Re: No fault cell phone law

Liste des Groupes 
Sujet : Re: No fault cell phone law
De : the_stan_brown (at) *nospam* fastmail.fm (Stan Brown)
Groupes : comp.mobile.android
Date : 18. Mar 2024, 20:32:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Oak Road Systems
Message-ID : <MPG.406228b7abad68fc9902c6@news.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.11 (GRC)
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:26:07 -0700, AJL wrote:
On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
 
All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.
 
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
 
A driver can have the right of way.

I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are all
just trying to keep things simple and readable.

The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
intersection:
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
another vehicle.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA         https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Date Sujet#  Auteur
17 Mar 24 * Re: No fault cell phone law36The Real Bev
17 Mar 24 `* Re: No fault cell phone law35Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law7Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Stan Brown
17 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law5The Real Bev
17 Mar 24  i `* Re: No fault cell phone law4Frank Slootweg
17 Mar 24  i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law3The Real Bev
18 Mar 24  i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
18 Mar 24  i    `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
17 Mar 24  +* Re: No fault cell phone law4AJL
17 Mar 24  i+- Re: No fault cell phone law1Frankie
18 Mar 24  i`* Re: No fault cell phone law2Stan Brown
18 Mar 24  i `- Re: No fault cell phone law1AJL
17 Mar 24  `* Re: No fault cell phone law23Andrew
17 Mar 24   +* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
18 Mar 24   i`- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
20 Mar 24   `* Re: No fault cell phone law20Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    +* Re: No fault cell phone law17AJL
20 Mar 24    i+* Re: No fault cell phone law10Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii`* Re: No fault cell phone law9Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    ii `* Re: No fault cell phone law8Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii  `* Re: No fault cell phone law7Hank Rogers
21 Mar 24    ii   `* Re: No fault cell phone law6Andrew
21 Mar 24    ii    +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew
23 Mar 24    ii    `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
23 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Your Name
24 Mar 24    ii     +- Re: No fault cell phone law1Harry S Robins
29 Mar 24    ii     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1sms
20 Mar 24    i`* Re: No fault cell phone law6The Real Bev
20 Mar 24    i `* Re: No fault cell phone law5Carlos E.R.
20 Mar 24    i  `* Re: No fault cell phone law4The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i   `* Re: No fault cell phone law3Indira
21 Mar 24    i    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2The Real Bev
21 Mar 24    i     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Indira
21 Mar 24    `* Re: No fault cell phone law2Frank Slootweg
24 Mar 24     `- Re: No fault cell phone law1Andrew

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal