If it was on a closed road then it's great. I love the video and I'd love to have a go. But on an open road what they were doing was so stupid it doesn't bear thinking about.

If someone was driving up that road and he hit them at the speeds he was going he'd damage their car undoubtedly. Does he have insurance for that? I'm going to stick my neck out and say he doesn't. Is he happily going to hand over a few hundred bucks to get the repairs done properly? Is he going to supply a hire car while the work is being done? Is he going to cover the increase in their insurance? No he's fucking not.

Add to this the trauma the driver would go through if the guy on the board was badly hurt. Even if an incident isn't your fault it can still have a serious effect on someone.

How dare he put other people at these risks. Even if they can't close the road there are loads of ways they could deal with this situation. Having a spotter at the bottom of the hill with a radio would be a good start...

I hate shit like this. I completely understand the thrill of the speed. I'm lucky enough to get to drive some very fast cars on track days and the feeling of speed is one hell of a rush. But it's on a track, I know what I've signed up for and everyone else out there has signed up for the same thing. But on a public road? Not interested. The risk of hurting others just isn't OK.

As for buses not counting, if he'd smashed into the front of the bus and hurt himself he'd have buggered up a bus full of people's days. The driver couldn't just drive away, he'd have to wait for the police and again try to sort out how it's going to be paid for. All the people on the bus would have to wait around and all because this tit thought his five minutes of fun is way more important than everyone else's lives.

Any idea who was driving the car on this occasion? Takes a strong stomach to race such a fast car against all those slowmobiles!

Yes, monarchies are inherently oppressive. They're an archaic throwback and an embarrassment to any country that still clings to them.

For the record I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and a permanent resident of New Zealand. I'm a member of the NZ Republic movement. I am not a subject of the crown, and the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen is the one thing that is stopping me getting my NZ citizenship (which I have long since qualified for).

This is a point of principle and I would support any movement in any country to remove the monarch as head of state, even if they are only a figure head.

Now, all that said, what does that have to do with my approval for Norway's oil industry, NZs gun laws or socialised healthcare in pretty much the entire developed world?

You do realise that one can approve of one aspect of something while simultaneously disliking another aspect of the same thing? I think fast cars are cool, but I don't like their environment impact. I love beer, but I know that it's full of calories, and so on.

Anyway how would secession work in this case? There's no single geographical region to secede. Unless by secession you mean that the citizens of a country should have the right to determine how their country is run, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

Our entire system is entirely stupid but the point of frugality is much more than what you noted Redsky. I agree that students should not have to have demanding jobs that destroy their leisure time; leisure in the academic sense of course. I also agree with what you say except one important American detail.

If we have more to spend we spend more, and more, and more. The American ideal is the new IPad and IPhone. More debt. The American ideal of college is beer pong and fast cars. Pussy and dick. More debt. Our ideal is NOT learning. Not on average. Fuck, John Stewart and John Oliver have harped on this shit over and over again in reference to the above class snot-nosed brats--but when it is about poor people bettering themselves, oh, we can't make fun of them. Even if they do it identically to the higher classes.

we have something similar in Portugal. In a really bad case, a fast car, is sent ahead with a doctor and a nurse to the scene of the accident, with the ambulance going soon after as soon as possible. This way the patient can be stabilized before being transported to the hospital.

Exactly right. I like to play multiplayer FPS games, and in the one I am currently playing (Blacklight: Retribution, for those who are curious), it is possible to make your enemies heads' explode with all the charm of Gallagher smashing a watermelon.

It is, simply put, abso-fucking-lutely gorgeous.

But it's never more than a bonus. I do enjoy it for the sheer brutality of it (and that sound - like a popping balloon), but it's never the focus of the game for me. In fact, most of the time, despite the fact that the game is based on killing, I am mostly concerned with the basic mechanics of the game, and the constant competition I am in with myself.

Another series that constantly crops in these engineered controversies (and which was mentioned in this video), is GTA. People cannot seem to get this idea that teenagers are single-mindedly finding more and more ways to murder random prostitutes out of their heads, when the truth is that that's just one of MANY things you can do in GTA's sprawling cityscapes. I, for example, would sometimes enjoy simply driving fast cars around at night while listening to jazz. Same game, no prostitutes, or the wanton murder thereof, involved.

But then, I suppose "driving fast cars at night while listening to jazz on the radio" nets "news" outlets fewer views than "EVIL VIDEO GAME IS TEACHING THE YOUTH OF AMERICA TO MURDER PROSTITUTES."

Perfect explanation for the low attention span-ed

"Here's a pitot tube"

(Fast car footage)

"Heres the inside"

(Fast car footage)

"Hope this explanation helped.

I just don't get the appeal of drag racing, especially with super fast cars. Blink and it's over.
At least with slower cars, there can be some give and take and the outcome isn't always decided in the first few seconds (although usually is), but you spill your beer or something, then look back up, it's over.

However, that was a spectacular crash. Glad he's alright.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

Why do any cars go above 90mph? ever? when is it ever safe and necessary to drive in excess of this speed? Why is there no government control over the torque or horsepower in vehicles? Wouldn't it be easier to catch criminals and racers if only cops could drive over 90mph? Why aren't peoples licenses permanently revoked after 1 or 2 DUIs? Why are we obligated to keep giving DUI offenders 3rd and 4th and 5th chances just so their lives arent adversely affected?

The same response to these questions could be applied to gun ownership. Because one, those situations where people suffer because of this kind of behavior are the exception and not the rule, and two the government has decided that it is not justification enough to infringe on peoples rights to own a fast and powerful vehicle anymore than it is to prevent people from going hunting or shooting for hobby.

If peoples guns must be removed for the good of us all, despite there being reasons to want to own one ABOVE and beyond recreation, then why not stuff like fast cars and dangerous hobbies?

To be clear: my point is a nanny state can't and should not stop short of any one persons bias on what is good or bad. Either the state should do everything in its power to safeguard people against themselves OR we have to accept that the government will allow things that may be unsafe/harmful for people in certain situations. If you accept that 2nd part then give thought to the fact that just because guns are pointless to u, it does not mean they are pointless to everyone.

God, this is so good. Everyone in the world needs to film their wife and/or girlfriend in a fast car.

>> ^TheGenk:

The video distorts the feeling of speed. If you drive 250km/h yourself it actually feels way slower, more like you're only going 100km/h.
And to people that say "why would you even want to go that fast":
because we're in the 21. century, progress and all that jazz and more importantly, because we fucking can!

Oh, and I can't resist the temptation of a friendly jab at our sifters from the "land of the free" (USA):
Tell me, how free are you to drive fast on highways again?


Just because it feels like 100 km/h, doesn't mean that you're going 100 km/h.

I wouldn't trust myself to drive at those speeds, and unless you're a professional race car driver, I sure as heck wouldn't trust someone else to (especially teenagers who have rich parents to buy them fast cars).

All those fast cars and no one is getting laid.

>> ^marinara:

If the damn title says "girl with big breasts" don't downvote it because she didn't score high on SATs
yes she is wearing seat belt.


Who downvoted this based on the presumption she is not smart ? You could probably read into the downvotes that the people think the video is lacking and not up to standard, not that she passed the GED by blowing her teacher.

FOR LIBERTY "Yes I am waiting fo reform whether it comes from liberty or progressive" same goes for the sift...

In fact, Downvoting is the highest form of sift-flattery.>> ^BoneRemake:

I dont like people posting stupid useless shit. Sure I might sound like I am presenting my values as a high standard than yours, thats not really the case, as I may post videos you do not like, but I encourage you to speak up like I have when such things occur. To stay silent does no one any good
"God bless you! I just downvoted your stuff! "
In reply to this comment by marinara:
cmon. don't like breasts, don't have to watch it