I 65 Ticket

[steveh_131]

Yes, because that's what insurance is for. Covering accidents that occur under normal driving conditions. But it seems like if someone is truly willing to take responsibility for driving when it has been forbidden due to unsafe conditions, then they should also be willing to foot the bill and not pass it off to the insurance company, ultimately raising my premiums.

If I drive irresponsibly, the premium for my insurance will reflect that. A contract is a contract. I pay for their service and I will hold them to it.

 

[Landon]

So does your insurance prohibit it? Wonder if there is a clause about driving during a disaster as 29 counties were declared as so.

 

[dmarsh8]

So does your insurance prohibit it? Wonder if there is a clause about driving during a disaster as 29 counties were declared as so.

If not, hurry and delete this or there will be

 

[shibumiseeker]

So is Fair Oaks a private sector company? Since when is it the governments responsibility to ensure the operation is functional at all times.

I'm not arguing that, nor do either the posts you quoted address that. I am addressing other points you raised. You can raise all the strawmen you want, but I won't own them for you.

 

[jamil]

A lot of hashing about, but the essential question is, does the government have the right to tell people they can't drive on roads. You can argue all the political theory you want, but in the end, the government has every right to do whatever the people will put up with. So yes. It does have that right.

 

[Landon]

A lot of hashing about, but the essential question is, does the government have the right to tell people they can't drive on roads. You can argue all the political theory you want, but in the end, the government has every right to do whatever the people will put up with. So yes. It does have that right.

That I can agree with. Its part of the Indiana Code and as such its something "We the People" have agreed to thru the elected officials that made it such. Maybe everyone does not agree with it, but as a democracy, apparently the majority do.

 

[steveh_131]

That I can agree with. Its part of the Indiana Code and as such its something "We the People" have agreed to thru the elected officials that made it such. Maybe everyone does not agree with it, but as a democracy, apparently the majority do.

We are not a democracy.

 

[jamil]

We are not a democracy.

On paper we're not a democracy. But effectively, yeah, we are. It's pop culture rule. We're now being ruled by the kinds of people I used to laugh and throw food at in high school.

 

[steveh_131]

On paper we're not a democracy. But effectively, yeah, we are. It's pop culture rule. We're now being ruled by the kinds of people I used to laugh and throw food at in high school.

Not sure I agree, but I'm not sure the point is clear enough to argue. His implication was that legislation always follows majority public opinion. I'm not sure that it does either on paper or in the real world.

Also, you laughed at people and threw food at them? In high school?

 

[jamil]

Not sure I agree, but I'm not sure the point is clear enough to argue. His implication was that legislation always follows majority public opinion. I'm not sure that it does either on paper or in the real world.

Also, you laughed at people and threw food at them? In high school?

I went through a non-conformist, rebellious phase and hung out with some like-minded hoodlums as a teen. So Yes. If you attended my high school in the 70s and you demonstrated more regard for trend mongering and fashion and popularity than genuine loyalty to your friends, I may have hurled a tater-tot in your direction. The laughter usually came after a direct hit.

Not particularly proud of that. And I did stop doing it after I was caught once.

 

[Caleb]

Sounds like he was collecting money for big brother...funnel that money into the checkbooks

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I went through a non-conformist, rebellious phase and hung out with some like-minded hoodlums as a teen. So Yes. If you attended my high school in the 70s and you demonstrated more regard for trend mongering and fashion and popularity than genuine loyalty to your friends, I may have hurled a tater-tot in your direction. The laughter usually came after a direct hit.

Not particularly proud of that. And I did stop doing it after I was caught once.

Why would you throw a tater tot? A carrot stick or piece of broccoli, sure...but a tator tot?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why would you throw a tater tot? A carrot stick or piece of broccoli, sure...but a tator tot?

No kidding. Always the veggies first.

 

[actaeon277]

I've got a question for all these people who think they have the right to take their chances when the conditions have been deemed too dangerous to drive. You say you're willing to be "on your own". If, while driving on roads that had been declared unsafe for passage, you were involved in an accident that involved vehicle or property damage, or caused injuries, would you cover all expenses out of pocket, or let the insurance companies pick up the tab?

I have insurance. It does not just cover me on sunshiny days.

Yes, because that's what insurance is for. Covering accidents that occur under normal driving conditions. But it seems like if someone is truly willing to take responsibility for driving when it has been forbidden due to unsafe conditions, then they should also be willing to foot the bill and not pass it off to the insurance company, ultimately raising my premiums.

People crash during thunderstorms. That raises your premiums.
What's the difference? They are both inclement weather.

So is Fair Oaks a private sector company? Since when is it the governments responsibility to ensure the operation is functional at all times. If the situation is that serious then they should be properly prepared. They surely had to have the foresight that someday there may be a situation where trucks or workers may not be able to make it to work. They can either prepare for that circumstance and build storage facilities and living quarters for workers onsite for those situations or risk the loss of milk or animals. They chose to lose the milk down the drain instead of having a storage facility.

So how about this Landon?
The steel mill I work at pays the taxes equivalent to something like 600-800,000 homes.
Steel mills use a LOT of water. That is why they tend to be near large bodies of water.
Water that is not tended, tends to FREEZE.
This causes hundred of thousands if not millions of dollars damage.
This is a loss of profits, which shows up as less taxes.
Less taxes, less plowing.

Also, if the buildings keep getting trashed because workers can't get in, after a while, the mill closes.
And all that revenue is lost.
And that is just one steel mill.
There are several.

And that is just one industry. There are thousands more.
Enough losses or damage, and people start to scream for someone's head. Some politician.

The government is not responsible to ensure the operation is functional.
The government is responsible for the building and maintenance of roads.
If they do not perform their responsibilities, people will demand politicians lose their jobs, at the very least.

 

[actaeon277]

Besides, some of you are making assumptions of how bad it was.

Sorry, I've seen worse.

People can't drive, then fault them.

Give them an advisory. Their car is stuck, push it to the side, and don't be gentle.

All those plows, police, ambulances, medical workers, etc needed gasoline.
They also needed food.
Gasoline and food are place where people work.
Those people have to get in.
They do not magically transport to KFC to do their job, so the hungry emergency worker can scarf down his lunch.

 

[gunbunnies]

You know insurance companies stack the deck in their gambling business pretty good normally to make sure they come out on top of a product that they sell which you are required by law to purchase.... If they weren't smart enough to take that one in account they should be on the hook for whatever they contracted to pay for... After all they can rate you and drop your insurance based on your past driving record and decisions... The right to contract is absolute in this country...

Now should you be responsible for your actions.... of course, insurance is just one item you pay for in case you make a bad decision... The same with the sleeping bag you keep in the back of your car and some extra clothes and food etc... Just in case you get stuck... If it comes to needing a tow, or a rescue and some rescue workers decide to risk the conditions to do so then you owe them for doing so...

PS: We don't live in a Democracy... this is clearly a Republican form of government according to our constitutions...

 

[ScouT6a]

Just read through my insurance policy. (Been awhile) Unless I have an accident in a snow storm, while traveling in a flood plain, during a full moon, on a leap year, I am covered. Whew! Had me worried.
Fortunately, driving on snow is not the only activity in my life that I take take responsibility for and am pretty self sufficient at.
If someone doesn't feel safe getting out on the road, whether it's because of snow, rain, wind or darkness, then it is better that they do stay home, because there's a good chance they will hurt themselves or others. It's not a bad thing to know your personal limitations.

 

[actaeon277]

Just read through my insurance policy. (Been awhile) Unless I have an accident in a snow storm, while traveling in a flood plain, during a full moon, on a leap year, I am covered. Whew! Had me worried.
Fortunately, driving on snow is not the only activity in my life that I take take responsibility for and am pretty self sufficient at.
If someone doesn't feel safe getting out on the road, whether it's because of snow, rain, wind or darkness, then it is better that they do stay home, because there's a good chance they will hurt themselves or others. It's not a bad thing to know your personal limitations.[/QUOTE]

[video=youtube;CG2cux_6Rcw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG2cux_6Rcw[/video]

 

[Landon]

So how about this Landon?
The steel mill I work at pays the taxes equivalent to something like 600-800,000 homes.
Steel mills use a LOT of water. That is why they tend to be near large bodies of water.
Water that is not tended, tends to FREEZE.
This causes hundred of thousands if not millions of dollars damage.
This is a loss of profits, which shows up as less taxes.
Less taxes, less plowing.

Sounds like a large facility.
Why exactly did the choose the location they are at?
Did Indiana offer them the best deal?
Was it location?
Do you think they are going to pack up and leave?

Also, if the buildings keep getting trashed because workers can't get in, after a while, the mill closes.
And all that revenue is lost.
And that is just one steel mill.
There are several.

Are they making money? Must be since they are still there.

And that is just one industry. There are thousands more.
Enough losses or damage, and people start to scream for someone's head. Some politician.

Your probably right, but apparently its not been that big of issue since heads have not rolled yet.

The government is not responsible to ensure the operation is functional.
The government is responsible for the building and maintenance of roads.
If they do not perform their responsibilities, people will demand politicians lose their jobs, at the very least.

So you believe snow removal qualifies as maintenance of roads. What would you do if you lived in a state like Kansas or Colorado? They close the interstate often enough they have permanent gates they can shut and lock to keep people from entering the highway.

Well they decided not to perform their jobs (in your opinion) when they closed 65 and stopped plowing, so demand away. If you get enough people to support your view I imagine we will see a new representative for your district.

 

[Landon]

All those plows, police, ambulances, medical workers, etc needed gasoline.
They also needed food.
Gasoline and food are place where people work.
Those people have to get in.
They do not magically transport to KFC to do their job, so the hungry emergency worker can scarf down his lunch.

I don't buy any of this. Since almost every gas station accepts credit cards the vehicles can be fueled with nobody at the gas station. Ever been to one after hours when there is no attendant and gotten fuel? Plus these services typically fuel their vehicles at their yards and not at a station. Also, if the KFC worker did not go out and the store was closed, the emergency workers would either not eat or pack food to take with them from their house. I don't buy that those places HAVE TO BE OPEN.