She was on a friggin' bicycle drafting behind a dragster at 184 MPH and SHE'S NOT EVEN AN AVID RIDER!

Also, it's not easy being behind someone that's breaking wind.

Suck it up dude!

If you want to talk about being "less impressive", bobsledding does it for me.
nooffensebob

I'm incredibly disappointed that they tow her up to over 150 before she starts peddling herself. At that speed, the draft pulls you along with minimal effort, making the speed she achieved far less impressive. I've hit over 60 behind a semi truck with no tow in on a regular road bike as a teenager, and could have doubled that with the right gears. The hard part was getting up to speed and into the draft, once in it, I barely had to pedal to keep up, but had to pump my legs like hummingbird wings to add any speed because I ran out of gears.

I feel like any cycling pro could do much better, she doesn't even know her top speed unassisted to within ten mph, which indicates she's not an avid rider. A pro will be able to tell you exactly how fast they can go on flat ground with no wind.

So good for her, but it's far less impressive to me than the title implies.

Sad video for sure (the music was a bit much though).

Kind of a tough call - I do think the truck driver deserves the majority of the blame and should at the minimum be charged with a hit and run - and probably more - as he did pass the cyclist and clearly did not proceed with any due caution on that turn.

With that said, as an avid cyclist myself, I trust NO ONE while riding. Looking at the video, there seems to be a bike lane symbol in the middle lane, suggesting that cyclists proceeding through the intersection should be using that lane. Now I don't think that is enforced by law, but if that is what the symbol is there for, this would be a perfect illustration as to why. Also, if you look even closer, it appears the truck had his indicator on before she pulled up beside him; i.e. she should have seen his indicator. I hate to put any blame on that poor woman and - I really hate to say this - this video only goes to show that both parties were at fault.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

1. I just spent 45 minutes reading details of lives of people I have never met. At least, I don't think so. Hmmm.
2. I'm fairly new to VS and I'm marrying the man who introduced me to it.
3. We're getting married tomorrow .
4. This will be my second, and final, marriage.
5. I curse. A lot. My voice tends to carry (or I'm just loud) and this sometimes causes problems...for others.
6. I'm in corporate sales.
7. I'm very good at what I do...but I hate it.
8. I am an introvert. I hide it well. Or so I'm told.
9. I am an avid reader. Anything that catches my interest, so the titles on my bookshelves sometimes baffle people.
10. I have 2 sons who I hope I'm not screwing up too much.
11. I was considered a "troubled youth" and my parents sent me to military school.
12. Then I joined the army. So I guess it worked...but really I just wanted to get away from my state.
13. 5 years later, I came back. And haven't been able to make it out of this black hole for the last 10 years.
14. I smoked for 20 years, with only a few brief periods of quitting.
15. I quit 3 days ago, for the last time.
16. 15 is probably not true. Just to keep it honest.
17. I grew up in a family rife with addiction and dysfunction.
18. We have one of the closest family units I know, now.
19. I am a "grammar nazi," but I probably overuse ... and ( ).
20. I'm a sucker for cop and crime shows.
21. This has made me believe I could probably get away with murder.
22. I would never murder anyone...but I do often contemplate it. Mostly while driving in traffic.
23. I'm seriously considering deleting this post right now, but the beer is telling me not to.
24. I have a real passion for singing...but no talent for it. Cruel, cruel world!
25. I'm hitting submit before proofreading in order not to chicken out, so I apologize for any typos.

Yeah, I had to get rid of a lot of comics and discarded my magazines as well since then. And I do regret it for sure, but they were such a pain taking up space.

I definitely miss those days but I also am an avid PC gamer still. I think what I miss most about those days were the developers... I mean the studios out there back then were ahead of their time and most fell by the wayside due to publisher problems or what not. I really miss Looking Glass Studios, Black Isle & Bullfrog (& to some degree Bungie releasing something that I actually like). Those studios were irreplaceable, but again - it's all about time and place - even those publishers would have probably hit a sour note at some point and at least we never saw those notes! I remember for example that people really got tired & complained about the Infinity engine from Black Isle/Bioware games. And now look - these days we have games trying to emulate the look & feel (Pillars of Eternity)!

Reading it now. My fiancee, who is an avid reader but not usually the sci-fi, read it in 3 days and could not contain her excitement (ie: spolied it a bit for me). I think she liked the funny, but glossed over the science/math, whereas I love the science/math. Can't wait for the movie.

As an avid consumer of increasingly obscure pornography, sometimes I'm surprised to learn that in the wider community many people haven't even considered the erotic possibilities of, for example, simulated alien impregnation.

As an avid YES fan I have to say NO to this.

The time to put the horse out to pasture was a decade ago. Why O why do they shame themselves.
The only place they should be playing out is at their local bar for fun.

As an avid pool player, I was more interested in looking at his beautiful pool table. Tight pockets on it, too.

Yea was also hoping for a cat or something to jump up and eat it or dog or whatnot.

and yea I get off on violence
avid hunter and killed 18 quail and 4 ducks this past saturday, had a wonderful bbq sunday afternoon with family. Can't wait for deer season

as an avid bf3 gamer - more of the same? its basically a BF3 expansion... what have this become... COD?

Wait, has it been established that the killer was an avid gamer? That would make him completely typical, of course, but still I hadn't heard that.

I honestly don't think that video game or Hollywood violence is to blame for this. I think REAL violence, glorified by the news media, has far more impact, because most mentally ill people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I think the blame falls squarely on our inability to identify serious mental health issues and easy access to semi-automatic firearms.

From Calgary Herald:
Call it a tragic turn of events or a bald-faced lie. Rumours began circulating Thursday afternoon that Canadian pop star Justin Bieber had been diagnosed with cancer, prompting an outpouring of support from avid Beliebers – many of whom went as far as shaving their heads.

The gossip mill initially began spinning out of control thanks to a tweet from Entertainment Tonight’s official Twitter account (@ETonlineAlert) that stated:

“Pop star Justin Bieber was diagnosed with cancer earlier this morning. Bieber fans are shaving their heads to show support.”

The tweet was quickly deleted, but not before #BaldForBieber began trending.

No official comment regarding the rumours has surfaced from the 18-year-old star, however, his bodyguard Kenny Hamilton took to his Twitter account (@KennyHamilton) to deny the cancer diagnosis.

Read more: http://www.dose.ca/Justin+Bieber+falls+down+goes+boom+video/7416083/story.html#ixzz2AWGw1NmE