Google is NOT my friend :-\
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: spam
Next: "Canceled opening the page" (Safari)
From: Nick Naym on 19 Nov 2009 22:27 In article 191120092204296849%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, nospam at nospam(a)nospam.invalid wrote on 11/19/09 10:04 PM: > In article <doraymeRidThis-5C8BA9.13325620112009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>>> How many people have car accidents where speed that they cannot safely >>>> handle is the big culprit? Should car manufacturers be liable for not >>>> making their vehicles unable to go past 30 mph? The mere numbers of >>>> irresponsible people is no key to understanding issues. You are thinking >>>> too simplistically. >>> >>> auto manufacturers are required to make safe cars. >> >> They can't the way you have been arguing unless they speed control their >> products. > > sure they can. people drive safely at high speeds every day. I really didn't want to go down one of these offshoot discussions, but I couldn't ignore this one... People _do not_ drive safely at high speeds every day -- not even on most or many days. In fact, they rarely drive safely at _any_ highway speed. The "rule of thumb" has always been to leave about 1 car length's distance between your car and the car ahead of you for each 10 mph (16 kmph) of speed you are traveling. Those of us who try to do so are almost immediately cut off by vehicles in adjacent lanes jumping ahead of us into our lanes. Were automobile manufacturers required to build cars that met high-speed safety requirements, they would need to install devices that detected and tracked the distances and relative velocities between cars, and adjust the speeds accordingly. In short, dorayme is correct. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: Julian Gómez on 20 Nov 2009 00:54 In article <he4qj7$74m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > Mike Rosenberg wrote: > > Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional > > liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration > > in such cases. > > Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction. > > In some states, if the plaintiff is 51% at fault, > they get nothing; 49$ and they might as well be > completely innocent. In many courts payment is determined by who can afford it regardless of the proportional liability. One reference is an airplane parts manufacturer who was found 5% liable and had to pay 100% of the judgement because they were the only ones with the money. Don't remember any names, so regardless of the subject line Google will have to be a friend to find the info.
From: dorayme on 20 Nov 2009 02:37 In article <jeg-ACFA47.21544619112009(a)news.astraweb.com>, Julian GÓmez <jeg(a)polished-pixels.com> wrote: > In article <he4qj7$74m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > > > Mike Rosenberg wrote: > > > Meanwhile, one topic that hasn't been brought up is that of proportional > > > liability, and that's something that is always taken into consideration > > > in such cases. > > > > Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction. > > > > In some states, if the plaintiff is 51% at fault, > > they get nothing; 49$ and they might as well be > > completely innocent. > > In many courts payment is determined by who can afford it regardless of > the proportional liability. One reference is an airplane parts > manufacturer who was found 5% liable and had to pay 100% of the > judgement because they were the only ones with the money. Sounds like bullshit to me. But perhaps this outlandish sort of thing can go on. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 20 Nov 2009 03:21 In article <C72B76E5.4C1EF%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In short, dorayme is correct. I am sending you a nice sheep which a farmer friend has agreed to give away as a favour to me. -- dorayme
From: Nick Naym on 20 Nov 2009 11:25
In article doraymeRidThis-8C3B19.19215020112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/20/09 3:21 AM: > In article <C72B76E5.4C1EF%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> In short, dorayme is correct. > > I am sending you a nice sheep which a farmer friend has agreed to give > away as a favour to me. I have no desire to become the foster parent of one of your progeny. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8) |