Pilots detained in Brazil

[FN FAL]

"darted", stood in the middle of the road, whatever. Whether or not there's a specific traffic code that might have gotten me off the hook is beside the point... However some people might feel that's not good enough, that any negligence is a crime. That's what we're debating here.

What is so confusing? You said "darted, stood in the middle of the road, whatever." Those are not nebulous concepts that have vague meaning; darted and stood are two different acts. The difference, in this case, determines who could be found negligent.

If you un-intentionally run over a pedestrian who was lawfully using a crosswalk, because you were not paying attention, you're negligent.

If the pedestrian is jogging and darts out in front of you without leaving you time to stop, the jogger is negligent.

Besides, that's not traffic code I cited, that's Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin state statutes.

I don't have a problem with your confusion, it only means that when something like that does happen and a police man, who works solely in the interest of being your personal advocate against injustice, will take everything you say down on paper. If you say it wrong, there will be no correction later. Just babble to your advocate, the police man, and all will work out in good time.

My girlfriend rear-ended this other young woman, because my girlfriend was able to correctly articulate what happened, the driver of the rear-ended vehicle got a citation. That other driver was in the wrong.

That girl's mom was so mad that her daughter got a ticket for being rear-ended, that she came over to the house and was waving the ticket in the air, yelling and flailing arms...hahahahahaha. If she would have had balls, I would have kicked her in them.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff or being confused, but it does suck when you have to pay for it.

 

[FN FAL]

handlesaregay never said anyone "darted out" in front of him. Your argument, while followed up by a cut-and-paste of some legalese, is as worthless as all of your others.

That wasn't legalese, that was Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin State Statutes, otherwise known as "RULES OF THE ROAD". You might have those in your state and if you possess a driver's license, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. You'd be negligent if you didn't.

 

[Papps]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it. Most of you are know-it-all av-dorks, and most likely still wet the bed bi-monthly

 

[AngelKing]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it. Most of you are know-it-all av-dorks, and most likely still wet the bed bi-monthly

I quit wetting the bed a long time ago......so there.



AK

 

[FN FAL]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it.

Are you saying they intended to hit that airliner?

That's a new one.

 

[handlesaregay]

What is so confusing? You said "darted, stood in the middle of the road, whatever." Those are not nebulous concepts that have vague meaning; darted and stood are two different acts. The difference, in this case, determines who could be found negligent.

If you un-intentionally run over a pedestrian who was lawfully using a crosswalk, because you were not paying attention, you're negligent.

If the pedestrian is jogging and darts out in front of you without leaving you time to stop, the jogger is negligent.

Besides, that's not traffic code I cited, that's Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin state statutes.

I don't have a problem with your confusion, it only means that when something like that does happen and a police man, who works solely in the interest of being your personal advocate against injustice, will take everything you say down on paper. If you say it wrong, there will be no correction later. Just babble to your advocate, the police man, and all will work out in good time.

My girlfriend rear-ended this other young woman, because my girlfriend was able to correctly articulate what happened, the driver of the rear-ended vehicle got a citation. That other driver was in the wrong.

That girl's mom was so mad that her daughter got a ticket for being rear-ended, that she came over to the house and was waving the ticket in the air, yelling and flailing arms...hahahahahaha. If she would have had balls, I would have kicked her in them.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff or being confused, but it does suck when you have to pay for it.

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:

[I was driving by wondering what this kid was up to and as I glanced in my rearview mirror I saw another kid standing on the opposite side of the street completely in the shadows where I had just been. My heart skipped a beat because I was completely unaware of his presence until after I passed him because I was momentarily fixated on the other kid. If he would have been standing in front of my car I would have run right over him. Sure I could have said there were mitigating circumstances, poorly lit street, he was standing in the middle or the road, etc. But you could argue that I have the responsilbity to watch where I'm going at all times and if I hit something be it a kid, a dog, whatever.. it's my fault no matter what my "excuses" are. (Like taxiways under construction, poor runway markings, outdated charts, inattentive controller....)

Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

 

[FN FAL]

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:



Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

 

[handlesaregay]

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

What are you 5 years old? You sound like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. You misread my post as I very clearly pointed out and rather than simply acknowledging your error and moving on you want to keep clinging to your mistaken analysis like a dog with a bone. Do you want to attempt to explain to me again why the Wisconsin state statutes you posted regarding pedestrians suddenly darting out into traffic is relevant to my analogy of accidently running down a kid standing in the middle of the road? Can you answer this without the diversionary tactics and personal attacks? Or do you just want me to say:

"YES FN FAL. IN WISCONSIN IF A PEDESTRIAN DARTS IN FRONT OF YOUR CAR IT IS THEIR FAULT."

And so what if it is? You would have made an excellent point if I had actually said "a kid darted out in front of my car". Except I didn't say that. In your enthusiasm to tear apart my example you didn't read it very carefully. However at this point I'm not going to argue about it anymore. You seem more interested in being right all the time than participating in any kind of open exchange of ideas. Like political shouting matches on TV where at the end of the day everyone is still right where they started. This will more than likely be my last post on the subject.


Edit: Here is what you posted one last time for everyone's edification:


No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours. ​

 

[FN FAL]

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours.

Drive over someone standing in the middle of the road and you'll get all the education you'll ever want.

 

[GeneralAv]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.