NationStates Jolt Archive

Fatal 401 Crash
June 04, 2006 - 9:31 am
By: 570news

A London man driving the wrong way on the 401 was killed yesterday. He was driving east on the 401 westbound near Ingersol when he sparked a horrific change of crashes. His car slammed into three vehicles, the driver's of those vehilces escaped with non-life theartening injuries. The man also survived the crash only to be killed after being hit by a truck when he stumbled onto the highway. The 401 westbound was closed for several hours.

http://www.570news.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20060604_093135_4504

Harry Kerr, a milkman from Tavanagh Street, was killed at 0600 BST in Sunningdale Drive, north Belfast. It is believed he was struck by his float.

Also a winner.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5043614.stm)

Also a winner.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5043614.stm)

Just seems unfortunate.. it doesn't mean he was neccessarily a bit of a mong.

Liasia']Just seems unfortunate.. it doesn't mean he was neccessarily a bit of a mong.
Milk Floats do about 5mph tops. It's near impossible to get run over by one.

Milk Floats do about 5mph tops. It's near impossible to get run over by one.

It's just above getting run over by a parked car.

It's just above getting run over by a parked car.

Of course, then there's the guy from East 17 who managed to get run over by his own car.


While he was driving it.

Of course, then there's the guy from East 17 who managed to get run over by his own car.


While he was driving it.

XD

That...Hmm...I'm sure the physics of that is intresting...

Milk Floats do about 5mph tops. It's near impossible to get run over by one.

It's like getting injured by a tea-cosy. Those don't even exist anymore, and yet people still manage it.

One near me, I don't think it was in '06, though, and I don't have the source:

A car full of guys was driving down a rural road, and the driver stops on a small bridge to get out and argue with one of the passengers, and they get hit by an oncoming car. Both the idiots died, the oncoming driver survived. Perhaps I can set the scene: The bridge spans a rail line. It is less than 170 feet long. There are areas to turn off on both ends, making an approximate total distance between available turnoff spots about 170 feet. Before and after that, there is a nice shoulder for a few miles. Note that 170 feet at 60 mph, probably slower than they had been going, is about a tenth of a minute. Six freaking seconds. And if my math is wrong, who cares, they were sitll stupid. You want a picture, find Exit 21A on the NYS Thruway, south of Albany, NY. Zoom in on River Rd/144 tht passes under it. That little tiny bridge on River Rd is what they stopped on.

http://cgi.darwinawards.com/cgi/frames.pl?/book/_intro1.html

From the site itself, the five requirements for Darwin Award consideration:

Rules and Eligibility

To win, nominees must significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an astonishingly stupid way. All races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible to compete. Contenders are evaluated using the following five criteria:

1. The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool.

The prime tenet of the Darwin Awards is that we are celebrating the self-removal of incompetent genetic material from the human race. The potential winner must therefore render himself deceased, or at least incapable of reproducing. If someone does manage to survive an incredibly stupid feat, then his genes de facto must have something to offer in the way of luck, agility, or stamina. He is therefore not eligible for a Darwin Award, though sometimes the story is too entertaining to pass up and he earns an Honorable Mention.

Heated philosophical discussions have sprung up around the reproduction rule. If a person or group gives up sex, are they eligible for a nomination since they are no longer willing to breed? Must the candidate be utterly incapable of reproduction? Can the elderly be ruled out because they are too old to have an impact on the gene pool? Should those who already have children be banned from winning?

These are complicated questions. For example, frozen sperm and ova are viable decades after the donor's demise, and sheep and humans can be cloned from a single cell. It is almost impossible to completely eliminate an individual's genes. And it would take a team of researchers to ferret out the full reproductive implications, a luxury the Darwin Awards lacks. Therefore, no attempt is made to determine the actual reproductive status or potential of the nominee. If he no longer has the physical wherewithal to breed with a mate on a deserted island, then he is eligible for a Darwin.

2. The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment.

We are not talking about common stupidities such as falling asleep with a lit cigarette or taking a bath with a radio. The fatal act must be of such idiotic magnitude that we shake our heads and thank our lucky stars that our descendants won't have to deal with, or heaven forbid breed with, descendants of the buffoon that set that harebrained scheme in motion.

The Darwin winner is seldom a copycat. The death under consideration must reflect a unique manifestation of the grave lack of sense and misapplication of judgment indicative of a genuine cleansing of the gene pool. Using bullets as fuses, reenacting the William Tell stunt, and bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin Award activities.

Oscar Wilde said, "To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune . . . to lose both seems like carelessness." If you fry yourself along with your parents while rewiring their outdoor hot-tub during a thunderstorm, you may be eligible for a Darwin Award.

3. The candidate must be the cause of his own demise.

The candidate's own gross ineptitude must be the cause of the incident that earns him the nomination. A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is an unfortunate tragedy. If, however, you are smashed by the anvil you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin contender.

A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are gored to death during the "Running of the Bulls" while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.

Some feel that a person who intentionally attempts to win a Darwin Award, and succeeds, is by definition a perfect candidate. However, readers should remember that a Darwin Award is an exceedingly dubious honor, and we discourage anyone from intentionally attempting to join these illustrious ranks.

4. The candidate must be capable of sound judgment.

Humans are generally capable of sound judgment, except those with mental, chemical, or chronological handicaps that render them unable to fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions. That means no children, Alzheimer's disease sufferers, or Downs Syndrome patients. Child nominees are a bone of contention. A vociferous majority argues against letting them win Darwin Awards, citing the gulf between ignorance and stupidity. An equally clamorous minority contends that they are the best candidates for a "rusty chromosome" award, since they obviously have not reproduced. To muddy the ethical waters further, some children have stated that restricting them from vying for this laudable award is yet another encroachment on their civil liberties. We appreciate that parents are responsible for teaching their offspring to make responsible decisions. Therefore children are not eligible to win a Darwin Award. However, a few are included as nominees, when their actions can be considered foolhardy by even their peers.

5. The event must be verified.

Reputable newspaper or other published articles, confirmed television reports, and responsible eyewitnesses are considered valid sources. A friend's mother's employer, a chain email, or a doctored photograph are not.

The original post does not qualify, most strongly because of #3. He wasn't hit by a car he was responsible for driving. In a lesser or speculative sense, also #2 and #4. He could have been confused. Confusion isn't necessarily misapplication of judgment. The confusion could have been anything from intoxication to emotional stress.

No award.

Also a winner.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5043614.stm)
Nope. See above.

Nope. See above.

Why not? It fulfills all 5 criteria.

1) The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool.
He's dead, pretty successfully removed, I'd say

2) The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment.
He managed to get run over by a milkfloat

3) The candidate must be the cause of his own demise.
His own milkfloat. Somewhere along the line he made a mistake and caused it.

4) The candidate must be capable of sound judgment.
I'll take that as read.

5) The event must be verified.
The BBC.

Why not? It fulfills all 5 criteria.

1) The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool.
He's dead, pretty successfully removed, I'd say

2) The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment.
He managed to get run over by a milkfloat

3) The candidate must be the cause of his own demise.
His own milkfloat. Somewhere along the line he made a mistake and caused it.

4) The candidate must be capable of sound judgment.
I'll take that as read.

5) The event must be verified.
The BBC.
Your quoted article was very short on details. No mention of how he was run over, the circumstances, mchanical failure, sobriety of the victim. Not enough information.

Your quoted article was very short on details. No mention of how he was run over, the circumstances, mchanical failure, sobriety of the victim. Not enough information.
Whatever.

Whatever.
Wow. Spectacular comeback.:rolleyes:

Wow. Spectacular comeback.:rolleyes:

Indeed.

The original post does not qualify, most strongly because of #3. He wasn't hit by a car he was responsible for driving. ...

No award.

... The man also survived the crash only to be killed after being hit by a truck when he stumbled onto the highway. ...


Darwin Award consideration rule #3: 'The candidate must be the cause of his own demise.

The candidate's own gross ineptitude must be the cause of the incident that earns him the nomination.'


Venturing in front of a truck on a highway is the cause of his demise, therefore is apart of the candidate's gross ineptitude. I recognize it is stretching it since he was not the driver of the truck, however he was the moron who went the wrong way on the highway then getting out of his vehicle decided to go for a 'venture' into oncoming traffic. He deserves the award.

Wow. Spectacular comeback.:rolleyes:
It's a reflection of how little I actually care either way.

It's a reflection of how little I actually care either way.

And, of course, self-reflection is key.

It's a reflection of how little I actually care either way.

Don't worry about him much. He totally blew off The Boondocks, a politically-charged Anime-style cartoon with very deep, thoughtful writing, simply because he thought the animation was "rushed".

The milkfloat guy definitely deserves a Darwin award, regardless of what any fuckwits say.