love LOVE urban as dredd!
*related=http://videosift.com/video/judge-dredd-interrogation-scene

I love the fact Urban had the balls to do the entire movie in helmut. That could have been the one saving grace of Stallone's version, but he pussied out.

Sure they would, Theres even a name for it: Urban beekeeping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_beekeeping

If driving lessons with an IFV in an urban environment are a neccessity, it really is smart to do it abroad -- like this British FV510 in a German town.

Speed limit in most urban areas is 50km/h (30mph). Braking distance at that speed is ~23m(70ft). There's no way he could have stopped.

Even at a more conservative 30km/h (~20mph) braking distance is still 12m(~40ft).

Oh, I agree that what the woman on the bicycle did was profoundly stupid and she should have waited for the signal or at least recognized the dangerous situation she was in re: oncoming traffic. She put everyone else in a dangerous and easily avoidable situation. At the same time though, were I driving the oncoming car, I would be slowing down and covering my brakes at the crosswalks, anticipating that a pedestrian might dash out from between the cars (happens a lot, though they usually stop short right after freaking me the hell out). In many places, hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk is your fault regardless of the signals.

I'll certainly also grant you that a collision in the situation was probably unavoidable given how fast bike lady was going, but I also can't approve of the oncoming driver. Of course, speed is hard to gauge in the video, but they seemed to be just driving along at a constant high-ish speed assuming having the right of way means you don't have to watch out for idiots doing foolish thing.

Also, I see it as a reasonable (though stretched in this instance) rule of thumb that in a dense urban environment, if you have to swerve to avoid a pedestrian rather than just braking, you weren't driving carefully enough.

I disagree. The oncoming driver reacts quickly and swerves to the side. He/she's the reason the cyclist walked away from it instead of being hospitalised.

Also, she's cycling in an urban area (i.e. interacting with cars) without a helmet. She's an idiot.

Why isn't there a separate path for cars to drive without interrupting urban traffic?

i'm deeply invested and involved in electronic music, jungle/drum'n'bass, the urban lifestyle, and "future" music, and i fucking love stan rogers.

You thought correctly. What a blast.

Even despite your recommendation, I expected it to be a run-of-the-mill action flick. Mucho pow pow, cheesy zingers everywhere... the usual. So it was all the more captivating when it turned out to be a proper dystopian cesspool of desperation.

When Dredd lured a group of them to a terminal, covered them in what looked like Willie Pete and set half the quadrant on fire -- that's cold. And if I didn't know Lena Headey to have quite the rock 'n roll personality, I'd be worried by how naturally the persona of an ice-cold murderer seems to come to her. Both Urban and Headey, now that I think about it. Very disturbing indeed.

Anyway, great recommendation, would have never touched it otherwise.

I like Carl Urban. Damn good Dredd frown. He also had the balls to never take the helmet off. You just know Stallone demanded to have his face seen.

Lena Headey was spectacular in it as well. Was amazed at her makeup. Thought they cast someone with massive scars until I realized who it was.

sugar->metric system->which side of the road to drive on->jousting

Fuck yeah, videosift... epic thread!

@RFlagg, I'm almost certain I read somewhere that Napoleon changing the road side is an urban legend.

It's unfair to compare this remote rural town with a big urban city with well established infrastructure. A better comparison would be the tornadoes that hit rural towns in the US, annually destroying many homes and taking several lives. Yes, those houses could be built to be tornado-proof, but they aren't because it would cost 3x as much and the average residents are too poor to afford it (and storm shelters and advanced warning make it less deadly)

(Of course, China should still be more strict about building codes. Although they'd have to tackle corruption first- too easy to bribe inspectors, and too many contractors cut corners to save money. They are rightly focused on improving food safety now - what other country would you find counterfeit eggs?? )

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

Ocker just means a broad accent... the sort you'd find way out in the country. Strine would've been a perfectly good alternative description.

I think Bogans are mostly urban... but then 90% of Australians are Urban

As for Yobbo... this character would certainly count.