Sloth Kills Two More

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2005 23:04:02 -0700, "Old Wolf" >
> wrote:
>
> >Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> >> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
> >> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
> >> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
> >> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
> >> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
> >> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
> >
> >This happened to someone I know, except it was on a motorway with
> >median barriers, and the guy behind swerved off and drove into
> >the barrier. The guy behind's insurance co. then successfully sued
> >for the damages to his car.
>
> How did they catch the guy who pulled out in front of your friend?

My friend was the front guy (who maintained that the guy behind's
swerve was unnecessary as there was enough distance between the cars).

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the scardy-cat sloth didn't pull over and let the traffic
> > behind him go by, as required by law. In so many cases of accidents,
> > there are two people who break laws and do dumb things that cause the
> > accident. In this case some slowpoke who didn't pull over and some
> > crazy who passed over a double yellow line that caused the accident.
> > Two dumb acts and two laws broken by two dumb people.
>
> You don't know the "slow" driver was doing less than the SL and even if
> he was, he is not required to pull over. This is ALL the fault of the
> psycho who passed where he shouldn't have.

Why must you spam everyone with a r.a.d. thread?

And, you're completely wrong. In Cali you must use a turnout if you're
holding up 5 or more cars. Stop criminal coddling you ignorant troll.

Dave

On 11 Jul 2005 17:39:28 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>> You're right, I made a mistake. You were not top-posting. I apologize
>> for calling you a top-posting ninny.
>
>No problem but damn...why did you do that? It takes all the fun out of
>ragging on you

Don't worry - I'll be sure to give you some more ammunition soon.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:59:58 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:
>
>> On 10 Jul 2005 23:23:23 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>I'd chalk this up to a stupidity related collision, someone decided to
>>>pass in a really bad spot, and ended up killing someone who did nothing
>>>wrong as well as themself because of a stupid decision.
>>
>> There's no question that the Ford driver has the lion's share of the
>> blame, and that the loss of an innocent driver's life was a needless
>> tragedy. But if it weren't for the Sloth RRB, would any of it have
>> happened?
>
>There is no mention at all of the speed of the "other" car.

Of course not. The liberal media does not consider Sloth to be a
problem. They are too brainwashed by the "speed kills" propaganda.
Hence the slanted reporting.

>Aside from
>your know bias towards "Sloths", how do you know whether that other car
>was going 10 below the speed limit, exactly the speed limit, 10 above the
>speed limit, or some where in between?

Educated guess, based on firsthand knowledge of the road (and roads
like it).

>>>As long as we're assuming things, from the erratic driving witnesses,
>>>and the smell of alcohol, he probably was an impatient drunk who wanted
>>>to drive 95.
>>
>> You gotta admit, my assumptions are more original.
>>
>They sure fit your prejudices.

Just as the newspaper report fits the liberal media's prejudices.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:11:27 -0500, "Dan J.S." > wrote:

>Reading between the lines, I am surprised that it was not an alien abduction
>gone awry! That is also a possibility.

Don't be ridiculous. I've never seen an alien spacecraft, but I see
Sloths every single time I drive.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:06:53 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
>> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>
>Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.
>
>It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared in
>your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic.

If you decide not to swerve, you are pretty much guaranteed to a) have
a collision, and b) be ruled at fault (since any rear-end collision is
automatically presumed to be the fault of the driver in the rear).
OTOH, if you swerve, there's a chance that the oncoiming traffic lane
wil be clear long enough for you to avoid a collision entirely.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:06:53 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>
>>> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>>> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>>> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>>> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>>> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of you
>>> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision? You?
>>
>>Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.
>>
>>It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared in
>>your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic.
>
>If you decide not to swerve, you are pretty much guaranteed to a) have
>a collision, and b) be ruled at fault (since any rear-end collision is
>automatically presumed to be the fault of the driver in the rear).
>OTOH, if you swerve, there's a chance that the oncoiming traffic lane
>wil be clear long enough for you to avoid a collision entirely.

Chance, shmance. If I've been paying attention, I know whether the
oncoming traffic lane is clear. If it is, I will swerve; it's not like
the pass is going to take long at the speed differential between me
and some idiot who just pulled out. If it's not clear or visibility
is obstructed and there's no place else to go, the idiot is going to
get my car up his tailpipe and our insurance company's lawyers can
fight over whether he cut me off or I rear-ended him.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Interesting choice of words for that caption: Sloth Kills Two More

Was that a three toed sloth or a two toed sloth driving that Ford?

I hate top-posting.

"Harry K" > wrote in message
oups.com...


Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 06:33:45 -0700, "Harry K" >
> wrote:
>
> >> My post was a SATIRE, not a troll, you top-posting ninny.
> >
> >So in addition to posting dishonest headers you don't even know what
> >top posting is?
>
> You're right, I made a mistake. You were not top-posting. I apologize
> for calling you a top-posting ninny.

No problem but damn...why did you do that? It takes all the fun out of
ragging on you

Harry K

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:06:53 GMT, DYM > wrote:
>>
>>>> Now, let's suppose you were driving down a two-lane road with a
>>>> double-yellow centerline and a car pulled out directly in front of
>>>> you. Your options are to rear-end the car or to swerve into the
>>>> oncoming traffic lane. Suppose you do the latter and you end up dead
>>>> in a head-on collision while the idiot who pulled out in front of
you
>>>> drives off without a scratch. Who is at fault for this collision?
You?
>>>
>>>Quick answer, legally, you are, yes.
>>>
>>>It is far preferable to hit what ever object that suddenly appeared in
>>>your path than to swerve into oncoming traffic.
>>
>>If you decide not to swerve, you are pretty much guaranteed to a) have
>>a collision, and b) be ruled at fault (since any rear-end collision is
>>automatically presumed to be the fault of the driver in the rear).
>>OTOH, if you swerve, there's a chance that the oncoiming traffic lane
>>wil be clear long enough for you to avoid a collision entirely.
>
> Chance, shmance. If I've been paying attention, I know whether the
> oncoming traffic lane is clear. If it is, I will swerve; it's not like
> the pass is going to take long at the speed differential between me
> and some idiot who just pulled out. If it's not clear or visibility
> is obstructed and there's no place else to go, the idiot is going to
> get my car up his tailpipe and our insurance company's lawyers can
> fight over whether he cut me off or I rear-ended him.

As soon as the front car states where he came from (side road, parking
lot, driveway), and that's where the two of you collied, you've got a
good chance of wining as he did not yield as he should have.

Doug