Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:32 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
k...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I've often thought the same thing - my wife and I have seven vehicles
between us, and I'm charged liability premiums for all of them all the
time, even though we can physically only have two of them on the road
at any given moment.

Having more vehicles doesn't mean that I drive more miles in a given
year - it just means that I have more choices when I go out to the
garage in the morning. So why am I paying more money in liability
premiums than a household that only has one vehicle per person?


perhaps you have 5 vehicles too many?

Let me guess, Ian....You're a liberal, right?

you expect me to believe you need 7 vehicles?


"Need"? no. But I don't think it's excessive, either. My wife and I
each have a "daily driver" car and a motorcycle, so that's four
vehicles right off the bat. My wife uses a truck for her art glass
business to get all of her stock and materials to her various shows,
and we use it for trips to the landfill or the building-supply store.
Other than that, it just sits there.

I've also got an old Dodge Charger that I tinker with, modify, and
drive as a weekend fun car.

Lastly, I just bought an older Mercedes that will become my daily
driver when I sell my Honda, so that will get us back down to our
normal six vehicles rather than the seven we have now.

And I don't think it's excessive from a monetary standpoint, either.
If you add up what I paid for all seven, it's less money than we would
have spent buying a pair of year-old "His & Hers" Honda Accords.




--
Scott Gardner

"Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!"

"Jer" wrote in message
...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:


Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.


Usually, people with that opinion change it the first time they are
hit by a driver with no insurance, especially if they don't carry the
optional uninsured/underinsured driver insurance.
I do understand your angst. However, since legislators seem incapable
of writing laws that seriously punish uninsured drivers, the mandatory
insurance laws seem reasonable.

My personal angst over this issue didn't really get a good start until
mandated coverage began. The insurance lobby spent millions wining and
dining our state representatives, despite their lack of having a dog in
the hunt. I communicated my personal opinion (sans the millions to go
with it) to my own representatives, some to no avail, but not all. My
idea? Since the state is requiring it, let the state purchase block
no-fault policies (minimum coverage limits), each for an entire county
based on driver census, and recover the premium cost with an exise tax
levied at the retail/commercial pump (they already do this for road
taxes). Every vehicle with fuel in the tank is covered - no such thing as
an uninsured driver. Of course, the insurance lobby wants to sell
policies at premium individual rates, not bulk rates. Any driver could
purchase a separate rider for increased coverage limits if/when preferred.
But no, our state legislators, pockets bulging with lobby dollars, made
mandated coverage into a gift to the insurance industry that we pay more
for every time our policies are renewed. Talk about letting the fox rule
the hen house.

The idea of paying for insurance at the pump has been floated often.
It makes no effort to differentiate between good and bad drivers, and
treats all drivers the same.
This gives no incentive to be a good driver.
It also posits that someone with a car that gets 35mpg is somehow a
better driver than someone who drives a gas guzzler.


BTW, here in AZ., there is alaw that says a vehicle involved in a
crash with no insurance can, and should be, impounded. The law was in
effect for over 5 years before such an impoundment was actually made.
Or so I read in the local paper.

In Mexico, all vehicles involved in a crash are impounded immediately.
Owners (not drivers) retrieve their vehicles after financial
responsibility is proven. I've heard in some areas of the U.S., if a
driver is stopped for any reason, and can't show valid insurance coverage,
the vehicle is impounded immediately, even if the driver doesn't receive a
traffic citation.

I don't know where this would be.
Anyone?
Back to my point above, if the vehicle was under it's
own power, the vehicle is covered by an insurance policy.

Considering you are a nation of ambulance chasers and sue everyone at a drop
of a hat the premium on gasoline levied to cover collision would be
horrendous. Considering you guys whine at the price of gas despite paying
the lowest in the western world says straight away such a scheme wouldn't
work.



--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:22:01 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:

Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?




Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

Usually, people with that opinion change it the first time they are
hit by a driver with no insurance, especially if they don't carry the
optional uninsured/underinsured driver insurance.

Obviously, you still don't get the point, do you? - We are talking about the
difference between insuring the car, and insuring the driver. Nobody claims
that anyone should drive without liability coverage.

Then you missed my point.
Whether the car or the driver is insured, *mandatory* insurance is a
good idea.
I responded to a statement that mandated coverage is a gift to the
insurance loby.
I stand by my response.
The law in most states
says you have to have it, and that's a good thing.

Then why complain when I agree?
What I am talking about
is insuring cars for liability instead of drivers, and having to pay
liability coverage for cars that are parked, and not being driven, so they
can't possibility get involved in an accident. The insurance companies are
cleaning up by selling liability policies on millions of cars that fit into
this category. They should sell liability coverage to the drivers, and not
the cars. You should have to prove you have it before you are issued a
drivers license, and not prove it before you are issued a current
registration certificate for each car.

In AZ (as in most states) the requirement is that you be able to show
proof of insurance when you're stopped, for just about any reason.
Why this way instead of a requirement to show insurance when
registering? Because experience has shown that people will simply get
insurance, register the car, then drop the insurance.

I'm not tryng to make an argument one way or the other as to whether
the driver or car should be insured.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:49:03 -0700, "William Graham"
wrote:

Now you are going to get me off on my liability insurance rant....That's
where I thrash the insurance companies for charging for a separate
liability insurance policy on each car, even though those cars are parked
while you drive only one at a time.


Haven't got a wife, girfriend, kids of driving age?



Then let their personal driver policy cover them.

Here in the US, that can't be done.
Until a person reaches the age of 18, he/she can't legally enter into
a contract. So the insurance policy would nbeed to be with someone
else.
Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I agree 100%. At one time, I was the only driver in my "family" and I had 4
vehicles....A car, a pickup truck, and two motorcycles. When I was driving
one of them, the other 3 were parked in my garage. The insurance company was
charging me 100% of a premium on the car, and 80% of a premium on the other
three vehicles, or 340% of a normal premium! I called the insurance company
and asked them what is the most dangerous car on the road....They said a new
Corvette. I said, "Then charge me for that, and anytime I am driving
anything else, you are making money." Of course, they wouldn't do
that....They knew they were making lots more money than that
anyway........They had bought off our legislators a long time ago in order
to guarantee that.


--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:43:34 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Some do, and some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that
liability insurance should be sold to the driver, and not sold on each
automobile. It's drivers that incur the liability, not the cars.
Comprehensive policies should be sold on the cars, and the premiums adjusted
to the value of the vehicle, but liability policies should be sold to
drivers, regardless of what they drive......

So, what do you do with people how don't drive often? Or if a couple of
people share a single car?

The next problem: what happens when a car is involved in an accident, but
it can't be established who was the driver? You make the owner of the car
pay? Or does the victim get nothing? If the owner has to pay and the owner
is not insured what happens next?

The obvious solution to the multiple car problem is to have insurance
policies that accept multiple cars and then charge based on the combined
mileage of all cars.

Isn't there already insurance for collectors that does that?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:20:52 -0500, Jer wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:19:29 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:


Paul Bielec wrote:

RobGN wrote:

Jennifer,

I sympathize with you on your frustration on your job; my sister-in-law
is a nurse in Ottawa and I hear her complain about the shortages
constantly.

However, I must mention that our healthcare system, with all its
faults, has one advantage we cannot take for granted: Should anyone of
us have a serious accident which would cause us to be hospitalized, our
healthcare system pays for our stay, our Doctors, our Therapists, our
Nurses, our medications while in hospital. I cannot imagine the cost I
would have had to incure when I was involved in a highway accident last
winter and was in the hospital for 3 weeks.

Jennifer, yours is a wonderful job.

I live in Quebec.

I needed a shoulder surgery. The waiting list for this type of surgery
is months, if not a year or two. One call my mother made to a doctor we
know and I had it done within a month. With the amount of taxes I pay
because of my high income, I'm in a my right to expect this level of
services without having contacts.

Drive across the border with $30,000 in your checking account.

You can get all the service you want.

What? You don't want to pay $30,000? Then wait.


Not a chance -- he'd rather stay home and bitch about the
lousy care, then have mommy make one call so he can jump to the head
of the line ahead of those less fortunate or less well-connected.

Mama's boy does just fine where he is. Too bad someone else
had to get stiffed so he could have his comfort. And then consider it
his "right" by virtue of his wealth. Self-obsessed pansy.


What's wrong with one using one's resources to maximize one's
opportunities for improved health, comfort, or even survival? Is
financial wealth somehow expected to include a some measure of social
guilt? Being financially able to afford a better car, house or school
is acceptable, but being financially able to afford better health care
isn't?

Here in the US, Hillary Clinton advanced a health care program that
would have actually made it illegal for a doctor to dispense health
care outside of the official system. The Liberals loved it.
So, yes, "being financially able to afford better health care" is,
according to many, somehow unacceptable.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:32 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


"William Graham" wrote in message
...

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
k...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:55:02 -0500, Jer wrote:



Then let their personal driver policy cover them. Calling it an auto
policy is a misnomer, it doesn't cover the vehicle, it covers the
driver
while they're driving whichever car they borrow. Auto insurance is
one
of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on Americans, with mandated
coverage a gift to the insurance lobby.

I've often thought the same thing - my wife and I have seven vehicles
between us, and I'm charged liability premiums for all of them all the
time, even though we can physically only have two of them on the road
at any given moment.

Having more vehicles doesn't mean that I drive more miles in a given
year - it just means that I have more choices when I go out to the
garage in the morning. So why am I paying more money in liability
premiums than a household that only has one vehicle per person?


perhaps you have 5 vehicles too many?

Let me guess, Ian....You're a liberal, right?

you expect me to believe you need 7 vehicles?


"Need"? no. But I don't think it's excessive, either. My wife and I
each have a "daily driver" car and a motorcycle, so that's four
vehicles right off the bat. My wife uses a truck for her art glass
business to get all of her stock and materials to her various shows,
and we use it for trips to the landfill or the building-supply store.
Other than that, it just sits there.

I've also got an old Dodge Charger that I tinker with, modify, and
drive as a weekend fun car.

Lastly, I just bought an older Mercedes that will become my daily
driver when I sell my Honda, so that will get us back down to our
normal six vehicles rather than the seven we have now.

And I don't think it's excessive from a monetary standpoint, either.
If you add up what I paid for all seven, it's less money than we would
have spent buying a pair of year-old "His & Hers" Honda Accords.

Most people would give their right arm to be able to park their two cars.
Parking for 7? They would be an angry mob outside your house with burning
torches. Thats after all the cars have been 'keyed' and all your tyres let
down.

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:43:34 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Some do, and some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that
liability insurance should be sold to the driver, and not sold on each
automobile. It's drivers that incur the liability, not the cars.
Comprehensive policies should be sold on the cars, and the premiums
adjusted
to the value of the vehicle, but liability policies should be sold to
drivers, regardless of what they drive......

So, what do you do with people how don't drive often? Or if a couple of
people share a single car?

The next problem: what happens when a car is involved in an accident, but
it can't be established who was the driver? You make the owner of the car
pay? Or does the victim get nothing? If the owner has to pay and the owner
is not insured what happens next?

The obvious solution to the multiple car problem is to have insurance
policies that accept multiple cars and then charge based on the combined
mileage of all cars.

Isn't there already insurance for collectors that does that?

We have classic car insurance. REally old cars have a less rigourous M.O.T.
test. Mostly on the emissions. The classic car is also exempt from road
tax. The insurance is cheap. The idea is that as it is an additional
vehicle that you use to attend rallies and drive at weekends. Hence you
will be extremely limited on mileage. The car has to be over 25years old.
Nowadays the age isn't automatically classic car status. They've tightened
up the law since so many cars are capable of surviving that long now.

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Some do, and some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that
liability insurance should be sold to the driver, and not sold on each
automobile. It's drivers that incur the liability, not the cars.
Comprehensive policies should be sold on the cars, and the premiums
adjusted
to the value of the vehicle, but liability policies should be sold to
drivers, regardless of what they drive......

So, what do you do with people how don't drive often? Or if a couple of
people share a single car?

Why would this be a problem? If you drive, you should/would be covered by a
liability policy. Enterprising insurance companies would offer discounts
based on age and driving records. If you are 70 years old, and have never
had an accident, the insurance would cost you practically nothing, no matter
how many cars you owned.


The next problem: what happens when a car is involved in an accident, but
it can't be established who was the driver?

And exactly how often is this the case? - What do they do now in such a
case? If such a thing were to happen, then the cost of the accident would be
shared by the insurance companies of every licensed driver that happened to
be in the vehicle at the time of the accident, dead or alive. I see no
problem with this.

You make the owner of the car
pay? Or does the victim get nothing? If the owner has to pay and the owner
is not insured what happens next?

What happens now if an uninsured vehicle is involved in an accident? These
cases will always arise, whether the insurance is written on the car or on
the driver.



The obvious solution to the multiple car problem is to have insurance
policies that accept multiple cars and then charge based on the combined
mileage of all cars.

That would work, but how is that any different than insuring the drivers?
When I had four vehicles, and was their only driver, I was paying 340% of an
average liability premium to insure all four. I should have been paying 100%
of an average premium, since they only shared one driver. It really doesn't
make any difference whether the insurance company did that by charging the
driver 100%, or by charging 25% of a premium for each vehicle. - It is much
simpler to just charge every driver in the state 100% of a premium, no
matter how many cars he/she owns/has access to.

All of these things are just details....The essentiol thing is that
liability insurance should be written on the drivers, and not the vehicles.
I am equally safe/dangerous reguardless of what I am driving. When I am in a
Ferrari, I drive faster and push the edge more tightly, but the car is up to
the task. When I am in a 20 year old piece of Detroit scrap iron, I drive
much more conservatively, because I know that the vehicle can't handle
anything else. But in either case, my chances of getting in an accident are
the same. Virtually nil, in my case, since at 70, I have been driving for
over 50 years, and have never gotten in an accident, even though others have
tried their damndest to kill me on more than one occasion.....:^)

"ian lincoln" wrote in message
. uk...

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article ,
William Graham wrote:
Some do, and some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that
liability insurance should be sold to the driver, and not sold on each
automobile. It's drivers that incur the liability, not the cars.
Comprehensive policies should be sold on the cars, and the premiums
adjusted
to the value of the vehicle, but liability policies should be sold to
drivers, regardless of what they drive......

So, what do you do with people how don't drive often? Or if a couple of
people share a single car?

The next problem: what happens when a car is involved in an accident, but
it can't be established who was the driver? You make the owner of the car
pay? Or does the victim get nothing? If the owner has to pay and the
owner
is not insured what happens next?

The obvious solution to the multiple car problem is to have insurance
policies that accept multiple cars and then charge based on the combined
mileage of all cars.

The faster and more powerful the car the more damage you do. The older
the car the less sophisticated the brakes and suspension. So more likely
to have an accident. I also have a low mileage policy. The power of the
car is what affects my premiums not the value or its age.

No matter what the age and condition of the car, it's not going to get in an
accident if, (now follow this very carefully) IT'S PARKED IN YOUR GARAGE AND
NOT OUT ON THE ROAD.)