Traffic Laws [split]

Brainformation is about the information in your brain and the way it's perceived. This forum specialize in the exchange of ideas and thoughts that do not fit into our special interests categories.

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby pilvikki » 27 Sep 2014, 11:17


my friend in finland had a driveway you'd never find if you don't know where it is, yet it's right off the highway. for some reason the weeds grow like - erm, weeds, and as the driveway goes off at a 45º angle, you don't readily see it.

love that place!

here there are some funky places tucked in behind others. no driveway, just an alley some 3' wide squished between houses... still, 500 years ago driveways were not so very important.
User avatar
pilvikki
Royal Poobah Penguin
Royal Poobah Penguin
 
Posts: 40729
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 23:32
Location: france

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 27 Sep 2014, 11:29

Yeppers, we had several such places as well.

There was one stop we had to make about once every three months. The trick to make this stop quickly was to bring a yellow rose with you. Otherwise you had to drive twenty miles around the horn to get to this house. If you brought the yellow rose to the old lady who lived in the last house off Lindemere Street, she would let you walk through her back yard to the delivery house's back yard. A distance of perhaps 150 feet between the two houses. After she passed on, the owner of the delivery house obtained an easement to install a driveway to his house, claiming landlocked property to get the permit, while her house was still in probate.
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby pilvikki » 27 Sep 2014, 13:00


ok, that's cute! :mrgreen:
User avatar
pilvikki
Royal Poobah Penguin
Royal Poobah Penguin
 
Posts: 40729
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 23:32
Location: france

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 27 Sep 2014, 18:01

I enjoyed reading both your posts.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 28 Sep 2014, 11:35

I learned of a new ordinance, well not so new, but I just found out about it.
It has to do both with traffic and grocery store displays.
This led to another similar ordinance regarding inside the store also.

Perhaps this is why we don't see canned goods stacked up pyramid fashion by the end caps anymore.

We have an ordinance against a store, any store, stacking items outside, during a sale or not, where any heavy objects capable of breaking glass is higher than 2 feet off the ground.
This is to prevent objects on display from crashing through the windshield of a car should it run amok in the parking lot.

Makes one wonder if this was such a problem they had to write an ordinance to stop it?

Objects inside the store, not on a secure shelf, may not be stacked in such a way that a bump against the display can cause objects or the whole display to come tumbling down. Such as building a pyramid of uncased canned goods. Nothing weighing over 40 pounds can be stacked higher than four feet, unless shelved. Nothing weighing more than 10 pounds can be stacked higher than five feet, unless shelved. Nothing weighing more than 2 pounds can be stacked higher than six feet, unless shelved. Then another page covered the same weights concerning shelved items.

Back outside. Clothing Racks may not have open ends at all. If capped pipes are used, they must be below four feet or above six feet and provide adequate resiliency if walked into. Not worded that way, but you get the idea. No Loose planks, pipes, or shelves, may be stacked higher than three feet. Or higher than the hood of a conventional car.

Crazy stuff...
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 28 Sep 2014, 15:08

All these fiddly rules must get on peoples' nerves. They probably have them in the UK., but I've never thought about it until now!
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby pilvikki » 28 Sep 2014, 16:14


I can some of that making sense, f ex if someone topples a display onto a toddler...

or decides to drive through the store... :roll:

here they don't bother with stuff like that. in fact, there's a few things they should pay attention to...
User avatar
pilvikki
Royal Poobah Penguin
Royal Poobah Penguin
 
Posts: 40729
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 23:32
Location: france

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 28 Sep 2014, 16:32

They pile tins of stuff up in some stores, but not in pyramid shapes any more simply BECAUSE of them falling down onto customers, whether children or not. The trouble is, some of the shelves can be really high. People reach up, and a few things topple down. Guess who's the one who usually manages to do that???
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 29 Sep 2014, 12:28

Some of the laws on our books does make one wonder.
Remember the big hood ornaments on cars. Some of them were pretty darn cool looking too.

They passed a law against them, because they gored people hit by cars.
OK, makes sense. People getting gored by hood ornaments must have been a major problem eh?
Car makers still wanted their hood ornaments, so they made flat ones now, spring loaded so they folded back instead of goring someone hit by a car.
Trouble was, somebody playing with a hood ornament could pinch their fingers, or someone hit by the car could get scratched from the hood ornament.
This was such a major dilemma with so many folks getting scratched from the hood ornament when hit by a car, they eventually outlawed this type of hood ornament too.

Never mind all the other things going on in the world the poly-TICK-ians should be concerned about!
They will gladly set aside the important things to enact legislation to ban things like hood ornaments and pea shooters, or make cigarettes keep going out so you have to relight them several times.

And we wonder why nothing useful is ever accomplished by our governments.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 29 Sep 2014, 14:44

I think you're right Gary, although I'm sure that they'll never get rid of Rolls Royce hood ornaments - which actually aren't too obtrusive. If one was involved in an accident, I think the front of the car'd sustain more damage than anyone being pierced by the item itself.

[ img ]

Most of ours're flat, or too far back on the bonnet to cause any harm.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby pilvikki » 30 Sep 2014, 06:06


funny when you think about it:

[ img ]

[ img ]

think they ever got complaints?

:lmao4:
User avatar
pilvikki
Royal Poobah Penguin
Royal Poobah Penguin
 
Posts: 40729
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 23:32
Location: france

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 30 Sep 2014, 09:59

No - they'd be too high up to do any damage to anyone, but they could've collapsed I suppose. Aren't those mastheads beautiful!
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 01 Oct 2014, 12:22

We have a neighbor rolling a Benz, and it has a hood ornament.
It is spring loaded, and the base is round with no sharp edges.

Like as if the hood ornament is the least of your worries if you get hit by a car, hi hi...
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 01 Oct 2014, 13:16

LOOOOL - that's true - and in fact, you do your utmost to avoid hitting cars like that when you're in your own vehicle, don't you? Don't think the insurance companies'd be too pleased about someone ramming into the side of a Bentley.
: (
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 02 Oct 2014, 12:07

Your comment reminded me of an incident with a school chum of mine, who had a very expensive custom paint job on one of his cars.
Some lady in a grocery store parking lot misjudged her turn into the parking space and mangled the side of his car. Not just one small dent, she kept going scraping the side of his car from just in front of the back wheel, all the way up to only an inch behind the front of the passenger doors front edge.
Wasn't exactly hit and run, but she backed back out and moved down three or four more parking spaces. Those who saw it happen wrote down her and his license plate numbers and went inside to have him paged.

Her insurance company, State Farm, tried to get out of paying for the repairs to his car in several ways.
Their first stunt was saying they were only libel for paying to restore the damaged area of the car to factory condition. This is not true!
When that didn't work, next they said they were going to total the car and pay him blue book, and he could buy the car back back as salvage. Blue book on his car was only 250 bucks. However, he had just had the car appraised after the work was done to it, so he could insure it for the replacement value. State Farm then changed their mind, they didn't want to pay the documented appraised value of the car by totaling it.
He took his car to several shops to find out what it would cost to repair the damage, first only to factory primer condition, then to the custom shops to see what it would cost to duplicate his custom paint job. These he gave to State Farm to cough up the dough. They still refused, so he gave his papers to an attorney, figuring the attorney would just draft a letter of intent to sue, and State Farm would then settle.
Nope, they still refused, so the attorney took them to court.
State Farm should have settled, because after the dust settled, they not only had to pay to have his car restored to the condition it was when it was hit, they also had to pay his attorney fees, court costs, and the cost of rental car from the day it was hit until the day it would be delivered after repairs, even though the guy did not need a rental car as he had other cars to use. The payments were court ordered, so the insurance company had to pay them, hi hi...

A cars blue book value rarely if ever holds up, even if you don't have a documented appraisal.
This old hogwash of normal maintenance does not add value to a car was shot down years ago.
Replacing an old motor with a new one is NOT normal maintenance, it is an upgrade to the vehicles value.
Essentially, you have changed the 13,000 per year mileage deduction, back to zero miles with the new motor, although that is only one aspect of the overall rating. You would have to replace the entire drive train to get the mileage deduction back close to zero.

Liability insurance is to pay for the damage caused by the liability insurance holder. That damage cannot be determined from a fixed rate book, nor negated due to averages of other similar items. But insurance companies try to use these methods to keep from paying out what they should be paying out.
It shouldn't matter if you have a 1,000 dollar car or a 50,000 dollar car. If you just put 2,000 dollar tires and wheels on your car, and someone slams into one breaking it. They should be libel for replacing that tire and wheel. They would be if it was sitting on a shelf in front of the store. So why not if it is affixed to a car? The blue book value of the car should have nothing to do with replacing the damaged tire and wheel. But insurance companies are always trying to screw the person who's property was damaged by their client.
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby pilvikki » 02 Oct 2014, 14:27


I've no quarrel with state farm, but i'm pretty sure it was they who refused to honour a house insurance for $100 000, saying it was arson and the retired home owners had themselves set the place ablaze on a -30 C night, and left themselves out there in their pyjamas.

right. the fire was automatically investigated by the county, who cleared the couple, but the ins co instead sent their own investigators. they said it was clearly (?) arson and payment was refused again.

well, guess what hit the fan!

a year later and a MILLION $'s that the company had to cough up for the couple - and also ended up themselves being investigated for fraudulent practices, I bet they wished they'd just shut the hell up!

:nana: :nana: :nana:
User avatar
pilvikki
Royal Poobah Penguin
Royal Poobah Penguin
 
Posts: 40729
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 23:32
Location: france

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 02 Oct 2014, 16:04

Good grief!
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Kellemora » 03 Oct 2014, 12:26

Oops, hit the wrong button and lost my post.
All I said was I had brought State Farm many customers over the years, and they turned around and did me dirty also.
The agent who was the benefactor of my endeavors, never lifted a finger to help, when he knew they had all the details they came up with totally wrong.

When I moved on to another insurance company, a good chunk of those I sent to State Farm came along with me. All of us are more than pleased with Farm Bureau. They have done well by me, on the couple of claims I have had. No Complaints.
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Traffic Laws [split]

Postby Ice.Maiden » 03 Oct 2014, 17:30

My "good grief" remark was to Vikki really Gary - that the insurance company gave the couple a $million.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Previous

Return to Brain Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests

cron