Came here expecting to see pictures of what would "really" distract drivers, and left disappointed.

Meanwhile, animated billboards that can be seen from low orbit are A-OK.

/read it in Ted Knight's voice
//I dare you

not what I would call an attractive nuisance, but everyone has their own tastes

Jacobin: Came here expecting to see pictures of what would "really" distract drivers, and left disappointed.

Just google "Women drivers." They're interchangeable.

SweetSilverBlues: Meanwhile, animated billboards that can be seen from low orbit are A-OK.

/read it in Ted Knight's voice
//I dare you

Dammit, now I'm reading everything in his voice!

Seriously, where would this end? A dress code for pedestrians? An approved color list for exterior house paint/siding?

/dress code is not a bad idea
//no more 350 pound women in booty shorts

wildsnowllama: Jacobin: Came here expecting to see pictures of what would "really" distract drivers, and left disappointed.

Just google "Women drivers." They're interchangeable.

I was thinking more in terms of scantily clad women, but I guess I'm just a perv

Ummmm, NO

Man tells insurance company to eat a dick.

Things have gotten completely out of hand in this country.

SouthernFriedYankee: [img.fark.com image 54x11] Man tells insurance company to eat a dick.

Things have gotten completely out of hand in this country.

So you're a SouthernFriedYankee in Canada?

My bad, didn't notice it was Canada.

So, I guess we've successfully exported our stupidity to them, eh?

Wow. I expected the yard art to be a bigger spectacle. That does not look any more distracting than storefront window displays or public artworks.

How about telling drivers to keep their eyes on the damn road.

Sounds fishy to me. I think someone wants the ugly kitsch off the yard and doesn't belong to an HOA.

There used to be a house on my way to Delaware that had flags lined up by the road. then it had pinwheels all over the yard, fire extiguishers attached to trees and all types of lawn gnomes. It was always nice to see what kind of new stuff he put up. Guess the pwner died because whoever lives there now has the whole yard cleaned up.

i bet the insurance company would be willing to pay him a small fortune if they could replace those with an advertisement for their company.

Of course, the reporter didn't ask the simple question "so - how many accidents on that block, versus the surrounding blocks?"

Wow, some truly great reporting: Some renter's landlord comes by and says you "must" do something, because his insurance company "requested" it. The renter, who has only heard this second-hand from the landlord, then tells a reporter that supposedly his "whirly gigs" distracted drivers, but he doesn't believe that. In the next breath he points out that the "whirly gigs" are so not-distracting that they attract pedestrians -- who stare at them for 30 minutes or more at a time. The reporter, of course, sees no need to get a statement from either the landlord or the insurance company, nor to provide even the most basic explanation of the state's liability laws.

Given that neither he nor the reporter apparently contacted the insurance company, who knows what they did or didn't "request"? I worked as a liability adjuster for several years, and this seems pretty simple to me. The guy admitted that people come to stare at the things. This makes them an attractive nuisance that can and will draw kids onto the property and make the landlord's insurance company liable for any injuries or property damage that occurs as a result.

And something distracting enough to draw pedestrians to stare at for half an hour at a time would also be distracting enough to cause a driver to lose focus long enough to hit one of those pedestrians -- or another car.

But for the distracting nuisance of those "whirly gigs," an accident like that wouldn't happen. Since the landlord's liability policy would end up paying out a major injury and property claim for being found liable as the proximate cause of such an accident, it's not exactly unreasonable for them to "request" you take your distractions down. They aren't forcing you, but if you choose not to comply, you don't get to complain that your insurance rates went way up, or the insurance company "requested" that you find a new insurance company within the next 30 days, as they won't be offering you coverage any longer.

Insurance: The world's largest legalized racketeering scheme humanity has ever known.

JadedRaverLA: Wow, some truly great reporting: Some renter's landlord comes by and says you "must" do something, because his insurance company "requested" it. The renter, who has only heard this second-hand from the landlord, then tells a reporter that supposedly his "whirly gigs" distracted drivers, but he doesn't believe that. In the next breath he points out that the "whirly gigs" are so not-distracting that they attract pedestrians -- who stare at them for 30 minutes or more at a time. The reporter, of course, sees no need to get a statement from either the landlord or the insurance company, nor to provide even the most basic explanation of the state's liability laws.

Given that neither he nor the reporter apparently contacted the insurance company, who knows what they did or didn't "request"? I worked as a liability adjuster for several years, and this seems pretty simple to me. The guy admitted that people come to stare at the things. This makes them an attractive nuisance that can and will draw kids onto the property and make the landlord's insurance company liable for any injuries or property damage that occurs as a result.

And something distracting enough to draw pedestrians to stare at for half an hour at a time would also be distracting enough to cause a driver to lose focus long enough to hit one of those pedestrians -- or another car.

But for the distracting nuisance of those "whirly gigs," an accident like that wouldn't happen. Since the landlord's liability policy would end up paying out a major injury and property claim for being found liable as the proximate cause of such an accident, it's not exactly unreasonable for them to "request" you take your distractions down. They aren't forcing you, but if you choose not to comply, you don't get to complain that your insurance rates went way up, or the insurance company "requested" that you find a new insurance company within the next 30 days, as they won't be offering you coverage any longer.

Not sure about Canadian law, but if an individual were on the landlord's property to look at them they are trespassing, and if they are looking from the sidewalk or street they are on public property and the property insurance wouldn't cover them anyway.

If there is a single billboard (ie something designed to capture the attention of a driver) in this town, the insurance company doesn't have a precedental leg to stand on.

SweetSilverBlues: Not sure about Canadian law, but if an individual were on the landlord's property to look at them they are trespassing, and if they are looking from the sidewalk or street they are on public property and the property insurance wouldn't cover them anyway.

You're not familiar with concepts like proximite cause and attractive nuisance I take it? This could be a General Liability suit, but the burden and embarrassment fall on the person filing the claim. Although, if the past twenty years are indication we have no shred of embarrassment left in our bodies as a species.

Rickenbacker: SweetSilverBlues: Meanwhile, animated billboards that can be seen from low orbit are A-OK.

/read it in Ted Knight's voice
//I dare you

Dammit, now I'm reading everything in his voice!

Seriously, where would this end? A dress code for pedestrians? An approved color list for exterior house paint/siding?

/dress code is not a bad idea
//no more 350 pound women in booty shorts

That would cause me to crash...In an attempt to end my pain.

Spend the next 2 months taking a break from making the whirli-ma-gigs, go for long walks, file complaints about EVERY garden with pretty flowers, wind chime, brightly painted house, scampering squirrel, dog running around in a fenced yard, kids playing with a bright colored ball.... See how they REALLY enjoy complaints for a while.

We Bare All!

16 Weeks? Your Baby Has A Heartbeat!

Swim with the Mermaids!

/gotta love Florida

Ken VeryBigLiar: SweetSilverBlues: Not sure about Canadian law, but if an individual were on the landlord's property to look at them they are trespassing, and if they are looking from the sidewalk or street they are on public property and the property insurance wouldn't cover them anyway.

You're not familiar with concepts like proximite cause and attractive nuisance I take it? This could be a General Liability suit, but the burden and embarrassment fall on the person filing the claim. Although, if the past twenty years are indication we have no shred of embarrassment left in our bodies as a species.

Attractive nuisance only applies to kids. And if your kids were driving, you have bigger worries.

Salt Lick Steady: Attractive nuisance only applies to kids. And if your kids were driving, you have bigger worries.

And if said child wonders into traffic?

Ken VeryBigLiar: Salt Lick Steady: Attractive nuisance only applies to kids. And if your kids were driving, you have bigger worries.

And if said child wonders into traffic?

Then it's a Maurice Sendak book.

SweetSilverBlues:
"Not sure about Canadian law, but if an individual were on the landlord's property to look at them they are trespassing, and if they are looking from the sidewalk or street they are on public property and the property insurance wouldn't cover them anyway.

If there is a single billboard (ie something designed to capture the attention of a driver) in this town, the insurance company doesn't have a precedental leg to stand on."

Children are not trespassing if you have an "attractive nuisance" on your property. They are expected to be "attracted" to the nuisance, and you are responsible for their safety. This is all basic liability law, everywhere in the U.S.,

And I don't know what you mean by a "precedental leg to stand on." Your liability insurance only pays out when YOU are legally liable. That's sort of the point. It's not you vs. them. It's you (with them representing your interests per your policy) against any claimant.

Most people don't have any understanding of liability law. You likely have non-auto liability coverage sold as part of your homeowner's or renter's package, but it is a completely separate type of coverage, and it covers you even if you're nowhere near your property. Your "property" insurance, if we want to call it that, reimburses you for a covered loss of your own property. Your liability insurance never reimburses you. It reimburses a third-party whom you've injured.

Ken VeryBigLiar: And if said child wonders into traffic?

Liberty U Law School, I presume?

Salt Lick Steady: Ken VeryBigLiar: And if said child wonders into traffic?

Liberty U Law School, I presume?

Long day... Unglish not gud.

Salt Lick Steady: Attractive nuisance only applies to kids. And if your kids were driving, you have bigger worries.

The kid (in my example) was a pedestrian. Your attractive nuisance "lured them" to run into traffic to get a better look. Simultaneously, an otherwise attentive driver sees multiple spinning objects (possibly also reflecting sunlight) out of the corner of their eye, and naturally looks over to make sure there isn't a vehicle coming at them, etc. In the moment that the driver's head is turned, the driver hits the child. Neither of them has been negligent in their duties. (If the child was an adult, they would be. But they aren't, so their illegal crossing in this case is irrelevant.)

But not for your display, the child would not have run out into the street. But not for your display, the driver would have seen the child in time in any event. I settled several claims similar to this. Homeowners are always stunned that they could, in any way, be liable for a car accident. Yet, legally, not only was their action the proximate cause, but neither of the other parties did anything other than what the law would expect them to do.

JadedRaverLA: Homeowners are always stunned that they could, in any way, be liable for a car accident. Yet, legally, not only was their action the proximate cause, but neither of the other parties did anything other than what the law would expect them to do.

Try explaining to people that judgments are non-severable so getting an Umbrella is within their best interests to protect their houses, investments/retirement, property, et al. It's one thing when cash is an issue but some of the people I cane across, yikes...

/Glad I don't work in personal lines anymore

Jacobin: Came here expecting to see pictures of what would "really" distract drivers, and left disappointed.

Ken VeryBigLiar: JadedRaverLA: Homeowners are always stunned that they could, in any way, be liable for a car accident. Yet, legally, not only was their action the proximate cause, but neither of the other parties did anything other than what the law would expect them to do.

Try explaining to people that judgments are non-severable so getting an Umbrella is within their best interests to protect their houses, investments/retirement, property, et al. It's one thing when cash is an issue but some of the people I cane across, yikes...

/Glad I don't work in personal lines anymore

You aren't kidding. Somehow, "common knowledge" became that Umbrella coverage was completely unnecessary and a scam by insurance companies. It's insanely cheap (assuming you aren't skimping on your existing liability policies), and not having it can lead to an incredibly quick trip to the poorhouse.

Then again, these same people are the one's dumb enough to tell the police and their adjuster at every opportunity: "Fark right, I meant to do it. I wish I could do it again." They pretty much deserve the hurt they get.

I know the place. The decoratations are definitely home made and have been getting more numerous. It's in a lousy, stabby, part of town at a busy intersection, so I think it's great. Then again, I can drive.

My insurance company needs to remove its decorative stone work since it seems to cause a lot of accidents. One accident even took out the stone work, just to be rebuilt. I asked them if any of the people they covered were involved and they said surprisingly enough that none were.

Ha, I was once plowed into by an old lady who was too busy staring at my friend's kid's birthday decorations in his front yard to pay attention to the road. I was stopped making a legal left turn waiting for traffic to pass, she hit me doing 50, sent me into oncoming traffic, 6 cars totaled and many injuries. I was ok, just some pain for a few weeks, didn't sue, maybe I should have sued my friend! All the kids at the party cried and from then on I was known as the guy who wrecks his car and gets all bloody before he comes to birthday parties.

for some reason i want to build a raven mech 1/4 size peeking above my house staring at drivers now.

any one want to help?

Can I use this argument against the 20-odd 400 foot wind turbines that surround my in-law's property? Because I've almost gone off the road a couple of times due to staring at them. They are seriously distracting.

(deleted: Image swapped out for another that's too large)
WTF is that?