Comments on: Coitus interruptus?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:38:41 +0000

His manouevre does look slightly stupid to me but what is far more stupid is swerving wildly to avoid a dog. I was doing about 80 in a 60 zone recently when a cat ran out in front of me. I moved the car slightly to try and avoid it but i wasn’t going to take the car off the road and kill myself and my passenger for the sake of a cat. I don’t know if I hit it or not (I felt no bump at all) but to be honest I’m not going to lose too much sleep over it.
Those preachy ads are annoying, a more realistic version would be better.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:13:58 +0000

Oh! My! God! Do you mean that isn’t a real accident? My faith in television has been shattered.

By: tt

tt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:34:30 +0000

I guess they must have faked it and it wasn’t a real accident. (TIC)

By: Grandad

Grandad — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:06:56 +0000

George – Maybe it’s the filmmakers who should be in court? Mind you, if Irish roads are full of space-time continua then it’s no wonder there are so many accidents? It would explain a lot.

By: George

George — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:59 +0000

LOL I should stop watching that ad, I just noticed that when you see the ‘flashback’ of the overtaking manouver near the end there is no junction ahead as he overtakes.

So a junction appeared out of no where, the dog appears out of nowhere then disappears, a car appeared. Bleedin nora there must be a hole in the time space continuem on that road, ye’d think the council would have stuck up a warning sign.

So it must have been the councils fault, Bleedin Politicians!!!

By: Grandad

Grandad — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:35:25 +0000

TT – Driving in rural Ireland you cannot possibly drive on the assumption that a wild animal is going to run out. No one would get anywhere. In the film example, it was a reasonably straight stretch of road with good visibilty and in my opinion, the overtaker did nothing wrong apart from pulling the wheel the wrong way.

Incidentally, he wasn’t exactly doing the ton down that road. We get a glimpse of a needle on the dash pointing to 6, implying 60?? In fact it is 6000 rpm, which in first gear isn’t that fast. So he is guilty of revving the fuck out of the engine all right! If he were doing any decent speed he would have gone right through the wall, and it would have been bye bye Beckham.

Another thing – I notice that Overtaker’s registration number changes during the incident!! And how come he can walk about after a nasty cartwheel? No whiplash??

By: tt

tt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:24:36 +0000

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

By: tt

tt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:23:29 +0000

No, the dog owner isn’t the one resposible for the accident. Could have been a wild animal. You gonna blame Bambi’s mum?
The fact is you are supposed to take reasonable care when driving, taking into account conditions. Out in the country, animals about, narrow country lane, hedgerows, limited visibility. To go tearassing by a car at a rate of knots like that chancing that there are no dogs, cats, deer etc about is irresponsible and the blame lies entirely with the driver. No question.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:19:12 +0000

Kieron – It really all depends on the speed limits. We have stretches of motorway that are 60kmph and rural roads with no houses that are 50kmph. Mad speed limits cause law breaking, but not necessarily bad driving.

George – I have lost count of the accidents I have had. One car [a Fiesta] had something like eight accidents and in no case was the car even moving!! My very first accident was my fault, but the rest have been idiots running into me.

TT – There are accidents that are faultless but they are rare. Sudden catastrophic mechanical failure is one example. We can’t be expected to x-ray all components of the car at intervals? I have had two near misses in the past. One was an axle failure and the other was a tyre blow-out [it was a fairly new tyre].

George [again] – Yes. If anyone is really to blame it’s the dog owner as dogs should be under control at all time on the public highway. The driver did swerve in the wrong direction, but that is an example of bad training.

First I was worried about where the third car came from. Now I have to worry about where the dog went to. DAMN! Maybe the dog transformed into a car?

By: George

George — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:33:28 +0000

tt if you look hard enough at anything you can blame it on someone.

For instance in the ad in question here, the dog owner is the one responsible for the accident, if they hadn’t been letting the dog run loose then the driver would not have had to deal with the thing running in front of him.

But also you could blame the overtaking driver for swerving into traffic rather than away from it. If he’d swerved the other way he would have had an accident but at least he wouldn’t have involved anyone else.

Or, as the ad suggests, that the overtaking driver was speeding, although that’s a bit sketchy, how does the judge know what speed he was travelling at?

P.s. anyone else notice the lack of the dog in the first scene with the crash?