*personal experience crashing/rolling...too much of it

I'm no doctor, but I've been in dozens of what normal people would call wrecks/accidents thanks to off road, and multiple rolls. The lateral (to the side) forces in a roll were never close to direct impact forces...not in the same ballpark. It's all about maximum force/time. Rolls are nearly always comparatively slow, drawn out rotational acceleration, crashes are quick, near instantaneous. That makes an enormous difference. Rolling at 50mph, you might get hurt. Hitting a wall at 50mph, you're lucky if you survive.
Rolling looks scary until you've done it. Dead stop crashing is scary.

Edit: I once watched a truck roll 10 times at 100mph + through a fence...driver walked away and raced later that day. That speed into a boulder, he would be dead, no question.

Canada is doing the same shit with our Snowbirds and worse, there's been an accident with one crew member killed. It's not just a waste of money, the flyover attracts spectators, drawing crowds out to see the show (and risk infection) while under "stay at home" orders and the REQUISITE health workers coming out from their hospitals to see the show to be "paid respect to," it's a waste of their precious time and more workload for them.

First time through i jumped at the third accident and made an audible gasp. The anticipation of each accident had me on the edge of my seat. Some of those accidents were brutal.

Automobile manufacturers have come a long way in protecting lives since I was a kid. I remember when an arm across your chest was your seatbelt.

Not so with drugs. They are more lethal now than ever.

Edit: You get a point for using "car crash" instead of "accident."

I have read NTSB air crash reports for decades...disasters are so rarely the result of just one mistake. And this is the same sort of thing. A series...and then lessons written in blood.

I had a friend who was a trained chemical engineer--he was always upset at BP's budgeting for maintenance and oversight. He felt they had a terrible history of accidents because they were always trying to cut it too close. That you just had to spend a certain amount of money to do chemical process and petrochemicals safely. He was right.

*promote
*quality

Actually I've always been worried about rogue attacks like that. Some asshole would project something to confuse self-driving system and would cause either an accident or a traffic jam..
There should be a law where it would make these kind of attacks equivalent to attack with a deadly weapon.

*comedy

I lost my two teeth from a school bus accident when I was a callow.

In the close-up of the carabiners at 1:06, the gates are both facing in the same direction.

When we see them in use (e.g. 1:17 - 1:22, 1:30), they're facing in opposite directions - which, as I understand it, is the correct way to use them as it reduces the risk that an accident (e.g. a falling rock hit, a fall that suddenly stresses the safety line...) opens both at once.

I liked this video, but would have expected a high-safety culture not to show carabiners the wrong way around?

Your video, Woman suffers accident after discussing scooter regulations, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is why Motorized Vehicles should use the bike lanes, and not the sidewalks and crosswalks. They are too fast and will cause accidents mixed in with slower pedestrian traffic.

Carefully

None of the endothermic reactions in this video have been suggested as methods to regulate global temperature, because even if they could be scaled up enough to make a global difference they don't address the systems which regulate the earth's temperature.

Some things which have affected global temperatures either up or down are:

• Volcanic eruptions can cause global cooling, for example the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released around 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide causing global cooling of approx 0.5°C over the following three years (ref: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change and https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ )
  
• Increased rates of erosion of the right type of rocks can increase CO₂ absorption and reduce global temperatures that way, https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-weathering-rocks-cooled-earth#gs.cmy3h0
  
• Cyanobacteria, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
  

I don't have time today, but if memory serves, ar4 temperature/ sea level prediction was 30-60% higher than ar3, ar5 less of a change, but still higher than ar4, and yesterday it went up another 10% with the intermediate report, expected to rise again in the 2021 report. I found it by accident and can't find it this morning, and I'm out of free time already today.

It's the factual, scientifically likely outcome. There is no "right" approach, indeed there's no working solution at all.

Yes, different again on two NOAA sites. They don't make it easy to find and compare accurately reported data.

I meant it was odd because they listed the 2018 data as if it was the highest readings, I understand it's not a constant rise.

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

Absolutely there is a distinction.

And because of that distinction, and the fact that vehicle collisions kill more people by "accident" (we call them accidents but a significant amount of them end up being charged with reckless/careless driving) than firearms do on purpose, I think that vehicles are very dangerous.

"There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer."

I like the cut of your gib. Too many Americans see violence (no matter the tool used) as a solution to their problems. When you humanise the problem, you see that we need to change people and their lives rather than arbitrarily restrict tools (guns) that are 99.99% used for lawful purposes.

There is a clear distinction here. Auto accidents and the like do not have an intent to kill. It's about those that target innocent people.

There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer.