Your video, Container Ship Collision In Pakistan, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Perhaps my emphasis on the words "no one" was a bit much but while riding I'm much less trusting of driver behaviour than when I'm in my car because the outcome of a collision will greatly favour the driver. So yes, obviously you have to trust people to an extent but you have to keep aware of careless inattention, maliciousness, etc.

I've ridden for about 8 years now (for fitness/competition) and have seen and experienced some crazy shit where I ride (primarily rural roads, some small towns, etc). I will never forget the time an older gentleman waved me down for directions while I was riding. I cut my interval short, turned around, and helped point him in the right direction. As I resumed my ride, he blew by me without leaving me much room, startling me as I had let my guard down trusting that this guy was going to pass me safely. I was shocked.

So yeah, I'm very wary of all drivers when riding.

I think a lot of it is neck strength. If the neck is not strong, then the head is going to whiplash in collisions easier.

Flynn lied to the FBI. A mistake or deliberate.. don't know. This would be a process crime not a Russian collision link.

Still this is a side story of little direct impact to POTUS.

Yet Brian Ross suspended 4 weeks for lying on air and misleading false hoods about this.





Still the witch hunt will continue ..
Keep spewing your Trolling POV -- No one believes this story and all know it is BS.

I believe if I recall correctly you implied an IQ of mid / high 130s.
I also believe you indicated that you are in one of the lower tax brackets.

Why would a poor man with such an IQ be here? Righting justice where ever wrong doing exist? Or are you 1 of those Russian trolls?????????????

There's such a stark contrast between the tone of the early coverage on that day vs what we see with any incident now. While a few of the presenters made mention of the previous bombing at the WTC, there seemed to be a very strong resistance to suggesting it might have been terrorism. I watched another video recently that was a somewhat similar concept, but was longer and bounced from source to source. In that video as in this one it felt like the various people speaking badly wanted the first impact to have been an accident or an explosion from within the tower, rather than a purposeful attack.

Given that the only footage of that first collision didn't come to light until much later and eyewitness reports are frequently unreliable, "we just don't know" was the best they seemed willing to offer. Until the 2nd plane hit, at which point I think the facts spoke for themselves.

The moment the yellow can is half clear of the intersection the vehicle that cuts left when unsafe is already visible, aka clear line of sight. Predicting that another driver is likely to veer in for a head on collision is impossible. I've watched a couple times and can't see any turn signals either. What's with everyone getting on the biker here?

OK, a few things.

60 km/h is about 37 mph and although I don't know the exact speed limit on that street, it's not unreasonable to assume it's 50 or 60 km/h.

In the video, the light turns yellow approximately 1.5 seconds before he enters the intersection. He is going 54 km/h at that time. This means he is approximately 23 m from the intersection when the light turns yellow.

According to nacta.org, the safe stopping distance for an average driver at 35 mph is 136 ft or around 41 m.

From the Ontario Highway Traffic Act: Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).

Also from the Ontario Highway Act: No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (5).

She avoided the collision and stopped safely. I wouldn't call that a fail at all.

Seriously folks, don't judge the driver here like you have survived 10 of these exact same incidents, flawlessly. Adrenaline, thoughts of the child in the back, all those things affect how you react. Judging from the safety of our monitors isn't very nice.

No collision, no injuries, and everyone got to come home alive. That is all that matters.

Some routers will auto-switch to a 10. subnet (from the typical 192.) when there is either mishap with the router config/collision, or possibly repeat disconnect from the ISP. Some folks set this by design. Google can tell you the intricacies.

I won't *say* I've ever done something like this. However, it's incredible how many local coffee shops/independent establishments just do not change the default config of a router. I'm genuinely dismayed how this utility, appliance and overall service continues to confound people.

Your privacy isn't that, folks, just be careful!

I like it.

In the situations where I would use my horn to avoid an accident, I'm usually too busy driving to take a hand off the wheel and sound the horn. If someone on the freeway is merging into my lane and about to collide with me, it seems I'm much better of braking and actively avoiding the collision myself rather than blowing my horn and counting on the other car to stop merging.

In my experience, aside from "excuse me the light is green", all horns actually communicate is "fuck you." For many those two are also the same thing. Personally, I don't have enough emotional investment in other drivers to want to swear at them with my horn.

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

Your video, Container Ship Hits Terminal in Jebel Ali | Collision, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think I remember from another thread that the kid was autistic and reacting to the collision.

Tesla enthusiast here. The Tesla vehicle is able to use its front-mounted radar to track one car beyond the car in front of it. How does it do this? It bounces the radar signal off the street underneath the first car. In this case the Tesla could determine the position and velocity of two vehicles in front of it and it predicted a collision, sounded the alarm, and applied the brakes.

So no, it's not that the cameras are tracking objects through another vehicle's windows (at least not yet). Radar can also see though zero-visibility conditions like snow and fog.