Smart car accidentally driven into Mississippi River

[Lyon Wonder]

An itty bitty Smart Car flipped over and plunged into the Mississippi River in St. Louis, not too far from the new I-70 bridge.  The car's driver and passenger are ok and were rescued by firefighters.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/men-in-smart-car-accidentally-drive-into-mississippi-river/article_cf0700ac-80f1-50a7-93f9-43620bf734c5.html

ST. LOUIS - Two men were able to escape on their own after their Smart car splashed into the Mississippi River this morning.

The men were able to get out of the small car and the river themselves, but were helped by firefighters up the riverbank about a block north of Mullanphy Street north of downtown St. Louis just after 10 a.m.

Both were treated at the scene by paramedics, but their injuries did not appear to be life-threatening. One had his arm put in a sling by rescue workers.

The men told firefighters the car backed over the embankment and into the water as they were trying to turn the vehicle around, said St. Louis Fire Capt. Dan Sutter.


St. Louis (KSDK) - Two men were rescued by St. Louis firefighters Tuesday morning after they did something not very smart, while driving along a walking path in a Smart Car.

Officials say the pair drove through an opening in the flood wall where Mullanphy Street meets the river. The car continued along a pedestrian trail until it could go no further.

The driver of the Smart Car tried to cut a U-Turn and the car ended up sliding and flipping into the river.

The two men were able to free themselves from the submerged car, and when firefighters arrived they helped them up a steep embankment to safety.

The two men were being treated, and questioned at the scene.

[corco]

well that's sure not very smart - more like dumb car amirite? lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

[Duke87]

Having a smart car does not entitle you to take it places vehicular traffic is not intended to go just because it fits.

For instance, this.

[Brian556]

Obviously this person shouldn't have a driver's license. Darwinism almost suceeded.

[Brandon]

Now if they only used a VW Beetle, they might have floated on the river for a bit.
http://newbeetle.org/forums/attachments/questions-issues-concerns-problems-new-beetle/60778d1251434241-floating-beetle-vw.jpg

[NE2]

driver of Smart car accidentally drives into Mississippi River

[Brandon]

driver of Smart car accidentally drives into Mississippi River

How smart can the car be if it can't float like a VW?

[empirestate]

Well, we can obviously all take our share of humor from the car's brand name, but I'm a bit puzzled why it seemed worthy to include it in the article headline in the first place. Is it more newsworthy for a Smart to go into a river than, say, a Buick or Subaru? If it had been a different make of car in the drink, would they have reported its make in the headline?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Having a smart car does not entitle you to take it places vehicular traffic is not intended to go just because it fits.

For instance, this.

How in the fuck did he pull this off? He didn't have to drive down a narrow ramp or a staircase?

[amroad17]

Is he sure he drove it in the river or did someone grab the car from the top (like a Matchbox car) and roll it into the river?

Every time I see one of those cars, I want to treat it like a Matchbox.  I nearly can at 6'4", 275 lbs.

[formulanone]

driver of Smart car accidentally drives into Mississippi River

Diver of smart car accidentally drives into Mississippi River

(There, factual in both respects.)

[agentsteel53]

Well, we can obviously all take our share of humor from the car's brand name, but I'm a bit puzzled why it seemed worthy to include it in the article headline in the first place. Is it more newsworthy for a Smart to go into a river than, say, a Buick or Subaru? If it had been a different make of car in the drink, would they have reported its make in the headline?

because naming a car Smart makes everyone associated with it a pretentious tool in a way that naming it Buick or Subaru does not.

it is a general property of our society that we enjoy watching pretentious tools get their comeuppance more so than we do for ordinary people.

[formulanone]

because naming a car Smart makes everyone associated with it a pretentious tool in a way that naming it Buick or Subaru does not.

Also, the make of the car is not capitalized in most cases. In case you needed more pretension (or maybe the upper case dies cost more ).

[kkt]

because naming a car Smart makes everyone associated with it a pretentious tool in a way that naming it Buick or Subaru does not.

Also, the make of the car is not capitalized in most cases. In case you needed more pretension (or maybe the upper case dies cost more ).

They aren't?  It's either their company name or a trademark, either way it's a proper noun.  Thus, Ford, Chevy, Hyundai; Accord, Escalade, or Sonata.

[Brandon]

because naming a car Smart makes everyone associated with it a pretentious tool in a way that naming it Buick or Subaru does not.

Also, the make of the car is not capitalized in most cases. In case you needed more pretension (or maybe the upper case dies cost more ).

They aren't?  It's either their company name or a trademark, either way it's a proper noun.  Thus, Ford, Chevy, Hyundai; Accord, Escalade, or Sonata.

Maybe they aren't capitalized in Alanland?

[formulanone]

They aren't?  It's either their company name or a trademark, either way it's a proper noun.  Thus, Ford, Chevy, Hyundai; Accord, Escalade, or Sonata.

I meant to say, "smart" doesn't capitalize their model names. Unlike nearly every other auto manufacturer (Scion sort of broke that trend with models named xA, xB, tC, xD; although my guess is that they cribbed the idea from Apple's iMac, iPod, eT aL.)

[kkt]

They aren't?  It's either their company name or a trademark, either way it's a proper noun.  Thus, Ford, Chevy, Hyundai; Accord, Escalade, or Sonata.

I meant to say, "smart" doesn't capitalize their model names. Unlike nearly every other auto manufacturer (Scion sort of broke that trend with models named xA, xB, tC, xD; although my guess is that they cribbed the idea from Apple's iMac, iPod, eT aL.)

Oh, I see.  I see names like that as a logo that the manufacturer would like anyone who writes about their products to attempt to reproduce in type.  I feel no obligation to capitalize them any differently than any other proper noun.  Imac, Ipod, etc.

http://www.theslot.com/webnames.html
What's in a nAME(cq)?

At the 2000 American Copy Editors Society conference in Baltimore, several people asked me how to argue for the preservation of basic rules of capitalization and punctuation when colleagues insist that companies "be called what they want to be called," no matter how *FunKY!! their logos might be. It's a tough case to make to those who don't immediately see how silly all this has become, but here are some tips.

1. Everything you need to know about capitalization you learned in kindergarten.

[agentsteel53]

nAME(cq)

"(cq)"?

I assume that means something in the copy-editor world, as opposed to being just 'an example of meaningless punctuation and consonants, added in this case to prove a point'.  am I correct?

[agentsteel53]

besides, we're all missing the real joke about the Smart: only 34/38 city and highway mpg.  without getting into the absence of modern safety features of a 53mpg 1983 Honda Civic, I must note that a 2013 Ford Focus gets 31/38 and weighs nearly twice as much.

just how did the Smart company manage such a physics failure?? on a per-pound basis, the Smart car is terribly inefficient.

[kkt]

nAME(cq)

"(cq)"?

I assume that means something in the copy-editor world, as opposed to being just 'an example of meaningless punctuation and consonants, added in this case to prove a point'.  am I correct?

Yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQ

cadit quaestio, Latin for "the question falls", used as a legal term

    In copy-editing, signifies that an unusual-looking spelling or word usage has been double-checked

[agentsteel53]

got it!

apparently the term of art for that is not "sic".

[formulanone]

besides, we're all missing the real joke about the Smart: only 34/38 city and highway mpg. [...] just how did the Smart company manage such a physics failure?? on a per-pound basis, the Smart car is terribly inefficient.

On premium fuel, no less. It also doesn't really handle very nimbly for it's small size, either; usually, that's the saving grace of tiny cars. Goes from 0 to 15 rather quickly, and then the chain finally runs out of loose links, reminding you there's an anchor behind it.

There's a lot more woe to mention, although each wheel only needs three lug nuts to fasten the wheel to the hub, saving you an incredible 12 ounces of weight compared to that Honda Civic.

Design by committee, from what I understand; but there are places where curb weight, engine displacement, and size do play a role in "registra-taxation" of your automobile, so there's a reason for its existence outside of North America.

[kkt]

got it!

apparently the term of art for that is not "sic".

The difference is "sic" is only used for direct quotes that are wrong.  "cq" is used for something that is right, but looks odd, like an unusual spelling of a name.  "sic" is to tell the reader that the author is quoting what someone said exactly even  though the person they're quoting is wrong.  "cq" is to tell the typesetter that the spelling is correct as written and the typesetter should neither correct it nor spend time double-checking that the spelling is correct, and the "cq" should be removed by the time the book or story is ready for the public to read.

[NE2]

The difference is "sic" is only used for direct quotes that are wrong.

False. It's used for anything that might lead the reader to think the final author screwed up, whether or not what's being quoted is incorrect or merely abnormal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic#Usage

[empirestate]

besides, we're all missing the real joke about the Smart: only 34/38 city and highway mpg.  without getting into the absence of modern safety features of a 53mpg 1983 Honda Civic, I must note that a 2013 Ford Focus gets 31/38 and weighs nearly twice as much.

just how did the Smart company manage such a physics failure?? on a per-pound basis, the Smart car is terribly inefficient.

While the gas mileage isn't impressive, if I owned a Smart car my fuel savings would come from greatly reduced mileage searching for a parking spot, since I pass up a great many that would fit a Smart but not a regular car.

Then again, if I could park more readily, I'd be inclined to use the car more frequently, which might just wipe out any savings on parking circles. :-)