search results matching tag: rear end

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (32)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (5)     Comments (133)   

CHP Officer not happy when you go 90 mph

newtboy says...

I sure am. Spent between 83 and 96 in the bay. So glad to be out of that now.

73 Charger….nice. A good friend spent all high school and then some building one of those, massive motor with blower, spool in back, etc. It was gorgeous and mean. I think he wanted to street race it, but the first day he ever drove it the rear end went around the front on an off ramp and he stuffed it into a freeway column totaling it. Tragedy.

I followed suit with my legend, fishtailing head on into a K rail at 60 in the rain….but I drove it for almost a decade first. Now I drive my mom’s old Acura TSX much more responsibly too.

Getting old REALLY sucks when you break yourself while you’re young! Oof!

StukaFox said:

It looks like we're all Bay Area refugees!

My Camaro was a shark-nose '97.

For classics, I owned a '73 Charger SE and I loved me the hell out of that car, too. It was the size of an aircraft carrier and the engine compartment was bigger than my condo. The scariest thing about that car was how easily the back end would come around in a sharp turn. The first rains of the year were a horror show when the pavement was like oiled glass. "Am I gonna beat that red? Gun it! ... uh-oh."

Now I drive a Mazda 3 and responsibly. Getting old sucks.

That time your accident avoidance system served you well

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Pickup Truck Flies Off Overpass

Payback says...

That truck is still recognizable. This surprises me. Looks like it only rear-ended a Tesla. (watching crash videos shows me Teslas are apparently the emergency-stop cushion of choice)

StukaFox (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Lol. I've done similar at that turn in my Civic with super wide tires, it was a go-cart, totally rode on rails, but that turn had the rear end hanging out and the front tires smoking. I also got pulled over doing 110, but on the straight right after the turn, just before the artichoke fields. The cop asked didn't I think over 80 was a bit fast, I said yes, he let me go. I was so lucky. Should have lost my car.
Then there was the Acura Legend I inherited...the Speedo topped out at 150, but the car sure didn't. I think I got it to around 175 based on rpm calculations. Ahhh, to be young and stupid again. Crashed it into a K rail at 55 mph, went airborne. Good times!

StukaFox said:

I love 84!

I had some friends into exotic cars and we'd take 84 over to the coast now and again, mostly because we had a shit-ton of money and a shit-ton of spare time to kill -- the Dot-Com fucking rocked!

There's a bend in the road just outside La Honda on the coastal side that's a 15mph hairpin with a tree at the apex. It's a lovely goddamn thing, especially when you forget it's there. So here we all come, lane-trading and exercising general assholery in cars that cost what a nice single-family home does.

Oh FUCK, the turn!!

My friend in the 911 does this beautiful trail-brake and swings through the curve. Elise follows suit, complete with smoking tires. Next up is Countach. He BARELY holds it together, but gets through without any real drama.

Now it's my turn.

Did I mention I was driving a '97 Camaro Z-28? Yeah, Camaros of that year are good at exactly one thing: driving very fast in very straight lines. Corners? Yeah, not so much. I realize I'm in trouble and I'm coming into the turn WAY too fast. I grab the shifter and get ready. My plan is that I'm going to slam it into first, let the rev limiter do its thing to save the engine, pull the e-brake and swing the tail, then punch it and swing the ass-end around and launch out of the curve with smoking Z-rated tires and all!

And HERE WE GO -- grab the shifter, yank it all the way down and...

That's when California emissions standards fucked me.

You see, when you buy a Camaro Z-28 in California, you don't actually get first gear. You get what's called a California First, which is actually SECOND gear, because if you were actually able to use FIRST gear, the goddamn car would belch enough emissions to make a farting Brontosaurus blush. And second gear ain't exactly gonna work for my little plan.

tl;dr is that I hit the no-lock brakes hard enough to get my speed down and was able to bring the ass around with the little e-brake trick. I wasn't out of the woods because I over-corrected on the way out and spun. The same God that I spite and don't believe in actually saved my ass and I didn't end up going off the road. Apparently, he loves fools and Z-28 Camaros.

I honestly had more fun in that car than the law allows: sometimes literally, like when I got clocked at 110 coming onto the straight at King City. Good times, man, good times.

2020 Jeep Wrangler Rolls Over In Small Overlap Crash Tests

wtfcaniuse says...

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

Best Ever Intro to a Movie? The Italian Job 1969

newtboy says...

Get those damned words off the gorgeous scenery and car.
I remembered that car with a more voluptuous rear end, but those headlights....schwing! I'm gonna have to put this on my list to watch again.
*promote a *quality movie. Reminds me of Vanishing Point....the original, not the remake.

So this is a thing in Russia

Instant karma - I can drive while looking at my phone

jmd says...

Ehhh you are 110% fault if you try and claim a bike in the other lane caused you to rear end the guy in front of you.

I think my cat is broken

Asmo (Member Profile)

bareboards2 says...

I just now saw this. My yahoo email account sometimes disappears things on me. I lost another email about the same time.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Biology is biology. There are differences. Sex is in the workplace, of course, and women bring it there.

I can agree with all these things, and still be creeped out by the indulgence, the wallowing, of only hiring very attractive women.

There is a long history of that in America, and it was creepy then, too. Stewardesses and what they were subjected to in the workplace is a great example. They would lose their -- THEIR WORK -- if they gained five pounds, is an example of really inappropriate use of a woman's appearance as a job qualification. These people are responsible for the safety of the passengers if a tragedy strikes. I love reading stories about how women are heroes and professional when an accident happens.

A shooting range is not a strip club. Wanting to be surrounded by women in your business who COULD work in a strip club is creepy.

Creepy really isn't the right word. It is shorthand for a complex interplay of gender roles and abuses and complicity that is endemic in our culture. I just like the way it feels in my mouth -- I found that Japanese word for it that perfectly explains my pleasure in using it. I am still pleased to know that word exists.

Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds.

Creepy perfectly feels like my state of being around this video.

We are all biological beings who like to look at pretty people. Tall men make more money. Attractive people of both genders make more money. We will never be free from those responses.

But lets keep it unconscious, shall we? Let us work to be better human beings than people who reduce ourselves to walking genitalia looking for constant stimulation.

The rest of your points... yeah. I'm right with you. I am not someone who criticizes men for "looking." I find myself looking and I'm pretty firmly on the hetero side of things.

It came up the other day on a hike through the woods. A woman passed me wearing some sort of body hugging stretch pants. There was natural jiggling from her movements, which caught my eye. I found myself staring, I became aware of how perfectly proportioned she was, and how the rest of her was lovely in every aspect (I had seen her a few moments before, walking in a different direction.) I almost called out to my friends -- my god, that is the most beautiful woman. All triggered by a chance glance at an objectively beautiful rear-end.

Biology. It happens. I have no problem with it.

And those shooting range owners want to stimulate that reaction in the workplace, 100% of the time. And that, my friend, is creepy.

Asmo said:

I was responding to your comments, as I understood them, and if I got the wrong impression, I apologise. But I think it's somewhat blinkered to say that it's men that bring sex in to the workplace. eg. Most of the young ladies that work in the same building as me wear short skirts or tight pants, lots of decolletage on display etc. That is absolutely their right as long as they meet the dress code of their employer, but it certainly brings sex appeal firmly in to the limelight.

Unfortunately, while men are seen as rather simple creatures biologically when it comes to sex, there is more than meets the eye. The science certainly isn't conclusive, but there is a lot of evidence pointing to desire being a function of the amygdala, which is strongly stimulated by visuals in men. The following article is a pop news summary of a longer (and fairly dry) study which I couldn't find an non-subscription version of, which compares brain activity in response to viewing porn images for both men and women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/health/in-sex-brain-studies-show-la-difference-still-holds.html

Women still get aroused by the images, but the desire that is evoked in the male amygdala is not replicated in the female. Hence men tend to respond far better to objectification than women do. There are other results with further delve the difference between male and female sexuality, and it's not surprising that society as a whole has been molded by our biology.

Probably also explains, at least somewhat, why men (myself included) find it hard to accept criticism for something that comes naturally to most of us. Few men would go to a public place with the express purpose of leering at attractive women, but almost all men (at least the straight ones) will find themselves gazing for longer than perhaps polite at certain women that catch our eye. That is not to take away from the fact that we are generally in charge of our actions, but it certainly adds an imperative that is less about being creepy and more about our biology.

Bad driver gets 'accidentally' PIT-ed

SDGundamX says...

Yeah, in Japan both people would have been at fault. They're really strict about that stuff. Even if you have the right of way, if an accident could have been avoided just by you being a more cautious driver, you'll wind up getting ticketed too.

Happened to my boss a month ago--he got hit at a light while making a turn during a green turn arrow (driver coming from opposite direction gunned it on the yellow but didn't beat the red). The police ruled that even though my boss had the right of way, a cautious driver should anticipate people trying to beat the light and check to make sure traffic coming from the opposite direction is fully stopped before initiating a turn, so both parties were at fault (though not equally of course).

Basically as a driver in Japan you are supposed to assume that everyone around you is an unsafe driver and take any necessary precautions to avoid accidents. The only time you'll 100% not be at fault for an accident is if you're rear-ended while fully stopped or if the car experiences a catastrophic mechanical failure (i.e. blowing a tire on the freeway causing you to temporarily lose control of the vehicle).

LiquidDrift said:

Still, continuing to pass when he put his signal on wasn't the best move.

"Lucky" Rider Unconscious At 140 MPH

bareboards2 says...

Like being really drunk -- completely relaxed and minimized damage.

(A lot of drunks walk away unscathed -- including the one who rear-ended my car and put a dent in the trunk with his helmet. Walked away from that.)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon