funk wrote: >> 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. > >I can't think of one that isn't. > >> 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. > >It's a rather minor nit pick to use to try and discredit a source, when >in fact, because they list their sources, one could easily skip >and go upstream a notch. Most people don't check cites. They rely on the 'reporter' to get the facts right. Regardless of your leanings, there are always publications that will bias their reporting to fit their agendas. This one obviously bends their reporting to suit their agenda of being "for" the driver,and "against" the "system" that is actively against them. I just pointed out one example that demonstrates that. > >You'll find time honored mainstream news does a lot worse on a daily >basis. > I didn't say otherwise. I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the agenda of the site. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
Bill Funk wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:51:02 -0500, > (Brent P) wrote: > > >In article >, Bill Funk wrote: > >> 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. > > > >I can't think of one that isn't. > > > >> 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. > > > >It's a rather minor nit pick to use to try and discredit a source, when > >in fact, because they list their sources, one could easily skip > >and go upstream a notch. > > Most people don't check cites. They rely on the 'reporter' to get the > facts right. > Regardless of your leanings, there are always publications that will > bias their reporting to fit their agendas. This one obviously bends > their reporting to suit their agenda of being "for" the driver,and > "against" the "system" that is actively against them. > I just pointed out one example that demonstrates that. > > > >You'll find time honored mainstream news does a lot worse on a daily > >basis. > > > I didn't say otherwise. > I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the > agenda of the site. Bias or no, the article makes it pretty clear that more roadblocks would be mandated. That certainly should be cause for concern for anyone that gives a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Bill of Rights. either that or the reporter was flat out lying. nate |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
On 22 Aug 2006 11:01:07 -0700, "N8N" > wrote:
>> I didn't say otherwise. >> I'm just pointing out an obviously biased article, which shows the >> agenda of the site. > >Bias or no, the article makes it pretty clear that more roadblocks >would be mandated. That certainly should be cause for concern for >anyone that gives a rat's ass about civil liberties or the Bill of >Rights. either that or the reporter was flat out lying. Tjhe article was about insurance, not any Constitutional rights. The roadblocks in this case are to people doing really stupid things, and expecting someone else to pay for it. Seems reasonable to me. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Massachusetts may get a lot worse for driving.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dodge in Massachusetts | tadjou | Chrysler | 1 | August 4th 06 04:35 AM |
D.C. Red Light Cameras Ineffective OR WORSE (except for making money) - New Study | Ashton Crusher | Driving | 2 | October 6th 05 03:04 AM |
New Mopar web site Massachusetts | tadjou | Chrysler | 0 | August 11th 05 05:59 PM |
Massachusetts Mopar Fan | tadjou | Chrysler | 0 | July 31st 05 08:25 PM |
Vibration in my SW2...getting worse every day... | WTP07 | Saturn | 2 | October 24th 04 01:13 AM |