Rewatch the video, when it starts the light is green.

-The time on the video is 1 second in when the light turns yellow
-His speed at that time is 54km/h, default speed limit in Canada in urban centers is 50km/h but plenty of stretches are 60km/h, decent odds his 5k under versus over.
-The time on the video when his front wheel hits the stop line is 3 seconds.


From that we can say the time from the light turning yellow, to him reaching the point he needed to stop was 2 seconds. At 50km/h, lets work out the distance. 50 km/h works out to 13.9m/s, so the moment the light went yellow he was maybe 28metres from the stop line.

Australian government says that dry road stopping distance for a family car at 50km is 35m. Now, sometimes a bike can perform better braking, sometimes it can perform worse, but it doesn't seem that it's obvious a biker should be able to stop in 28m the instant a light goes yellow, seems that passing through is not only prudent, but quite likely the only option that physics allows.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances/graph

Forgot maybe the best example, last year Black Lives Matters Toronto shutdown the Toronto Pride parade to impose demands on the Pride organisation. A demand that the police be excluded from future Pride parades being a key demand that Pride had to agree to before the parade was able to continue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823


The special interest groups up here are graduating from taking on the "white supremacist"(their words) government in our country and are fully turning on each other now. BLM versus pride and Transgender rights versus Feminists, and on...

Brings to mind one of my favourite quotes:

Arguing over vi versus emacs is like arguing about whether it's better to start a fire by banging rocks or rubbing sticks.

I have to disagree with this. If you're working with even a team of two, you have to edit someone else's source code, and tabs v spaces has to be agreed upon. There are a lot of other, more entertaining questions of formatting that have to be settled upon, not to mention how to name things: CamelCase versus under_scores.

Any halfway competent programmer figures out the local standards by observation and follows them. Anything else is an indication that she just doesn't give a shit about getting along with co-developers.

Macarthur must have been terrified of being primaried by the Kochs---so F--ing terrified---to decide to back the second round of the Ryan/Trump bill knowing that this would be the result.

However, he did the 3rd district of NJ in 2016 60-40% versus a Democrat--that's basically a landslide---And Trump won it 51-45. So, he's probably going to win again in 2018 (I would predict with a smaller margin, but nonetheless, he should win)

But for some other marginal Republican guys---this might not end so well.

*promote.

LOL, East Palo Alto. I volunteered at the Boys and Girls Club there for a year when I lived in Mountain View. Two cops got shot and East Palo Alto had the highest murder rate ever that year. It's utterly insane how on one side of the 101 you have these multi-million dollar mansions and Stanford University and on the other side you have gangland.

Meanwhile, back on topic, when I moved to Mountain View in 2002 my rent was $800 a month for a studio apartment. The rent went up by $100 a year every year until I finally called it quits in 2007 when they wanted to charge me $1300 a month. I gave up ever actually being able to own a home in the Bay Area (let alone rent) and left in 2009.

In Japan now, and things aren't quite as bad as the Bay Area, but we've been house hunting recently and we're shocked at the disparity between what we want versus what we can actually afford, even with both us being full-time professionals. I know that 2nd place he goes to is supposed to be a joke but it's not that far off from the truth, at least as far as our experiences go. While the places we've been shown by the real estate agent are certainly habitable, they aren't particularly nice. So we're going to have to decide whether we want to live someplace not so great with the advantage being the mortgage will be paid off by the time we retire or just rent in a place we're comfortable with and wind up having to really budget hard after retirement since rent will consume a sizable portion of our pensions/social security.

I'm not about to become any manner of expert either, but the mental gymnastics you suggest aren't nearly as exotic as you describe.

The very basic explanation usually given is old testament versus new testament. That of course is an oversimplification though and leads to your obvious come back about what gets kept/rejected and the irreconcilable contradictions.

The more specific response given next is that Jesus teachings a couple centuries after your passages was basically tell all the scholars of the day they had missed the entire point. Hating your neighbour and wanting to kill him but refraining just because you feared hell was zero degrees better than just killing him. all the intent and evil is already there. Thus, the new message that everybody is guilty under the unchanged law and the punishment is nasty. This message was wildly unpopular and ended with him being killed. Theologies differ, but the widely agreed next step was that his death was accept as payment for everybody's wrongs and thus he was the path to saving everyone from the death the letter of the law demanded.

You don't need to believe a word of that, but to say it's trivially obvious it's the wrong interpretation just isn't true. It is not a bunch of mental gymnastics at all, it is the pretty clear explanation and teaching Jesus gave in the Bible. Rejected with all the enthusiasm you want, but your grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of millions of people today by insisting that murder the unbelievers is the only rational way to read the Bible.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

I am a fan of Alien Rez, not because of Joss Whedon's patchwork script, but because at least it had the familiar comedic elements of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his usual returning ensemble cast (Ron Pearlamn, Dominique Pinon), as well as Sigorney Weaver being a badass mother.

Just my opinion. I love all of Jeunet's films; as wild and varied as the genres, his film style and character driven stories transcend the genre. City of Lost Child, Amelie, Delcatessen, Micmacs -- really excellent track record. Cool bit of science fiction in all of his films, even if just sort of a chaotic sense of fate and surrealism.

Ridley Scott is hit or miss -- but then again, Ridley Scott has far more a prolific film career so it's like arguing the planetary distances versus the intergalactic distances, we can't fully comprehend the multitude of influences involved in making a film and the secret to making it a good film, so what does it matter if it's 1 astronomical unit, 2 light years, or 26 billion light years, it's all beautiful art.

My kindness aside, his last 5 films: Robin Hood, Prometheus, The Counselor, Exodus, The Martian -- typical and BORING blockbustery movies. 1492 and everything after have been epic suck fests. Even Hannibal was a let down. They're all movies you're sort of excited about, if it weren't for the fact that he drags them out and adds little element of noticeable flair. Like Spielberg, hidden in realism. I want the stylistic elements of Alien and Blade Runner and Legend that PULLED YOU OUT of the movie experience to say loudly: This is art.

The soundtracks especially -- Ridley Scott replaced the original scoring of his movie Legend, which was a dazzling score by Tangerine Dream -- he replaced it with Jerry Goldsmith in rerelease... which sort of makes it all come full circle when you listen to the awful, typically EPIC score of Prometheus, minus all the atmosphere that the original soundtrack provided.

It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

@newtboy

My last appeal from a different angle.
You said:
I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....

You are writing off everyone that voted Trump for pretty much any reason as either racist, or willing supporters of racists. Stop me here if I'm misrepresenting what you are being clear on.

Assuming I'm safe so far, here's my fear: You are almost enthusiastically embracing the us versus them mentality that hate thrives on. What's worse, is this mindset, which it would appear a great many democrats and media outlets share, strengthens the us versus them dynamic.

Maybe that doesn't scare you. It would seem likely even that the democrats aren't scared of it either. It seems that being 'right' on the matter is believed to be enough.

Here's why guys like me are scared though. Your guys LOST the election. I'm afraid I'm watching the democrats chase off Trump voters that just wanted jobs to feed their families at EXACTLY the time when you need them. Chasing them off is how you lose the next election all over again. If the democrats can't get the message that the Donald was considered the lesser evil by a huge part of America and change themselves to reach the people, then what will wake them up?

Meanwhile this filth and the horrible people who voted for Trump and support the Republican party, AKA radical right Christians HATE homosexuals themselves. They don't show their hate via bombs, but via tossing stones of bigotry and laws to discriminate against them for daring to sin differently.

And there is no opinion on climate change... again it is science. No denying the science. You are entitled to your own opinions, yes, but not your own facts. Sorry, but the universe isn't only 6,000 years old, no matter what your stupid book says.

And you can think gay marriage is a sin. Nobody on the Left ever said you had to accept the sin, to accept the homosexuality, but you do have to accept them as people. It is the right who wants to deny them rights as human beings, just because they sin differently than the rest of us. Jesus said let those without sin toss the first stone, and then notably didn't toss any stones himself, who hung out with the sinners and taught love was the most important thing, but the Right is far comfortable tossing those stones against the gays, to deny them a wedding cake, to deny them a wedding and other rights, just for a sin that doesn't effect anyone but those doing it. It isn't murder, but the Right treats it as such. That isn't just stating an opinion, that is full action against another human being for being different than you, and this ass hole and anyone who agrees with him is a horrible human being for wanting to deny somebody rights for being different. Yes, we may disagree that it being a big deal, but there isn't an effort to deny you the right to speak out against homosexuality if you are so inclined, but you can't claim you are being repressed when you are the one seeking to do the repression. Apparently the Right's attitude is "my sin, isn't as gross as yours, so it's not as bad... and God isn't doing a good job of convicting you of it, so I'll do that job for Him" as He's too weak or something to do it Himself apparently.

Sodom's sin was being a land of plenty and not doing enough to help the needy and the poor in her borders, and other versus talk about how rude it was to foreigners... sounds a lot like the Republican party in the US... actually, the Republican party and Trump sound a lot like the anti-Christ system in Revelations... but I'll ignore that and assume that Christianity is still more than likely just as fake as the other 5,000 gods. Now, yes, the Bible does mention the sexual immorality of Sodom, so it likely didn't help, but it's specific sin, the thing God judged it for, was not doing enough to help the needy and the poor, though it had plenty of resources to do so. Basically the "I don't want my tax dollars going to help those [needy and poor] people" as my evangelical brother in law once said. That sums up the Right these days, fuck the poor, and help the rich, who cares what Jesus said about the rich and the poor.

Then the whole, you can't judge a whole party based on a few bad apples... yet the Right sits in judgement of all Muslims and want to deny people refuge who are trying to escape the radicals, because one or two radicals might slip in for each thousand saved... that's showing the love of Christ, "stay there you Muslim bastard, have your women raped, and you children forced into military camps and be radicalized, serves you right for daring to be having an accident of birth being born in the wrong country and being raised on the wrong faith". That is the attitude the Right sends out when they want to deny refuge to refugees.

So I sit in judgement of all Christians based on the fact the KKK, Nazis, Westboro... and frankly what seems to be the vast majority of evangelical Christians these days. If they can sit in judgement of others, I'll sit in judgement of them. I realize the hypocrisy of that, and admit it, which is FAR more than anyone on the Right ever would do. But as the Carman (famed Christian singer whom I've seen many many times live when I was a Christian) song says, their "witness could have been more than it had".

Basically this is 5:32 worth of hypocrisy that is so typical of the Right that those deep in it can't even begin to see it.

I normally don't like jumping in to these political fights, but come on, please stop propagating the term "fake news" as a term for news you don't like versus actual fake news websites.

There's no way any of us should allow that term to enter in to the public lexicon the way Republicans are trying to co-opt it for their agenda.

Knock it off. Words have meaning. Quit redefining terms just for your own liking.

I think your expectations would not be met. You're forgetting that AT LEAST 1/4 of Americans are 'mentally challenged', expecting them as a group to drive rationally or with caution versus wrecking will lead to accidents 100% of the time.
Even doing the right thing and putting warning of work ahead before the crest wouldn't stop all the accidents, but it would put the fault 100% on the stupid drivers rather than share it with them.
Because they were unsafe, so at least partly at fault, they'll probably just pay for the cars and injuries rather than taking their chances and spending far more fighting them in court.

Insane POV Downhill Race - 400 versus 1 in Red Bull Foxhunt! has been added as a related post - related requested by blackfox42 on that post.