 | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Chiming in a bit late here. As usual, it's not regulation that's needed, per se, but some encouragement of responsibility. That super high SUV driver needs to be responsible for things his SUV causes. I would posit that no-fault insurance (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) This topic isn't exactly an obsession of mine but I thought I'd point out that much more than certain "costs" are at stake here. And I for one am not prepared to accept that money will cover for the damages (i.e. the ability to cover for the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) An important note here, that I've mentioned before - I believe that my injuries were so minimal in part because the SUV WAS higher than my vehicle and thus rode up on top of my car, which involved more of the car in energy absorbing crumpling (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure I'm understanding your statement; are you saying that the occupants of SUV's and compacts are at similar risk of fatality? I think the concern, in addition to SUV-driver risk, is that SUV's may cause more injury to those in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) If I understand what you're saying, yes. Paraphrasing: Guns are tools. Cars are tools. Drugs are tools. Our own bodies are tools. Rather than regulating what sorts of tools people can possess or behaviours we can engage in with our own bodies, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with much of what you have stated in the rest of your response. As to the above, I only want to be very specific about what I am trying to get across: I don't care about banning SUVs or Monster trucks, I care about their approximate (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Though I wouldn't absolve the track and driver of all responsibility, but I agree that their liability is limited. Assuming that reasonable expectations of safety inspections etc. have been followed, there ought to be no liability (but if for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Do you hear that, Todd? People are joking about nuking Boston due to your tardy delivery times! :-) (...) Right. Those that call for regulation seem to think that some bureaucrat knows better what is safe and what isn't than the marketplace (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Whoops! c/tardy/long/ The deliveries are not tardy. Todd clearly states that some time will transpire between payment and shipment. Sorry about that, I made that particular joke too quickly. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | | (...) " a priori " ??? (...) I agree in general with what Larry is saying, but I also agree with Richard. Some basic rules/safety standards should be in place. That, after all is the purpose of government. We collectively agree that we'll drive on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sorry, that Canadian education must have been letting you down: (URL) #3 sense 1: Made before or without examination) (...) Really? I wasn't aware that government was responsible for making the world safe. I don't see it in OUR constitution (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) If you'd add onto this a policy of full disclosure, I think I'd agree here. My concern is that there could easily be a practice of rug-sweeping, under which companies do whatever they feel like doing, all the while spinning and respinning (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) And we do have watchdog organizations, which are often more effective than the government (though sometimes they are wrong) just because they answer only to the consumer (or at least far more so than the government which also answers to big (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I know this idea rankles your Libertarian side, Lar, but easily 80% of the US needs "good ideas" to be regulated for them, because they wouldn't understand consensual logic and working together if it bit them on the apricots. Whether or not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) But lastworditis forces me to say that I feel it is indeed (the effect of too much regulation, too much government promising to make it right and too much big daddyism). :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | | | Boy, I may not subscribe to off.topic.debate anymore, but you have to love the Subject line! : ) Larry, in all of his wisdom, shines through again. I like my SUV at it's present height, BTW, I think most of these posts should be centered on poor (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) (“Back to .general again”? – It was never there that I’m aware.) I sent a copy to .general since that was the best group I could find to share Frank’s great nuke joke. I figured that any follow up would be to the same .off-topic.debate group (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I think you wanted .off-topic.fun, because .general is for LEGO related stuff, and the joke, AFAICT, din't have nuthin' to do with LEGO. (...) Uhh, uhh, you have to swallow a 2x4 brick and write a 500 word essay on why installing the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) True - I actually went to .fun first, but didn't think a joke fit into Community, Gaming, Party, Crafts, or Holiday, and didn't realize that I could post directly to .fun, because when I had tried to post directly to (IIRC) .marketplace, it (...) (24 years ago, 28-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Right you are, sir. It started in .people... but, after all, generals are people too! <GD&R> ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Nonsense, although that's clearly overstating the point being made by the previous poster. I give you In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes: <snip> To .general readers. This thread was happily ensconsed in .debate, where it belongs. I'm not sure why SRC pointed it back to .general again. I didn't notice that, and I apologise that my (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be a priori banned —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) The presumption is that government isn't (ideally) a throng of people who just happen to be in the same place. One hopes that the government is a body of individuals empowered to act on behalf of others, and likewise held in by a framework of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
