A couple of comics for which we could not answer “What is the joke here?” but OTOH could not in good conscience call a clear CIDU and devote a full daily standalone to.
This might be a Semi-CIDU, as there is the question of whether this is how the cowboy bathes (and gets the horse to manage the timing and coins), or it’s at the horse’s volition as it wants its gear and rider to be clean.
Comics I Don't Understand 
The Ham is just an idea for a picture, it isn’t going anywhere, I don’t think.
The Eric Scott probably does have a story that goes with it. But I can’t see any story as more likely than another, nor get a joke from them. So yeah, it ends up as just a peculiar situation image.
Looks like the concept of crane birds, or even emus & ostriches that have wings but do not fly.
If you think about it, horses sort of wear saddles and cowboys, hence laundry day. (That’s what I got.)
Echoing Dana @1, Ham’s illustration seems to be random surrealism; if it’s going anywhere, it will only be at a pedestrian’s speed.
P.S. The Eric Scott comic (and the commentary below it) are both a repeat from last September. Back then there was an “anonymous” comment (similar to Keera’s @3) that said “…the Eric Scott cartoon was the idea of a cowboy as a clothing accessory for the horse. Not exactly funny but an interesting perspective.”
Should have had it leaping over a little spot of water and captioned it “puddle jumper”.
Keera Ann Fox probably has the right of it.
My first impression of the horse one was the same as Keera. I got nothing on the airplane one.
Several studies have shown that flying is less dangerous than walking. According to a posting on Quora (the font of all reliable knowledge), “a British study shows that flying is 176 times safer than walking.” Maybe this is Boeing’s way of giving us yet another reason not to fly with them.
Those are definitely a couple of obscure ones. The walking airplane makes me think of Star Wars Imperial walkers or Hg Wells War of the Worlds Martian walkers. Or, maybe walking instead of flying for energy conservation? Perhaps every great journey starts with a single step, even in an airplane? I know I’m reaching here.
The only joke I can see with the horse and laundromat is that the relationship between horse and cowboy is reversed, and the horse is in control
So, if flying is safer than walking, what we have here is an airline for contrarians. “Don’t you tell me what’s safer!”
I have never understood until now what keeps a plane in the air.
Could the plane one be refering to legs of a journey?
It is without any question or doubt whatsoever that if I tried to walk from London to NY I would die.
I don’t know what “176 times safer” means. Does it mean that if you have a 99% chance of getting to your destination safely if you walk, you have a 17,424% chance of getting there safely if you fly?
I’m glad to see you pick up on that, MiB. Of course we can force a sensible meaning (1/176 as dangerous), but it’s just such a bad way of putting it. In general, there’s something off kilter about “N times less”.
… And to follow up numerically with your example, if there is 99% likelihood of safe arrival on Condition A, we can put it as 1% chance of failure to arrive. Then Condition B, at 176 time as safe, is 1/176 times as dangerous, or (1/176)% chance of failure. That is, (100 – 1/176)% chance of safe arrival for Condition B, that is, (99+175/176)%. If we must use percent.
(Leaving aside whether “N times more” means “N times as much” or “N+1 times as Much”)
Those inflationary statistics about passenger safety are normally calibrated by “passenger miles”, giving airlines an inherent advantage of at least an order of magnitude per trip, since a typical airline flight takes hundreds of passengers several hundred (if not thousands) of miles away. I suspect that airlines might still win even if the comparison were made “per vehicle trip” (disregarding distance and the number of passengers), but I am sure that the difference would be much smaller than 176:1.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics and all that. One that gets thrown out is that you are much more likely to get into an auto accident within some short distance from home. Ten miles or whatever. While true, it’s pretty meaningless. You have greater chance of accidents because of many more trips and miles logged close to home. I have absolutely no record of accidents driving to Los Angeles because I have never done that.
I don’t know, but I’d suspect you have actually have lower accident rate per mile or trip just due to familiarity with the roads, and short trips are less likely to have people falling asleep while driving.
Brian: that statistic is why it’s a good idea to move every couple of years.
Hmmm!
I guess so – I did not tear my ankle on any of the 4 flights I have been on – but I did tear the left one running in high school and the right one while walking some decades later.
And Robert has never had a car accident while we were on a trip away from home.