LMFAO "dangerous intersection"

-
67Dart273

67Dart273

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
60,035
Reaction score
33,298
Location
Idaho
Was "half" paying 'tention to the 5 O'clock "noose" when I hear they are talking about "neighbors are concerned" about an intersection "may be dangerous" as there's been x number of serious accidents, bla bla bla...........AND THEN...........

she mentions...........wait for it......

that the latest accident, driver hit a tree WAS DRUNK

and a few years ago a serious accident "A WOMAN WAS HIGH ON DRUGS"

So it's the intersection, of course, that is dangerous!!!!
 
Like I say, Webster is removing the word "accident". No such thing now days, there is always liability on someones part!
 
67Dart273 said:
Was "half" paying 'tention to the 5 O'clock "noose" when I hear they are talking about "neighbors are concerned" about an intersection "may be dangerous" as there's been x number of serious accidents, bla bla bla...........AND THEN...........

she mentions...........wait for it......

that the latest accident, driver hit a tree WAS DRUNK

and a few years ago a serious accident "A WOMAN WAS HIGH ON DRUGS"

So it's the intersection, of course, that is dangerous!!!!
Click to expand...

I think it always sucks when they do away with another process of natural selection device.
There's one by my house and it is REALLY dangerous, mostly because people run the stop signs.
 
Kind of reminds me of this. Same intersection?

IMG_20140328_064812.jpg
 
For some people, self driving cars are the best option to keep them from becoming victims of natural selection.

Personally, as long as they don't remove the ability for self-driving for those capable of it...putting the vast majority of drivers in a computer driven car is perfectly fine with me. In fact, I think it should be required for 80% of the drivers out there...because they NEED to be take out from behind the wheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top