Is it legal to hit other cars on the road?

Universal Soldier wrote:
> N8N wrote <something dull>
>
>
> "Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people
are
> saying about you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that
applies."
> -- Nate Nagel, 2005
>
>
> Are you qualified to talk about stupidity? I think so.

I'm qualified to call you stupid, because you are.

Listen up, you sniveling pile of sub-human protoplasm - your continued
quoting of me in a feeble attempt to make yourself look smarter than I
only serves to prove my point. From dictionary.com:

> ad hominem
>
> adj : appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or
> reason); "ad hominem arguments"

Since everything that I've said about you (i.e. "you're an idiot") is
*not* based on my feelings for you (although they are less than warm or
fuzzy) but based on your own inability to grasp the concepts of logic,
morality, enlightened self-interest, or even a concept so basic as the
difference between defense and aggression - it is clear that my
statements about you are not ad hominem at all, but clearly based on an
analysis of your postings, which demonstrates a boundless stupidity
that I would have previously not thought possible in a being that has
acquired enough sentience to find the "on" button on a computer.

Your ability to misinterpret a dictionary entry is duly noted. Now run
along, the adults were trying to have a conversation before you ran
screaming and waving your chubby little arms about.

nate

N8N wrote:

> Listen up, you sniveling pile of sub-human protoplasm - your continued
> quoting of me

Why are you so angry, Nate? You are chimping out like that pizza parlor
customer. What do you have against this quote? Please explain.

"Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
saying about you.**Based*on*your*posts,*I*don't*think*that*that *applies."*
*--*Nate*Nagel,*2005

Universal Soldier wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> > Listen up, you sniveling pile of sub-human protoplasm - your
continued
> > quoting of me
>
> Why are you so angry, Nate? You are chimping out like that pizza
parlor
> customer. What do you have against this quote? Please explain.
>
> "Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people
are
> saying about
you. Based on your posts, I don't think that that applies."
> -- Nate Nagel, 2005

Chimping out? You mean you're going to beat me up? Oooh, I'm scared.
(I thought violence wasn't the answer?)

As for the quote, I have nothing against it, but it would be awful nice
if you'd shut the hell up and try to learn rather than continually
demonstrating how mind-bogglingly stupid you are.

Didn't I tell you to run along already?

nate

N8N wrote:

> Chimping out?**You*mean*you're*going*to*beat*me*up?**Oooh,* I'm*scared.
> (I thought violence wasn't the answer?)

No, I was talking about the fat dude (the one you said was Godly Christian).
Ever seen chimps get angry? Why would I want to beat you up, Nate? I'm not
angry, you a

> Listen up, you sniveling pile of sub-human protoplasm - your
> continued quoting of me

Since you have nothing against the quote:

> As for the quote, I have nothing against it,

I will gladly quote you:

"Ad hominem would imply that there's no basis for the things people are
saying about you.**Based*on*your*posts,*I*don't*think*that*that *applies."*
*--*Nate*Nagel,*2005

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
> road, where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone
> is making a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his
> movement is blocked by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to hit
> his car?
>
> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way and
> I think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market
> value. Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way,
> even though I could stop to prevent the collision?
>
On purpose? No. That would be either assault with a deadly weapon, or
attempted murder. You would rightfully go to prison, where you would
belong.

You should seriously consider not driving, or professional help for your
uncontrolled anger.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

No 33 Secretary wrote:

> Universal Soldier > wrote in
> :
>
>> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
>> road, where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone
>> is making a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his
>> movement is blocked by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to hit
>> his car?
>>
>> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way and
>> I think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market
>> value. Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way,
>> even though I could stop to prevent the collision?
>>
> On purpose? No. That would be either assault with a deadly weapon, or
> attempted murder.

Wow. That should explain all of the bad drivers out there. People pulling
out right in front of you, changing lanes improperly and without signaling.
They know it will be your fault if you don't accommodate them.

What if someone climbs into your car and refuses to leave? You can't
threaten them with a deadly weapon either?

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:53:01 -0800, Universal Soldier
> wrote:

>Dan Ganek wrote:
>
>> Universal Soldier wrote:
>>> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor road,
>>> where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone is making
>>> a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his movement is blocked
>>> by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to hit his car?
>>>
>>> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way and I
>>> think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market value.
>>> Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way, even though
>>> I could stop to prevent the collision?
>>
>> Are you serious? Of course it's not legal. Even in MA it's illegal.
>> You have a legal responsibility to prevent an accident under all
>> conditions.
>>
>> /dan
>
>Let's say I'm making a left turn from a minor road, and you are coming from
>my left. Normally, I would wait until the road is clear for me to make the
>left turn. But by your logic, it's OK to drive into the middle of the road,
>blocking you, stand there, until there is a gap in the traffic coming from
>my right, and move only then? Because if it's not OK for you to hit my car
>(according to you), I can do whatever the hell I want.

No.
In most states, it's illegal to block an intersection; meaning, you
can't enter an intersection without a reasonable expectation that you
can clear the intersection before you become a blockage to other
traffic,
>
>More realistically, how would the courts decide or insurance companies
>settle in the above scenario - that's what determines "right" and "wrong".

No, courts in this scenario would determine who is legally liable for
any damages.
Courts do not determine "right" and "wrong". They determine whether
the law has been violated.
And, no, laws don't define "right" and "wrong", either.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Universal Soldier > wrote in
:

> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> Universal Soldier > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
>>> road, where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone
>>> is making a left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his
>>> movement is blocked by cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to
>>> hit his car?
>>>
>>> Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way
>>> and I think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's
>>> market value. Is it OK for me to just keep going and take my right
>>> of way, even though I could stop to prevent the collision?
>>>
>> On purpose? No. That would be either assault with a deadly weapon, or
>> attempted murder.
>
> Wow. That should explain all of the bad drivers out there. People
> pulling out right in front of you, changing lanes improperly and
> without signaling. They know it will be your fault if you don't
> accommodate them.

They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Do you understand the difference between "accident" and "on purpose"? If
not, kill yourself. Now. Seriously.
>
> What if someone climbs into your car and refuses to leave? You can't
> threaten them with a deadly weapon either?
>
Completely different issue. And anyone who isn't a retard or a psychopath
would know.

Which are you?

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

On 24 Feb 2005 13:01:25 +0100, "Alun L. Palmer" >
wrote:

>Often, in very heavy traffic, the only way out of a side road to cross the
>traffic is to wait until the first half of the road is clear and then block
>it. When traffic does come on that side of the road they _do_not_ have
>right of way over the blocking vehicle, because by then it is not (or at
>least not completely) in the side road.

Nope, the oncoming vehicle *does* have the ROW.
That driver can't exersize it, but he has it nonetheless.
The blocking vehicle is blocking the through drivers ROW.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 23 Feb 2005 21:54:08 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> wrote:

>
>Dan Ganek wrote:
>> Universal Soldier wrote:
>> > If I have the right of way, like on an X intersection with a minor
>road,
>> > where the minor road has stop signs, mine does not. If someone is
>making a
>> > left turn from the minor road onto my road, but his movement is
>blocked by
>> > cars in front of him. Is it legal for me to hit his car?
>> >
>> > Suppose I could stop, but I'm angry that they are blocking my way
>and I
>> > think the insurance settlement might be more than my car's market
>value. Is
>> > it OK for me to just keep going and take my right of way, even
>though I
>> > could stop to prevent the collision?
>>
>> Are you serious? Of course it's not legal. Even in MA it's illegal.
>> You have a legal responsibility to prevent an accident under all
>> conditions.
>>
>
>But how can the state prove you chose to NOT prevent the crash? The
>other driver had no business pulling in front of you and he's to blame.
>You just say sumping like "hey - i tried to stop but there wasn't
>time."

Think about this, which I know is asking for a lot...
Why is trhe turning car blocking the road in this scenario? Because
there are other vehicles travelling on the road.
Now, what do those other vehicles have in them? Class? Class? Anyone?
Bueller?

WITNESSES!
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"