In article , Larry Jaques says...

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?

Sure it wasn't the only cause. As others have suggested, only a
very tall, heavy SUV would have gone over the rail into the drink.

As a motorycle rider, I have a policy that I want *all* the advantages
in my court. So I wear protective gear, I don't ever drink and ride,
I enhance my visibility as much as possible, there are certain
roads I avoid. And so on.

Point is that any *one* thing might make only a two percent difference
in the probability of my getting hurt. But I WANT that two percent,
and the next two, and so on. I want all the advantages I can reasonably
get.

Sure having a 50 watt brake light instead of a 15 watt one might seem
like a small deal. Does it give me a tiny edge against being rear-ended
in traffic? If that's one percent, I want it. Do the extra marker lights
in back help? Might be another one percent.

The lady in question might not have gone over the edge if she had realized
what was going on sooner, and slowed down. And the distraction of yakking
on the phone did not help, I know that.

To put it another way, the race is not *always* to the swift, or the
fight to the strong. But that's the way you bet.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================