ROFFLING at Longmont Police

[Weston-work]

I must say, most of the Longmont cops I've dealt with have been professional and quite reasonable, however it seems that their Gang Unit is a little out of touch...

ICP (Insane Clown Posse) is officially recognized as a street gang by the Longmont Police Department... hahahah :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Gangs continue to be a reality in Longmont. "ESL", "Sureños Trece", and "Norteños" are the most active. Old Mexican Clique (OMC) and Puro Vato Locos (PVL) are smaller and lesser known in our City, as is the Insane Clown Posse (ICP).

...

Insane Clown Posse (ICP)

Primarily white membership and feared by our local Hispanic gangs.

Typically wear face make-up and clothing with band "Insane Clown Posse" displayed.

Local ICP gangs have ties with 1st generation Goths (Gothic) - Goths have been associated with animal mutilations and satanic worship


Also, you Asians better watch out... anything that says "Asian Pride", "AP", "Viet Pride", or "VP" will get you labelled as a gang member too... :rofl:

Asian Gangs

Some Longmont presence: AP (Asian Pride), Hatien Boys, VP (Viet Pride), Lue Boys, Bad Boys, and TRG.

Frequently cruise main street in summer months. Often tattooed. Likely to be armed.

Specializes in intimidation and members will usually deny any gang involvement.

Main activities car break-ins, auto thefts, theft of vehicle parts. Have a reputation for violence.

[M@]

What ever happened to the click called "PPK"? Pool Party Kro0? or something like that...

[stu]

Hey Weston, can you look up a state law for me please? I need to know who has the right away when crossing a street. Let me lay it out for you. Let's say that there is a street like Wadsworth and a smaller cross street that continues on both sides of Wads. Wads doesn't have a stop sign, or any signal, but on both sides of the smaller cross street there are stop signs. One person is trying to go straight, while the other (across from first) is trying to make a left turn. Does it matter who gets there first? Or does the person waiting to go straight always have the right of way?

It actually happened in Longmont so I could get the exact location for you. Can you see if you can find a traffic law like that for me pretty please?

[Dave_L]

What ever happened to the click called "PPK"? Pool Party Kro0? or something like that...

Rumor on the street is they are some bad mo fo's! The reason it's only a rumor is because everyone that comes in contact with them, dies! Oh Noez!!!

[Weston-work]

Hey Weston, can you look up a state law for me please? I need to know who has the right away when crossing a street. Let me lay it out for you. Let's say that there is a street like Wadsworth and a smaller cross street that continues on both sides of Wads. Wads doesn't have a stop sign, or any signal, but on both sides of the smaller cross street there are stop signs. One person is trying to go straight, while the other (across from first) is trying to make a left turn. Does it matter who gets there first? Or does the person waiting to go straight always have the right of way?

It actually happened in Longmont so I could get the exact location for you. Can you see if you can find a traffic law like that for me pretty please?

I believe that the person who gets to the stop sign first has the right-of-way, but I can't seem to find the actual law... I found one that basically says you have to stop at stop signs, but doesn't clearly say who goes first. Maybe I'm just blind... here's the link to CRS: http://www.michie.com/colorado.html

Where in Longmont did this happen? Nelson road, West of Hover?

[Martian]

I must say, most of the Longmont cops I've dealt with have been professional and quite reasonable, however it seems that their Gang Unit is a little out of touch...

ICP (Insane Clown Posse) is officially recognized as a street gang by the Longmont Police Department... hahahah :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Denver considers Juggalos a gang as well. Alot of large cities through out the US do. It's lame and unwarranted. Oh well.

[Kwando]

Rumor on the street is they are some bad mo fo's! The reason it's only a rumor is because everyone that comes in contact with them, dies! Oh Noez!!!


i've heard they like to jump high in the air and land on peoples heads... one specific member does a dangerous dance where his legs are flying all over the place..

[Slow96GSR]

[QUOTE=Weston-work]I believe that the person who gets to the stop sign first has the right-of-way, but I can't seem to find the actual law... I found one that basically says you have to stop at stop signs, but doesn't clearly say who goes first. Maybe I'm just blind... here's the link to CRS: http://www.michie.com/colorado.html...QUOTE]

It is in the drivers ed. book under the Colorado law parts, and says who ever gets to the sign first has the right of way.

[stu]

Interesting, thanks fellas. I've been procrastinating on making a liability decision on this case file and the lady is getting pretty pissed at me. I'm busy.

[Slow96GSR]

Don't you have a big-book-o-laws there? You do insurance right?

[stu]

I've got a link in my email for state laws for Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho (all the states I deal with), but honestly, I've been too fucking busy to look at it. I really need to set aside some time to do that.

Weston, if I remember correctly, the intersection was 66th and Gay st. I know it was gay, but not sure about which 60th block it was at. Basically, Gay would go straight across 66th, but directly across from it is a church. Someone was leaving the church and turning left, and the other person was going from Gay straight across 66th into the church parking lot. The person turning left was at the stop sign first. They both waited for a "hole in traffic" on the second "hole" they both went. The person turning says they were using their blinker, the person going straight says they didn't see the blinker. They crashed in the middle.

[exciv2000]

However, If two vehicles reach the intersection at the same time, the driver on the left yields to the driver on the right. A lot of people don't understand this.

[stu]

I know that, but they were directly across from each other.

What I'm curious about is how strong that law is. For example, many times, I'll get to the intersection the same time as someone on my right, wait for them to go, wait, wait, wait, then go. If they were to go at the same time as you. Well, never mind, you'd both be in the same mind set of "WTF, when is this clown going to go?" But what it boils down to is that they had the right of way.

[Slow96GSR]

If they get there at the same time its the one on the left, but to whos left?!!! LOL!! We're gonna get deep in this one I can feel the pain!

[stu]

It's always the person on the right, not the left. And it doesn't matter to who's right because if there is someone to the right of you, you wait.

[HondasTrail]

So if 4 people come to a complete stop at the same time at a 4 way intersection, who goes first?

[hatchbackgirl]

So if 4 people come to a complete stop at the same time at a 4 way intersection, who goes first?
Whoever has the biggest car, DUH!

[stu]

Whoever thinks they were there first. Chances are three of them will be level headed enough to just wait until something is figured out.

[Slow96GSR]

Whoever thinks they were there first. Chances are three of them will be level headed enough to just wait until something is figured out.

Not in my area. It's a bunch of old retired military that think they are invincible. And ya I meant right not left. LOL!!

[Bedlam]

Thats one of the things that I miss about montana..uncontrolled intersections everywhere! People just learn the "rules" and ensure their kids do too before they get out on the road..scary concept I know..

[ryanman]

However, If two vehicles reach the intersection at the same time, the driver on the left yields to the driver on the right. A lot of people don't understand this.
But that would be different to two different people who are facing opposite directions, left and right would be opposite to each other.

[DC2]

There is an ICP gang, belive it or not.

[Weston-work]

I've got a link in my email for state laws for Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho (all the states I deal with), but honestly, I've been too fucking busy to look at it. I really need to set aside some time to do that.

Weston, if I remember correctly, the intersection was 66th and Gay st. I know it was gay, but not sure about which 60th block it was at. Basically, Gay would go straight across 66th, but directly across from it is a church. Someone was leaving the church and turning left, and the other person was going from Gay straight across 66th into the church parking lot. The person turning left was at the stop sign first. They both waited for a "hole in traffic" on the second "hole" they both went. The person turning says they were using their blinker, the person going straight says they didn't see the blinker. They crashed in the middle.

Sounds like Highway 66. There's a giant church compound there... it's like the Super Walmart of Churches... I call it "the God Emporium". They have traffic problems there all the time and frequently have the State Patrol come out and direct traffic. Here's the intersection...

http://i3.tinypic.com/w1bw5w.jpg

[Skaterkid]

I hate that church so much....

Used to annoy the hell out of my parents begging for money when they were trying to raise money for "the god emporium".

[nxbrennan]

Sounds like Highway 66. There's a giant church compound there... it's like the Super Walmart of Churches... I call it "the God Emporium". They have traffic problems there all the time and frequently have the State Patrol come out and direct traffic. Here's the intersection...

http://i3.tinypic.com/w1bw5w.jpg
How ironic...a giant church on Gay St.

[Weston-work]

How ironic...a giant church on Gay St.

:rofl: Technically, their address is on Ute Highway... they just extended onto Gay street and called it their driveway.

[stu]

That's the one. I am looking through my links of road rules for Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Pretty easy to find stuff, but very vague.

So far this is all I can find. Neither apply to this case though:

701. Vehicles approaching or entering intersection. (1)
When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different
highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the
left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(2) The foregoing rule is modified at through highways and otherwise
as stated in sections 702 to 704.
702. Vehicle turning left. The driver of a vehicle intending to
turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or
driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from
the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close thereto
as to constitute an immediate hazard.
704. Vehicle entering roadway. The driver of a vehicle about
to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway
shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to
be entered or crossed.


This one is kind of interesting, not really though:
711. Driving on mountain highways. (1) The driver of a motor
vehicle traveling through defiles or canyons or on mountain highways
shall hold such motor vehicle under control and as near the right-hand
edge of the highway as reasonably possible and, except when driving
entirely to the right of the center of the roadway, shall give audible
warning with the horn of such motor vehicle upon approaching any curve
where the view is obstructed within a distance of two hundred feet along
the highway.
(2) On narrow mountain highways with turnouts having a grade of six
percent or more, ascending vehicles shall have the right-of-way over
descending vehicles, except where it is more practicable for the ascending
vehicle to return to a turnout.

This is so unspecific that I'm just going to deny liability and say the other guy was at fault.

[stu]

I bolded the part in 703 that I will use to back up my case.

703. Entering through highway - stop or yield intersection.
(1) Local authorities, may erect and maintain stop signs, yield signs, or
other official traffic control devices to designate through highways or to
designate intersections or other roadway junctions at which vehicular
traffic on one or more of the roadways is directed to yield or to stop and
yield before entering the intersection or junction. In the case of state
highways, such regulations shall be subject to the provisions of section
43-2-135 (1)(g), C.R.S.
(2) Every sign erected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall
be a standard sign adopted by the department of transportation.
(3) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of
a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line,
but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway
where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting
roadway before entering it. After having stopped, the driver shall yield
the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on
another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during
the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or
junction of roadways.
(4) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign, in obedience to
such sign, shall slow to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions
and, if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line,
but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway
63
where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting
roadway before entering it. After slowing or stopping, the driver shall
yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching
on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard
during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or
junction of roadways; except that, if a driver is involved in a collision
with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of roadways after driving
past a yield sign without stopping, such collision shall be deemed prima
facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.

[stu]

Here is how I back up my decision. This is what I do for work by the way. This is a great example and better than trying to describe it to people who might not be sure what my job entails.

L I A B I L I T Y D E C I S I O N -

************************************************** *************
************************************************** *************
INSURED 0% AT FAULT. CLAIMANT 100% AT FAULT.

=>DUTY OWED: IV: OBEY ALL TRAFFIC LAWS.

CV: OBEY ALL TRAFFIC LAWS. YIELD TO THE RIGHT OF WAY TRAFFIC.

=>DUTY BREACHED: IV: NONE.

CV: FAILURE TO YIELD TO RIGHT OF WAY TRAFFIC.

=>PROXIMATE CAUSE: CVD FAILED TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO IVD RESULTING
IN A HEAD ON ACCIDENT IN THE IN INTERSECTION OF WHY 66 AND GAY ST.

=>DAMAGES: YES.

IVD REACHED HER STOP SIGN FIRST, WAITED FOR A CLEARING IN TRAFFIC,
THEN PROCEEDED FORWARD ACROS THE WB LANES OF HWY 66 IN ORDER TO MERGE
INTO EB TRAFFIC ON HWY 66. BEFORE IVD COULD MERGE INTO EB TRAFFIC, CVD
PROCEEDED TO DRIVE FORWARD AS WELL AND COLLIDED WITH IV IN BETWEEN THE
EB AND WB LANES OF HWY 66. IVD SAYS SHE WAS USING HER BLINKER AND THAT
SHE ARRIVED AT THE STOP SIGN FIRST. IVD DISTINCTLY REMEMBERS THAT
THERE WAS ANOTHER VEHICLE IN FRONT OF CVD THAT SHE WAITED FOR BECAUSE
IT WAS THERE BEFORE SHE WAS. CVD STATES THAT IVD DID NOT HAVE LEFT
TURN SIGNAL ON, BUT THERE ARE NO WITNESSES, POLICE REPORTS, OR OTHER
UNDISPUTABLE PROOF OF THIS CLAIM. GIVEN THE FACTS THAT I HAVE OF THIS
ACCIDENT, I'VE DETERMINED THAT OUR INSURED MRS. Blah Blah Blah Blah HAD
THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THIS INTERSECTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT SHE ARRIVED
AT THE STOP SIGN ON HER SIDE OF THE STREET FIRST. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY
THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION (3) OF ROAD RULE 703 OF THE COLORADO
RULES OF THE ROAD. AS VIEWED OFF OF THE INTERNET IN ADOBE ACROBAT
FORMAT.

Then I posted the whole section of 703. and continued with.

AS STATED IN THIS SENTENCE OF THE COLORADO STATE LAW, IT IS CLEAR TO
ME THAT THIS PORTION OF THE LAW MAY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE
FIRST PERSON TO REACH A STOP SIGN WHEN CROSSING A STREET WILL HAVE THE
RIGHT OF WAY TO CROSS SAID STREET FIRST, BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THE FIRST CAR TO ARRIVE AT SAID STOP SIGN IS IN FACT THE VEHICLE THAT
IS "APPROACHING ONANOTHER ROADWAY SO CLOSELY AS TO CONSTITUTE AN
IMMEDIATE HAZARD DURING THE TIME WHEN SUCH DRIVER IS MOVING ACROSS OR
WITHIN THE INTERSECTING JUNCTION OF ROADWAYS."


Anyone disagree?

[Weston-work]

I agree... It really comes down to who got to the intersection first and if she really had her blinker on, but with no witnesses, it's one person's word against another, and I don't see that satisfying the claimant's burden of proof.

[Weston-work]

BTW... did the cops show up? What did they say? Anyone get a ticket?

[stu]

The cops showed up, but couldn't determine liability, therefor did not write a ticket to either party. My insured said that the cop started to say something about someone going straight has the right of way, but then he stopped because he didn't know.

One thing that can really suck sometimes, but is good in cases like this, is that when it comes down to he said/she said, I have to believe my insured because working for their company, I have to represent them. After all, their premiums pay my salary. It just sucks when you think that your insured is a fucking liar, but there is no way to prove them wrong, so you have to back them up. I've got a case like that where both people say that they had control of the lane and the other person drove right into them. My insured says that he was in the lane and the claimant didn't see him and made a lane change right into him. The problem is, when you look up the area on Google Earth, there isn't enough room between where they left from (opposite sides of the street) to where they were trying to go, for either of them have time to fully occupy the lane. I think what happened was my insured was pulling out, saw the other guy coming into the lane at the same time and said, "Fuck that, I was here first" and just didn't try to avoid the accident at all. Since I can't prove that I have to take his word for it and deny liability to the other party. If I had my way I'd give them 50/50 and in Utah that means they each have to just pay their own way. Oh well.

Thanks for the effort and help though, I appreciate it. If anyone is interested, I could try and post up other tough liability decisions (without giving up too much info) as I get them just as a mental excercise.