On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:57:02 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On 2 Apr 2005 05:18:20 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Got any cites that no other similar accidents have occured on that
bridge? Just those where the driver had no cell phone will do.

I was only pointing out that the bridge is a known trouble spot.
You would think that somebody who was from the area would respect
that and hang up the phone.

And slow down, and pay attention, and obey the signs, and...


So you are finally admiting that accidents occur on the bridge, even
without cell phones being involved?

So what makes you sure that the cell phone in this case was the
proximate cause of the accident?

She was talking on the phone (distraction) while attempting to do a
reckless lane change under unsafe conditions on a known dangerous
area. What makes you think it WASN'T the proximate cause?


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Darwin flubbed this one with her. She lived and may kill someone else
the next time she pulls cute tricks like that.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Never put off 'til tomorrow | http://www.diversify.com
what you can avoid altogether. | Dynamic Website Applications
---------------------------------------------------------------