https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate surprised me at first:

Indonesia: 15.3 road deaths/100,000 inhabitants/year
Bangladesh: 13.6 road deaths/100,000 inhabitants/year

However:

Indonesia: 36.7 road deaths/100,000 motor vehicles/year
Bangladesh: 1020.6 road deaths/100,000 motor vehicles/year

I'm not questioning the young men at all.
What I do question is the Police officer, who felt it was okay for these two elderly people to drive a motor vehicle.

This is why Motorized Vehicles should use the bike lanes, and not the sidewalks and crosswalks. They are too fast and will cause accidents mixed in with slower pedestrian traffic.

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

From reddit post

Policeman: "You do not have any identification right? - Where are you from?"

Driver: "I'm from Elamari" (? not sure what town/city he actually says).

Policeman: "Okay, you're with this other group that's here right?"

Driver: "The other buggy like this?"

Policeman: "Yes."

Driver: "Yes I brought it with me..." - (interrupted)

Policeman: "Alright, listen. I appreciate that you're here. But we're done. I've got orders(?)"

Driver: "Alright."

Policeman: "Youre not to be operating this vehicle on the road."

Driver: "Alright."

Policeman: "You understand that?"

Driver: "Yes sir."

Policeman: "If I see you around here, like I told the other guy (i'll have your vehicle?) impounded. You're operating an unregistered motor vehicle. No insurance with this. I appreciate you guys came down here wanting to help today. Our orders are to come down (no idea what he says here) So go somewhere else today, get out of here. Okay?

Policeman: "Thanks for your help today."

Driver: "Next time don't yell."

Policeman: "Have a safe trip."

-- The rest is easily heard.

Motor boy gets it wrong on at least two counts:

1) There is absolutely no reason to try to be nice to someone who is texting while in control of a motor vehicle -- they are endangering everyone around them and richly deserve social opprobrium.

2) Teenagers, like old ladies in walkers, have the fucking right of way in the crosswalk, and are in no way obligated to go as fast as some asshole driver wants them to.

I haven't read all the comments so I'm not sure if anyone feels the same as I do. This seems to be a popular video but I also think it's a little much for VideoSift. I'd hate to see this site become a gore site. I see this video was published just about 6 years ago, to my surprise.

I do body recovery, meaning that if there are human remains from motor vehicle crashes, crime scenes, suicides etc, it's my job to pick them up and bag them. My point being that I'm not offended by content like this but, rather it's something that tends to "grow kids up" before they are ready. There is no "NSFK" warning so I think videos like this might be better off at sites that publish this kind of content.

Just my opinion. Anyone else?

I found it hard to believe that simple honking is considered road rage in Colorado, so I found a lawyers web site that quoted that road rage is "assault with a motor vehicle or other dangerous weapon by the operator or passenger(s) of another motor vehicle or an assault precipitated by an incident that occurred on a roadway”. They went on to list some actions that are considered aggressive driving. One was excessive use of your horn, another was "Exiting the car to attempt to start a confrontation."
So not only is the cop a colossal prick, he doesn't know the law in his own jurisdiction. Either that or he was willing to blatantly lie on camera.

TBH the risk isn't that great. In Texas in 2015, a state with a large number of faulty airbags and roughly the same population as Australia, there were 246,335 people injured in motor vehicle crashes but only one Takata airbag death.

Interesting stuff, I never knew the origins of the term Jaywalker.
Being the operator of an evil motor vehicle however I do see a flip side to this, uppity pedestrians who seem to think that because motorists are required to stop for pedestrians that they can just stroll out into traffic any time it strikes their fancy.

I am not 'calling' it anything. By legal definition some of his crimes are considered violent crimes and he would have been charged/will be charged as such when he appears before a court.

Robbing a store with a finger in your pocket is the same as robbing it with a gun or piece of metal per the eyes of the law.

Setting fire to an OCCUPIED structure is a violent crime. Committing Arson even on an empty structure can be considered a violent crime depending on who could be hurt if the fire spreads or explosions occur from the contents of the building.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking) is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. Trespassing is typically entering a section of land that has been marked.

Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a car. This can happen in many ways, but they all fall under this description.

As far as the gun theft, still falls under the definition of burglary. He stole a weapon and tussled with the store employees to escape. I personally would call it a violent crime, but I don't know for sure if it legally is considered one or if it would be relegated more to shoplifting.

Yeah, I am taking the word of the police that he pointed the gun at them. Maybe I shouldn't because out of the thousands of arrests and incidents that happen daily across the country, we have a few videos that show spurious methods used by a few officers. I mean, I get that right now the public trust in officers is at an all time low for good reason, but given the sheer number of things that this guy already did that day, I have to assume that they might not be lying in this case.

As far as the officer, like I said, maybe he overreacted. But I would rather we risk the death of a clearly severely mentally ill person than read about the 11 year old he shot because he was crazy and had a gun.

In the end, you have the right to see and feel about the incident any way you see fit. You don't have to agree with a single thing I say. But I posted what I posted because I felt that just the video alone is not a clear picture of what was going on in this situation. I merely shared some of the facts that were printed by a major media outlet so that people could have the additional information to make up their minds about the video.

What?! The consequence was a direct result of his actions. If I lie down on the road in front of a car, I expect to get run over. That's a natural consequence of lying down on a surface designed for the carriage of motor vehicles.

Your analogy of a cop shooting someone for pickpocketing makes no sense; no-one made the conscious decision to run over him. If he picked someone's pocket, and in attempting to get away ran out onto the road and got hit by car I'd feel the same, because running out onto a road without looking is stupid and dangerous and likely to result in serious injury, just like throwing yourself on the road in front of a car.

Unfortunately this is not very special because a large number of people are like this behind the wheel, however it does mean that this person should not have a license to operate a motor vehicle. I understand some people are not great at parallel parking but this shows a distinct lack of spatial awareness and reasoning.

Too many people in this country see driving as a right and not a privilege and therefore fail to properly learn and/or be trained. This is also due to the fact that most people operate under the assumption that a car is an appliance, rather than the 4000lb killing machine that it is.

According to the link he "was going way too fast"... maybe, I won't say a word one way or the other based upon speed. He could have been going a bit too fast, who knows?

My guess is that the biker was looking either at traffic, or off the side and not paying attention to what was infront of her. The driver should have stopped, that much is apparent.

However, her entire post is preachy, and somewhat self-defeating. In one paragraph she talks about how basically her explination was that she was distracted because she figured she was safe (entire paragraph that speaks about looking at the water, sipping from a bottle, looking at a dashboard, etc.)

and then goes on to say that she knew that there were cars that travelled the path..somehow not taking the logical leap, then, that perhaps that's one of the stretches that should be payed attention to.

I'm not saying the driver is blameless, far from it. He definitely should have stopped when he saw a biker or pedestrian coming up. But if she knew for a fact that this was an area that sometimes had motor vehicles on it, she maybe should have slowed down herself, or payed more attention.

You guys seem to be assuming the trucker deliberately opened his door to take out the biker. It looks to me like the trucker was getting out of his truck. Seriously, who would stick his arm out of the cab of his vehicle into the path of a motor vehicle travelling at high speed. His only mistake was not checking his mirror to see if some crazy-assed biker was flying up from behind between two closely spaced lines of traffic at an excessive speed. I think I'll go with the OP's comment of "Karma".