Solution for Mailbox Baseball
David F. Eisan
I was just looking through the latest Lee Valley May 2000 catalogue flyer
and thought I would mention what is listed on the top left of page 24 as I
can recall a few posts asking about how to defeat mailbox baseball players.
The flyer shows a T type metal bracket for use with 4x4 lumber that allows
the longer rail that holds the mail box to swivel up and away when struck.
Thanks,
David. (who has no affiliation with Lee Valley)
Newbies, please read this newsgroups FAQ.
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
Archives http://x29.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
crowbar FAQ http://www.concentric.net/~Odeen/oldtools/crowbar.shtml
Jon Endres
Out here in the sticks, this kind of game is quite popular, and seems to
have a loyal following among teenagers with old beater pickups and too much
(illegally obtained) beer. One local homeowner defeated this, which caused
one young man some damage a few years back.
What he did, after suffering the loss of a rather well-decorated and
nice-looking box, was to purchase two boxes, one very large and one quite
small. He placed the small one inside the large one with spacers, so that
you had to open the large one to get at the small one. Then he removed the
door from the small one so the mailman didn't have to open two doors. He
placed a large steel pipe in the ground with a flange on top to mount the
boxes, one inside the other. He then filled the post and the space BETWEEN
the two boxes with high strength concrete.
Now, the local kids decided, what better way to have some fun than to wreck
this guy's brand new 'oversize' box, nice big target. The poor bastard who
was in the back of the truck swinging away, not only didn't do any damage to
the box, he broke the wooden bat he was using, broke one wrist, and fell out
of the truck at about 35 mph, suffering some road rash.
Hope he learned his lesson.
--
Jon Endres, P.E.
West Mountain Engineering Co.
w...@sover.net
David F. Eisan <dfe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hpJK4.205181$Hq3.5...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Peter J. Thomas
> David,
>
> Out here in the sticks, this kind of game is quite popular, and seems to
> have a loyal following among teenagers with old beater pickups and too much
> (illegally obtained) beer. One local homeowner defeated this, which caused
> one young man some damage a few years back.
>
> What he did, after suffering the loss of a rather well-decorated and
> nice-looking box, was to purchase two boxes, one very large and one quite
> small. He placed the small one inside the large one with spacers, so that
> you had to open the large one to get at the small one. Then he removed the
> door from the small one so the mailman didn't have to open two doors. He
> placed a large steel pipe in the ground with a flange on top to mount the
> boxes, one inside the other. He then filled the post and the space BETWEEN
> the two boxes with high strength concrete.
>
> Now, the local kids decided, what better way to have some fun than to wreck
> this guy's brand new 'oversize' box, nice big target. The poor bastard who
> was in the back of the truck swinging away, not only didn't do any damage to
> the box, he broke the wooden bat he was using, broke one wrist, and fell out
> of the truck at about 35 mph, suffering some road rash.
Ah, but was it approved the Postmaster General.
When I was growing up, a neighbor had trouble, not with mailbox baseball, but
with the snow plow. Each time he complained, the town told him there was
nothing they could do. The drivers are just doing their job. He would have to
remedy it himself. Being a well driller, he back his rig up and sunk a an old
bit in leaving just enough out of the ground to mount the box at the proper
height. His box was only hit once more by the plow.
Peter Thomas
NOSPAMxxxxEd
>From: "Jon Endres" jonn...@sover.net
>Date: 04/17/2000 3:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <DQJK4.3115$wy1.5...@news-east.usenetserver.com>
>
>David,
>
>Out here in the sticks, this kind of game is quite popular, and seems to
>have a loyal following among teenagers with old beater pickups and too much
>(illegally obtained) beer. One local homeowner defeated this, which caused
>one young man some damage a few years back.
>
>What he did, after suffering the loss of a rather well-decorated and
>nice-looking box, was to purchase two boxes, one very large and one quite
>small. He placed the small one inside the large one with spacers, so that
>you had to open the large one to get at the small one. Then he removed the
>door from the small one so the mailman didn't have to open two doors. He
>placed a large steel pipe in the ground with a flange on top to mount the
>boxes, one inside the other. He then filled the post and the space BETWEEN
>the two boxes with high strength concrete.
>
>Now, the local kids decided, what better way to have some fun than to wreck
>this guy's brand new 'oversize' box, nice big target. The poor bastard who
>was in the back of the truck swinging away, not only didn't do any damage to
>the box, he broke the wooden bat he was using, broke one wrist, and fell out
>of the truck at about 35 mph, suffering some road rash.
>
I remember following a thread about something similar to this in some other
forum a while ago and in the end the person who put up an indestructable
mailbox got into quite a bit of trouble. If you're contemplating doing
something like this, check with local codes and the post office BEFORE you get
sued.
Put this into perspective. Yes, it's really annoying to having your mailbox
repeatedly smashed, but do you REALLY want to be responsible for some
hormone-driven kid killing himself for something as minor as a $20 mailbox?
Jon Endres
unless I checked first with the Post Office and had a problem with beaten up
mailboxes. A while back, maybe ten or fifteen years ago, the Town snowplow
drivers had a bad habit of taking out boxes on the rural routes. They
quickly learned to be more careful when enough people either a). complained
to the road foreman, usually late at night, or b). put up "indestructible"
boxes that wrecked plows. The Town realized that apparently, the homeowners
who put up the indestructible boxes were NOT liable for damages to Town
equpiment. That was when the problem stopped.
As far as some kid being dumb enough to get shitfaced and go out beating up
mailboxes, I would not feel at all responsible if he fell out of the truck
and broke his head bashing my mailbox. It could very well be anybody's
mailbox. My feeling is, if that happens, he's just done a big favor to the
human gene pool by taking himself out of it. I cannot and WILL not feel
responsible for someone else's actions just because I happened to build my
mailbox extra tough. People need to take responsibility for their own
behavior, and that's happening less and less these days. So sue me.
--
Jon Endres
Captain, Engine 65
President, Shaftsbury VFD
*my other sig*
Jack-of-all-trades
<snip> the person who put up an indestructable mailbox got into quite a
bit of trouble. <snip> Put this into perspective. Yes, it's really
annoying to having your mailbox repeatedly smashed, but do you REALLY
want to be responsible for some hormone-driven kid killing himself for
something as minor as a $20 mailbox?
Yep, another case of a responsible citizen suffering, while the guilty
gets the sympathy.
Put into perspective, the kid would certainly not do it again.
JOAT ---- Well-dowsing, by appointment. ----
When a cow laughs, does milk come out its nose?
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/ Archives
http://x29.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
WWA Search Engines http://209.122.88.33/index.htm
Words to Amazing Grace http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/amazing-grace.shtml
Dick Streff
Does that exclusion from personal responsibility include a motorist or
motorcycle rider who swerves to avoid a collision due to road conditions
(or maybe miss your dog.)? It's pretty easy to justify injuring a vandal
or a reckless snowplow, but how about the rest of the world. Accidents happen!
I think it is irresponsible to knowingly place a potentially dangerous
structure so near the road, no matter what justification. Think how
you'd feel if you had someone important to you maimed or killed in an
accident because a vindictive homeowner put a bombproof mailbox by the
roadside. Theirs a good chance you could have your pants sued off for
doing so.
When it comes right down to it you don't usually own the right of way
the mailbox is on anyway. Better to replace a thousand mailboxes than be
complicit in an accidental injury.
Dick Streff
Norman Stough
I think it is irresponsible to knowingly place a potentially dangerous
structure so near the road, no matter what justification.
Classic example of " someone else should be responsible for my actions."
What about trees, overpasses, bridges,etc? Common sense and defensive
driving should keep you from hitting a maikbox with your car-- or a
baseball bat-- and if you do,be man enough to accept the blame instead
of trying to put it on someone else. What has this got to do with
woodworking anyway?
Being crazy keeps me from going insane
ALYSONSDAD
her yard and knock down her plastic mailbox. After I got tired of fixing it
for her, I welded her a cage out of 1 inch square pipe and set into concrete.
The first kid in a Toyota that hit it, did over 2000 bucks worth of damage to
the front and got arrested for dwi. I chuckled as I fixed it.
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA
Har!
I've seen mailbox towers built from mortared bricks, essentially heavy-duty
pillars with the box near at the top, vaguely resembling pizza ovens. Not
at all unattractive. Use a cement core and rebar for extra strength.
NoDak
"Dick Streff" <ds8...@navix.net> wrote in message
news:38FBE4A5...@navix.net...
> Jon,
>
> Does that exclusion from personal responsibility include a motorist or
> motorcycle rider who swerves to avoid a collision due to road conditions
> (or maybe miss your dog.)? It's pretty easy to justify injuring a vandal
> or a reckless snowplow, but how about the rest of the world. Accidents
happen!
>
> I think it is irresponsible to knowingly place a potentially dangerous
Jon Endres
it happened to be in the same place at the same time??? What if it were a
tree or telephone pole? Out here in the sticks, there's a lot of things you
can hit if you don't stay on the road. I wrecked my pickup about four years
ago when a cat sleeping in the road got up and ran in front of me. Next
time, I'd hit the cat, but the REACTION was for me to drive around the cat,
and I failed and hit the tree with the passenger side door and mirror.
Now, does this mean I sue the town for not cutting down all the trees in
their right-of-way so that this doesn't happen again? I don't think so.
David Randolph
> I've seen mailbox towers built from mortared bricks, essentially heavy-duty
> pillars with the box near at the top, vaguely resembling pizza ovens. Not
> at all unattractive. Use a cement core and rebar for extra strength.
Unfortunately, most of these are not properly reinforced nor well
grounded. I live near a bunch of these and they get knocked over a lot
or shatter when hit by a car. The shape is for looks, not for strength.
Allen
what a jury of 12 people come up with. there would be 5 separate
outcomes from 5 similar situations. The legal system might not be
broken but IMHO it is certainly bent.. I understand the mail box damage
is not a crime but the damage of the mail inside is covered by federal
code. The mail box is damage to personal property. Anyway kids do kid
things
and some kids are older than others. We need
people to be responsible and held accountable for their actions, it is
all that simple.
Regards, Allen
==================================
Proud Grandpa of two future woodworkers
==================================
Dick Streff
Drive around your town or rural area and spot how many permanent objects
lie as close to the road as a mailbox. Not too damned many, are there.
In my area no trees or signs are anywhere near as close to the roadside
as a mailbox.
I'm not trying to exclude personal responsibility. Certainly as a
homeowner it's not your fault if a motorist drives 20 feet up your lawn
and cracks their skull on an elm tree in the yard. But you're comparing
apples and oranges. An overbuilt mailbox sitting directly next to the
thoughrofare is an entirely different story. Especially on rural roads
where speeds will compound the effects of a collision.
Comparing overbuilt mailboxes to bridges, overpasses and other
structures is laughable at best. If you haven't looked around lately you
need to get around more. Most overpasses and bridges have copious guard
railing and other features that would preclude vehicles taking full
frontal hits or t-boning themselves. Highway safety engineering has come
a long ways in the past 50 years.
Everyone who's so quick to stand up and support "personal
responsibility" maybe should step back and take a look in the mirror.
You also have personal responsibility to not knowingly make the byways
and highways a more dangerous place than they already are.
And to NoDak.......... get bent.
Dick Streff
p.s. I would have hit the cat the first time.
John Barry
Excuse me, but that's nonsense. Nobody making innocent passage through the
area would have any problem with whatever is on your property.
Those doing damage to other's property are in such a case the sole agent of
their
problems, IMHO. And, the more problems, the better.
There's a kind of poetic justice, too, with the sneaky-s**t little
night-riders being taken
out by their own hand. What ever happened to trip-wires and blunderbusses?
No accident involved here- please get real.
Regards,
John
John Hahne
Postal Service ( I never shot anyone), I remember there is, or at least
was, a Postal Regulation that standing mailboxes must be of a "break
away" type, for pretty obvious reasons. Why this was, or is not enforced
, I do not know, and have wondered about it for quite some time.
Paul T. Radovanic
>And to NoDak.......... get bent.
>
>Dick Streff
>
>p.s. I would have hit the cat the first time.
Anyone else remember when the letter "s" looked like an "f"?
As in Congreffman?
Just curious.
Paul Rad
chalrie b
of the road. He lived on the road to a popular lake. Folks
with a six pack in them would take out Mike and his neighbors'
mail boxes twice a month. So he got out the backhoe, dug a
hole, dropped a 55 gallon drum in the hole, dropped a 4" steel
pipe in it and some rebar inside that. Welded a plate on top,
attached the mailbox and stuck a bunch of reflectors on it.
The following Saturday morning he went down to get his mail.
There was a 65 chevy with his mail box post at the front of
the engine block. Fortunately no broken windshield. Turns
out the guy had taken out mail boxes for over a mile back
down the road. The "victim" threatened to file a law suit
but Mike's position that he'd gotten tired of replacing wood
posts that kept rotting out so put the pipe in to minimize
the post replacement. Guy's lawyer told him to forget it
and suggested not running over mail boxes anymore.
But the word spread that Mike's road had car killer mail box
posts and mailbox baseball stopped.
Andy Dingley
>Put this into perspective. Yes, it's really annoying to having your mailbox
>repeatedly smashed, but do you REALLY want to be responsible for some
>hormone-driven kid killing himself for something as minor as a $20 mailbox?
Yes.
If this causes legal problems in your particular piece of country,
then you need to cull the lawyers too.
Teenagers should be at liberty to play any stupid trick they want to,
but the whole point about stupidity is that it's dangerous and it's
culpable. Hell, I played "sock" as a youngster, but if I'd fallen off
then that was my lookout. No-one made me do it, no-one makes larval
rednecks chase mailboxes.
Exploding mailboxes are unreasonable, as it's not in the nature of
mailboxes to explode. Being substantial and robust is not incompatible
with postboxness.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
Even though your mailbox may be on your property, it is also in the
highway right-of-way. You don't have final say on what goes there, no
matter how much you protest.
Here's a hypothetical situation:
Kids continually knock over your mailbox. You install a fortress
mailbox. Car hits it. Passenger is injured. You are sued.
Result: You lose.
If you accept that, go ahead and build your fortress. There are no
"mailbox police" who will stop you.
Rick Marinelli
rickandlisa"deletethistoemail"@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
Jon Endres
concrete-filled post with the concrete box on top, break away, similar to
what a fire hydrant does with a scored section of pipe. That way, the
dirtbag that smacks it with a bat still gets what's coming to him, and a car
that hits it breaks it off.
Around here, BTW, the power company sues the driver of a car that smacks a
pole, not the other way around, and most of them are pretty close to the
road.
John Hahne <jo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24136-38...@storefull-281.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Dog Faced Boy_
drive across his front yard at night, usually running over his newly
replaces bushes.
So a new bush planted with a 1" iron rod, 3' in the ground with 8"
sticking out above ground to 'support' the little bush put an end to
that game.
One morning revealed tire marks in the lawn to the bush, and a
beautiful trail of oil from the bush down the street to the teeners
diriveway.
He says he had no more problems.
DFB
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
<din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>Exploding mailboxes are unreasonable, as it's not in the nature of
>mailboxes to explode. Being substantial and robust is not incompatible
>with postboxness.
You were okay up to this point. Substantional and robust are most
definitley incompatible with postboxness. According to regulation,
anyway.
The Real James
protecting the car occupants from serious injury (at least by the pole).
I would think a concrete or brick supported box just sitting on a
concrete pad for support would easily shift if hit by a car, but you
could wack away with a baseball bat all day and not dent it.
In article <NChL4.975$t8.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
jonn...@sover.net says...
Nic
large 'explodable' plastic tank of strong dye on the top might discourage
more than the single hit.
Otherwise I hac=ve much sympathy with the 'deserve all they get' view, but
bearing in mind the lawyer culture you are in, common sense doesn't always
prevail!
Nic
"Rick and Lisa Marinelli" <rickandlisade...@erols.com> wrote in
message news:38fda7e0...@news.erols.com...
PheelK
everyone drives much faster (we live on a side street connecting 2 main
streets) I helped them replace them with large concrete plugs and ash 4X4's.
(they come as dunnage sometimes at work). No one is going to get killed, but
the damage to sheetmetal on their cars will be a sight. No one has hit them
yet, but when someone does, I'm sure that the word will get around.....
Phil K
Mike Paulsen
off by the cars front bumper at 30 mph? Probably the back seat of the
car, taking someone's head with it. Concrete mailboxes make for good
daydreaming and urban legends, but I doubt you'll find anyone sitting
around the local pub braggin on how his fortress mailbox turned what
would have been a minor accident into a trip to the morgue.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>Being in the UK, this isn't a problem for me, but I would suggest that a
>large 'explodable' plastic tank of strong dye on the top might discourage
>more than the single hit.
>
>Otherwise I hac=ve much sympathy with the 'deserve all they get' view, but
>bearing in mind the lawyer culture you are in, common sense doesn't always
>prevail!
>
It's not the lawyer culture that is the issue. The issue is whether
one is willing to chance hurting an innocent person for the chance to
injure someone who deserves it.
If it were possible to target the mailbox baseball player while
ensuring the safety of someone who might accidently hit your mailbox
with a car, I say go for it. I don't think it's possible.
I would say that common sense prevails admirably in this situation.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
And so will the lawsuits... which will be won by the plaintiffs, by
the way.
Dave Mundt
For what it is worth, it would probably be a good thing to plaster
this pillar with reflective tape, so, they cannot use the excuse that
they could not SEE it.
I heard last night that, in a few years, when today's classes of
lawyers graduate, we will have twice as many lawyers as we do now.
Does ANYONE think this is a good idea?
Regards
Dave Mundt
Remove the "REMOVE_THIS_" from my email address to get to me...
I hate Cullers who gather from newsgroups
Visit my home page at http://www.esper.com/xvart/index.html
Andrew Hume
Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
> It's not the lawyer culture that is the issue. The issue is whether
> one is willing to chance hurting an innocent person for the chance to
> injure someone who deserves it.
even if you can target the guilty party, it is still likely to be illegal.
to whit, there are people who sabotage their car stereos with fish hooks
and razor blades such that anyone poking hands in to steal the stereos
will get injured. these people are successfully sued by the would-be thieves,
mostly along the doctrine of a response incommeasurate with the crime.
i'm not saying i agree, but that is the way it is.
Jim Yanik
>
>On 19 Apr 2000 18:40:07 GMT, phe...@aol.com (PheelK) wrote:
>
>>Had 3 neighbors get their mailboxes run over. The speed limit is 30 but
>>everyone drives much faster (we live on a side street connecting 2 main
>>streets) I helped them replace them with large concrete plugs and ash 4X4's.
>>(they come as dunnage sometimes at work). No one is going to get killed, but
>>the damage to sheetmetal on their cars will be a sight. No one has hit them
>>yet, but when someone does, I'm sure that the word will get around.....
>>
Dig a small trench around the mailbox,so that if anyone hits the mailbox,their
car tires fall into the trench and they get STUCK. Then they will be around
still when the police arrive.You could cover it with a light cover,sturdy
enough that a person can walk across it w/o falling in.Plant some flowers
around it,too.
Second idea;get a couple of those 'ornamental boulders' from your local
building supply store,and place around the mailbox.Get them big enough that a
car will 'run aground' on them,but not so big that they would be a
road 'hazard'.
Jim Yanik,NRA member
wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com
particularly if the driver was deliberately running over a mailbox.
Buddy of mine had a guy in his hometown that used drill casing to
support his mailbox because people kept running over it on purpose for
jollies, even after he built it with brick. Put the drill casing in
pretty deep and sure enough, some clown tried to drive over it and
wrapped his engine block around it and screwed him up pretty good.
The homeowner came out with no problems on that one.
BTW: Just about everybody in my neighborhood has a brick mailbox. One
guy just put one in after a kid ran over his mailbox by accident.
My personal opinion: this kind of lawsuit is bullshit. You drive, you
take a risk. There are all sorts of roadside hazards, when you can
sue after deliberately running over one of them, then something is
seriously wrong.
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:26:04 GMT,
rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli) wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2000 18:40:07 GMT, phe...@aol.com (PheelK) wrote:
>
>>Had 3 neighbors get their mailboxes run over. The speed limit is 30 but
>>everyone drives much faster (we live on a side street connecting 2 main
>>streets) I helped them replace them with large concrete plugs and ash 4X4's.
>>(they come as dunnage sometimes at work). No one is going to get killed, but
>>the damage to sheetmetal on their cars will be a sight. No one has hit them
>>yet, but when someone does, I'm sure that the word will get around.....
>>
>
The Real James
lawyers. Kinda appropriate.
In article <38fe0eee...@news.esper.com>,
REMOVE_TH...@esper.com says...
> Greetings and Salutations.
> For what it is worth, it would probably be a good thing to plaster
> this pillar with reflective tape, so, they cannot use the excuse that
> they could not SEE it.
> I heard last night that, in a few years, when today's classes of
> lawyers graduate, we will have twice as many lawyers as we do now.
> Does ANYONE think this is a good idea?
> Regards
> Dave Mundt
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
No argument. I did not mean to imply that if one *could* target the
perpertrators, it would somehow be legal.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>Not so sure about plaintiffs having good cases on this kind of stuff,
>particularly if the driver was deliberately running over a mailbox.
>Buddy of mine had a guy in his hometown that used drill casing to
>support his mailbox because people kept running over it on purpose for
>jollies, even after he built it with brick. Put the drill casing in
>pretty deep and sure enough, some clown tried to drive over it and
>wrapped his engine block around it and screwed him up pretty good.
>The homeowner came out with no problems on that one.
As long as it wasn't set in concrete, I believe it meets postal
regulations. I don't think they specify depth.
>
>BTW: Just about everybody in my neighborhood has a brick mailbox. One
>guy just put one in after a kid ran over his mailbox by accident.
>
>My personal opinion: this kind of lawsuit is bullshit. You drive, you
>take a risk. There are all sorts of roadside hazards, when you can
>sue after deliberately running over one of them, then something is
>seriously wrong.
Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
Jack-of-all-trades
illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, you DO assume the risk of hitting
illegally placed hazards when you get behind the wheel. You assume the
risk of hitting something anytime you get behind the wheel and drive,
period, whether it is your fault or not, whether it is illegally placed
or not. However, in this case the subject is not illegally placed
hazards; the subject is mailboxes that are legally placed; but that are
reinforced, whether legally or not.
JOAT ---- Well-dowsing, by appointment. ----
"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a
chance to have their fair say." - President Bill Clinton, 5/29/93
rec.ww FAQ http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/ Archives
http://x29.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
WWA Search Engines http://209.122.88.33/index.htm
Words to Amazing Grace http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/amazing-grace.shtml
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
(Jack-of-all-trades) wrote:
>rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick=A0and=A0Lisa=A0Marinelli)
>wrote:
>Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
>illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
>
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, you DO assume the risk of hitting
>illegally placed hazards when you get behind the wheel. You assume the
>risk of hitting something anytime you get behind the wheel and drive,
>period, whether it is your fault or not, whether it is illegally placed
>or not. However, in this case the subject is not illegally placed
>hazards; the subject is mailboxes that are legally placed; but that are
>reinforced, whether legally or not.
>
Well, we disagree. When I say one does not assume a risk, I mean it
as assuming liability. And when I say illegally placed, it *does*
apply to a mailbox installed in noncompliance with postal regulations.
You can argue semantics all day, but the point is that a lawsuit filed
by someone who hits an improperly installed mailbox against the person
who installed it will most likely be successful.
Nic
having encompassed brickwork. concreting, metal work, boulder placing to
name some aspects, it sure has been entertaining!
Nic
"Jack-of-all-trades" <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22918-38...@storefull-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, you DO assume the risk of hitting
illegally placed hazards when you get behind the wheel. You assume the
risk of hitting something anytime you get behind the wheel and drive,
period, whether it is your fault or not, whether it is illegally placed
or not. However, in this case the subject is not illegally placed
hazards; the subject is mailboxes that are legally placed; but that are
reinforced, whether legally or not.
The Real James
In article <38ff...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk>,
he...@hebgb.screaming.net says...
mouser
Large Rural box and bolted a smaller with the door removed inside it. We
then got poured about a bag and a half of Quickcerte between them and
mounted it on an 8x8. We made a label with the warning that the box is
filled with concrete.
No hits yet
mouser
Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:04:23 -0400 (EDT), Jakofal...@webtv.net
> (Jack-of-all-trades) wrote:
>
> >rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick=A0and=A0Lisa=A0Marinelli)
> >wrote:
> >Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
> >illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, you DO assume the risk of hitting
> >illegally placed hazards when you get behind the wheel. You assume the
> >risk of hitting something anytime you get behind the wheel and drive,
> >period, whether it is your fault or not, whether it is illegally placed
> >or not. However, in this case the subject is not illegally placed
> >hazards; the subject is mailboxes that are legally placed; but that are
> >reinforced, whether legally or not.
> >
>
Andy Dingley
>Being in the UK, this isn't a problem for me,
I'm in the UK too. Living rurally, we had a "mailbox" of the American
type.
Our problem was more with dog turds than baseball bats, but then I
guess even baseball is getting a little energetic for the typical
British Kevin The Teenager.
OTOH, the nameboard at the end of the farm track was made of motorway
Armco, because carelessly cornering tractors kept taking out the
wooden one.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:34:22 GMT,
>rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli) wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
>>illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
>>
>>Rick Marinelli
>>rickandlisa"deletethistoemail"@erols.com
>>http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
>
>Hence the problem. These should not be considered "illegally placed".
>It is only because of our litigious society that there is even a law
>regarding this. There are just far too many laws, rules and
>regulations designed to protect the stupid, while forcing homeowners,
>business owners and the like to pay out the nose to avoid lawsuits.
>
I also disagree with this. I think it makes perfect sense to avoid
putting hazardous objects where they don't need to be.
It has nothing to do with our litigous society. Litigation doesn't
spawn laws - laws spawn ligitation. And if there are any stupid
people this regulation is in place to protect, it's the people who are
too stupid to realize their mailboxes are not more valuable than a
human life.
It helps one to avoid lawsuits by prescribing a proper installation.
Doing it according to regulation is excellent defense, enough that a
lawsuit is very unlikely, or if filed to be immediately dismissed.
Rick Marinelli
rickandlisadel...@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
Andy Dingley
écrit :
>the people who are
>too stupid to realize their mailboxes are not more valuable than a
>human life.
How about those too stupid to realize that any consequence of their
actions in fooling around with a pickup truck and a baseball bat is
_their_ fault, not someone else's.
America needs to grow up and stop acting like a 6 year old.
"Wah ! Mommy ! Nasty mailbox hit me back"
Jim Yanik
rickandlisadel...@erols.com says...
>
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:25:52 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:34:22 GMT,
>>rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
>>>illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
>>>
>>>Rick Marinelli
>>>rickandlisa"deletethistoemail"@erols.com
>>>http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
>>
>>Hence the problem. These should not be considered "illegally placed".
>>It is only because of our litigious society that there is even a law
>>regarding this. There are just far too many laws, rules and
>>regulations designed to protect the stupid, while forcing homeowners,
>>business owners and the like to pay out the nose to avoid lawsuits.
>>
>
>I also disagree with this. I think it makes perfect sense to avoid
>putting hazardous objects where they don't need to be.
>
>It has nothing to do with our litigous society. Litigation doesn't
>spawn laws - laws spawn ligitation. And if there are any stupid
>people this regulation is in place to protect,
it's the people who are
>too stupid to realize their mailboxes are not more valuable than a
>human life.
>
This is an attitude that really bothers me. All it achieves is establishing
-protection- for criminals. It makes crime risk-free.This is why we must have
burglar alarms on our cars and homes,in the hope that they will scare away
thieves.It is why our insurance keeps rising in costs,and why our
crime is so high. People like you have made it easier for criminals to operate.
Jim Yanik,NRA member
CW
crime worth risking his life over.
--
CW
KC7NOD
> >>>
> >>>Rick Marinelli
> >>>rickandlisa"deletethistoemail"@erols.com
> >>>http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
> >>
PheelK
>"Wah ! Mommy ! Nasty mailbox hit me back"
Excellent answer! If I run into something solid when illegally driving thru
the middle of someone elses yard, I'd be worried about their lawyer, not
running to call mine. Four feet behind my mailbox is a sidewalk with people
walking their dogs at all hours. If my mailbox stops someone, it could SAVE a
life.
Phil K
The Real James
always wire it to put a shock to anyone opening the box but I suppose the
postal carrier might object. :-)
In article <rjuufsoph2562hkk3...@4ax.com>,
din...@codesmiths.com says...
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
These are some of the most assinine comments I have ever seen. You
people seem to insist that any time a mailbox is struck, it is
deliberate.
Thank god we have laws to protect those of us who *do* have more sense
than god gave a treestump from the rest of you.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>
>This is an attitude that really bothers me. All it achieves is establishing
>-protection- for criminals. It makes crime risk-free.This is why we must have
>burglar alarms on our cars and homes,in the hope that they will scare away
>thieves.It is why our insurance keeps rising in costs,and why our
>crime is so high. People like you have made it easier for criminals to operate.
>
People like me realize that risking innocent lives in an attempt to
punish a petty criminal is stupid.
Caroline Usher
rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli) wrote:
> People like me realize that risking innocent lives in an attempt to
> punish a petty criminal is stupid.
>
>
>
> Rick Marinelli
> rickandlisadel...@erols.com
> http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
Dear all,
Just wanted to say I have appreciated Rick's common sense in this thread
and second his view. The knee-jerk give-the-punks-what-they-deserve
response may be emotionally gratifying but is not reasonable or
constructive in the long run (who do you think will be paying the punk's
hospital bills?)
Caroline Usher
Lute Society of America
"I brake for theorboes."
wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com
overkill situation in this country. We are turning into a Nerf
society with new laws every week being passed to prevent every kind of
injury. It is simply out of control. Maybe we should out law street
side parking because someone might blow a tire and crash into your car
while it's parked.
When people can win lawsuits because they lost fingers when they
picked up their lawnmower and tried to trim hedges with it, or they
got injured vandalizing someone's mailbox, something is definitely
wrong.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:00:15 GMT,
rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:25:52 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:34:22 GMT,
>>rickandlisade...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, but you are wrong. One does not assume the risk of hitting
>>>illegally placed hazards when one gets behind the wheel.
>>>
>>>Rick Marinelli
>>>rickandlisa"deletethistoemail"@erols.com
>>>http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
>>
>>Hence the problem. These should not be considered "illegally placed".
>>It is only because of our litigious society that there is even a law
>>regarding this. There are just far too many laws, rules and
>>regulations designed to protect the stupid, while forcing homeowners,
>>business owners and the like to pay out the nose to avoid lawsuits.
>>
>
>I also disagree with this. I think it makes perfect sense to avoid
>putting hazardous objects where they don't need to be.
>
>It has nothing to do with our litigous society. Litigation doesn't
>spawn laws - laws spawn ligitation. And if there are any stupid
>people this regulation is in place to protect, it's the people who are
>too stupid to realize their mailboxes are not more valuable than a
>human life.
>
>It helps one to avoid lawsuits by prescribing a proper installation.
>Doing it according to regulation is excellent defense, enough that a
>lawsuit is very unlikely, or if filed to be immediately dismissed.
>
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>"Hazardous objects" is one thing, but I we are getting into a real
>overkill situation in this country. We are turning into a Nerf
>society with new laws every week being passed to prevent every kind of
>injury. It is simply out of control. Maybe we should out law street
>side parking because someone might blow a tire and crash into your car
>while it's parked.
It's a question of degree. There may be no reasonable alternative to
streetside parking. There is *definitely* a reasonable alternative to
a fortress mailbox.
>
>When people can win lawsuits because they lost fingers when they
>picked up their lawnmower and tried to trim hedges with it, or they
>got injured vandalizing someone's mailbox, something is definitely
>wrong.
One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
child running into the street and hits it accidently.
Dave Mundt
These are both good points. However, I feel constrained to point
out TOO, that in MY neighborhood, where I have lived for 45 years,
there has been ONE time that a mailbox has been destroyed by a car
swerving off the road...and that was a drunk driver who just missed a
curve. However, back in the 70s, there were several DOZEN mailboxes
destroyed by bat-weilding young men in cars.
It is all a matter of probability. While it might be far more
upsetting to have a driver killed by running into a re-enforced
mailbox, no matter WHY they were off the road, it is FAR more likely
that some twitty, testosterone-ridden teen will blast by with a bat
and zap the box. It makes more sense to deal with the MOST PROBABLE
hazard FIRST...then deal with the fringe events later.
IF you live in a neighborhood where drivers are continually
swerving off the road and destroying mailboxes to avoid children
running into the road, then, it seems to me that one or more of these
courses of action should be taken:
1) The kids should get more supervision and training from their
parents. I, for one, was taught from the time I could walk that the
road was DANGEROUS and that I needed to stop, look both ways and wait
for traffic to clear before getting on it. Before I understood WHY, I
did it to avoid being punished. After I gained some wisedom, I did it
to keep from dying.
2) BUILD FENCES - Few kids I know can blast through a chain-link
fense and unexpectedly appear on the road.
3) cut the speed limit through the neighborhood to 20 MPH. Slower
speed will give more time to stop safely.
4) Get law enforcement to spend some time there, dealing with the
reckless drivers that are so out of control that they are mowing down
mailboxes.
5) Insist on expanded safe driver's education for ALL kids getting
old enough to drive.
6) Get the laws changed to require re-testing for driver's license
renewal, say, every 10 years or so.
7) Push for parents to start educating their children to respect
the property of others.
Also, as a matter of curiosity, should we also require that all
utility poles be removed and the lines be buried underground? After
all, I would bet that there are a LOT more utility poles than
mailboxes in the country, and, THEY are really dangerous..right by the
road, and, typically MANY times heavier than the average mailbox.
Oh..and, while we are at it...we will have to get rid of streetlights
too..or, reset them at least 100 feet back from the road...
Regards
Dave Mundt
rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 May 2000 05:40:37 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
Remove the "REMOVE_THIS_" from my email address to get to me...
Pat Daniels
>
>It's a question of degree. There may be no reasonable alternative to
>streetside parking. There is *definitely* a reasonable alternative to
>a fortress mailbox.
So if I understand you correctly, there should be laws which require
people to maintain their property in a manner so as to avoid injury to
those who would vandalize it. You need to hook up with the guy from
Ireland who advocates "outlawing any devices that might cause harm."
Pat
>
Patrick Olguin
> You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
> vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
> child running into the street and hits it accidently.
Coming in late, here. Rick, is there a postal regulation I missed,
regarding break-away mailboxes? Many of the mailboxes on my street,
including mine, are built like fortresses, and are decades old. Are they
all lawsuits waiting to happen?
O'Deen
--
World's Finest Shellac... delivered to right your door
http://shellac.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gregg Germain
: 7) Push for parents to start educating their children to respect
: the property of others.
In my opinion, this is the central reason why there is a problem,
and the most important solution step.
--- Gregg
"Eschew surplusage."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Mark Twain
Phone: (617) 496-7237
esnel
wait till some politcian discovers the high amount of lead content in
solder...they'll be passing laws to have it remove from common
useage...it'll take all the fun out of licking a circit board but remember
to play safe and unplug it first.
Eric
Paul T. Radovanic
>Dave Mundt <> wrote:
>: 7) Push for parents to start educating their children to respect
>: the property of others.
>
> In my opinion, this is the central reason why there is a problem,
>and the most important solution step.
It sometimes seems to me that there are two kinds of people -- those
who have raised children through the teenage years, and those who
haven't.
Those who haven't seem to have all sorts of ideas about how to deal
with teenagers. Those who have know better than to judge or
criticize.
The ones with small children are worse than those with no children.
Their tots worship them like gods, so they think they have it all
figured out.
An acquaintance of mine had a son the same age as my son. Our kids
played in the same Little League, so we knew each other from the ball
fields. The parents are good, decent people, and their two boys were
certainly taught to respect others and their property.
But kids go through a zone in their teenage years, and do things they
would never do before or after that zone. One night, my friend's
oldest boy nailed something like 50 mailboxes with a bat when he was
in 12th grade. He got caught, restitution was paid, community service
was done, etc. He learned a lesson.
The kid is now a freshman in college, gainfully employed, and shows no
more tendencies to blast mail boxes to oblivion.
The world would not be a better place if someone had booby-trapped a
mailbox that harmed this kid.
Just because some kid is going through the wild teen-zone does not
mean that he is a criminal loser for the rest of his life.
Paul Rad
>
Pat Daniels
So your view is that society should make a reasonable effort to
accommodate criminal behavior. Sorry, tolerating inappropriate
behavior simply encourages continued inappropriate behavior. On the
other hand, if everyone who hit a mailbox with a baseball bat broke
his arm, soon people would stop hitting mailboxes with baseball bats.
I mean how many times did _you_ stick your finger in an electrical
outlet - I did it once.
I'm afraid what we have here is nothing more than the usual argument
that it is "unreasonable" to hold people accountable for their
actions. This is typically accompanied by a call for either greater
understanding and tolerance on the part of the law abiding or the
imposition of some additional governmental control.
For more of the same, see also the thread on tablesaw guards and the
thread on dados in the UK.
Pat
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:07:31 -0400, c...@duke.edu (Caroline Usher)
wrote:
Pat Daniels
> You people seem to insist that any time a mailbox is struck, it is
>deliberate.
Not at all - it could be criminal negligence. Try to grasp a simple
principle: society is best served with all of us are held accountable
for the consequences of our actions.
Pat
wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com
>One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
Ease up man, there's no need to be an ass about this.
>You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
>vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
>child running into the street and hits it accidently.
No shit. I haven't advocated building things to deliberately hurt
people. I just think that a mail box is something that a homeowner
should be allowed to construct so it survives attempts to damage it or
accidental bumps. If it makes it so that the kid swinging a baseball
bat from a moving vehicle breaks his arm on a nonresisting object,
that's his problem.
The problem, again, is the over-protection of society by government.
We try to protect everyone by passing laws to cover all potential
situations; it's ridiculous. There are all sorts of roadside objects
which can kill a person who runs into them at high speed. I just
don't think it happens often enough to warrant laws regarding
construction of mailboxes that forces a homeowner to replace their
mailbox on a regular basis, especially if they live an a neighborhood
with 25 mph speed limits.
Furthermore, the fact that someone can sue someone when they were a
major contributor to the cause of the injury is bullshit, especially
when they are breaking the law.
Charles Self
>> You people seem to insist that any time a mailbox is struck, it is
>>deliberate.
>
>Not at all - it could be criminal negligence. Try to grasp a simple
>principle: society is best served with all of us are held accountable
>for the consequences of our actions.
We had a case like that some years ago. Doofus went around whanging mailboxes,
mine included, when half lit, then accepted a ride home from a deputy. Heh.
Not much problem tracking him down the next day.
My biggest concern is for the types who build an industructible mailbox arm
alongside a bumpy spot on a country road, setting the post on the house side of
the ditch. We've got one that has at least 8' of railroad rail hanging there
with a standard--at least visually--mailbox 2' off the road. Bad shoulders,
bad road. The day someone drops 2 wheels onto the 6" below road bed shoulder
and tears the topside off his car is going to be the day that guy learns about
lawsuits. And he should.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Pat Daniels
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>>One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:42:12 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Ease up man, there's no need to be an ass about this.
Our friend Rick typifies those T. Sowell refers to as "the Annointed".
If you dare disagree with one of these types then you are not only
wrong but stupid and morally inferior.
Pat
>
Pat Daniels
between building tank traps along side the road and laws which have
the primary effect of protecting people from the consequences of their
unlawful behavior.
Pat
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
Mundt) wrote:
> Greetings and Salutations.
> These are both good points. However, I feel constrained to point
>out TOO, that in MY neighborhood, where I have lived for 45 years,
>there has been ONE time that a mailbox has been destroyed by a car
>swerving off the road...and that was a drunk driver who just missed a
>curve. However, back in the 70s, there were several DOZEN mailboxes
>destroyed by bat-weilding young men in cars.
> It is all a matter of probability. While it might be far more
>upsetting to have a driver killed by running into a re-enforced
>mailbox, no matter WHY they were off the road, it is FAR more likely
>that some twitty, testosterone-ridden teen will blast by with a bat
>and zap the box. It makes more sense to deal with the MOST PROBABLE
>hazard FIRST...then deal with the fringe events later.
So if you can maim one innocent person for each X people you
justifiably injure, then it's okay. Got it.
> IF you live in a neighborhood where drivers are continually
>swerving off the road and destroying mailboxes to avoid children
>running into the road, then, it seems to me that one or more of these
>courses of action should be taken:
> 1) The kids should get more supervision and training from their
>parents. I, for one, was taught from the time I could walk that the
>road was DANGEROUS and that I needed to stop, look both ways and wait
>for traffic to clear before getting on it. Before I understood WHY, I
>did it to avoid being punished. After I gained some wisedom, I did it
>to keep from dying.
> 2) BUILD FENCES - Few kids I know can blast through a chain-link
>fense and unexpectedly appear on the road.
> 3) cut the speed limit through the neighborhood to 20 MPH. Slower
>speed will give more time to stop safely.
> 4) Get law enforcement to spend some time there, dealing with the
>reckless drivers that are so out of control that they are mowing down
>mailboxes.
> 5) Insist on expanded safe driver's education for ALL kids getting
>old enough to drive.
> 6) Get the laws changed to require re-testing for driver's license
>renewal, say, every 10 years or so.
> 7) Push for parents to start educating their children to respect
>the property of others.
>
> Also, as a matter of curiosity, should we also require that all
>utility poles be removed and the lines be buried underground? After
>all, I would bet that there are a LOT more utility poles than
>mailboxes in the country, and, THEY are really dangerous..right by the
>road, and, typically MANY times heavier than the average mailbox.
>Oh..and, while we are at it...we will have to get rid of streetlights
>too..or, reset them at least 100 feet back from the road...
As I have said in the past, sometimes it is not feasible to make all
objects frangible. The fact that you can't make a power pole
frangible in no way affects how you treat mailboxes, which can easily
be made frangible. Converting to underground wiring may be
prohibitively expensive. Many streetlight standards *are* frangible,
by the way.
As for comments about kids, it is kind of petty to home in on one
example of why someone might accidentally hit a mailbox, rather than
concentrate on the real issue.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>On Mon, 01 May 2000 15:15:40 GMT,
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>It's a question of degree. There may be no reasonable alternative to
>>streetside parking. There is *definitely* a reasonable alternative to
>>a fortress mailbox.
>
>So if I understand you correctly, there should be laws which require
>people to maintain their property in a manner so as to avoid injury to
>those who would vandalize it. You need to hook up with the guy from
>Ireland who advocates "outlawing any devices that might cause harm."
>
Your understanding is partly correct. Those laws already exist.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>In article <390d9eed...@news.erols.com>,
> rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>> You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
>> vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
>> child running into the street and hits it accidently.
>
>Coming in late, here. Rick, is there a postal regulation I missed,
>regarding break-away mailboxes? Many of the mailboxes on my street,
>including mine, are built like fortresses, and are decades old. Are they
>all lawsuits waiting to happen?
>
They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
them over.
Rick Marinelli
rickandlisadel...@erols.com
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 18:33:31 GMT,
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>> You people seem to insist that any time a mailbox is struck, it is
>>deliberate.
>
>Not at all - it could be criminal negligence. Try to grasp a simple
>principle: society is best served with all of us are held accountable
>for the consequences of our actions.
>
If you will try to grasp this simple principle. Accidents happen.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>
>
>
>>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
>
>>On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:42:12 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>Ease up man, there's no need to be an ass about this.
>
>Our friend Rick typifies those T. Sowell refers to as "the Annointed".
>If you dare disagree with one of these types then you are not only
>wrong but stupid and morally inferior.
>
I just get tired of people who can't grasp a simple concept even with
constant repetition.
Stupid and morally inferior? Not necessarily. Slow? Definitely.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>On Mon, 01 May 2000 15:15:40 GMT,
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>>One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
>
>Ease up man, there's no need to be an ass about this.
>
>>You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
>>vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
>>child running into the street and hits it accidently.
>
>No shit. I haven't advocated building things to deliberately hurt
>people. I just think that a mail box is something that a homeowner
>should be allowed to construct so it survives attempts to damage it or
>accidental bumps.
That's where you disagree with me and the law. Fair enough.
Jim Stuyck
Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
> Mailboxes
> are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
> them over.
Huh? Can you cite some statute -- preferably federal -- that supports
this assertion? There are MANY masonry (concrete-filled) mailboxes
in my area (virtually EVERY mailbox in newer, high scale neighborhoods)
that would not yield to a "push over." In fact, I saw one new mailbox
the other day that replaced one that had been "pushed over". This
masonry structure had four 4" pipes surrounding it, somewhat like
those barriers erected in front of stores.
Years ago, POed by a mailbox baseball incident at his home, my
brother in law erected a 4" pipe as the stand, and an 8" pipe as
a mailbox, in his yard (no sidewalk). He was waiting for some kid
to drive by and take a whack at THIS mailbox. Would have loosened
that kid's fillings, that for sure.
Jim Stuyck
Joe Lane
Rick and Lisa Marinelli <rickandlisadel...@erols.com> wrote in
message news:390eb586...@news.erols.com...
> On Mon, 01 May 2000 17:28:18 GMT, REMOVE_TH...@esper.com (Dave
> Mundt) wrote:
>
> > Greetings and Salutations.
> > These are both good points. However, I feel constrained to point
> >out TOO, that in MY neighborhood, where I have lived for 45 years,
> >there has been ONE time that a mailbox has been destroyed by a car
> >swerving off the road...and that was a drunk driver who just missed a
> >curve. However, back in the 70s, there were several DOZEN mailboxes
> >destroyed by bat-weilding young men in cars.
> > It is all a matter of probability. While it might be far more
> >upsetting to have a driver killed by running into a re-enforced
> >mailbox, no matter WHY they were off the road, it is FAR more likely
> >that some twitty, testosterone-ridden teen will blast by with a bat
> >and zap the box. It makes more sense to deal with the MOST PROBABLE
> >hazard FIRST...then deal with the fringe events later.
>
> So if you can maim one innocent person for each X people you
> justifiably injure, then it's okay. Got it.
>
You hit the nail on the head!
AIRBAGS
It doesn't matter if they kill and injure a few people as long
as they save approximately the same number of lives.
Caroline Usher
Daniels) wrote:
> Caroline -
>
> So your view is that society should make a reasonable effort to
> accommodate criminal behavior.
Not at all. I'm saying that creating a roadside hazard to stop minor
vandalism is not reasonable.
Andy Dingley
>You have a valid point. There must be, however, some middle ground
>between building tank traps along side the road
This wekend I was talking to a farmer who _has_ tank traps alongside
his lane. They're now listed as being of historical interest and he
can't remove them.
(Part of WW2 Stop Line Green, SW England)
Jim Yanik
Here in Orlando,the Postal Service is putting in cluster mailboxes in new
communities,and some older ones,made of heavy steel,on a steel post,bolted
securely into a concrete pad. These are placed right at the curb. Run into one
and you will smash up your car severely.The Postal Service does not seem to
have any legal difficulties with this.
Jim Yanik,NRA member
Gregg Germain
: On 1 May 2000, Gregg Germain <> wrote:
:>Dave Mundt <> wrote:
:>: 7) Push for parents to start educating their children to respect
:>: the property of others.
:>
:> In my opinion, this is the central reason why there is a problem,
:>and the most important solution step.
: It sometimes seems to me that there are two kinds of people -- those
: who have raised children through the teenage years, and those who
: haven't.
FYI, I raised my 19 year old daughter all by myself after her
mother left us when my daughter was 2. So I've been there and am, to some
degree, still doing that.
: Just because some kid is going through the wild teen-zone does not
: mean that he is a criminal loser for the rest of his life.
On the other hand there's a lot of teens that aren't just going
through a phase and do not learn lessons and continue to break the
law.
Charles Self
>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>them over.
Where, and by whom? It's not that bad an idea, but I've never even heard of
anything like it.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>
>
>Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
>
>
>> Mailboxes
>> are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>> them over.
>
>Huh? Can you cite some statute -- preferably federal -- that supports
>this assertion?
I'm not sure what form the requirement takes - statute, regulation,
guideline, etc. But the information was provided to me by my post
office when my house was built. Stop by your post office and ask for
an installion detail sheet for rural mailboxes.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>Rick Marinelli writes:
>>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
>>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>>them over.
>
>Where, and by whom? It's not that bad an idea, but I've never even heard of
>anything like it.
Ask at your post office. They have installation details including
height, setback, post requirements, etc.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>Here in Orlando,the Postal Service is putting in cluster mailboxes in new
>communities,and some older ones,made of heavy steel,on a steel post,bolted
>securely into a concrete pad. These are placed right at the curb. Run into one
>and you will smash up your car severely.The Postal Service does not seem to
>have any legal difficulties with this.
These are not the same as roadside rural mailboxes.
foxeye
state, county bourough or township. All the feds care is that the
container that is going to be used for a mail drop is of a certain
type and height from ground etc etc etc. We just had the main road
(where my mail box is located) widened, and they pulled up my 6" dia,
with 5/8" wall thickness steel pipe that was in about 1/2 cu yd of
concrete, and when they reset all the mailboxes, they installed it the
same as before, not sure about the amount of concrete, but they did
pour concrete in the hole, when they poured concrete at the drainage
culverts in the various driveways. This job was fully supervised by
the county and state engineers, so evidently a mail box post being set
in concrete is a local type deal.......They even made the comment that
at least you should not have a problem finding out who tried to run
your mailbox over, as they like to do around here, especially on
Halloween and around the time school lets out and graduation.
I also have a formed stainless steel (11 gauge) lined mailbox, out
of half hard alloy. It will take quite a beating and never dent. It
can withstand any wooden bat, as well as aluminum.. I used to have to
replace my mailbox on average of 2 or 3 times a year, as well as the
post, now its been there for over 8 while the neighbors keep having to
renew theirs. We live in a rural area, so vandalism of this sort is
common, with school kids looking for a kick.
On Tue, 02 May 2000 19:27:01 GMT,
rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 11:35:37 GMT, Jim Stuyck <jst...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Mailboxes
>>> are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>>> them over.
>>
>>Huh? Can you cite some statute -- preferably federal -- that supports
>>this assertion?
>
>I'm not sure what form the requirement takes - statute, regulation,
>guideline, etc. But the information was provided to me by my post
>office when my house was built. Stop by your post office and ask for
>an installion detail sheet for rural mailboxes.
>
>Rick Marinelli
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com
>http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
Foxeye
"Remove nospam to send email"
nospam...@ddyne.com
fox...@nospamddyne.com
Just my .02 cents worth!
Charles Self
>I'm not sure what form the requirement takes - statute, regulation,
>guideline, etc. But the information was provided to me by my post
>office when my house was built. Stop by your post office and ask for
>an installion detail sheet for rural mailboxes.
The only guidelines I ever saw were for height and distance from road edge.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Charles Self
>Ask at your post office. They have installation details including
>height, setback, post requirements, etc.
>
>
That post office is delivering to the monster I described earlier, the railroad
rail, with no complaints. I've seen setback and height requirements, but never
any post requirements.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Joe Gorman
your own, and if so do you have the specs?
foxeye wrote:
snip
> I also have a formed stainless steel (11 gauge) lined mailbox, out
snip
--
Check the following and READ THE FAQ, SEARCH THE ARCHIVES,
ASK A QUESTION
rec.ww FAQ: http://www.robson.org/woodfaq/
Archives *: http://x29.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
crowbar FAQ:
http://www.concentric.net/~Odeen/oldtools/crowbar.shtml
Software FAQ: http://www.woodbin.com/docs/software_faq.htm
* Cradle/Crib FAQ, Dust FAQ & Steambending FAQ posted
on first
of each month and can be found in the Deja
archives. In the lower
section input "FAQ" for subject and
"rec.woodworking" for forum.
Then press the BOTTOM Search button (not the top).
Roger Adams
Radovanic) wrote:
Snip
>But kids go through a zone in their teenage years, and do things they
>would never do before or after that zone. One night, my friend's
>oldest boy nailed something like 50 mailboxes with a bat when he was
>in 12th grade. He got caught, restitution was paid, community service
>was done, etc. He learned a lesson.
>
>The kid is now a freshman in college, gainfully employed, and shows no
>more tendencies to blast mail boxes to oblivion.
>
>The world would not be a better place if someone had booby-trapped a
>mailbox that harmed this kid.
Snip
>Paul Rad
>>
>
Maybe, maybe not, but if it was the first mailbox there would have
been 49 mailboxes saved.
Roger Adams
>
>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>them over.
>
>Rick Marinelli
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com
And of course you can tell us where we can find this law.
Raoul Laurent III
http://www.usps.gov/feedback/faq-ccm.htm#mblocation
Granted, this is a FAQ and doesn't appear to be a policy statement.
However, if a stringent requirement was in place concerning the
construction of the mailbox, you would think it would be mentioned in a
FAQ.
Raoul
Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
>
> On 02 May 2000 13:42:48 GMT, charl...@aol.com (Charles Self) wrote:
>
> >Rick Marinelli writes:
> >>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
> >>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
> >>them over.
> >
> >Where, and by whom? It's not that bad an idea, but I've never even heard of
> >anything like it.
>
> Ask at your post office. They have installation details including
> height, setback, post requirements, etc.
>
Walt Akers
What Law? What is the U.S Code that defines the substance and
construction of a rural mailbox. I think that you're talking
out your ass...
Walt
In article <390eb7be...@news.erols.com>,
rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:42:12 GMT, wdy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 May 2000 15:15:40 GMT,
> >rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>One more time... maybe if I type slowly you can understand.
> >
> >Ease up man, there's no need to be an ass about this.
> >
> >>You *cannot* build a fortress mailbox that will injure only a person
> >>vandalizing it and not the innocent person who swerves to avoid a
> >>child running into the street and hits it accidently.
> >
> >No shit. I haven't advocated building things to deliberately hurt
> >people. I just think that a mail box is something that a homeowner
> >should be allowed to construct so it survives attempts to damage it
or
> >accidental bumps.
>
> That's where you disagree with me and the law. Fair enough.
>
> Rick Marinelli
> rickandlisadel...@erols.com
> http://www.erols.com/rickandlisa
>
--
Walt Akers
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
ak...@jlab.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>Rick Marinelli writes:
>
>>Ask at your post office. They have installation details including
>>height, setback, post requirements, etc.
>>
>>
>
>That post office is delivering to the monster I described earlier, the railroad
>rail, with no complaints. I've seen setback and height requirements, but never
>any post requirements.
>
As I've said before, there is no mobilized mailbox police force. I
don't know of any guidelines that say a postal carrier will not
deliver to a mailbox not installed by published specs.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 11:15:49 GMT,
>rickandlisadel...@erols.com (Rick and Lisa Marinelli)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
>>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>>them over.
>>
>
>And of course you can tell us where we can find this law.
Please find the word "law" in my post.
I did believe it was a postal regulation (which is *not* a law).
However, it may well be a less regulatory requirement. The fact
remains that this requirement was provided to me by my post office in
writing.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
Charlie, does the fact that you have never seen them mean they don't
exist? I know where I got my information - and that's my local post
office. In my book, that makes it their requirement.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
>The USPS does not make such a requirement.
It did when my house was built.
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
wrote:
>On 01 May 2000 20:52:43 EDT, pau...@concentric.net (Paul T.
Yup, that punishment would certainly have fit the crime.
PBS
http://www.mailboxinstallers.com/prod19.htm
http://www.artisanproducts.com/
http://www.mailboxsolutions.com/janzer.html
http://www.americanmailbox.com/Heavybilt.html
Joe Gorman wrote in message <390F3282...@musc.edu>...
Rick and Lisa Marinelli
While the mailbox support is unregulated, the Postal Service has this
to say:
"Heavy metal posts, concrete posts, and miscellaneous items of farm
equipment, such as milk cans filled with concrete, are examples of
potentially dangerous supports. The ideal support is one that bends
or falls away when struck by a vehicle."
Now, the question of liability. As one who works in the regulatory
environment, I can assure you that such a recommendation carries a lot
of weight in liability cases.
On Tue, 02 May 2000 15:21:49 -0500, Raoul Laurent III
<rjl...@eatel.net> wrote:
>This is what the USPS web site has to say:
>
>http://www.usps.gov/feedback/faq-ccm.htm#mblocation
>
>Granted, this is a FAQ and doesn't appear to be a policy statement.
>However, if a stringent requirement was in place concerning the
>construction of the mailbox, you would think it would be mentioned in a
>FAQ.
>
>Raoul
>
>
>Rick and Lisa Marinelli wrote:
>>
>> On 02 May 2000 13:42:48 GMT, charl...@aol.com (Charles Self) wrote:
>>
>> >Rick Marinelli writes:
>> >>They can be. "Breakaway" is not really the correct term. Mailboxes
>> >>are required to be not concreted into the ground, so a car will push
>> >>them over.
>> >
>> >Where, and by whom? It's not that bad an idea, but I've never even heard of
>> >anything like it.
>>
>> Ask at your post office. They have installation details including
>> height, setback, post requirements, etc.
>>
Charles Self
>We live in a rural area, so vandalism of this sort is
>common, with school kids looking for a kick.
Ah yes. Everything changes, but no much. I can remember riding through an
area, many many, many years ago with a friend who had just gotten a .44 magnum
2 shot derringer. Considering NY's anti-gun laws even then, I was flat
startled, amazed and slightly terrified when he yanked that thing out and blew
up 2 mailboxes real fast.
Next time we went riding, I shook him down first.
Charlie Self
Word Worker
Walt Akers
just admit you're wrong and shut-up...
Walt
--
=============================================================
Walt Akers Voice: (757)269-7669 E-Mail: ak...@jlab.org
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
12000 Jefferson Avenue, MS 16A
Newport News, Va 23606
=============================================================