Accident I Don’t Understand

Cidu Bill on Mar 20th 2017


Filed in Barney & Clyde, Bill Bickel, CIDU, comic strips, comics, humor | 18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Accident I Don’t Understand”

  1. Dave Van Domelen Mar 20th 2017 at 12:04 am 1

    Charles accidentally hit his previous boss while coming to pick him up. Despite Charles stopping to render assistance, however, the previous boss died.

  2. Arthur Mar 20th 2017 at 12:04 am 2

    I think the implication is that the chauffeur was driving the
    car that killed his previous employer.

  3. Cidu Bill Mar 20th 2017 at 12:06 am 3

    Yes, that’s what they’re saying, but what’s the point of any of it? And how does a chauffeur manage to run over his own employer?

  4. Arthur Mar 20th 2017 at 12:14 am 4

    I think that the point is that the “accident” may not have been
    an accident. Even if it were, wouldn’t you be concerned to know
    that the person driving you around killed his former employer by
    hitting him with his car?

    You have to be out of the car at your departure and destination,
    giving a driver a chance to run you down.

  5. Mona Mar 20th 2017 at 12:22 am 5

    I agree with Arthur, the “accident” may not have been accidental. Chauffeur let employer out at destination (but apparently on the wrong side of the street) and then ran over him while he was crossing the street.
    I think it is intended to be funny on two levels. “Hit and run?” “No, sir, I stopped…” is funny because we learn that it was not a stranger as assumed, but the chauffeur who killed him. And then, “Hmmmmmm” because now we think current employer better watch his step.

  6. James Pollock Mar 20th 2017 at 12:37 am 6

    It’s “awkward situation” funny.

    Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it wasn’t an accident. If it wasn’t an accident, do you want this driver driving for you? But… do you want to tell this driver he’s fired?

  7. Mona Mar 20th 2017 at 01:00 am 7

    Other aspects that I forgot to mention above is the “automobile accident” in the first place. New employer certainly hopes “He was driving” as opposed to being killed as a passenger in the car while the chauffeur was driving. Only to discover that the chauffeur ran over him.

  8. Stan Mar 20th 2017 at 02:37 am 8

    “Only to discover that the chauffeur ran over him.”

    Yes, I agree, but the ‘I stopped to render assistance.’ is what made me smile here. What kind of assistance? I assumed he didn’t get him with one go with the car, so he hopped out and finished the job with his bare hands. Which adds weight to Mona’s observation: “Hmmmmmm” because now we think current employer better watch his step.”

  9. Stan Mar 20th 2017 at 03:10 am 9

    You know, he didn’t “run” when he “hit” him. He “rendered assistance” with the death. That’s what I meant. Was that clear earlier? I don’t know. Time for bed.

  10. Proginoskes Mar 20th 2017 at 04:16 am 10

    Panel 3 confused me: Isn’t the point of hiring a chauffeur, so that you *don’t* have to drive yourself?

    Also, there’s part of my brain that says that the chauffeur wasn’t responsible for his employeer’s death, that someone else hit his boss, and then he tried to help his boss.

  11. Jordan Mar 20th 2017 at 04:24 pm 11

    It’s one of those “each new panel changes the context” gags. Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, for example, does lots of them. First you think the previous boss died of something innocuous, perhaps old age. Second you think he died while driving himself. Third you think some reckless driver killed him. Finally you find out the chauffeur himself ran over the boss, and when called on it, he completely misses the point and acts as though the fact that he didn’t flee the scene is the sticking point.

    Like the old joke about the man returning from a long journey. Too bad about your house burning down… from the candles at your mother’s funeral… she died of a heart attack witnessing your father run over by horses… etc.

  12. Mark in Boston Mar 20th 2017 at 09:15 pm 12

    Makes me think of all similarly-structured jokes:

    Mike: “I had to shoot my dog.”
    Ike: “Was he mad?”
    Mike: “He wasn’t pleased about it.”

    Teacher: “Did you do anything interesting over the weekend?”
    Student: “I shoved a four-inch firecracker up a frog’s @$$.”
    Teacher: “Rectum.”
    Student: “Wrecked ‘um all right!”

  13. larK Mar 21st 2017 at 06:24 pm 13

    From an insurance report: “He didn’t know which way to run, so I ran over him.”

  14. Mark in Boston Mar 21st 2017 at 08:19 pm 14

    Another insurance report: “I had been driving for 42 years when I fell asleep at the wheel…”

  15. Meryl A Mar 22nd 2017 at 01:12 am 15

    Would you hire a chauffeur who hit and killed his last employer while driving his car?

    And the current boss obviously did not ask for details when told during the hiring interview the chauffeur said that his prior boss had died.

  16. Lol Mar 25th 2017 at 06:52 pm 16

    Many decades ago, pre-internet, there was a list of these “reasons” for accident on insurance forms that was printed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I’d cut it out and had it for a very long time and would bring it out every so often to laugh about, but haven’t seen it for a while. Supposedly they were New Jersey drivers. It included the two referenced above. One of my favorites was…I saw a sad faced old man as he bounced off the roof of my car. Yeah, one would imagine he was quite sad. Another was…I’d been shopping for plants when a bush sprang up blocking my view. Did a quick search and found this list, which has many of the ones I remember and quite a few more.

  17. Olivier Mar 27th 2017 at 04:44 am 17

    Lol @16 : I remember these in my father’s car magazine. This one made me lol when I was 10 and still does (translated from French): “Given the advanced age of the victim, it cannot be said this case begins under the best hospices”.

  18. Meryl A Mar 29th 2017 at 02:36 am 18

    We had a car accident. We were stopped to make a left turn - blinkers and lights on - no one on our side of the road, steady trickle on the other side of the road so we were sitting there at least a couple of minutes. We were rear ended by a driver who never saw us - by his own admission - and therefore never slowed. Our car (and I am guessing his car) was totaled. Police came. Officer interviewed us and him and then told us since we all agreed on what happened he would just right up the MV forms and we pick them at the station in a week.

    We pick up the forms - the reason checked off for the cause of the accident was - following too closely. Huh? I estimate when we stopped he was about a mile away - based on when Robert noticed him in the rear view mirror. How close is that?

    We had bought the car, new, a day short of 6 months before. This was in front of the house next door to us (well, it made it easy to clean out most of the inside of the car - the back of the car was compacted beyond the muffler and that had to be pulled apart to see what we could save from it at the body place the next day - last thing we found in the car was my eyeglasses which had flown off my head and ended in the back set arm rest - which had opened and closed during the accident).

    Of course we later found out that he had been texting! Shouldn’t that have been the reason? The police said that the report could not be changed.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply