Looks like they've combined the rear rotor from the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne and the dual rotor design of Kamov helicopters like the Ka-50 Blackshark.

Which are both great things to have.

North American disposable culture rears its head again. Sad. ALWAYS RECYCLE!

Congratulations! Your video, Don't Rear End Minivan Drivers in Dallas, TX, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 86 Badge!

Your video, Don't Rear End Minivan Drivers in Dallas, TX, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I thought the rear trailer's brakes were locked and it just slid to the downhill side of the road on the ice. Not sure if you'd call that intentional or not.

tldr: The decisions made in creating and rearing offspring are subject to a different set of moral criteria than all others because those decisions affect everyone.

Here's the problem with that thought. You didn't just make a decision that affected your life. Or even one that affected the lives of yourself and others you know. You intentionally created another sentient being. Because of human nature, that sentient being is now not just your responsibility, but everyone else's as well. Your decision quite literally affected the entire species. Or should I say infected.

There is no other decision anyone can make that has such an extent of repercussions (with the possible exception of murder). Whether you further choose to be responsible for your offspring is, from a decision making point of view, completely separate from the decision to create that offspring. And likewise, the decisions you make regarding the care of that offspring are entirely separate from the decision to create it. Those decisions are, whether you like it or not, subject to critique. You may not like it, and you may in fact see the entire process (conception, birth, weaning, rearing, etc...) as a single act. Either way, the entirety of the species is now constrained by your initial act of creation. The question is not whether you are a “good parent”. The question is how much of a burden upon or boon to the species will you be.

Just to make this contrast clear…. if I, as thinking adult, decide to consume alcohol in such excess that it causes my liver to fail, I can ask the species to help me to the point of giving me a new liver - which may or may not be granted based on my own words and actions. If you ask a similar favor on behalf your offspring, however, it’s an entirely different moral calculus.

That was pretty cool. I wonder if the Tesla's sensors could still "see" the braking SUV as it is a bigger vehicle than the red car that rear ended it. We can't see the sides of the SUV in the video, until the red car begins its lane change, because of the wide-angle dashcam but perhaps the Tesla's sensors could.

I think the driver of the red car, who wanted to change lanes, was fixated on the black car in the right hand lane and didn't see the SUV suddenly brake. If the red car had collision avoidance capabilities, this accident would likely have been prevented.

When he comes back around from the rear, I'm sorry, but this becomes snuff. You can see that people are still stuck in the doorways...

I haven't tried it, but the butt brake lever seems to me to fit the application pretty well. Cyclists needing quick braking develop the habit of shift backwards on the saddle, or over the back of the saddle anyway. This helps to counteract the unweighting of the rear wheel that occurs with heavy brake application.

With the butt brake, an existing reflex is repurposed -- clever.

An excellent idea for people who ride with their *pets, especially on hills.
An upgrade to this might be to make a flexible quick connection to the rear brake cable so it would just operate using the normal rear brake lever, although using your ass to stop is hilarious and fun.

I must admit, from the title, I expected something more like the flexigrip controls on Mr/s Garrison's 'IT'.

Couple cracked ribs from that rear hoof...

Because the anchor is at the rear of the vehicle, it would normalise any such manouver, ie. a sudden turn that would typically result in a roll over (assume back left wheel is trapped and the suspect turns hard left or right) would be arrested by the trap if they turned left, as the left wheel would want to rise to flip the car, and might actually be exacerbated if they turn right, where the tether would go under the car and anchor the wheel, increasing the momentum of the body of the car over that pivot point.

However, much like the example of weight in the rear of a trailer reducing the chance of loss of control, any turn would be damped by the addition of an entire car attached to the back of the vehicle, such that I think any turning manouver would likely be dulled substantially.

Additionally, as soon as the thing is deployed, the car is going to decelerate rapidly as it's essentially anchored.

On the surface, if you can control the deployment, looks like it would be a winner.

Probably, but your typical P.I.T. just puts the suspect car in a spin, out of control, where this would be similar to a spike strip on a rear wheel, with the added benefit of adding the drag weight of the police vehicle.

I think it's still a lot safer than a P.I.T. although I admit their "suspects" are reacting very unrealistically.

CONT'D:

Every car in America also comes with a free handgun in place of an emergency hand brake because fuck you and the person in front of you. After you rear end your highway opponents, expect to deal with road rage reprisals. Luckily you have a handgun at the ready. But so does the other guy. Shoot him immediately or he will shoot you.

This also explains why the police murder so many drivers. For fuck's sake every car is sold with a gun! It's fucking America, fuck you: LEAVE.

@gorillaman

The only thing I see failing completely is your absurd attempt at rationalizing your bigotry--more aptly labelled in this case by its proper name: Islamophobia. I don't for a second believe what I'm about to post will change your mind about Islam or Muslims in general but I do believe that this kind of bigotry needs to be called out when it rears its ugly head. And my, you went full ugly there, didn't you... comparing Muslims to rats and seriel killers? Classy.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, there are in fact Muslims who do not believe in God but for a variety of reasons (keeping peace with religious family members, maintaining a connection to their cultural heritage, networking, etc.) continue to attend services and identify as Muslims. This is true of many believers in all the major religions, including Christianity and Judaism.

You see, as much as you'd like Muslims to all be boogeymen coming to bring Sharia law down on the rest of world, anyone who has actually met and talked with a Muslim (and god-forbid actually visited one of the countries StukaFox listed) realizes that Muslims, like all people, are extremely diverse (again, despite your protestations to the contrary).

Indeed there are Sharia zealots. But there are also moderates and reformers and even liberal radicals. Mostly, though its just a lot of people trying to get on with their lives the best way they know how.

Now, I find most religious beliefs to be repugnant. However, I don't find the ideas expressed in the Koran to be much more repugnant than, say, the Bible. In fact, I'm less concerned about what is written in supposedly holy books and more concerned with how believers attempt to implement those ideas in reality. I do indeed find particular forms of this implementation, such as forcing women to wear a bhurka, disturbing (just as I find Christians' attacks on LGBT rights disturbing). It's important to note, though, that such practices are NOT universal. For example, in some Islamic countries like Malaysia it's enough to simply cover your hair with a colorful scarf.

On the other hand, other practices that you mentioned such as Female Genital Mutilation and virginity tests ARE NOT Islamic. FGM predates Islam and is still practiced in the locales where it originated (places such as Mali, for instance) that now happen to be Islamic majority areas. The Indonesian virginity tests as well do not stem from some universal commandment in Islam but from Indonesian culture which sees women as "the symbol of the nations moral guardians".

Again, I don't suppose any of this makes any difference to you. You want to see the world in black and white, us versus them, "rats" and "serial killers" versus you, the white knight who is just trying to save us all from our cultural relativistic blindness. And so the shades of grey I am describing to you will likely go overlooked. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect the reality is I'll receive some lengthy reply that can be distilled down to, "Islam bad, hur." Or perhaps, "All religions bad, but Islam worst, hur." To which I can only reply, that demonizing the practitioners of any particular religion is unlikely to bring about the reforms you seek.