Reckless materialisation
Grandad November 26th, 2010
They are showing that fucking advertisement again.
It pisses me off on so many levels.
First of all, there is the weird stereotyping – [supposedly] beautiful young girl who is a victim, while the “guilty” party looks like the redneck offspring of inbreeding.
Then there is the accident itself. Redneck is following a car. Road is dead straight and clear. Redneck overtakes but dog crosses road. Redneck swerves and crashes. What’s wrong with that? It’s an unfortunate accident. If anyone is to blame it’s the dog or his owner, not either of the drivers. Logically, an argument could be made that Redneck should have run over the dog, but when you have microseconds to judge, it is difficult to act logically, and the instinctive thing to do is to swerve.
Another wee point that baffles me is the Third Car. Redneck overtakes a car on a clear straight stretch of road. The overtaken car then smacks head on into another car. Where the fuck did the Third Car come from? It wasn’t there when Redneck started his manoeuvre, but somehow materialised miraculously just in time to add to the mayhem. If anyone should be in the dock, it should be the driver of the Third Car, charged with reckless materialisation. That couldn’t happen though as even stranger, the Third Car has no driver.
Then to cap it all, the judge states that it was “quite plain that he was going too fast to cope with the unexpected”. What the fuck? Do we all have to drive as if expecting a dog to run out at any time? Do we all have to watch out for Third Cars that may miraculously materialise in front of us? We would never get anywhere.
There isn’t a single part of that video that doesn’t annoy me.
Fucking Nanny State!
Subscribe to audio
