"special needs" driver? what, pray tell, does that mean?

'Special needs driver' means he is specially trained to drive the physically handicapped or temporiarily incapacitated like Governor Corzone around, in wheelchair access vehicles.

From Kim's update it seems i'm wrong. It's the driver who has the 'special needs' not the passengers..though the vehicle is often specially modified.

He WILL be appearing on Rev. Als' radio show next week, however.............

metprof, Revrund Al will project him from the radio onto our TV's i'm sure. He has the power and almost half a million sheeple to say or do anything he tells them to. I didn't make this up but read it. The people that follow Revrund Al will actually do and say everything he tells them to. I can't say what that sounds like from the Zoo, (not sheep) they would call me a racist. Actually I would be demeaning the real animal. Where do the sheeple get the money to attend a demonstration on a minute's notice? Can we say welfare riders all they're lives.

Corzine picks and chooses which parts of the Constitution he wishes to observe and which ones to outright deny. He also believes he is above the law in choosing not to wear his seatbelt.
Therefore, why should he expect drivers in his state to follow the law?...Just because it involved him?, probably.
More importantly, why hasn't the loyal citizens of New Jersey voted him out? Are they so few in number these days?

I'm sure all those NJ citizens who are required to have insurance can anticipate their premiums to go up again, since the State appears to be very selective in determining the applicability of traffic laws.

If the guy in the truck was at fault, he has to be charged. Otherwise, the Gov was in the wrong, and his people have to be charged.

Seatbelts, schmeatbelts.

A mentally retarded DRIVER???

LICENSED???

I guess sometimes "S@@t happens." Actually, if the driver of the red truck has a disability, I suspect that he will get off because nobody would want to be seen bringing the force of the law down on him. Does that do him a service? Does it do the law-abiding citizens a service? Who knows?

It really does appear that the only one who will pay a price for this is the governor himself. And the price he is going to pay is much larger that it would have been if he hadn't been so pig-headed and had worn his seatbelt.

And pig-headed-ness is what it is. He undoubtably thought he was too good for seatbelts because nothing woud or could happen to him. Just goes to show that when the s@@t hits the fan, it doesn't care who you are. If you're standing in front, you are gonna get splattered.

{Insurance Underwriter rant mode on}

Nice object lesson. Think I'll use it the next time I have to expain why we are surcharging an auto account for a seatbelt violation. Wish we did it in all our states. Seatbelts save lives (I know, it's your decision and you should be free to wear them or not as you see fit, and you are the only one to suffer and you don't hrm anyone else, etc....). Ask Corzine's daughters about the imact this had on them. Although this accident won't impact insurance rates in New Jersey, injuries which are more serious than they would have been because of no seatbelts do impact insurance rates for all insured drvers in every state. There is an impact on everyone.

{Insurance Underwriter rant mode off}

Special needs tends to vary, but it usually means some minor mental impairment, physical handicap able to impede motor function, or sensory issues. It's been reported as the former.

This isn't the sort of thing that should derelict someone to taxi services for the rest of their life -- this can be as small as reduced mobility from a fudgered ACL or a hearing impairment.

Special needs licenses do not, as far as I am aware, allow you to skip your driver's test. Refusing to issue them would also violate the ADA.

That said, most special needs drivers tend to be cautious to the point of insanity. It's very, very easy to lose a special needs license, and finding someone willing to contest such a license is not easy. Without more information, I really wouldn't advise blaming the special needs driver or Corzine's driver can really get blamed.

Of course, Corzine leaving off a seatbelt after upholding fines for civies not wearing one, that's just idiotic.

Should've been wearing that seatbelt like a good little liberal.

Gee, I'm rich and powerful - why should I wear a freakin' seatbelt?

The scary part is that, apparently, bryanD has a driver's license.

Bill M: Because Corzine made a bad choice and his daughters have to "pay the price," I should be coerced into chipping in, too? I am a seat belt militant -- I wear one whenever I get into my car, and so does anyone who rides with me. I'm not so stupid that I can't protect myself without the government telling me to do it.

Seat belt laws, like so many Nanny State initiatives, all boil down to "I'm too stupid/lazy/stubborn to do what I should to protect myself, so please make me and everyone else do it."

I don't accept that. No free adult should.

J.

What Jay said.

I am a conservative. I wear my seatbelt whenever I drive or am in a car. When I am driving, everyone wears their seatbelt before I take the car out of park.

That said, I oppose mandatory seatbelt laws. If someone wants to be stupid and not wear one? I just think of it as adding a little chlorine to the gene pool.

In Corzine's case, since he supported the seat belt law in N.J., he should

1. Get fined.
2. Pay for his medical expenses out of his own pocket, rather than having the taxpayers of N.J. pay them -- either directly to the hospital or indirectly by higher health insurance rates paid by the state.

Bill M: Because Corzine made a bad choice and his daughters have to "pay the price," I should be coerced into chipping in, too?

Jay Tea, the price I'm speaking of for John's daughters is the emotional stress they've had to go through due to their dad's injuries. Anyone who's had a family member or close friend severely injured or klled in an accident goes through this. And it many cases (where seatbelts aren't used) this is unnecessary, because the severity of the injuries can be avoided. Seatbelts help do that.

I agree with you that if people are too stupid to take care of themselves, they kind of deserve what they get. But it is not a "victimnless crime". It impacts others: family, friends, and even the rest of the driving public. Family and friends through the emotional impact, and the driving public through higher insurance rates. I'm an insurance underwriter. One of my jobs is to review claims. I see far too many where someone is not wearing a seatbelt and suffers an injury which could have been avoided. And the insurance policy responds to those injuries. Medical bills are paid. In some cases, liability claims are brought against the responsible driver, and those claims are larger due to the injuries suffered. The fact that the injured party has contributed to his or her own injuries by refusing to take a common sense measure to protect themselves generaly doesn't mpact the settlement. Try going to court and seeing if you can get a jury to blame a 17 year old girl who was partially ejected from a vehicle and had her hand scraped off on the roadway that it was all her fault. Just doesn't work. The cost of that claim and others like it result in higher liability and medical rates which are paid by all drivers.