A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

not even MFFY, just an a-hole...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 7th 05, 04:06 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:25:04 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>There's a fine line between intent and negligence.

>>
>>That's a pretty bright line.
>>
>>>If you SHOULD HAVE
>>>been able to avoid a collision, but you were too incompetent to do so,
>>>that's not much different than having actual intent.

>>
>>Mere incompetence isn't necessarily negligence

>
>I'll agree with that in general. However, given the risks to public
>safety that are involved, isn't it one's duty to become competent
>before getting behind the wheel?


The only legal duty is to pass the driver's test. That establishes a
(very) minimal level of comptence.

>>it only becomes so if it results in you
>>failing to accomplish a legal duty.

>
>Or a moral one.


Not if you're talking about the legal term "negligence".
Ads
  #12  
Old March 2nd 05, 06:49 AM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Robert F Merrill wrote:
> You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
> intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
> an accident, but someone can still be at fault.


I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing it
deliberately. And everybody knows it.
  #13  
Old March 2nd 05, 08:05 AM
RobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Usual Suspect wrote:
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > I hit the brakes hard, and then moved to the left,
> > downshifting and passing him quickly.

>
> Word of advice: get an automatic. You are thinking about shifting a

bit too
> much, if you had to mention it in your post. Stickshifts are for

those who
> can handle them subconsciously.


Oh fer cryin out loud, they're just telling a story. How would you
write it, "I moved to the left, subconsiously downshifting..."

  #14  
Old March 2nd 05, 08:13 AM
RobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


We're feeding a troll here, people.

What the hell. Even a troll's gotta eat.

  #15  
Old March 2nd 05, 06:59 PM
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


John David Galt wrote:
> Robert F Merrill wrote:
> > You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you

have to
> > intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to

happen is
> > an accident, but someone can still be at fault.

>
> I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
> Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing

it
> deliberately. And everybody knows it.


URANIDIOT. "Not an accident" simply means someone is to blame whether
they crashed deliberately or not. If a driver is speeding and loses
control on a curve and hits another car, that is NOT AN ACCIDENT.

  #16  
Old March 2nd 05, 10:18 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:49:30 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>Robert F Merrill wrote:
>> You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
>> intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
>> an accident, but someone can still be at fault.

>
>I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
>Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing it
>deliberately. And everybody knows it.


Wrong. Look up "accident".
Very few crashes are "accidents". Most are driver error of some type.
Not necessarily *on purpose*, but driver error nonetheless.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #17  
Old March 3rd 05, 05:07 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:49:30 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:
>
>>Robert F Merrill wrote:
>>> You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
>>> intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
>>> an accident, but someone can still be at fault.

>>
>>I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
>>Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing it
>>deliberately. And everybody knows it.

>
>Wrong. Look up "accident".
>Very few crashes are "accidents". Most are driver error of some type.
>Not necessarily *on purpose*, but driver error nonetheless.


From Merriam-Webster online
Accident 1a: "an unforseen and unplanned event or circumstance"
1b: "lack of intention or necessity: CHANCE"
2a: "an unfortunate event resulting especially from
carelessness or ignorance"
2b: "an unexpected and medically important bodily event
especially when injurious"
2c: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is
not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the
person injured but for which legal relief may be sought"
3: "a nonessential property or quality of an entity or
circumstance"

Your typical auto accident fits 1a, the more precise definition in 1b,
and 2a. Many also fit 2c (since the injured party is not necessarily
at fault)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #18  
Old March 4th 05, 12:33 AM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:07:42 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Big Bill > wrote:
>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:49:30 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert F Merrill wrote:
>>>> You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
>>>> intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
>>>> an accident, but someone can still be at fault.
>>>
>>>I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
>>>Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing it
>>>deliberately. And everybody knows it.

>>
>>Wrong. Look up "accident".
>>Very few crashes are "accidents". Most are driver error of some type.
>>Not necessarily *on purpose*, but driver error nonetheless.

>
>From Merriam-Webster online
>Accident 1a: "an unforseen and unplanned event or circumstance"
> 1b: "lack of intention or necessity: CHANCE"
> 2a: "an unfortunate event resulting especially from
> carelessness or ignorance"
> 2b: "an unexpected and medically important bodily event
> especially when injurious"
> 2c: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is
> not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the
> person injured but for which legal relief may be sought"
> 3: "a nonessential property or quality of an entity or
> circumstance"
>
>Your typical auto accident fits 1a, the more precise definition in 1b,
>and 2a. Many also fit 2c (since the injured party is not necessarily
>at fault)


Observation says 1b doesn't describe many vehicle crashes.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #19  
Old March 4th 05, 07:09 AM
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:07:42 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Big Bill > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:49:30 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert F Merrill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You're wrong. In order for a collision not to be an accident, you have to
>>>>>intend to collide with them. A collision which no one intended to happen is
>>>>>an accident, but someone can still be at fault.
>>>>
>>>>I'm glad _some_body on this group understands the English language.
>>>>Saying it's "not an accident" is accusing one of the drivers of doing it
>>>>deliberately. And everybody knows it.
>>>
>>>Wrong. Look up "accident".
>>>Very few crashes are "accidents". Most are driver error of some type.
>>>Not necessarily *on purpose*, but driver error nonetheless.

>>
>>From Merriam-Webster online

>
>>Accident 1a: "an unforseen and unplanned event or circumstance"
>> 1b: "lack of intention or necessity: CHANCE"
>> 2a: "an unfortunate event resulting especially from
>> carelessness or ignorance"
>> 2b: "an unexpected and medically important bodily event
>> especially when injurious"
>> 2c: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is
>> not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the
>> person injured but for which legal relief may be sought"
>> 3: "a nonessential property or quality of an entity or
>> circumstance"
>>
>>Your typical auto accident fits 1a, the more precise definition in 1b,
>>and 2a. Many also fit 2c (since the injured party is not necessarily
>>at fault)

>
>
> Observation says 1b doesn't describe many vehicle crashes.


So what? 1b, 2c, and 2a together cover all cases where the wreck wasn't
done on purpose, so whichever of those applies, it's still an accident.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MFFY Du Jour Mike Z. Helm Driving 51 April 10th 05 08:30 PM
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY Daniel W. Rouse Jr. Driving 82 December 23rd 04 02:10 AM
hole in center tunnel joe bloe VW air cooled 0 November 19th 04 01:06 AM
Drill Hole and Airbag Saturn 0 August 8th 04 08:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.