At one of the many motorcyclist seminars at which I have participated, one of the attendees remarked that she couldn’t get lost wages because her employer does not offer such insurance as a benefit.

That remark dovetailed into what I was prepared to talk about: The ethical responsibility of bikers and insurance.

The hard fact that I first told the woman who posed the question about the disability insurance question is that motorcycling involves risk, risk that we all should know about and appreciate. There is a well known axiom among experienced bikers; there are only two kinds of motorcyclists: Those who have gone down and those who will go down. And the chances of injury are enormously higher than if we were in a car.

A wise former Michigan Supreme Court justice, John Voelker, writing as Robert Traver, wrote several celebrated novels including Anatomy of a Murder, which was made into a famous movie starring James Stewart, Lee Remick, and Ben Gazzara in the 50’s. His books usually involved a hero who was a young attorney, a heroine who was beset by unjust laws, and an older lawyer, usually a drunk, who went on the wagon for purposes of helping the young guy with the case. At the end of the book, when the case is won, the bad guys have paid up, and the young lawyer and heroine fall in love, the old lawyer goes off the wagon. In the book the heroine complained to the young lawyer about how bad it was that the old guy went off the wagon again. The hero’s response was something like, “I don’t know but that everyone has a right to be a fool in their own way!”

Think about that for a second: Everyone has a right to be a fool in their own way! That is the credo of the libertarian, the credo of anyone who believes that they have the right to live their life as they wish. That is something that all freedom fighters from Jefferson and Franklin to Martin Luther King and everyone in between has pursued.

But that freedom comes at a price, i.e., with one major caveat: We have a right to live our lives as we wish as long as we don’t hurt or burden other people while doing it.

This concept is lost on many motorcyclists who decry the fact that they have to maintain insurance on the bikes, that they can have pipes as loud as they want, or can willy-nilly go out on the road wearing shorts, a t-shirt, and sandals.

The fact of the matter is that motorcyclists will always be the scapegoats for politicians who don’t like that freedom, especially if it costs the public money.

Freedom costs money. At least 40% of all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents, whether it involves running wide on a freeway ramp and going down, hitting a deer, blowing a tire, going down from a front end wobble, or cycle-cycle accidents. You get the picture. With no-fault laws benefiting the bikers, such accidents do not implicate the no-fault law. If you do not have health insurance or disability insurance you are in for a very rough ride, and at the taxpayers’ expense. Politicians don’t like that. And if you are the freedom lover that you think you are, the independent soul that you think you are, you shouldn’t like it either.

And don’t think that you are infallible as a rider. While motor vehicle drivers are more often at fault in a car-cycle accident than the rider, every one of you I am sure can remember a time that you were not as attentive as you could have been. Maybe you were plain lucky that you didn’t cause an accident. And maybe you did cause one. Bikers can cause injuries from their own negligence just like car drivers. And they should share in the responsibility of protecting those who they injure by carrying sufficient insurance to cover their own behind and misdeeds.

As I told the lady who asked the question at the beginning of the session, it costs money to be free and to stay free. If you can’t afford not only the motorcycle, but the cost of a decent health insurance policy, the cost of a decent disability policy, the cost of decent liability coverage and property damage, along with the cost of the motorcycle, you should not be out on the street riding a motorcycle. It is a hard statement. But it is a fact. And true libertarians, true lovers of freedom, should be prepared for that fact and quit bemoaning the truly minimal costs of same. Freedom does not involve a free ride.

There are often several defenses that you can throw at a police officer when you’re trying to escape a speeding ticket, such as you’re trying to get to the hospital because you’re having a baby, but other than that there are very few that work. The same is true for judges in speeding ticket court. Here are a few that you might as well not even consider trying when you’re trying to escape a speeding ticket.
You claim you didn’t know the law. It sounds good, but the judge will say, “Sorry, ignorance is not an excuse.” Now, if the speeding limit sign were hidden by trees or bushes or something this may work, but it still doesn’t give you the right to drive 80 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone. If you don’t know the speed limit, don’t go faster than 55 just to be on the safe side. If you go any faster and really don’t know the speed limit then you’re like not going to be able to escape a speeding ticket.

The officer was lying. This defense is a hit below the belt for most people in a legal position. You are most likely not going to escape a speeding ticket with this one and the judge probably won’t appreciate it. You’re really going to have to have some specifics to prove it if the defense is true as well.

You claim you didn’t hurt anybody. Again, this one’s not going to help you escape a speeding ticket. No matter how slow or nonexistent the traffic is and no matter what time it is, you’re still required to follow the law. The fact that your conduct was illegal is enough to charge you. This may vary from state to state, however, as there are states that allow you to drive above the posted speed.

Somebody in your family was ill. This is another reason that won’t help you to escape a speeding ticket. Most judges won’t have a lot of compassion for a defense such as this and it should really only be used as a last resort. Now, there are some instances in which you can speed because of an emergency, but it better be a good one and you better tell the police officer when you are pulled over for speeding.

It was selective enforcement or “the officer was picking on me.” This is another one that won’t fly. Selective enforcement is when the motorist claims that the officer ignored others who were speeding and decided to pull them over to be mean. The law does make it plain that you can’t speed and if you were speeding and you got pulled over, well, you were speeding. To win with this defense you have to really be able to show that the police officer had a motive to pick on you.

So, as you can see there are several defenses that you shouldn’’t even consider using to escape a speeding ticket. However, there are several that could be used if you have evidence and details to back up your position. Typically, you’re going to better off showing that you didn’t break all of the requirements of the law or that some other error was made when you were issued your speeding ticket.

Return from Escape Speeding Ticket to Speeding Ticket Advice

Construction Defects Lawyers

A contractor who builds a single-family home for a home-owner is generally required to have a written contract with the owner.
That contract, according to the Business and Professions Code, must set forth certain things, such as the contractor’s license number, the dates when work will begin and be substantially completed, and other important information. The contract must be signed by both the contractor and the owner.

Such contracts are important from the homeowner’s standpoint, because they provide him or her with certain protections, such as an assurance that the contractor is licensed. They are also important to the contractor because they set forth many of the contractor’s responsibilities and, thus, reduce the potential for misunderstandings during the course of the job.

There is another reason why such contracts are important to the contractor. Since they are required by law, the absence of such a written agreement can make it difficult or impossible for the contractor to collect payment for the job from the owner.

A general rule of law states that a contract made in violation of a statute is void. Thus, if a contractor had an oral agreement with a homeowner, instead of a written contract, it would arguably be in violation of the Business and Professions Code. As such, it would be void. A void contract cannot be enforced.

What happens, however, in the following situation: a homeowner (1) knowingly fails to sign an agreement with a contractor and then (2) says that because there is no written contract, the contractor is not entitled to be paid for work it has done?

This issue was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Arya Group, Inc. v. Cher. (I should stress that the Court of Appeal based its decision in this case solely on the allegations made by the plaintiffs. The case has not gone to trial yet and, therefore, none of the allegations have been proved to be true.)

Arya, a general contractor and design company, orally agreed with representatives of Cher to build a house in Malibu. A total price was set, which was to be paid in installments as work was completed.

Arya prepared a written contract which was delivered to Cher. She allegedly promised to sign it, but never did, although she assured Arya they would be paid in full for their services.

Arya began work. They prepared plans and started construction, including grading, concrete and framing work. Cher then asked Arya to meet with Janet Bussell, a designer she had worked with in Florida on other projects. Arya showed Bussell their plans for the project and introduced her to subcontractors and suppliers on the job.

Allegedly, this was all part of a plan by Cher. The plan was to get information about the job from Arya so Cher could terminate her oral agreement with them without paying for all the work they had done. She would then try to get the subcontractors and suppliers to work directly for her.

Cher did, allegedly, terminate her agreement with Arya, with a significant unpaid balance due to them for their work on the job.

Arya sued and their case was dismissed by the trial court. The issue before the appellate court was whether Arya could collect their fees on the job absent a written contract with Cher.

In its decision, the appellate court said the general rule that a contract is void if made in violation of a statute is not applied in all cases. Some exceptions have been recognized by the courts. One exception applies where failure to enforce the contract would unjustly enrich one party and result in a disproportionately harsh penalty on the other party.

The court noted Arya alleged in its suit that Cher was a very sophisticated homeowner with experience in residential construction projects. She also had received legal advice in negotiating with Arya. In addition, Arya had already completed a substantial amount of the work on the project when their contract was terminated.

In view of these alleged facts, the court said, Arya should be allowed to proceed with its lawsuit. However, the court also said that if it turns out Arya’s allegations are not true, the case could still be dismissed because of their failure to have a written contract for the project. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. Find more information on this website