NY's Dumbest; NYC sanitation workers destroy a Ford Explorer
#1
Thread Starter
Registered
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,255
Likes: 7
From: Buddhist Monastery, High Himalaya Mtns. of Tibet
NY's Dumbest; NYC sanitation workers destroy a Ford Explorer
It's New Yorkers, some language NSFW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_r-jO3lKE
At least the owners have a video record of what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt_r-jO3lKE
At least the owners have a video record of what happened.
#3
Hope it wasn't parked illegally????????
Makes no difference in my opinion in this case, but you never know.
F'ing retards though!
Makes no difference in my opinion in this case, but you never know.
F'ing retards though!
Last edited by Mazurfer; 12-28-2010 at 07:37 PM.
#6
Al, I have to disagree.
Dumb would have been the scenario starting as it did and hitting the Explorer in the first place. Dumb is forgivable.
What they did was not dumb, nor is it forgivable. That is a clear case of the modern human condition... dont give a flying f*ck about your actions and their consequences as long as you don't have to pay for them directly.
I'm not big on the whole I'll sue you craze that has swept our society. But obviously the vehicle should be repaired/replaced as necessary.
Most importantly IMO, criminal charges should be brought up. An accident is an accident. But continuing to destroy property simply because it is convenient and you're too lazy to consider other options is NO accident. I mean this wasnt an ambulance carrying someone one critical condition was it?
People like this need to be castrated to prevent passing on their genes
Dumb would have been the scenario starting as it did and hitting the Explorer in the first place. Dumb is forgivable.
What they did was not dumb, nor is it forgivable. That is a clear case of the modern human condition... dont give a flying f*ck about your actions and their consequences as long as you don't have to pay for them directly.
I'm not big on the whole I'll sue you craze that has swept our society. But obviously the vehicle should be repaired/replaced as necessary.
Most importantly IMO, criminal charges should be brought up. An accident is an accident. But continuing to destroy property simply because it is convenient and you're too lazy to consider other options is NO accident. I mean this wasnt an ambulance carrying someone one critical condition was it?
People like this need to be castrated to prevent passing on their genes
#7
Thread Starter
Registered
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,255
Likes: 7
From: Buddhist Monastery, High Himalaya Mtns. of Tibet
This is a total lack of respect for others. This is a learned trait, not inherited. This could be corrected if it weren't for the workers being protected in their jobs. They, both the tow truck and the loader operator, should be fired. But, they won't be.
#10
#11
Al, I have to disagree.
Dumb would have been the scenario starting as it did and hitting the Explorer in the first place. Dumb is forgivable.
What they did was not dumb, nor is it forgivable. That is a clear case of the modern human condition... dont give a flying f*ck about your actions and their consequences as long as you don't have to pay for them directly.
I'm not big on the whole I'll sue you craze that has swept our society. But obviously the vehicle should be repaired/replaced as necessary.
Most importantly IMO, criminal charges should be brought up. An accident is an accident. But continuing to destroy property simply because it is convenient and you're too lazy to consider other options is NO accident. I mean this wasnt an ambulance carrying someone one critical condition was it?
People like this need to be castrated to prevent passing on their genes
Dumb would have been the scenario starting as it did and hitting the Explorer in the first place. Dumb is forgivable.
What they did was not dumb, nor is it forgivable. That is a clear case of the modern human condition... dont give a flying f*ck about your actions and their consequences as long as you don't have to pay for them directly.
I'm not big on the whole I'll sue you craze that has swept our society. But obviously the vehicle should be repaired/replaced as necessary.
Most importantly IMO, criminal charges should be brought up. An accident is an accident. But continuing to destroy property simply because it is convenient and you're too lazy to consider other options is NO accident. I mean this wasnt an ambulance carrying someone one critical condition was it?
People like this need to be castrated to prevent passing on their genes
#14
Agreed. There is no difference between that and someone taking a baseball bat to a random strangers car.... What a couple ******* morons.
#15
Here is what will happen:
Both operators will get a short, paid suspension
City insurance will pay out about 1/2 of the claim value
The owners will have to sue to get the rest
The city will claim it was a "snow emergency", btw.
EDIT - It is a city-owned truck, so, NM. The taxpayers will front the whole thing.
Both operators will get a short, paid suspension
City insurance will pay out about 1/2 of the claim value
The owners will have to sue to get the rest
The city will claim it was a "snow emergency", btw.
EDIT - It is a city-owned truck, so, NM. The taxpayers will front the whole thing.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 12-29-2010 at 01:36 AM.
#16
Here is what will happen:
Both operators will get a short, paid suspension
City insurance will pay out about 1/2 of the claim value
The owners will have to sue to get the rest
The city will claim it was a "snow emergency", btw.
EDIT - It is a city-owned truck, so, NM. The taxpayers will front the whole thing.
Both operators will get a short, paid suspension
City insurance will pay out about 1/2 of the claim value
The owners will have to sue to get the rest
The city will claim it was a "snow emergency", btw.
EDIT - It is a city-owned truck, so, NM. The taxpayers will front the whole thing.
#18
yep
and yep, with the above quote still in play
Last edited by paulmasoner; 12-29-2010 at 02:14 AM.
#19
#20
You think the city is gonna sue itself for "emotional distress"?
Actually, in light of the current cultural climate, that might actually be possible.
#23
That truck is a 1995 Ford SUV, City owned.
but the Toyota in front of its privately owned, BUT both of them are "used" by the same city worker.
Bloomberg said oh if you suffer property damage just file a claim against the city ... what a f-ing douche.
but the Toyota in front of its privately owned, BUT both of them are "used" by the same city worker.
Bloomberg said oh if you suffer property damage just file a claim against the city ... what a f-ing douche.
#24
When something like that happens, anyone directly connected gets really greedy and does anything they can to make a lot of money haha.
#25
The second vehicle that hit actually has to file a claim against the first vehicle. Since the car was rear ended by the SUV its the SUV that has pay for the damage to the car. If that other car WAS the owner of the SUVs then there is no coverage for the second vehicle. You can't hit your own vehicle and file a claim. So if he owned both cars hes fucked. If he owned just the SUV he is responsible for the damage to the car.