Scruit

3 lanes must stop both ways.

If you are on a 4-lane highway there is no need to stop, at all, for oncoming buses. "Proceed after stopping" Where did that come from? It is not up to the LEO to change the law by the side of the road. I dispute the assertion that I should have stopped because kids are unpredictable. Sure kids are unpredictable but if a kid tries to cross a 4-lane highway then I'll have plenty of time to see him and stop. Maybe we should ban cars from driving past kids on a sidewalk, because kids are unpredictable.

For real?

But it's for the children!! Ok, I'm done. I am appropriately glad to see my fellow two-wheelers know the law a damn sight better than the youtube commentators who are in unanimous agreement that it is illegal. If BlackBetty wants to use this as an opportunity to refresh herself on the law than cool, no harm no foul. Better to learn here than be schooled by a judge after writing someone a ticket for it.

The lights were flashing red and the stop sign was extended and flashing red. If they appear yellow in the video then it's a camera glitch or lens artifact.

Guilty as charged. Take me away.

So you'd ticket me for this, huh?

No the red were flashing, clear as day.

Can I have some of that popcorn? This is a case where most people do not know the law. And some people will condemn to to the very bowels of hell for doing this - until they realize it is perfectly legal. And even then, some people who have committed to a vociferous condemnation don't have the moral strength to back down so they will argue "You should stop anyway!" I am happy to see many folks here DO know the law.

Yes, I did it. Sue me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-De6TN_zTA Discuss.

Most large companies don't give a crap about the customers. If doing right by the customers costs money then they won't do it. The extreme examples are the Pinto Memo etc. The 3.8 Taurus engine blew headgaskets on a regular basis yet ford never admitted any problem with it - the knew there were massive numbers of failing engines. Rather than do the right thing an recall the cars for the uprate headgaskets they kept denying the existence of the problem until a public pressure built up. http://www.autosafety.org/ford-38l-head-gasket-trouble

Sweet. If we hop on board the fastest space vessel ever built (Apollo 10, ~25k mph) we shoudl get there in about... 27,000 years. Better take a good book.

From a moralistic perspective I can't dispute that.

I agree that the decision was wrong, based upon what we know NOW. Based up on what was known at the time I believe the correct decision was made at the time. How do you define frivilous? It may be semantics. To me "frivilous" does not mean "She should have lost". It means that the case never had any merit from the beginning and no reasonable person would ever believe that there was any value to trying the case.

The proof that lower tempeatures are also dangerous came from a later UK lawsuit. At the time of the US lawsuit the court accepted the contemporary scientific belief that the lower temp would be safer. Why didn't McDonalds bring their own scientists in to show the lower temps were no safer? If you drop a Brand X chainsaw on your foot, and you come to find that Brands Y and Z have a simple safety cutoff that Brand X are too cheap to put on their chainsaws despite multiple injuries... then you may have a case. If, years after your successful lawsuit, the safety cutoff is found to have been ineffective and either chainsaw would have cause the injuries then that just means the outcome of the lawsuit was wrong -doesn't mean the lawsuit was frivilous. If you tried to shave with a chainsaw and your jawbone wound up in the next county then any attempt to sue would be frivilous.

She only asked for $20k to begin with. Enough to cover medical bills and lost wages.

Removed. Is the link correct? I don't see a user account in the URL.

At the time the 160F number was not disputed. It was a later lawsuit in England where the lower temp was demonstrated to be dangerous too. To me 'frivilous lawsuit' menas there is simply no merit to the claims and no reasonable person would agree with the plaintiff. The fact that the science used in the suit is later proved to be inaccurate does not mean the lawsuit was frivilous - it just means that the outcome was wrong. What temp is safe, and how would you measure that? If it were to go to trial again the plaintiff would be better of arguing that the packaging given at the drive-thru should be changed to prevent spills, like a go-cup etc.

You should use your mad l33t mysql h@x0rZ skillz to cron a dupe checker. If the same link is posted multiple times then the posts are merged automatically (API call?) or the redundant post is modified with a ink to the first thread. Do it. I'll wait. (*Holds breath*)

I'm here for the pee roast.

What happened in those cases? I understand that assets are divided (or offset by cash payments). If the car or bike is being sold "to stop me from losing it in the divorce" then the judge must consider it as an asset of the marriage that is to be divided, right? If the judge considers it an asset that will be counted when dividing marital assets then selling it won't get him anything. If the judge tells him the car is an asset that must be split and he instead sells the car for 5k then that $5k will be still be split, right? Is asset dumping leading up to a divorce frowned upon also? That would be like intentionally running up a bunch of new debt right before filing bankruptcy. When my parents divorced there were no assets to divide so I don't know how that works. One friend of mine got a disillusionment in which hs wife went crazy listing every assets she wanted a piece of. His car was listed as an asset and he was told not to sell it. The thing was worth like $2k. She wanted halk of his 401k, half of his house equity (they had been married for a year, and all his assets were from before the marriage) In the end she quit co-operating with her attorney and moved out of state. My friend stopped the disillusionment process and filed for divorce. She had planned to file in her state, hoping he'd have to travel for hearings or pay a remote lawyer (make him quit early because of the expense). He got his divorce filing in the day before hers, so when copies were exchanged her filing was dismissed and SHE had to travel back to Ohio for hearings. She didn't - she refused to co-operate with the OH courts (never a good legal move) and the judge eventually ruled that all marital assets that were still in Ohio were his. She got nothing but the clothes on her back.

^^^ What he said. I actually keep 2 pairs of shoes at work - sneakers and dress shoes depending on if I'm wearing a shirt/tie or just jeans. I want the ankle protection, especially inversion/eversion. Shoes can't beat boots for that. Takes me all of 30 seconds to swap the boots for shoes.

The temperature that coffee is brewed at is one thing - the temperature it is served at is different. I make tea with boiling water - I don't drink it while it's boiling. To me the most telling thing is the ~700 people burned up to that point. That should be your clue that something needs to change if people are getting burned that much. What else could they have done? I dunno. Different cups? A lid that allows you to add creamer and sugar without taking the lid off? A stern warning in the drive-through that you shouldn't hold the coffee between your legs? Ask the driver if they want to drink it now or later, and serve at a temp that is appropriate? Meh, don't want to get off-topic. Just wanted to point out that people beileve the McD's lawsuit to be a poster child for frivolous lawsuits yet is remains a controversial and divided case. If it was frivilous then everyone would agree it was wrong, no?

No cure for large companies crapping on the little guy for a buck.

I alway giggle when I hear people quoting Liebeck v McDonalds as an example of a frivilous lawsuit. Back in the early 90s McDonalds required it franchisees to serve the coffee was served significantly hotter than anyone could drink it because they assumed people would take the coffee to work and drink it and therefore want it to still be drinkably hot 10-15 minutes later. The car was parked and it was the passenger who was hurt. The coffee caused 3rd degree burns, she was hospitalized for 8 days and had to undergo skin grafts. Took 2 years of medical treatments for her to fully recover. McDonalds had received several hundred complaints of people being burned by the coffee and settled out-of-court with those folks. Despite ~700 people being burned, they still served the coffee dangerously hot and relied on paying off burn victims while not admitting liability, rather than change how the coffee was served.