quote:

Originally posted by dance2dabeat Kids...no thanks! and it seems more and more ppl should be saying the same thing if they dont know how to take care of their children!

I completely agree. I want kids of my own...one day. One day when I feel I'm stable and dependable enough to lead a family life, and definitely not a minute before I know I can dedicate the time needed to raise a child properly. Here, people just have kids, leave them to the system.

Having said that, there are a lot more things involved in raising a child properly than just being there all the time. That won't do any good either. Reaching some kind of understanding with your child is key. As Orko said, kids will do stupid things, it's just in their nature. Shit, we all do it too, on a grander scale to boot. However, if you have a certain relationship with your child, they may be a little more aware of the world around them.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 whenever you hit a pedestrian it is the driver's fault. And even if charges are waived, insurance will still punish you.

Actually, you're partially right. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian have a reverse onus of proof. Normally when one person causes damage to another the onus is on the aggreeved party to prove that the alleged tortfeasor a) owed a duty of care to the aggreeved party, b) breached said duty of care, and c) said breach has a causal relationship to the damages claimed. This is to say that the injured party must prove that the person that injured them had a duty not to injure them, failed in that duty, and their actions resulted in damages. In the case of a pedestrian accident the law assumes that the driver of the vehicle has done the above. That said, it is possible for the driver of a vehicle striking a pedestrian to avoid liability if it can be proven that the pedestrian was negligent (ie. it was the pedestrian that had a duty of care, breached it and caused damages). This happens quite regularly in suicide situations (I've had several such claims) where the pedestrian will be 100% at fault. Occasionally, pedestrians will be found partially liable for actions such as crossing at a point other then a crosswalk, entering a roadway from between two parked vehicles, running into traffic, etc.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Insurance doesn't punish you.....this is considered a collision claim...it is the only part of the policy that would cover damages for this situation....so most likely you would see an increase in your rates.

Liability as well, assuming that the pedestrian is injured. Either way it is usually an at fault accident.

Insurance does not punish the driver.... being at fault in a collision of any sort indicates to the insurers that you are a greater risk then they previously thought. Subsequently, there is a greater likelihood you will be involved in further collisions. Due to this increased likelihood of collision they will adjust your rates to reflect the costs they expect to incure due to your potential future at fault collisions.

(not that I felt your answer was incorrect but we need to explain this shit better as clearly very few people have any clue how insurance works..... that said it's not as if they will listen to us being as we are part of the big insurance conspiracy out to screw the public)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Next time you see that, call the police and tell them some kids are playing right beside 401, and tell them the location. To help other motorists.

Pretty brutal though. I've read about how some kids throw rocks and other objects off overpasses on the passing cars. Thats just as brutal.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced so most likely you would see an increase in your rates.

in other words, your insurance punishes you

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by tatgirl I'd have called the cops to have those kids picked up. No one needs the trauma & guilt related to an accident.

I was thinking about that...and I don't know if it would do anything to tell them now. But I'm having a hard time remembering exactly where it was. I was thinking of writing a letter to the editor of the city paper, and in seeing it, maybe the writers would want to do an investigation.

___________________
Shut up and DANCE!!
House moves my body, Trance owns my soul, Progressive drives me wild

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Actually, you're partially right. Collisions between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian have a reverse onus of proof. Normally when one person causes damage to another the onus is on the aggreeved party to prove that the alleged tortfeasor a) owed a duty of care to the aggreeved party, b) breached said duty of care, and c) said breach has a causal relationship to the damages claimed. This is to say that the injured party must prove that the person that injured them had a duty not to injure them, failed in that duty, and their actions resulted in damages. In the case of a pedestrian accident the law assumes that the driver of the vehicle has done the above. That said, it is possible for the driver of a vehicle striking a pedestrian to avoid liability if it can be proven that the pedestrian was negligent (ie. it was the pedestrian that had a duty of care, breached it and caused damages). This happens quite regularly in suicide situations (I've had several such claims) where the pedestrian will be 100% at fault. Occasionally, pedestrians will be found partially liable for actions such as crossing at a point other then a crosswalk, entering a roadway from between two parked vehicles, running into traffic, etc.

As far as im concerned, if a pedestrian gets hit while he is j walking or in a place he shouldnt be, the driver should automatically NOT be at fault. Ive seen way too many ballsy pedestrians lately just waltz out into the middle of traffic because they think they get get away with it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Liability as well, assuming that the pedestrian is injured. Either way it is usually an at fault accident. Insurance does not punish the driver.... being at fault in a collision of any sort indicates to the insurers that you are a greater risk then they previously thought. Subsequently, there is a greater likelihood you will be involved in further collisions. Due to this increased likelihood of collision they will adjust your rates to reflect the costs they expect to incure due to your potential future at fault collisions. (not that I felt your answer was incorrect but we need to explain this shit better as clearly very few people have any clue how insurance works..... that said it's not as if they will listen to us being as we are part of the big insurance conspiracy out to screw the public)

meanwhile its probably the pedestrian that caused the accident and the pedestrian wouldnt have to pay increased life insurance.

Hardly fair.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 As far as im concerned, if a pedestrian gets hit while he is j walking or in a place he shouldnt be, the driver should automatically NOT be at fault. Ive seen way too many ballsy pedestrians lately just waltz out into the middle of traffic because they think they get get away with it.

Jay the reverse onus of proof exists in order to protect pedestrians which seems to be a good idea as they tend to fair far worse then cars do in the event of a collision. The reason the law is such is because negligence can be a difficult thing to prove especially in instances where there are no independent witnesses. Making it more difficult in the case of pedestrian collisions is the perpencity for people to suffer memory loss, cognitive dysfunctions, brain injury and/or death after being struck by a car.

In instances where the pedestrian is negligent they do suffer penalty for their negligence, however, in most instances of vehicle collisions with pedestrians the driver is in fact the negligent party. The test is that of reasonableness..... what would a reasonable and prudent person do? Would a reasonable person j-walk..... yes, they do so all the time, therefore j-walking itself is not a negligent act. Would a reasonable person jump off of an overpass onto the 401, no, therefore a person doing so would be negligent.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

jwalking is indeed negligent, especially when it's done in front of a moving vehicle and especially when people dont even bother to look first. I have noticed this trend more and more and i fear that one day, somebody's arrogance is going to end up costing me jail time.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 meanwhile its probably the pedestrian that caused the accident and the pedestrian wouldnt have to pay increased life insurance. Hardly fair.

Jay, you clearly do not understand insurance..... I will try to assist.

First and foremost.... there are two types of insurance Property & Casualty, and Life & Health. Your home owners, auto, Corporate General Liability, yaught, cargo, freight, etc. policies are P&C. Life insurance and health insurance are L&H.

P&C insurance is based on two principles.... 1) the premiums of the many pay for the losses of the few, and 2) the premium charged shall be commesurate with the risk. The first is self explanatory. The second means that the amount one charges to insure somebody should be based on the likelihood that that person will suffer a loss due to an insurable peril. This is to say that the likelihood that someone will have a claim and the potential cost of that claim should be what determines how much premium that person is charged. This is always done prospectively; actuaries use past statistics and individual characteristics to determine the probablility that the insured will be involved in an insurable loss. If you have struck a pedestrian while driving (and are at fault) you have demonstrated they you do not take the appropriate level of care while driving that is necessary to avoid causeing a collision. This indicates to the insurer that you are not as good of a driver as they previously thought and therefore you are more likely to be involved in another such accident. The rates are not adjusted to "punish" they are adjusted because you have proven to be a greater risk. By calculating the premiums this way insurers are ensuring that there will always be enough funds in the claims pool to pay for losses without having to charge an undue amount of premium to those unlikely to suffer a loss.

Life and Health insurance is somewhat different. It is based on the statistical probability that the insured will suffer illness, accidental injury or death prior to the expiry of the policy. This is based primarily on factors of age and wellness. As you age your term life rates increase because it is more likely that a 70 year old will die in the next year then a 23 year old. The fact that a person was once struck by a car does not significantly increase the likelihood that they will die within the next year subsequently, being struck by a car would not cause any adjustment in your L&H rates. Now, if the person had a habit of walking out into traffic it is quite likely that their rates would increase because of it (assuming the insurer knew). A good example would be hollywood stunt men. It is very difficult and very expensive for stuntmen to get L&H policies that do not exclude work related injuries. This is because their work is inheriently dangerous and subsequently they are a greater risk to insure.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down