The scenarios that are applicable to the driving situations one may find themselves in are:
<h3>
What do you do when the car is forced into the guardrail?</h3>
Best response: I will keep my hands on the wheel and come to a halt gradually. The reason for keeping my hands on the wheel is to ensure that I don't lose control. This will enable me to gradually steer away from the guard rail. The next step is to gradually ease back onto the speed lane. It is improper to slam on the brakes at this point because it would cause a collision with the vehicle behind.
Scenario 2: When driving on a wet road and the car begins to slide
Best response:
It is not advisable to increase speed. It is not advisable to pump the brakes. It is not advisable to even depress the brake pedal and hold it down gently. The best thing to do is to ease one foot off the accelerator. At this time, there should be no sharp turns.
Scenario 3: When you are in a slow traffic and you hear the siren of an ambulance behind
Best response: The best thing to do at this point is to move to the right of the lane and stop.
This helps to prevent the patient in the ambulance from dying. It also ensures that the ambulance has clear way to pass. It is NOT advised to move to the left. That will cause more problems. It is better to stay on the lane if there is no way to park on the right shoulder of the road.
Learn more about driving scenarios at;
brainly.com/question/1071840
#SPJ1
Answer:
in very harsh conditions such as in the volcanic vents or at the bottom of the sea.
Explanation:
To seek forgiveness is to begin to take responsibility. ... To seek forgiveness is to acknowledge not just the brokenness of our criminal justice system but the brokenness in each of us, and to refuse to accept a broken system that punishes some far more than others.
Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
