Road rules vs. laws of physics

In today's Age motoring section there is a response to FD's letter last
week. Hilarious, unless the writer was serious. sadly, he probably was.

I can't find a URL and do not have the paper with me but the gist
was....

Pedestrians should learn to look both ways, etc. etc.
Everyone makes mistakes and is inattentive, pedestrians as well. In
fact the writer steps on dog ... and walks into poles sometimes. This
explains why motorists might not see pedestrians.
The laws of physics mean that a 1600kg vehicle has right of way.

I choked on my breakfast cereal as I was reading, but did not bring the
paper in. Anyone else have access or know the URL?


--
sinus

sinus Wrote:
In today's Age motoring section there is a response to FD's letter last
week. Hilarious, unless the writer was serious. sadly, he probably was.

I can't find a URL and do not have the paper with me but the gist
was....

Pedestrians should learn to look both ways, etc. etc.
Everyone makes mistakes and is inattentive, pedestrians as well. In
fact the writer steps on dog ... and walks into poles sometimes. This
explains why motorists might not see pedestrians.
The laws of physics mean that a 1600kg vehicle has right of way.

I choked on my breakfast cereal as I was reading, but did not bring
the paper in. Anyone else have access or know the URL? http://www.theage.com.au/letters/

Doesn't seem to have made it to the online edition.


--
EuanB

Yeeerrrsss.
Saw it and happily sent off a reply

Thanked him for giving such a clear example of the point i was trying
to make. IE some drivers live in a parallel universe where 'right of
way' is governed by physics, not law.


--
flyingdutch

sinus Wrote:
In today's Age motoring section there is a response to FD's letter last
week. Hilarious, unless the writer was serious. sadly, he probably
was.

I can't find a URL and do not have the paper with me but the gist
was....

Pedestrians should learn to look both ways, etc. etc.
Everyone makes mistakes and is inattentive, pedestrians as well. In
fact the writer steps on dog ... and walks into poles sometimes. This
explains why motorists might not see pedestrians.
The laws of physics mean that a 1600kg vehicle has right of way.

I choked on my breakfast cereal as I was reading, but did not bring the
paper in. Anyone else have access or know the URL?

so duty of care doesn't stand up to the laws of physics either??

Some people are plaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiin DUMB.. and STUPID. sigh.. think I
am having a grumpy day!


--
warrwych

warrwych Wrote:
so duty of care doesn't stand up to the laws of physics either??

Some people are plaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiin DUMB.. and STUPID. sigh.. think I
am having a grumpy day!
Dumb and stupid from walking into poles, apparently. Not the sort of
thing I do.

I just wish I had the text. It was funny, sad and infuriating at the
same time.


--
sinus

got hold of my reply sent this morning

"As if by cue, Jeremy Ngoh (Drive, 25/01) not only responds to my
letter
but unequivocally illustrates the self-centred attitude of a minority
of drivers.
In Jeremy's parallel universe "physics states that a 1600kg car at
50km/h is still going to have right of way over a 70kg pedestrian'!
'Right of Way' ? Apparently road rules are governed by sheer force and
'physics'.
'Give Way' is not code for 'Get out of my Way' Jeremy.
As always, as a pedestrian I shall be ever vigilant for people
travelling in parallel universes


--
flyingdutch

flyingdutch Wrote:
got hold of my reply sent this morning

"As if by cue, Jeremy Ngoh (Drive, 25/01) not only responds to my
letter
but unequivocally illustrates the self-centred attitude of a minority
of drivers.
In Jeremy's parallel universe "physics states that a 1600kg car at
50km/h is still going to have right of way over a 70kg pedestrian'!
'Right of Way' ? Apparently road rules are governed by sheer force and
'physics'.
'Give Way' is not code for 'Get out of my Way' Jeremy.
As always, as a pedestrian I shall be ever vigilant for people
travelling in parallel universes

My reply would have been a lot more boooorrrriinnggg...zzzzzZZZZzzzzzz


--
EuanB

On 2006-01-25, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

flyingdutch Wrote:
got hold of my reply sent this morning

"As if by cue, Jeremy Ngoh (Drive, 25/01) not only responds to my
letter
but unequivocally illustrates the self-centred attitude of a minority
of drivers.
In Jeremy's parallel universe "physics states that a 1600kg car at
50km/h is still going to have right of way over a 70kg pedestrian'!
'Right of Way' ? Apparently road rules are governed by sheer force and
'physics'.
'Give Way' is not code for 'Get out of my Way' Jeremy.
As always, as a pedestrian I shall be ever vigilant for people
travelling in parallel universes

My reply would have been a lot more boooorrrriinnggg...zzzzzZZZZzzzzzz

I would've gone off on a tangent about "'Give Way' is not code for
'Get out of my Way' Jeremy, contrary to recent toyota HiLux ads".

Heh.

--
TimC
Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek. --unknown

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Sound of line peeling off reel. You've interpreted
his stupid argument as intentional.
Why respond to this moron?

Donga

sinus wrote:
In today's Age motoring section there is a response to FD's letter last
week. Hilarious, unless the writer was serious. sadly, he probably was.

I can't find a URL and do not have the paper with me but the gist
was....

Pedestrians should learn to look both ways, etc. etc.
Everyone makes mistakes and is inattentive, pedestrians as well. In
fact the writer steps on dog ... and walks into poles sometimes. This
explains why motorists might not see pedestrians.
The laws of physics mean that a 1600kg vehicle has right of way.

I choked on my breakfast cereal as I was reading, but did not bring the
paper in. Anyone else have access or know the URL?


www.theage.com.au

Then look for the specific article. Probably under Letters, which has
its own listing.