Re: ALLIANZ HELL

[veritas]

Spooky wrote:
>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the wet due
>>to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained roads .. ) "we
>>cant cover you.

Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>
>
> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.
>
> Spooky
>
>
Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a position to make
comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained
roads" had indeed contributed to the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you
accept "the balance of probability" as being fact.

I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor judgement.

Cheers......

[Spooky]

"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Spooky wrote:
>>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the wet due
>>>to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained roads .. ) "we
>>>cant cover you.
>
> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!

Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
times on the road!!!

>>
>>
>> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
>> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.
>>
>> Spooky
> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
> position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
> and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
> the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
> balance of probability" as being fact.

If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
road.

>
> I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
> judgement.

You can put anything you like to me. The fact still remains.

Spooky

[Amhir Sohail]

"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Spooky wrote:

> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
> position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
> and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
> the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
> balance of probability" as being fact.
>
> I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
> judgement.
>
> Cheers......

Maybe one accident yeah ok.... but two due to bad roads?

I'm with Spooky on this one.

Jac

[Bernd Felsche]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> writes:
>"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Spooky wrote:

>>>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in
>>>>the wet due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly
>>>>maintained roads .. ) "we cant cover you.

>> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!

>Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
>times on the road!!!

Maybe the pavement gave way under the wheels. Unlikely; one in a
million chance.

[snip]

>If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
>have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
>been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
>road.

Yep. Being able to drive to the conditions used to be a prerequisite
for getting a licence.

I'm about to head out to the car to black-out the speedo calibration
past 130 to see if it makes me drive more slowly.

Mind you, I can't easily read the speedo between 40 and 140 anyway.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[veritas]

Amhir Sohail wrote:
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>Spooky wrote:
>
>
>>Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
>>position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
>>and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
>>the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
>>balance of probability" as being fact.
>>
>>I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
>>judgement.
>>
>>Cheers......
>
>
> Maybe one accident yeah ok.... but two due to bad roads?
>
> I'm with Spooky on this one.

The balance of probability will also confirm that he likely is a poor driver and you and Spooky
may well be correct but it worries me a little when people take a statement that doesn't show
sufficient information to enable an appropriate judgement to be able to call it fact.

It is a matter of principle.

Cheers

>
> Jac
>
>
>

[Samual]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:53:12 +0800, "Amhir Sohail"
<amhirsohail@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Spooky wrote:
>
>> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
>> position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
>> and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
>> the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
>> balance of probability" as being fact.
>>
>> I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
>> judgement.
>>
>> Cheers......
>
>Maybe one accident yeah ok.... but two due to bad roads?
>
>I'm with Spooky on this one.

That would be two accidents in 5 years, who knows how many in a longer
period.


Sam

[Graham W]

>>"Allianz with the Devil" wrote:
>>> "Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the wet
>>> due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained roads
>>> .. ) "we cant cover you.

veritas wrote:
> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!

> Spooky wrote:
>> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
>> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.

> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter,

As far as an insurance company is concerned, "all of the *facts* of the
matter" quite reasonably amount to how long you've been driving, how
many times you've crashed, how many $ of damage was done and whether you
or your insurance company successfully claimed against someone else. It
doesn't matter whether it was another driver or the authority
responsible for maintaining the road surface and drainage; if you didn't
win, then you or your insurer had to pay.

Two accidents with no one else to claim against start to look bad. I'm a
bit surprised two was enough to cause problems, but you haven't said how
many years (months?) of driving it took to accumulate them. Two in 14
years is statistically pretty average, two in 14 months looks bad.

Apparently your two are statistically bad enough that they don't want
your business at their standard rates. Some companies specilaise in
trying to estimate risks and set premiums for higher risk drivers, but
Allianz aren't one of them.

If you've had two single car accidents in a relatively short driving
career, it starts to look an awful lot like you might be someone who
runs into things when he needs a new car.

Maybe 85% of people with a record like yours are truly just unlucky and
10% are really clumsy, but as a group, the clumsy 10% and the fraudulent
5% drive their claims rate up really badly and there's no way of telling
whether you're the insurable 85%, the expensive to insure 10% or the
"another fraudulent claim next year" 5%.

Insurance is just institutionalised gambling and on the available
evidence you're not a good bet. Insurance companies are not compelled to
take bad bets.

[veritas]

Which is correct - BUT!!! What has it to do with the actual subject matter contained in the
thread that I run?

I think you took the wrong on-ramp :)

Cheers.........

Graham W wrote:
> >>"Allianz with the Devil" wrote:
>
>>>> "Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the
>>>> wet due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained
>>>> roads .. ) "we cant cover you.
>
>
> veritas wrote:
>
>> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>
>
>> Spooky wrote:
>>
>>> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
>>> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.
>
>
>> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter,
>
>
> As far as an insurance company is concerned, "all of the *facts* of the
> matter" quite reasonably amount to how long you've been driving, how
> many times you've crashed, how many $ of damage was done and whether you
> or your insurance company successfully claimed against someone else. It
> doesn't matter whether it was another driver or the authority
> responsible for maintaining the road surface and drainage; if you didn't
> win, then you or your insurer had to pay.
>
> Two accidents with no one else to claim against start to look bad. I'm a
> bit surprised two was enough to cause problems, but you haven't said how
> many years (months?) of driving it took to accumulate them. Two in 14
> years is statistically pretty average, two in 14 months looks bad.
>
> Apparently your two are statistically bad enough that they don't want
> your business at their standard rates. Some companies specilaise in
> trying to estimate risks and set premiums for higher risk drivers, but
> Allianz aren't one of them.
>
> If you've had two single car accidents in a relatively short driving
> career, it starts to look an awful lot like you might be someone who
> runs into things when he needs a new car.
>
> Maybe 85% of people with a record like yours are truly just unlucky and
> 10% are really clumsy, but as a group, the clumsy 10% and the fraudulent
> 5% drive their claims rate up really badly and there's no way of telling
> whether you're the insurable 85%, the expensive to insure 10% or the
> "another fraudulent claim next year" 5%.
>
> Insurance is just institutionalised gambling and on the available
> evidence you're not a good bet. Insurance companies are not compelled to
> take bad bets.

[roadSafetysUpShitCreek]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a7fkd.30814$K7.21732@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Spooky wrote:
> >>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the wet due
> >>>to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained roads .. ) "we
> >>>cant cover you.
> >
> > Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>
> Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
> times on the road!!!
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
> >> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.
> >>
> >> Spooky
> > Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
> > position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
> > and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
> > the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
> > balance of probability" as being fact.
>
> If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
> have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
> been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
> road.
>
> >
> > I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
> > judgement.
>
> You can put anything you like to me. The fact still remains.
>
> Spooky


Werd Spooky. Was he driving or was the road driving? The road was
there and he had to drive to the conditions. He obviously didnt. This
is where more driving training would help.

[athol]

Spooky <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
> have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
> been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
> road.

No. It would have had a fixed RTA speed camera installed. That's
the standard response to an unsafe section of road regardless of the
speed that the vehicles that crashed were doing.

The way things are going, I'm tempted to suggest that the RTA and
hence effectively the state government are admitting to a failure in
their duty of care to road users every time that they install a
fixed camera instead of fixing the road fault that is causing the
crashes. Of course, there is then the fact that failure in duty of
care translates to admission of liability...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[athol]

Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I'm about to head out to the car to black-out the speedo calibration
> past 130 to see if it makes me drive more slowly.

Wasn't that also how Lamborghini complied with the USA 85MPH speedo
rule - took the UK/Hong Kong/etc. MPH speedo and blacked out the
dial above 85MPH... The needle still went around the same, it just
had a blank dial face.

Funny how the Lambo dealers in the USA could supply UK dial faces
from stock... :-)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Spooky]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2vfuokF2l1ahnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Spooky <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
>> have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
>> been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
>> road.
>
> No. It would have had a fixed RTA speed camera installed. That's
> the standard response to an unsafe section of road regardless of the
> speed that the vehicles that crashed were doing.
>
> The way things are going, I'm tempted to suggest that the RTA and
> hence effectively the state government are admitting to a failure in
> their duty of care to road users every time that they install a
> fixed camera instead of fixing the road fault that is causing the
> crashes. Of course, there is then the fact that failure in duty of
> care translates to admission of liability...

Do you even realise how ridiculous you sound?
"....the road fault that is causing the crashes." ???
Please...........

Spooky

[Bernd Felsche]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> writes:
>"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:2vfuokF2l1ahnU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Spooky <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else
>>> would have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road
>>> would have been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He
>>> can't blame it on the road.

>> No. It would have had a fixed RTA speed camera installed.
>> That's the standard response to an unsafe section of road
>> regardless of the speed that the vehicles that crashed were
>> doing.

>> The way things are going, I'm tempted to suggest that the RTA and
>> hence effectively the state government are admitting to a failure
>> in their duty of care to road users every time that they install
>> a fixed camera instead of fixing the road fault that is causing
>> the crashes. Of course, there is then the fact that failure in
>> duty of care translates to admission of liability...

>Do you even realise how ridiculous you sound? "....the road fault
>that is causing the crashes." ??? Please...........

The nature of roads contributes to crashes. It doesn't cause them.

I guess that Athol's getting a little hot under the collar about
institutionalised _fraud_ so may not be thinking of the nuances
of "cause" and "contributing factor".

Lack of maintenance, poor design and apparently negligent
administration are easy issues to address if you want to make
significant headway in making roads actually safer. A great deal of
effort and money is spent in covering up and "campaigns" that don't
actually contribute to improving road safety.

Responsibility for actions an inactions is *routinely* avoided.

RTA seems to be more concerned with saving its own arse and
snuggling up to the government in power; than the lives of road
users. Like the "Road Safety Council" in W.A., they may well be
acting contrary to the Act that created the organization.

The dismal condition of roads in Australia, btw; adds between 10%
and 30% to our national fuel consumption. That's only helpful if
you're collecting taxes from the sale of fuel.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Allianz with the Devil]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7fkd.30814$K7.21732@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Spooky wrote:
>>>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in the wet
>>>>due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly maintained roads
>>>>.. ) "we cant cover you.
>>
>> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>
> Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
> times on the road!!!

You need to be told about the round about approach from hell.


Also raining.

Make the road a patch work of different materials.

Blue metal/grey stuff at the good well made road.

Now they have built a round about, but they've made it a sunken round about.

Also you dont see the round about from the road, it just appears around the
corner.

There are warning signs.

Whats in the breaking zone ???


a depression made of black asphalt. the lights show up black, so in the rain
it looks like a level road. Its not, a permanent asphalt lines sink hole.

So its rained and its filled with water ? so ???

well you can see a round about ahead, but at that point you come over a
slight crest and so you can see the median strip curving right ahead of you.
a dark median strip with no light shining on it. and then you notice what
you thought was an empty roadabout now has vehicles on it. They were
hidden.. due to sunken rounadabout syndrome and flora.


So you now have to stop.. on what ?? on a puddle of water , with the camber
of the road all over the place, the sink hole making the water deeper and
deeper , and the median strip cutting across the normal driving lane .


>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fair dinkum. With that type of attitude...........
>>> Couldn't have been your fault, right? Yeh, blame it on the roads.
>>>
>>> Spooky
>> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
>> position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
>> and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
>> the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
>> balance of probability" as being fact.
>
> If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
> have been crashing there as well.


Thats illogical, you should be sacked .. maybe committed.

Every cliff is dangerous and many have fences.
But obviously not everybody who stands near an unfenced cliff falls off.

So to with back spots.

It depends on the circumstances and the exact vehicle type.

The actions of dangerous drivers may have helped ,they have have hooned
around the round about in a dangerous way, and so caused me to lock up and
hit the median strip.
all i know is that at the place I was expecting to be able to stop, there
was just enough water to cause understeer.



heheh but your comments are so far from reality.

You should see how SHORT the rounabouts signs last.
Everyday I drive past the round abouts and theres a new sign.
next day, its gone. Someone else has bumped over the median strip and the
sign.


Get over it man, there are bad intersections.
Shits put their by arrogant shits at council or RTA and too hard to fix.

No one dies, because people are slowing down, they arent speeding,
they are following the street signs when they arent knocked down,
but the shitty roads have hidden crests and dips and poor drainage and
road surfaces that were known to be defectively slippery the moment they
were laid down.



> You can put anything you like to me. The fact still remains.

And the other way around.

The thoughts of an arrogant cop are not going to change the facts.

[Allianz with the Devil]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:5qd862xth8.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> writes:
>>"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Spooky wrote:
>
>>>>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in
>>>>>the wet due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly
>>>>>maintained roads .. ) "we cant cover you.
>
>>> Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>
>>Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
>>times on the road!!!
>
> Maybe the pavement gave way under the wheels. Unlikely; one in a
> million chance.
>
> [snip]
>
>>If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
>>have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
>>been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
>>road.
>
> Yep. Being able to drive to the conditions used to be a prerequisite
> for getting a licence.

yep, but I cant drive for conditions I CANNOT SEE.

Sure you can predict these things ,but you see one thing and the road turns
into another.

You can be driving down a road with good road surface, and then find after
the crash the patch where you skidded had BLUE METAL under it, just at that
point.

You can be driving down a road with 1km vision, and you can see a slight S
bend,
but due to poor lighting and bad camber, theres a crest, camber , dip and
sharp corner hidden there. And after the sharp corner, there isnt a built up
lip to bring the camber back to positive - there's guttter and railing not
50cm off the driving lane.

[Todger]

You're just a crap driver making excuses for your inadequacies
Hand in your license before you kill someone or yourself.

Allianz with the Devil wrote:
> "Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:5qd862xth8.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>
>>"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>Spooky wrote:
>>
>>>>>>"Due to your accident history " (only two minor incidents in
>>>>>>the wet due to poorly designed and poorly built and poorly
>>>>>>maintained roads .. ) "we cant cover you.
>>
>>>>Not much of a statement to make a judgement upon!
>>
>>>Really? He's crashed twice, and blamed it both
>>>times on the road!!!
>>
>>Maybe the pavement gave way under the wheels. Unlikely; one in a
>>million chance.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>If it was due to the roads (on both occasions), everybody else would
>>>have been crashing there as well. In that case, the road would have
>>>been closed, either by the rta or the Police. He can't blame it on the
>>>road.
>>
>>Yep. Being able to drive to the conditions used to be a prerequisite
>>for getting a licence.
>
>
> yep, but I cant drive for conditions I CANNOT SEE.
>
> Sure you can predict these things ,but you see one thing and the road turns
> into another.
>
> You can be driving down a road with good road surface, and then find after
> the crash the patch where you skidded had BLUE METAL under it, just at that
> point.
>
> You can be driving down a road with 1km vision, and you can see a slight S
> bend,
> but due to poor lighting and bad camber, theres a crest, camber , dip and
> sharp corner hidden there. And after the sharp corner, there isnt a built up
> lip to bring the camber back to positive - there's guttter and railing not
> 50cm off the driving lane.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Allianz with the Devil]

"Amhir Sohail" <amhirsohail@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:41918298$0$21873$61ce578d@news.syd.swiftdsl.c om.au...
>
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wvekd.30778$K7.5779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Spooky wrote:
>
>> Without knowing the all of the *facts* of the matter, I wouldn't be in a
>> position to make comment as to whether "in the wet due to poorly designed
>> and poorly built and poorly maintained roads" had indeed contributed to
>> the subject accident/s. How can you? Unless, of course, you accept "the
>> balance of probability" as being fact.
>>
>> I put to you: your statement may be seen as hasty, therefore poor
>> judgement.
>>
>> Cheers......
>
> Maybe one accident yeah ok.... but two due to bad roads?

Thats just effect of randomness.

If you are robbed in the street at different places on two consecutive
days,
is that a crime wave ? is there a mob of robbbers chasing you ? no its just
random.
Now I know the corners I will be very careful when I get there , wet or dry,
day or night.

The Shitty S bend is a danger even on dry roads. The exit is too narrow, the
railing is too close to the gutter, the gutter is too close to the driving
lane. The slope of the intersecting road runs too far into the driving
lane, meaning a vehicle that stops at the corner to give way may be parked
on the driving lane, forcing vehicles on the through road into a head on.

[Allianz with the Devil]

>
> That would be two accidents in 5 years, who knows how many in a longer
> period.

Ok, two in 16 years.

16 years ago I was watching the head lights on approaching vehicles
and didnt see one moving quickly behind the others, as a lightning bolt. P
plater and all, you know how it is.


She was drunk, straight from the pub, and speeding. but you get that.

With no skid marks or witnesses, and me being so young ,the copper did the
natural thing and booked it to me. whatya expect, god to come down and be my
witness to tell the copper the facts ?


They have since put in traffic lights, as two lane roads with many
intersections are dangerous to do right turns on.



8 years ago, Stream of traffic, on a curve on a bridge, two lanes.

A suzuki cino cut into my lane without giving ME my safety margin.

before I even get the brakes down, he's stopped. Lets make this worse for
him.
he had defective vehicle -painted brake lights, made them look black. you
remember the stuff. So its afternoon and the sun was shining almost
horizontal, strongly on the lights. the brake lights were hidden by the
stupid paint that was since banned and made to go away. So I dont remember
seeing any brake lights or signs he was stopping.

Witnesses ? none. my memory ? well ur, I didnt see him stopping.

I forgot to tell the cop that he just did an illegal lane change in front of
me ?
what would that matter ? would the facts change the cops rule ?
the one behind must be in the wrong.. thats the rule, right spooky ?

Well he causes the crash by jumping in front of me and blocking my vision
and not even slowing down in response to congestion ahead. He just locks
up and stops on a tweny cent piece, even though he handnt even made a safe
lane change.

Why did he do that ? he couldnt let 1977 mazda beat him, and he didnt
realise that a 77 mazda didnt stop quite as quick as him, and he was young
and dangerous.

why did i get the neg driving and the insurance bill ? I had no evidence -
and also I didnt remember what he did.


There was also a vehicle monstering me, I wasnt used to heavy traffic like
that, and I didnt know I should stop and make him hit me . I was naive, i
thought that there was some fairness and I had avoided accidents I was
better off. Nope, I should have slammed on my brakes as soon as he came too
close to my rear end.

Just before the suziki stopped, I did look to change lanes. What happened
was the car that was behind me was there, so I could not change lanes.

So I could stop, so I did stop, but suziki made an unsafe lane change by
changing lanes and so not leaving enough distance for moving vehicles to
come to a stop in.


So collisions blamed on me, but so what ? So what if I say that its their
fault ?
the cop just wants to get out of there, "here's your fine, have a good day."

[The Raven]

"Allianz with the Devil" <Allianz@hell.com> wrote in message
news:4193413d@grungy...
>
>>
>> That would be two accidents in 5 years, who knows how many in a longer
>> period.
>
> Ok, two in 16 years.
>
> 16 years ago I was watching the head lights on approaching vehicles
> and didnt see one moving quickly behind the others, as a lightning bolt. P
> plater and all, you know how it is.
>
>
> She was drunk, straight from the pub, and speeding. but you get that.
>
> With no skid marks or witnesses, and me being so young ,the copper did the
> natural thing and booked it to me. whatya expect, god to come down and be
> my witness to tell the copper the facts ?

All crap because if it happened 16 years ago it wouldn't count on insurance.
They only want to know what happened in the last five years.........

> They have since put in traffic lights, as two lane roads with many
> intersections are dangerous to do right turns on.

You can't connect what happened 16 years ago to the installation of traffic
lights.

> 8 years ago, Stream of traffic, on a curve on a bridge, two lanes.
>
> A suzuki cino cut into my lane without giving ME my safety margin.
>
> before I even get the brakes down, he's stopped. Lets make this worse for
> him.
> he had defective vehicle -painted brake lights, made them look black. you
> remember the stuff. So its afternoon and the sun was shining almost
> horizontal, strongly on the lights. the brake lights were hidden by the
> stupid paint that was since banned and made to go away. So I dont remember
> seeing any brake lights or signs he was stopping.
>
> Witnesses ? none. my memory ? well ur, I didnt see him stopping.

Trolling more like it, another example of an accident outside the standard 5
year period.

> I forgot to tell the cop that he just did an illegal lane change in front
> of me ?
> what would that matter ? would the facts change the cops rule ?
> the one behind must be in the wrong.. thats the rule, right spooky ?

You're a fool for not mentioning it and, having been there myself, you get
the blame regardless.

> Well he causes the crash by jumping in front of me and blocking my vision
> and not even slowing down in response to congestion ahead. He just
> locks up and stops on a tweny cent piece, even though he handnt even made
> a safe lane change.

Contradictions on contradictions in that paragraph.

> Why did he do that ? he couldnt let 1977 mazda beat him, and he didnt
> realise that a 77 mazda didnt stop quite as quick as him, and he was young
> and dangerous.

Yawn....

> why did i get the neg driving and the insurance bill ? I had no
> evidence -
> and also I didnt remember what he did.

Doesn't matter, you were at the tail of the accident and therefore
automatically responsible. Yeah, it sucks but be thankful your insurance
company paid out.

> There was also a vehicle monstering me, I wasnt used to heavy traffic like
> that, and I didnt know I should stop and make him hit me .

You drive a Camry right.....

> I was naive, i thought that there was some fairness and I had avoided
> accidents I was better off. Nope, I should have slammed on my brakes as
> soon as he came too close to my rear end.

Won't comment on race ...


> Just before the suziki stopped, I did look to change lanes. What happened
> was the car that was behind me was there, so I could not change lanes.
>
> So I could stop, so I did stop, but suziki made an unsafe lane change by
> changing lanes and so not leaving enough distance for moving vehicles
> to come to a stop in.

Boo hoo, get over it like the rest of us.

> So collisions blamed on me, but so what ? So what if I say that its their
> fault ?
> the cop just wants to get out of there, "here's your fine, have a good
> day."

Sell the Camy/Avalon or whatever and go back to walking.....


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** Now I will bring chaos to the world!

[Spooky]

"The Raven" <swilson150@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:41934309$0$1724$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> "Allianz with the Devil" <Allianz@hell.com> wrote in message
> news:4193413d@grungy...
>>
>>>
>>> That would be two accidents in 5 years, who knows how many in a longer
>>> period.
>>
>> Ok, two in 16 years.
>>
>> 16 years ago I was watching the head lights on approaching vehicles
>> and didnt see one moving quickly behind the others, as a lightning bolt.
>> P plater and all, you know how it is.
>>
>>
>> She was drunk, straight from the pub, and speeding. but you get that.
>>
>> With no skid marks or witnesses, and me being so young ,the copper did
>> the natural thing and booked it to me. whatya expect, god to come down
>> and be my witness to tell the copper the facts ?
>
> All crap because if it happened 16 years ago it wouldn't count on
> insurance. They only want to know what happened in the last five
> years.........
>
>> They have since put in traffic lights, as two lane roads with many
>> intersections are dangerous to do right turns on.
>
> You can't connect what happened 16 years ago to the installation of
> traffic lights.
>
>> 8 years ago, Stream of traffic, on a curve on a bridge, two lanes.
>>
>> A suzuki cino cut into my lane without giving ME my safety margin.
>>
>> before I even get the brakes down, he's stopped. Lets make this worse
>> for him.
>> he had defective vehicle -painted brake lights, made them look black.
>> you remember the stuff. So its afternoon and the sun was shining almost
>> horizontal, strongly on the lights. the brake lights were hidden by the
>> stupid paint that was since banned and made to go away. So I dont
>> remember seeing any brake lights or signs he was stopping.
>>
>> Witnesses ? none. my memory ? well ur, I didnt see him stopping.
>
> Trolling more like it, another example of an accident outside the standard
> 5 year period.
>
>> I forgot to tell the cop that he just did an illegal lane change in front
>> of me ?
>> what would that matter ? would the facts change the cops rule ?
>> the one behind must be in the wrong.. thats the rule, right spooky ?
>
> You're a fool for not mentioning it and, having been there myself, you get
> the blame regardless.
>
>> Well he causes the crash by jumping in front of me and blocking my vision
>> and not even slowing down in response to congestion ahead. He just
>> locks up and stops on a tweny cent piece, even though he handnt even made
>> a safe lane change.
>
> Contradictions on contradictions in that paragraph.
>
>> Why did he do that ? he couldnt let 1977 mazda beat him, and he didnt
>> realise that a 77 mazda didnt stop quite as quick as him, and he was
>> young and dangerous.
>
> Yawn....
>
>> why did i get the neg driving and the insurance bill ? I had no
>> evidence -
>> and also I didnt remember what he did.
>
> Doesn't matter, you were at the tail of the accident and therefore
> automatically responsible. Yeah, it sucks but be thankful your insurance
> company paid out.
>
>> There was also a vehicle monstering me, I wasnt used to heavy traffic
>> like that, and I didnt know I should stop and make him hit me .
>
> You drive a Camry right.....
>
>> I was naive, i thought that there was some fairness and I had avoided
>> accidents I was better off. Nope, I should have slammed on my brakes as
>> soon as he came too close to my rear end.
>
> Won't comment on race ...
>
>
>> Just before the suziki stopped, I did look to change lanes. What happened
>> was the car that was behind me was there, so I could not change lanes.
>>
>> So I could stop, so I did stop, but suziki made an unsafe lane change by
>> changing lanes and so not leaving enough distance for moving vehicles
>> to come to a stop in.
>
> Boo hoo, get over it like the rest of us.
>
>> So collisions blamed on me, but so what ? So what if I say that its
>> their fault ?
>> the cop just wants to get out of there, "here's your fine, have a good
>> day."
>
> Sell the Camy/Avalon or whatever and go back to walking.....

ROFLMAO. You forgot to mention that all his excuses
above, don't amount to attributing any blame whatsoever
on road conditions. Remember, that was his original excuse. :)

Spooky