ZR SLEDHEAD Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Ridiculous that case made it to a court let alone that he'd loose in the lower courts. Stole a vehicle n got hurt should = sux to be you / case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuyuna Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 37 minutes ago, ZR SLEDHEAD said: Ridiculous that case made it to a court let alone that he'd loose in the lower courts. Stole a vehicle n got hurt should = sux to be you / case closed. We need less serpent-tongued lawyers in government and the courts and more people with a backbone and moral integrity to bring us all back to a world of common sense and personal accountability. We all have let this evolve to where it is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 35 minutes ago, ZR SLEDHEAD said: Ridiculous that case made it to a court let alone that he'd loose in the lower courts. Stole a vehicle n got hurt should = sux to be you / case closed. And people wonder why some landowners have a degree of concern. Hypothetically will there be a case where similar to this year trails have closed "early" gates leading to private property which in season is a snowmobile trail, have been closed and locked a snowmobiler or an ATV'er who assumes that a snowmobile trail is also an ATV trail cuts the lock, opens the gate and rides the private property the rider gets seriously injured or killed perhaps after hitting a hidden hazard such as a rock or stump The rider and or the family take the landowner to court and perhaps win. OR The landowner and / or family member are out on their own property under the premise that the trail is no longer being used for the season and is seriously injured by someone who shouldn't have been there in the first place. Damn I wish people would accept responsibility for their own stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZR SLEDHEAD Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Yup, no one taking responsibility for their own actions is now the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 While I was in OC forums and had 3 other windows open I didn't notice the malware sneaking in through one of the other open windows. Had I not been busy reading ride reports on OC that never would have happened. Time to file suit against OC and the authors of the ride reports I was reading that distracted me. This should be good for at least $100k in damages, pain and suffering for the lost data and recovery efforts I had to endure. Damn distractions need to shoulder some of the blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faceman Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 2 hours ago, 02Sled said: And people wonder why some landowners have a degree of concern. Hypothetically will there be a case where similar to this year trails have closed "early" gates leading to private property which in season is a snowmobile trail, have been closed and locked a snowmobiler or an ATV'er who assumes that a snowmobile trail is also an ATV trail cuts the lock, opens the gate and rides the private property the rider gets seriously injured or killed perhaps after hitting a hidden hazard such as a rock or stump The rider and or the family take the landowner to court and perhaps win. OR The landowner and / or family member are out on their own property under the premise that the trail is no longer being used for the season and is seriously injured by someone who shouldn't have been there in the first place. Damn I wish people would accept responsibility for their own stupidity. How long before township and municipalities that allow us use of the "unmaintained" road allowances, or the province as a whole decides that to protect their collective asses they shut down or prohibit any motorized usage. Getting back to Rankin. In one of the court sessions and during a conversation the defence suggested, so hypothetically if someone broke into an unfinished house, fell on a sharp object while trying to steal something and seriously hurt themselves the landowner and contractor would or could be held liable for the death. Answer was "possibly yes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 There have been some absolutely insane court decisions. One I recall was related to me by our National Manager of Loss Prevention. A mother goes into one of the stores with the plan to steal things and hide them under her loose fitting clothes. She uses her about 5 year old kid as a distraction. He starts running around unchecked by his mother smashing things on the shelves including glass ware and crystal. Meanwhile mom is stashing things to steal. Loss prevention says you need to come to our security office to talk about paying for the brats damages that she let him keep doing and was caught on camera. That's when they found she had stuff stashed under her clothes. Apparently the kid got a small cut on one of his hands from the broken glass. Mom sued and believe it or not won. Another I recall was the case of the crook that broke into a house and decided to exit through the attached garage. The owners had just started two weeks vacation. The door from the garage to the house had an auto closer and locked behind him as he entered the garage. The garage overhead door was locked shut and he couldn't get out. He survived two weeks on dog kibble and coke. He sued the home owners and won. One place to check out stupidity is the Darwin Awards http://darwinawards.com/darwin/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baylaker Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I heard the story of a guy falling through the skylight into the kitchen and landing on the knife block, guess what, he cut himself and sued the homeowner. This happened in the states probably over 10 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledguy74 Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 We were once asked in school during our class in product liability if anyone knew why there is a label on every push lawnmower showing fingers being cut off in the mower deck..... Once we all stopped laughing the professor told us the story of TORO lawn mowers vs defendant in the great state of Mississippi !! Turns out a citizen of that state decided after he cut his lawn that if he picked up the running mower he could trim his hedge and save time in doing so. Well be lost most of his fingers and while in the hospital realizing he cannot afford the bill called a lawyer who filed suit against TORO claiming there was no way on knowing one could lose fingers by grabbing the edges of the mower deck. Well the court system in the poorest state tends to agree with the defense regularly in these types of suits and awarded the person with $4.2 million + medical expenses. TORO and other lawn mower manufacturers immediately had teams identify all hazards and attach clear labels to all products in order to reduce the risk of further suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revrnd Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Look at how long the 'lawyer labels' have been on the Polaris sleds. I remember they were minimal on an '01 or '04 'doo compared to my parents' Poos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 16/03/2017 at 9:38 PM, signfan said: Trailering is becoming a new norm. I think the other thing you have to be is flexible. When it snows get out and ride. Despite having an odd winter there is still rideable trails this week in Ontario. You have to make the time for the sport. If you can get away mid week it opens up lots of additional riding opportunities. I agree $20,000 is crazy for a snowmobile. It's not every sled though. Just for a big Yamaha that I wouldn't want anyways. As for the trails I think the clubs and districts need to re-evaluate where the trails are located. It's silly that we are still crossing and getting groomers stuck in the same swamp that we have been fighting for 20 plus years. Yes there are areas where the swamps are unavoidable, but in many instances there are better options that require a higher level view of what the priorities need to be. Hopefully with the changes coming in the districts previous lessons learned and best practices can be shared and implemented across all clubs in the district. Planning and foresight can lead to better more reliable trails despite changing weather. I'd look at district six as a good example of these ideas being put to work and their trails show it. There's no way I'll be convinced that the sport is dying. ATVing doesn't even come close to comparing to sledding. We just need some new out of the box thinking. We need to find a cheap way to make snow and should also probably look at adding tillers to the drags so a studded groomer can make an ice packed trail rideable after we get a big melt and the subsequent freeze up. The snow base didn't disappear overnight in the Haliburton Highlands and Muskoks this February. It just froze rock hard and became unrideable with creeks and swamps opening up. The ski resorts are still open today. What can our sport learn from their operations? Snow making. Which isn't an option for out sport. 30 years ago there was nary a snowmaking machine on any ski hill in Ontario. Today there is not a ski hill that would be able to open with any consistency without it. Vail is dumping nearly a 1/2 a billion dollars into Whistler mountain for A. massive waterpark and B. Alpine mountain improvements such as snowmaking and blasting that help can manage the alpine areas better.. The alpine is the only area that has consistent snow and the glaciers are retreating rapidly. I paid $8k for my sled 2 years old with 2k miles. That was 3 years ago and it's worth around 7. Can buy lightly used or left over turbos for 10-13k. 20k is a slap in the face for a sled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 17/03/2017 at 1:21 PM, skidooboy said: I really don't buy into the global warming thing.. we had an ice age a few thousand years ago, no one was around to see and report the thaw and say it was man made... why now? this could be as simple as we (the earth) has rotated a few degrees off axis, and is causing weather patterns to change, or that the earth has drifted in it's orbit around the sun, and we are closer and causing the changes. or the sun is getting hotter, how do we account, and measure any of this. it is just weather, it changes, it is cyclical. it is just weather. ski , You need to do some reading. "Not buying it" isn't a valid theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 'not buying' climate change is just showing the person's ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther340 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 7 hours ago, donkey said: 'not buying' climate change is just showing the person's ignorance. And your "buying into it" shows how gullible you are ..............and by the way we all buy into the phrase "climate change" it was an easy out phrase the gullible ones came up with when they failed to prove "man made global warming". Since this left wing conspiracy started in 1990: They were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis their 95% confident their right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 I checked with the Republicans and it's not global warming. It's just God's plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Panther340 said: And your "buying into it" shows how gullible you are ..............and by the way we all buy into the phrase "climate change" it was an easy out phrase the gullible ones came up with when they failed to prove "man made global warming". Since this left wing conspiracy started in 1990: They were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis their 95% confident their right. Im not going to get into a debate about climate change or global warming because this is not the place, but You are completely wrong. Much of what you suggest about whoever being "wrong" is also incorrect. Climate change and global warming are not interdependent and the term climate change was not "created" as you suggest. Get studying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 45 minutes ago, speedy said: I checked with the Republicans and it's not global warming. It's just God's plan. The "science" that proclaimed "global warming" came to the realization that "global warming" was not a philosophy they could perpetuate as it was being disproven by alternate science. Something like the claims that were made about the holes in the ozone layer and that we would all be cooked by now due to unfiltered solar rays. You know all those holes that were caused by us. Ooops. They miraculously have been closing/closed up and you don't hear anything about that anymore although they were the beginning of the end of the world. So instead of "global warming" they have coined a new phrase... "climate change" and it is the new beginning of the end of the world. The doom and gloom predictions began long ago and by now most coastal cities and towns were supposed to be under water. Yes the climate will continue to change just like it has since the beginning of time. I'm just not buying into the concept that it is our fault and that we can stop/reverse the climate change anymore than the caveman cooking his bronto burgers could have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, 02Sled said: The "science" that proclaimed "global warming" came to the realization that "global warming" was not a philosophy they could perpetuate as it was being disproven by alternate science. Something like the claims that were made about the holes in the ozone layer and that we would all be cooked by now due to unfiltered solar rays. You know all those holes that were caused by us. Ooops. They miraculously have been closing/closed up and you don't hear anything about that anymore although they were the beginning of the end of the world. So instead of "global warming" they have coined a new phrase... "climate change" and it is the new beginning of the end of the world. The doom and gloom predictions began long ago and by now most coastal cities and towns were supposed to be under water. Yes the climate will continue to change just like it has since the beginning of time. I'm just not buying into the concept that it is our fault and that we can stop/reverse the climate change anymore than the caveman cooking his bronto burgers could have. You are also blatently Incorrect. Mmgw and climate change are both active issues and the terms were not created with any conspiracy as you suggest, they are 2 different things often interrelated but not interdependent. The holes in the ozone layer were caused by humans, mostly due to harmful cfc's. We've essentially wiped out the production of aerosols in industry, thus reducing the erosion of the ozone layer and it's rebounded some. There is a significant difference to the ozone layer depletion and climate change. Oceans are rising and coastal communities will eventually be under water, with many already experiencing a issues (Miami for example is investing millions to combat it). Timelines changed as the science improves but mostly those timelines have only shortened as the warming trend we are on exasperates You also need to do some studying as it seems you have an opinion based on what you have perceived to be true as opposed to actual fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Sled Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Canadoo said: You are also blatently Incorrect. Mmgw and climate change are both active issues and the terms were not created with any conspiracy as you suggest, they are 2 different things often interrelated but not interdependent. The holes in the ozone layer were caused by humans, mostly due to harmful cfc's. We've essentially wiped out the production of aerosols in industry, thus reducing the erosion of the ozone layer and it's rebounded some. There is a significant difference to the ozone layer depletion and climate change. Oceans are rising and coastal communities will eventually be under water, with many already experiencing a issues (Miami for example is investing millions to combat it). Timelines changed as the science improves but mostly those timelines have only shortened as the warming trend we are on exasperates You also need to do some studying as it seems you have an opinion based on what you have perceived to be true as opposed to actual fact. I see you have drank some of that Kool-Aid.... tell me during the last ice age when Toronto was under ice and snow a mile and a half thick, what was the cause of the "global warming / climate change" that caused that? Surely it wasn't us. Imagine had society been advanced enough back then. Just imagine the doom and gloom prophecies that would have been abounding as that mile and a half of ice and snow on top of Toronto was disappearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catinental couch Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 As for cfc's and the ozone layer; the worldwide production and use of them ended in 1996. R 12 has a shelf life or destruction life span of 100 years. If you want to blame the ozone layer problems on cfc's then how could the hole in the ozone layer repair itself when all those cfc's are still destroying ozone for the next 79 years? Cfc's were only invented 62 years ago. The math doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 33 minutes ago, 02Sled said: I see you have drank some of that Kool-Aid.... tell me during the last ice age when Toronto was under ice and snow a mile and a half thick, what was the cause of the "global warming / climate change" that caused that? Surely it wasn't us. Imagine had society been advanced enough back then. Just imagine the doom and gloom prophecies that would have been abounding as that mile and a half of ice and snow on top of Toronto was disappearing. No in fact you have drank the Kool aid. The fact there have been major climate shifts in the past are reasons we know how the climate is changing so rapidly and the primary cause being man, mostly our emitting of greenhouse gases. The ice ages of the past as well as the warming periods (they are cyclical) are much more gradual than what we are seeing now, typically measured in the thousands of years where today we are measuring the rapid warming in a period of decades and years. It's quite clear you don't have a whole lot of information on the subject so I'd suggest if you are interested in discussing it, you learn instead of shouting ignorant skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, catinental couch said: As for cfc's and the ozone layer; the worldwide production and use of them ended in 1996. R 12 has a shelf life or destruction life span of 100 years. If you want to blame the ozone layer problems on cfc's then how could the hole in the ozone layer repair itself when all those cfc's are still destroying ozone for the next 79 years? Cfc's were only invented 62 years ago. The math doesn't work. The math works, not sure how you're calculating things. It's been 30 years as you say since banning these arosols and only recently have they seen any kind of recovery and it's incredibly slow. So you are correct but unfortunately what yoh suggest is bad math is actually your ignorance. Do you think you know more than scientists at NASA or MIT? If so please elaborate as I'd be interested to hear your hypothesis'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther340 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Some reading for the gullible ones: Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all. According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet. But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases. Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.) The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400. Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans). At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc. So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml. But our gullible Ontario taxpayers would rather we waste billions on fighting the C02 war instead of spending that money where it could have actual life savings eg; in our hospitals and health care system ............there is only one taxpayer pocket and causing our taxes to be raised , or the costs of commodities to be increased due to carbon taxes , just means less money spent wisely else where. ... thanks but no thanks !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 19 minutes ago, Panther340 said: Some reading for the gullible ones: Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all. According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet. But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases. Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.) The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400. Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans). At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc. So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml. But our gullible Ontario taxpayers would rather we waste billions on fighting the C02 war instead of spending that money where it could have actual life savings eg; in our hospitals and health care system ............there is only one taxpayer pocket and causing our taxes to be raised , or the costs of commodities to be increased due to carbon taxes , just means less money spent wisely else where. ... thanks but no thanks !! Thanks, but you realize scientists (I will use the term loosely) might loose funding if they can't spew hysteria nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadoo Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Panther340 said: Some reading for the gullible ones: Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all. According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet. But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases. Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.) The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400. Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans). At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc. So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml. But our gullible Ontario taxpayers would rather we waste billions on fighting the C02 war instead of spending that money where it could have actual life savings eg; in our hospitals and health care system ............there is only one taxpayer pocket and causing our taxes to be raised , or the costs of commodities to be increased due to carbon taxes , just means less money spent wisely else where. ... thanks but no thanks !! You need to ask yourself what argument you're trying to have because you're all over the place. You also need to share your sources. There is either warming or there isn't; initially you insinuated there was no warming now you're suggesting it's water vapor not co2. You're also having an argument about political action which is unrelated to the first argument. Do yourself a favor and read reputable sources such as NASA and peer reviewed journals from scientists. NASA has a tremendous amount of information related to water vapor and other greenhouse gases. But water vapor in and of itself doesn't create warming; co2 does. You also left out methane, which accounts for roughly 1/4 of the warming co2 contributes but is far more potent as it represents 200 times less than co2 does in the atmosphere. NASA concluded that water vapor has a tremendous impact on climate change but not a in the simple bottle of water BS anecdote you suggest. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.