Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Double Zero -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (4214)	6/1/2005 7:18:34 AM
From: Done, gone.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4295

That sucks huge. Time for some full body photos. Otherwise, I don't see how you'll trump the word of a dim cop.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (4214)	6/1/2005 10:20:30 AM
From: TEDennis	Respond to of 4295

Oh, c'mon Bill ... We all know how fleet afoot you are, and how you almost qualified for the '92 Olympics gymnastics team. It will be come obvious to the judge (and jury?) that you stepped off that curb after the car was already turning into the crosswalk, thus signalling intent for the car to continue with the turn. You realized your mistake, so you quickly and quite deftly did one of those patented toe-twist moves you're so famous for. All would have been fine, except that you forgot to account for the thickness of the paint in the crosswalk lines, so your finely tuned toe-twist maneuver was thrown off-kelter, you lost your balance, and in trying to correct your motion so your adoring fans in the stopped cars wouldn't see their hero look awkward, you fell backward into the car. You can't fool us, Bill. Good try, though. TED

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (4214)	6/1/2005 11:20:53 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4295

Was the policeman at the scene and witnessed the incident? Or did he get his report from eye-witnesses that you can contact and verify, or did he just write down what the driver said? Did he even bother to get your side of the story? 1. You crossed at the green (was there a crossing sign?) 2. You were in a cross-walk 3. The driver was on her cell phone (illegal in some states; subpoena her phone records) 4. You were hit in the rear (most auto rear-end collisions are the drivers fault for not being at a safe enough distance to stop at a moment's notice) 5. You are clearly in emotional and physical distress Sounds like a no-brainer settlement in your favor to me. I hope you get it. - Jeff P.S. Be careful what you write here as it may be used against you.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (4214)	6/1/2005 11:40:11 AM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4295

That's an interesting intersection ... Assuming "up" is "North" ... Looks like "B Street" is one-way northbound south of the intersection, but two-way north of the intersection ... and "2nd Street" is one-way westbound. So, a complete stop in the left (west-most) lane at the red light northbound on "B", followed by a left-turn into the left (southern-most) lane of "2nd" should be a legal maneuver. Except that running into pedestrians in the crosswalk (not shown?) is probably not considered a fair encounter. Assumptions: 1) she was turning left from the left lane into the left lane 2) you were in the crosswalk Even if there isn't a fully lined official crosswalk, I think in most states there is an assumed crosswalk at every intersection where pedestrians are present. Keep us posted, Bill. It's fascinating to watch our legal system at work. Of course, this IS Northern California we're talking about, so all bets are off ... TED [grub ... Karen Valentine's Room 222, with a leading 4]