Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
orry but I'm not buying any of that. The MAIN rule is don't follow too closely.

Yes, but I can't control the motorist behind me.

If someone is following too closely at an intersection and the lead car brakes for an amber light the car behind has 100% of the responsibility to stop. Not the camera, not the timing of the amber, nothing.

Which is better: to undertake a course of action which has a 1% chance of resulting an accident which the government will consider to be entirely someone else's fault, or taking a different course of action which will not result in an accident?

Yes, if I get whiplash because I stop and the car behind does not, insurance will cover my medical expenses, but still I'd rather avoid the injury if possible.

123 posted on 02/06/2007 4:10:27 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
I agree any dangerous situation should be avoided. I just don't see that the intersection cameras interfere with that. If motorists in my area generally take it slower through an intersection than they did before the cameras, some accidents will be avoided - or at least less damaging.
125 posted on 02/06/2007 4:26:21 PM PST by groanup (War is not the answer, victory is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson