On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 09:40:15 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


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?

She was also wearing panty hose while attempting to do a reckless lane
change under unsafe conditions on a known dangerous area.

It was the panty hose. You know it, I know it.

Gunner

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