Can you solve this classic physics problem posed by those mischievous and delightful folks over at The Journal of Improbable Research?

Theory 1: There could have been more than one collision or accident. During one, he was driving the car; during another, he was in the back seat. I notice that the line saying he was driving says “collision” while when it says he was in the back seat, it says “accident” not “collision”, so maybe he was driving and collided with something, and then also he had some other sort of accident in the back seat.

Theory 2: The car could have been equipped so that he could drive it from the back seat of the car.

Theory 3: The defendant could have been driving something other than the car.

This seems more like a language problem than a physics problem. Or maybe a logic problem, or a creative gymnastics problem.

Theory 4: He could be in a strange position that allowed him to drive 85 miles per hour, have sex, and be partly in the back seat of the car. It’s not that hard to imagine various configurations… though it is silly.

@Zaku I like the “creative gymnastics problem” concept. I will let the Improbable Research people know that they may have dropped the ball on this one and misclassified the problem. They usually have much higher standards. :-) And yes, the whole thing is silly, just having a little fun, just looking for some interesting, creative theories.

You get a brick, you put it on the gas petal. Not saying it’s safe, but you could.

@MyNewtBoobs Who’s steering the car? There are four arms/hands and four legs/feet between the two of them, I suppose someone could spare one appendage to steer, it’s a stretch, but I suppose it’s possible. They don’t mention how big the car is. That would help a lot. A little two seater or a Prius vs. a Lincoln Town car or some old boat of a Caddie from the 70s, that would make a big difference.

@lillycoyote No one said anything about steering. Like I said, it’s not really safe…

@MyNewtBoobs Oh yeah, maybe that’s why the incident ended in a collision/accident, because there was no one steering. Duh! Am I your favorite idiot-savant on fluther or what? :-)

“The case involves a man alleged to have been the driver”. Maybe driver was involved but not the one having sex?
Maybe it was oral sex? Leaned back while driving?
Why does it say collision in paragraph 10, 12, 13 and then says accident in paragraph 14?
Best I can come up with. I hope your gonna let us know the answer to!:)

@broughtlow I was curious about the missing entry too. What happened to entry number 11?

@lillycoyote Paragraph 11. Defendant orders fast food at a drive thru ha ha! Shoot, no clue.

The man was driving drunk at 85 miles an hour, while a female was performing a sexual act on him (it doesn’t have to be intercourse to qualify as ‘having sex’). The ‘back seat’ is also the front seat, because the car was a two seater.

The drivers seat was in the “recline” position. Female was in the back seat.
This is definitly not safe sex.

ask the man himself and he would described it thus-
1. “the driver’s seat was in reclined position”...
2. “the female was lying face down on that seat and controlling the accelerator, brakes and clutch
3. “the male was lying on top going into her from behind and controlling the steering wheel and gear box”

The reason for this was (ofcourse besides being drunk) that they wanted to achieve a perfect synchronization in their intercourse and they felt that dividing the control of the car amongst themselves and co-ordinating it would act as a great external aid to synchronize their brain signals. They started off at rest with the mission of having the ultimate car sex in which the car played a very dynamic role. As they moved on with their act, the car also moved on, accelerating along and then at the climax a great collision ensued. The female was heard singing “Hit me baby One more time” while they were being driven to the hospital.
Definitely an ultimate unsafe sex – more unsafe for those not involved in the act.

If there were more than one defendant, it all becomes simple. Perhaps in the different paragraphs, “defendant” refers to different people.