Road rules vs. laws of physics

sinus said:

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 said:

theage.com.aulettersOpen ↗

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

I think the motoring section ones are separate.

sinus said:

I think the motoring section ones are separate.

Motoring section of The Age doesn't carry the letters to my knowledge.

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.

sinus said:

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 said:

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

Shesssh, don't be so naive! BTW, can someone type out the letter? Pretty please. 😉

cfsmtb said:

Shesssh, don't be so naive! BTW, can someone type out the letter? Pretty please. 😉

Sounds like FD is on the ball re: letter writing. Niave: Maybe I have lived in the sticks for too long?? :p hehe

warrwych said:

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.

cfsmtb said:

Shesssh, don't be so naive! BTW, can someone type out the letter? Pretty please. 😉

Look out for yourself

Jason dne Hollander (Drive, 18/01) would like some reassurance when crossing a four way intersection at a pedestrian light that a `first class citizens' in autombiles aren't going to mow him down.

While the vast majority of drivers try to obey the road rules and traffic signals, mistakes do happen. Carelessness does raise its ugly head. Distraction is a part of life. Ever stepped on something unpleasant or walked into a pole? I sure have.

The next time Mr den Hollander steps across the intersection, I wouuld like to remind him as I was taught i school to look both ways for oncoming traffic and ensure they know to stop. Road rules, right of way, green men, red lights, ``safety'' cameras, tracion control and ABS brakes are well and good, but do bear in mind that basic physics states that a 1600kg car at 50km/h is still going to have right of way over a 70kg pedestrian.

Jreemy Ngoh, Mount Waverley.

And now my lunch should be ready.

EuanB said:

Look out for yourself

Jason dne Hollander (Drive, 18/01) would like some reassurance when crossing a four way intersection at a pedestrian light that a `first class citizens' in autombiles aren't going to mow him down.

While the vast majority of drivers try to obey the road rules and traffic signals, mistakes do happen. Carelessness does raise its ugly head. Distraction is a part of life. Ever stepped on something unpleasant or walked into a pole? I sure have.

The next time Mr den Hollander steps across the intersection, I wouuld like to remind him as I was taught i school to look both ways for oncoming traffic and ensure they know to stop. Road rules, right of way, green men, red lights, ``safety'' cameras, tracion control and ABS brakes are well and good, but do bear in mind that basic physics states that a 1600kg car at 50km/h is still going to have right of way over a 70kg pedestrian.

Jreemy Ngoh, Mount Waverley.

And now my lunch should be ready.

The laws of physics also suggest that after Jeremy hits a pedestrian in his Prado, his 150kg cellmate Bubba will also have "Right of Way".

I can;t believe he freelky admitted to walking into a pole. I guess you can't see where you're going when your head is up your own [censored]...

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 said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

flyingdutch said:

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

Drive thru a red light with your "right of way" and you can end up on
dangerous driving causing death charges

"EuanB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb said:

Shesssh, don't be so naive! BTW, can someone type out the letter? Pretty
please. 😉

Look out for yourself

Jason dne Hollander (Drive, 18/01) would like some reassurance when
crossing a four way intersection at a pedestrian light that a `first
class citizens' in autombiles aren't going to mow him down.

While the vast majority of drivers try to obey the road rules and
traffic signals, mistakes do happen. Carelessness does raise its ugly
head. Distraction is a part of life. Ever stepped on something
unpleasant or walked into a pole? I sure have.

The next time Mr den Hollander steps across the intersection, I wouuld
like to remind him as I was taught i school to look both ways for
oncoming traffic and ensure they know to stop. Road rules, right of
way, green men, red lights, ``safety'' cameras, tracion control and ABS
brakes are well and good, but do bear in mind that basic physics states
that a 1600kg car at 50km/h is still going to have right of way over a
70kg pedestrian.

Jreemy Ngoh, Mount Waverley.

And now my lunch should be ready.

--
EuanB

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

Donga

sinus said:

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.