"E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
news:C67B4D70.C908%epmeyer50@msn.com:

>
>
>
> On 7/9/09 5:44 AM, in article h34hmf$tr6$20@news.datemas.de, "Brian
> Smith"
><Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>> z wrote:
>>>
>>> good rule of thumb when stopped, always leave enough space in front
>>> of your car that you can see at least the rear bumper of the car in
>>> front of you, so that a rear impact won't totally squish your car.
>>> you might even be able to duck sideways out of the way. practice in
>>> your driveway at such things helps. stuff you need to know when you
>>> drive a civic in a world of suvs.
>>
>> An even thing to do is to stay back so that you are able to see the
>> bottom of the tires of the vehicle in front of yours. This allows you
>> enough room to cut your wheels and to drive around that vehicle
>> should the need arise, whether due to another vehicle approaching
>> yours from the rear faster than it can stop or if the vehicle in
>> front stalls and doesn't move when the light changes. This works for
>> any size of vehicle by the way from a Smart Car or a tractor trailer
>> truck.
>
> That all sounds great, totally reasonable & in fact, driver's ed in
> 1965 taught the bumper rule. If you try it around here (Dallas), one
> of several things will happen every time: another car will try to
> pull into the gap between you and the car in front if that gap appears
> big enough; the cars behind you will start honking because you are
> blocking access to the turn lane by being stopped so far back; the
> driver behind you will stop, get out of the car and come up and start
> yelling (like they do in D.C.). I have found the half-car-length rule
> to be more practical & just as safe.
>
>

some folks just can't judge distance.
The "bottom of the tires" guideline works good enough,and is not too far
back,and doesn't leave a gap sufficient for anyone to sneak into.

(and if they appear to be trying,THEN you edge up a tad,block them.you
should be paying attention anyways.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Joe wrote:
>
> I recognize the battle cry, just never understood the selfish
> reasoning. People never fail to prove to me that my expectations are
> too high. And they're not very high at all...

I don't understand the mentality of it either, Joe. The world is driven
by greed and greedy people seem to be driven to the extreme rather than
by reason.

 

E. Meyer wrote:
>
> That all sounds great, totally reasonable & in fact, driver's ed in 1965
> taught the bumper rule. If you try it around here (Dallas), one of several
> things will happen every time: another car will try to pull into the gap
> between you and the car in front if that gap appears big enough; the cars
> behind you will start honking because you are blocking access to the turn
> lane by being stopped so far back; the driver behind you will stop, get out
> of the car and come up and start yelling (like they do in D.C.). I have
> found the half-car-length rule to be more practical & just as safe.

The space between vehicles is not great enough for any idiot to think
about squeezing into, there just isn't room.

As far as blowing horns and people walking up to "chat" that's fine and
easy to ignore.

 

On 7/9/09 8:22 AM, in article h34qtn$os8$7@news.datemas.de, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> E. Meyer wrote:
>>
>> That all sounds great, totally reasonable & in fact, driver's ed in 1965
>> taught the bumper rule. If you try it around here (Dallas), one of several
>> things will happen every time: another car will try to pull into the gap
>> between you and the car in front if that gap appears big enough; the cars
>> behind you will start honking because you are blocking access to the turn
>> lane by being stopped so far back; the driver behind you will stop, get out
>> of the car and come up and start yelling (like they do in D.C.). I have
>> found the half-car-length rule to be more practical & just as safe.
>
> The space between vehicles is not great enough for any idiot to think
> about squeezing into, there just isn't room.

Depends what you are driving - If its anything with a long hood (& I'll
concede that leaves out most Hondas) and/or the thing in front has a long
trunk (like an LTD), bottom of the tires is about one car length & I have
seen it happen enough times to know its true.


>
> As far as blowing horns and people walking up to "chat" that's fine and
> easy to ignore.
>

Usually its the guy who just missed the once-every-5-minutes turn light
because some jerk wouldn't pull up 5 feet to let him into it. Easy to
ignore, but still...

 

E. Meyer wrote:
>
> Depends what you are driving - If its anything with a long hood (& I'll
> concede that leaves out most Hondas) and/or the thing in front has a long
> trunk (like an LTD), bottom of the tires is about one car length & I have
> seen it happen enough times to know its true.

Maybe the idiots where you are are more stupid than where I live. I
have driven a lot of miles and there haven't been a large number of
people that will try to squeeze in between my vehicles and the one in
front. But that's truly not relevant to the practice I mentioned.

> Usually its the guy who just missed the once-every-5-minutes turn light
> because some jerk wouldn't pull up 5 feet to let him into it. Easy to
> ignore, but still...

That is not my concern. I am not going to make room for someone behind
me and then have the fellow behind him bump me in to the vehicle in
front of me. It's only time and it's more affordable than repairs,
especially unnecessary repairs.

 

In article <000ee053$0$14525$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:

> > It's the American way. You must recognize their battle cry, SUE, SUE,
> > SUE! :^)
> >
>
> I recognize the battle cry, just never understood the selfish
> reasoning. People never fail to prove to me that my expectations are
> too high. And they're not very high at all...

The discussion isn't about people. The discussion is about
corporations, specifically insurance companies, and their way--"deny,
deny, deny". Where do you think the "back pain" came from?

 

On 7/9/09 8:48 AM, in article h34sfm$os8$10@news.datemas.de, "Brian Smith"
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:

> E. Meyer wrote:
>>
>> Depends what you are driving - If its anything with a long hood (& I'll
>> concede that leaves out most Hondas) and/or the thing in front has a long
>> trunk (like an LTD), bottom of the tires is about one car length & I have
>> seen it happen enough times to know its true.
>
> Maybe the idiots where you are are more stupid than where I live.

What can I say. Dallas was just rated the number two place for road-rage in
the US (just behind New York). You have to go with the hand you're dealt.


> have driven a lot of miles and there haven't been a large number of
> people that will try to squeeze in between my vehicles and the one in
> front. But that's truly not relevant to the practice I mentioned.
>
>> Usually its the guy who just missed the once-every-5-minutes turn light
>> because some jerk wouldn't pull up 5 feet to let him into it. Easy to
>> ignore, but still...
>
> That is not my concern. I am not going to make room for someone behind
> me and then have the fellow behind him bump me in to the vehicle in
> front of me. It's only time and it's more affordable than repairs,
> especially unnecessary repairs.
>

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> The discussion isn't about people. The discussion is about
> corporations, specifically insurance companies, and their way--"deny,
> deny, deny". Where do you think the "back pain" came from?

You're incorrect. The original discussion was about the damage to
Elle's vehicle. This off shoot of the topic came about when this was
posted the following;

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:Lld5m.105564$d36.69201@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
> If you are unhurt, just go for the cosmetic repair.
>
> Of course if it were me, I'd be screamin' neck, back and other
> maladies and interviewing sleazy lawyers!
>
> > JT

That is where the people came into the discussion. When it was made
obvious that there are people with extremely low ethics and standards
out there, that only think about what they can get out of others
(whether businesses or other people) for nothing.

 

E. Meyer wrote:
>
> What can I say. Dallas was just rated the number two place for road-rage in
> the US (just behind New York). You have to go with the hand you're dealt.

Well, I have to say that is too bad. I guess they'll just have to try
harder for the next time period until they are number one. :^)

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:Lld5m.105564$d36.69201@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>93 Civic DX sedan. It was a collision hard enough that the drawer
>>>beneath the radio opened and sent the coin change I keep there flying.
>>>As I got out, I thought I would find the Civic's rear would be partly
>>>flattened. I was amazed that externally, the bumper only showed
>>>scratches. The exhaust system is intact. Is the integrity of the foam
>>>etc. in the bumper compromised, though, after a hard rear-ending?
>>>
>>>The police made their report. I spoke with my insurance company last
>>>night. While only once before (on another car 20 years ago) of several
>>>rear-endings have I pursued a claim, this collision was so hard that I
>>>am concerned.
>>
>>
>>If you are unhurt, just go for the cosmetic repair.
>>
>>Of course if it were me, I'd be screamin' neck, back and other maladies
>>and interviewing sleazy lawyers!
>>
>>JT
>>
>
>
> and running the risk of being caught at fraud.



You're probably right... Sleazy lawyers get away with murder but poor
ol' me gets life in the slammer for trying to squeeze a few bux for my
"pain 'n suffering!"

Oh well...

JT

 

Forrest wrote:

> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:Lld5m.105564$d36.69201@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>93 Civic DX sedan. It was a collision hard enough that the drawer
>>>beneath the radio opened and sent the coin change I keep there flying.
>>>As I got out, I thought I would find the Civic's rear would be partly
>>>flattened. I was amazed that externally, the bumper only showed
>>>scratches. The exhaust system is intact. Is the integrity of the foam
>>>etc. in the bumper compromised, though, after a hard rear-ending?
>>>
>>>The police made their report. I spoke with my insurance company last
>>>night. While only once before (on another car 20 years ago) of several
>>>rear-endings have I pursued a claim, this collision was so hard that I
>>>am concerned.
>>
>>
>>If you are unhurt, just go for the cosmetic repair.
>>
>>Of course if it were me, I'd be screamin' neck, back and other maladies
>>and interviewing sleazy lawyers!
>>
>>JT
>
>
> Not to mention, the sudden onset of impotence and insomnia !



Oh, the pain and depression...


$$$$$$$

JT

 

Brian Smith wrote:

> Joe wrote:
>
>>
>> Why's that?
>
>
> It's the American way. You must recognize their battle cry, SUE,
> SUE, SUE! :^)
>


Not to mention a very old (by this time) girlfriend from the 1960's...

JT

 

Joe wrote:

> On 2009-07-09, Brian Smith <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>Why's that?
>>
>> It's the American way. You must recognize their battle cry, SUE, SUE,
>>SUE! :^)
>>
>
>
> I recognize the battle cry, just never understood the selfish
> reasoning. People never fail to prove to me that my expectations are
> too high. And they're not very high at all...
>


I'll have you know that my expectations are very high... Six figures or
more!!!

JT

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article <000ee053$0$14525$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> It's the American way. You must recognize their battle cry, SUE, SUE,
>>>SUE! :^)
>>>
>>
>>I recognize the battle cry, just never understood the selfish
>>reasoning. People never fail to prove to me that my expectations are
>>too high. And they're not very high at all...
>
>
> The discussion isn't about people. The discussion is about
> corporations, specifically insurance companies, and their way--"deny,
> deny, deny". Where do you think the "back pain" came from?


Man... You said a mouthfull there.

I have only been in a three accidents in my driving experience. None
were my fault but they all occurred back in the good ol' days - pre 1970.

In every case, settlement was pretty routine and prompt and no lawyer
was ever consulted.

But I fear that today's situation would be drastically different. It
seems that no one is up to facing their responsibility. As a result, the
trial lawyers are enjoying a field day.

BTW, if you are in a physical damage accident only, forget about any of
these guys offering their services. If you're injured, they'll be
banging down your door!

Grrrrr

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:Vby5m.431752$4m1.133309@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:Lld5m.105564$d36.69201@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>>93 Civic DX sedan. It was a collision hard enough that the drawer
>>>>beneath the radio opened and sent the coin change I keep there flying.
>>>>As I got out, I thought I would find the Civic's rear would be partly
>>>>flattened. I was amazed that externally, the bumper only showed
>>>>scratches. The exhaust system is intact. Is the integrity of the foam
>>>>etc. in the bumper compromised, though, after a hard rear-ending?
>>>>
>>>>The police made their report. I spoke with my insurance company last
>>>>night. While only once before (on another car 20 years ago) of several
>>>>rear-endings have I pursued a claim, this collision was so hard that I
>>>>am concerned.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you are unhurt, just go for the cosmetic repair.
>>>
>>>Of course if it were me, I'd be screamin' neck, back and other maladies
>>>and interviewing sleazy lawyers!
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
>>
>>
>> and running the risk of being caught at fraud.
>
>
>
> You're probably right... Sleazy lawyers get away with murder but poor
> ol' me gets life in the slammer for trying to squeeze a few bux for my
> "pain 'n suffering!"
>
> Oh well...
>
> JT
>

some humor;
What is the difference between a tick and a lawyer?
-- A tick falls off of you when you die.

- Why does the law society prohibit sex between lawyers and their
clients?
-- To prevent clients from being billed twice for essentially the same
service.

- What can a goose do, a duck can't, and a lawyer should?
-- Stick his bill up his ***.

- What do you have when 100 lawyers are buried up to their neck in
sand?
-- Not enough sand.

- What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead
lawyer in the road?
-- There are skid marks in front of the dog.

- What is black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
-- A Doberman.

- Why are lawyers like nuclear weapons?
-- If one side has one, the other side has to get one. Once launched,
they cannot be recalled. When they land, they screw up everything
forever.

- What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
-- One in 3,000,000 has a chance of becoming a human being.

- Did you hear that the Post Office just recalled their latest stamps?
-- They had pictures of lawyers on them...and people couldn't figure
out which side to spit on.

---

Lawyer's creed: A man is innocent until proven broke.


Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest lawyer and an old drunk are
walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a
hundred dollar bill. Who gets it?

The old drunk, of course; the other three are mythical creatures.

---

It was so cold last winter...(How cold was it?)...that I saw a lawyer
with his hands in his own pockets.

---

You're trapped in a room with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. You
have a gun with two bullets. What should you do?

Shoot the lawyer. Twice.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net