Prev: Turning around in neighbor's driveway
Next: How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?
From: Matthew T. Russotto on 23 Jul 2007 22:30
In article <1185131152.473622.253990(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Harry K <turnkey4099(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 7:26 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <1184937522.829526.38...(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <5sc0a3tdef1psjg8q1vhf6399rh44me...(a)4ax.com>,
>> >> Scott en Aztl=E1n <newsgroup> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>Yes, they are.
>>
>> >> >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like
>> >> >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing
>> >> >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical
>> >> >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and I
>> >> >find that very objectionable.
>>
>> >> Then object to those imposing the costs. Once such costs become a
>> >> valid reason for restricting activities, there is no limit on what can
>> >> be restricted.
>>
>> >??? Somebody doesn't wear a belt, ejects, major injuries and you
>> >expect the rescue units and medical facilities not to charge for their
>> >time/equipment? Weird.
>>
>> Rescue units? Medical facilities? If they can't pay for them, sweep them off
>> the road and bury them in a pauper's grave. Don't like that? Fine,
>> provide rescue and medical -- but don't try to use your squeamishness
>> as an excuse to control other's behavior.

>Squeamishness? I have no problem with your approach but you might
>note the "not charge" bit above? If they don't charge how can they
>know they won't be paid? Or do you expect them to collect on the
>scene somehow? Logic not one of your strong points?

It is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Some token
indicating ability and willingness to pay could be mounted to the car in a
(or several) prominent locations, such that they (or their absence)
would be visible in any but the most severe collisions.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Harry K on 24 Jul 2007 11:04
On Jul 23, 7:30 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <1185131152.473622.253...(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 20, 7:26 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <1184937522.829526.38...(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 19, 9:45 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <5sc0a3tdef1psjg8q1vhf6399rh44me...(a)4ax.com>,
> >> >> Scott en Aztl=E1n <newsgroup> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>Yes, they are.
>
> >> >> >I probably wouldn't mind if people refused to wear seat belts. Like
> >> >> >motorcycle helmets, not wearing them tends to be a self-curing
> >> >> >problem. However, the costs associated with your "rescue" and medical
> >> >> >care are borne by the rest of us who DO take proper precautions, and I
> >> >> >find that very objectionable.
>
> >> >> Then object to those imposing the costs. Once such costs become a
> >> >> valid reason for restricting activities, there is no limit on what can
> >> >> be restricted.
>
> >> >??? Somebody doesn't wear a belt, ejects, major injuries and you
> >> >expect the rescue units and medical facilities not to charge for their
> >> >time/equipment? Weird.
>
> >> Rescue units? Medical facilities? If they can't pay for them, sweep them off
> >> the road and bury them in a pauper's grave. Don't like that? Fine,
> >> provide rescue and medical -- but don't try to use your squeamishness
> >> as an excuse to control other's behavior.
> >Squeamishness? I have no problem with your approach but you might
> >note the "not charge" bit above? If they don't charge how can they
> >know they won't be paid? Or do you expect them to collect on the
> >scene somehow? Logic not one of your strong points?
>
> It is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Some token
> indicating ability and willingness to pay could be mounted to the car in a
> (or several) prominent locations, such that they (or their absence)
> would be visible in any but the most severe collisions.
>
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And the EMT can tell by looking at it that that is the person with/
without insurance laying there?

Harry K

From: Matthew T. Russotto on 24 Jul 2007 16:30
In article <1185289489.097347.311900(a)w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Harry K <turnkey4099(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 23, 7:30 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article <1185131152.473622.253...(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Some token
>> indicating ability and willingness to pay could be mounted to the car in a
>> (or several) prominent locations, such that they (or their absence)
>> would be visible in any but the most severe collisions.
>
>And the EMT can tell by looking at it that that is the person with/
>without insurance laying there?

I would think so, in most cases.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: jgar the jorrible on 25 Jul 2007 20:51
On Jul 22, 12:09 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> > >>If I had some sort of medical condition which prevented me from
> > >>wearing a seat belt, I wouldn't drive. No sense getting dead over a
> > >>medical condition.
>
> > >Wouldn't _drive_? You couldn't even ride in a car - passengers are just as
> > >liable to get killed as the driver.
>
> > Depends. For example, if I ride in the back of an ambulance, AFAIK I
> > don't even have the option of wearing a seatbelt, yet I wouldn't
> > refuse to ride in one if I needed to.
> > --
> > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/http://slothkills.blip.tv/
>
> Not a seatbelt as such but as a patient you would be strapped to the
> gurney which is locked to the floor. Granted not very safe in a
> crash.
>
> Harry K

I believe there was a Jerry Lewis movie called the Disorderly Orderly
where he's strapped onto a gurney in the back of an ambulance, and the
door opens and he goes rolling down the hill into the bay. Could be
misremembering, but I have this distinct memory of seeing that at the
Loyola Theater in Westchester, at a Saturday matinee, free tickets
from Marina Savings, mid-60's, theater full of screaming kids.

Of course, seems like every TV show these days shows people sitting
unbelted in the back of the ambulance, questioning the victim before
she bleeds to death.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://members.aol.com/hearseq/movies.htm

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Turning around in neighbor's driveway
Next: How many treadwear miles do we REALLY get for every 100 UTQG points?