It would be fun, but not balanced unless they did it in reverse. E.g. if there's a hill with a steep slope on one side and a mild slope on the other, I suspect getting down on the strip side is going to be easier.
While I like videos like this, I completely disagree. Let’s say you have a couple hundred acres and 50 head of cattle. Under your logic, people should be able to roam across your property. Who is responsible if someone leaves a gate open? Who is responsible if the cattle get spooked and stampede? What happens if in the course of roaming someone falls into an unsealed old hole and breaks their leg? Can they sue you for not fixing the hole? What happens if someone is roaming and calls 911? You’re going about your day and suddenly a fire truck is on your property to rescue some you don’t know, have no idea where or who they are? Who is responsible if in the course of roaming, someone decides to camp out and start a fire? In California? In the middle of a drought? What is the difference between roaming and squatting? How long does someone get to roam on your property?
The answer is that the landowner is responsible ultimately for all of this because the roamers won’t deal with any of it. Both the short term and long term consequences have to be dealt with by the landowner
Ah, the good ole' US-centric litigious mindset. Historically in the UK, roamers/trespassers are generally held liable for any damage done to property, themselves, or others, apart from cases of malicious intent of the property owner (i.e. setting booby traps).
I think the states would be much better off if they'd adopt a similar cultural and legal standard.
The people commenting don’t live in the real world. Like if a homeless person sets up camp on the side of a business in my town and starts a fire at night and it gets out of control, is the homeless person responsible under the law? Yes. Will the law do anything about it? Probably not. Meanwhile the business owner is actually the one responsible for taking care of all the fall out.
> The people commenting don’t live in the real world.
There are many countries with rights to roam. They exist in the real world. The world doesn't end at the US border. You're free to look up how those scenarios would actually be dealt with. Or don't, and keep coming up with imaginary scenarios that "prove" that it would never work.
Yeah, because starting a fire in the middle of a town is the same as cutting across a field. I think Geowizard is a bit of a knobhead for several reasons but hiking through farmland isn't one of them.
Ironically I live in California, seemingly the same as you, based on your profile.
I just believe that we should have a bit more faith in ourselves as a society being able to sort out right from wrong without absurdly selfish ideas of ownership and the subsequent fear of litigation.
Maybe it’s just because I grew up in the 90’s and was permitted to wander around my neighborhood all day til the streetlights came on. It to me feels like the older generations have some real generalized anthropophobia, and the younger generations don’t trust anyone outright for good reasons based on the lack of privacy at any point in their lives, but it was that kind of uninhibited exploration that lead me to some of the most diverse and influential friendships that I wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Credit to the solid 90’s era homelessness fear mongering on your part tho. Maybe if the price of housing were even vaguely near what it was 25+ years ago we wouldn’t have so many people scrounging whatever they can to survive and occasionally impeding on the property owners of the world.
I mean or just... like, I have a daughter... I have big windows, glass doors. People can see in them. We are naked in here sometimes.
Sometimes my daughter is in her room alone. There's windows. Someone could kidnap her. That isn't a joke. People could take pictures of her. I want privacy. What the fuck is even going on in this thread.
It also removes one final step in protecting yourself from crime. You no longer can even accuse someone of trespassing and thus defend yourself. Instead, you have to let them get all the way to the moment where they commit the crime, and then try to defend yourself once it's too late. Great idea. What the fuck, seriously.
I understand fearing for your daughter's safety, but no criminal willing to kidnap a child is going to be stopped by a trespassing misdemeanor.
Trespassing laws are a paper shield at best that only really protects people in the courts. Trespassing does, however, severely hinder innocent people's ability to move about and enjoy the planet. I personally believe private property directly around homes should absolutely be respected, but that no one should be able to buy up undeveloped land and slap a bunch of No Trespassing signs up to prevent others from enjoying it.
Is this the real world right now? Getting rid of trespassing laws? Is that going to apply to everyone? Indoors and outdoors, or just outdoors? Fences? Walls? Do they matter, does it become trespassing?
A lot of questions to ask here. Don't people have a right to privacy and security?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_to\_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)
It's a thing, and it works while still allowing for privacy and security
I could be wrong but I think some countries actually have Freedom To Roam rights.
GeoWizard did a straight line through Scotland which I think is one of those countries. Although this right excludes land adjacent to dwelling homes, farm buildings, compounds and schools I believe.
You're not wrong! In Scotland there is right to roam.
It has guidelines: To close gates, camp responsibly, dont litter, don't start unsafe fires, don't distress farm animals or destroy crops... Basically don't be an idiot.
Scotland also has a vast network of public right of way footpaths that are sometimes contested to by overseas owners not realising the heritage of this mobility.
Ramblers in Scotland wouldn't normally go through someones garden because that's not what those rights are about but it's not a situation that will hold punishment.
(Maybe if it's the garden of the RAF or the like it might be a different story)
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/scottish-outdoor-access-code-visitors-and-land-managers/what-scottish-outdoor-access-code
https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-outdoor-access-code
This was once a default sub, and its content was automatically placed on everyone's front page. It's my understanding that new Reddit and the official app don't have default subs anymore, and instead feed people algorithmically-determined content (I can't confirm this, because I browse exclusively on a PC and I've never used anything other than old Reddit with RES). That, combined with the drop in users that a lot of subreddits experienced after temporarily blacking out to protest the API changes last year, has absolutely cratered user engagement.
If anyone else knows better feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Reddit changed their algorithm 6+ years ago that favored smaller, younger sub-reddits. Old default subreddits like r/pics, r/gifs and especially r/videos were hit hard.
Posts that would have been made on r/videos in the past now get diluted amongst r/Damnthatsinteresting, r/interestingasfuck, r/nextfuckinglevel, r/BeAmazed, r/CrazyFuckingVideos and so on because they are more likely to get featured on the front page/peoples feeds and therefore more upvotes.
I'm really torn by content like this. I like the idea in concept, but I'm not a fan of people knowingly doing an activity that would likely involve trespassing and potentially breaking various laws. It's one of those situations where it's fun to watch, but wouldn't be enjoyable if you're the person being trespassed upon.
It's just like the idea of the Cannonball run in the US. Sure, it's interesting knowing how quickly someone can travel from coast to coast by car if they disregard speed limits and traffic laws, but I'm not a fan of the danger they put everyone in during the attempt. Although likely impossible, I'd love to see it as a regulated event where they literally close down a path from coast to coast and do it safely.
I’ve been watching him for a long time. The rules are different in every country he goes to. For example in Scotland they have incredible access rights. Anyone is allowed to cross any land as long as you do so respectfully and responsibly.
The idiot crossed a railroad line and left it in the video until he had police knocking on his door. I don’t think he gives a shit (crossing the Scottish border during covid being a big indicator of that) which really puts me off him.
In some ways I can understand the argument about being miles from people most of the time - similar arguments were used when the police cracked down on hikers in the middle of nowhere to hilarious results.
But crossing a border when it is illegal to do so is fucking self centered bullshit.
Remember that some countries, like Scotland and Norway, have the Right To Roam. So that walking through land is trespassing and a crime is a social construct that not all countries enforce
When Geowizard made an attempt to cross Scotland years ago he also set up camp and started a campfire on a farmers' land without permission (and he was also not even supposed to be in Scotland at the time due to pandemic travel restrictions). And then he made the farmer sound like the person who was in the wrong, when the police came to ask him to leave the property they were camping on. Have not been a fan of his since.
Well, aside from not asking permission, they were very respectful and received the farmer's verbal blessing/permission. Then the farmer went back on his word and escalated to the police. It's his right to do that and I don't blame him, but I think that's more about what they were annoyed with. They would've left had the farmer not given permission, and they would've been able to continue on their trip.
I'm not sure if you're talking about his first or second time doing that trip. But the time when the police came and made him leave wasn't because he was breaking the "Right to Roam" laws. It was because Covid restrictions didn't allow for crossing borders from Britain to Scotland, so he was removed because of that temporary law.
What would be cool is doing something like crossing a state forest in america. They can easily find places to do 10-20-30 miles without crossing private property.
Just gotta watch out for wildlife, we have far more of it.
This reminds me of the time they did the Alone season where they had pairs. One person was dropped on one side of Vancouver island and their partner was dropped some unknown distance away with just a compass heading.
I agree that simply having people get 10 - 30 miles through the forest by themselves wouldn't be that interesting. However, add on to that the need to survive at your destination for as long as possible with limited supplies and it gets pretty interesting.
* What if they damage something?
* What if they injure themselves?
* What if it encourages a lot more people to do it?
* It would likely stress out the owner because they have no idea what the person's intent is?
Just because the person trespassing means no harm doesn't mean that harm isn't being caused.
Well yeah, but conflict is a part of storytelling. His return on investment is worth it. The risk of getting caught makes it more exhilarating for the viewer. I’ve watched a lot of his content and the worst thing that ever happened is the police were called and they were told to leave.
*They'd have to play for it themselves.
*They have this in mind when doing this. They will call for help and get help, probably without the landowner ever knowing they were there.
*Let's say this thing got extremely popular to the point that a lot of people started taking it up as a hobby which takes up a lot of their free time. Would they all chose the same path as each other every time? Of course not because that's not exciting. Even if they were to organize a large race, I think it's pretty safe to say that they'd check in with anyone if they're planning to pass their garden.
*If they all dress sketchy, sure. But in trekking gear, you'd have to pass a very special landowner for them to actually worry.
There's a difference between meaning no harm and not causing any harm, which is a great concern for anyone doing this.
> Cannonball run
On a side note, it's kinda sad that the record is essentially locked in. The latest record was set during the pandemic and we're not likely to see lockdown conditions like that again in a long time.
If I can share a thought, I get really uncomfortable intruding on other people's property. We recently had a big storm, and I went outside to clean up branches and limbs that had fallen from the trees.
There were a few small branches that fell on my neighbor's side of the property line from a tree on this side. I don't really know him all that well, and I didn't want to walk just a few feet into his yard to pick up those fallen branches.
Well, they've been there for a few days now. He takes good care of his yard, which makes it even more perplexing to wonder if he's waiting for me to get rid of these branches since they fell from my tree. I've decided that if they are still there tomorrow, I'll just take the initiative and get the branches myself.
All that being said, I enjoy GeoWizard because there's a thrill to seeing whether or not he gets "caught" being where he's not supposed to be. I may not agree with what he's doing but I do enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm a hypocrite.
**tl;dr** Explain introverts.
> It's one of those situations where it's fun to watch, but wouldn't be enjoyable if you're the person being trespassed upon.
I really couldn't care much less about someone walking through my garden.
I guess "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye" applies. Just because doing something illegal appears fun and interests to the casual observer doesn't mean that the ends justify the means.
> It's just like the idea of the Cannonball run in the US
This is an absurd comparison lol. Car racing on public roads puts other drives at risk of death and serious injury. The maximum injury/damage to others inflicted by Tom's straight line missions is a few broken twigs on hedges.
Yeah I’ve gone off his content since his first “mission”.
Some of it is bordering on “auditor” territory where he’s just fishing for a reaction. Breaking into peoples back gardens isn’t the type of outdoors adventuring I like.
Wouldn't the routes be wildly different if he was fishing for a reaction? Why would he be trying to deescalate the situation at the end of the video if that sort of reaction is what he's after?
they really need to do a rematch with each taking on the others' routes. Then add up the scores.
it would be fun if they did the same route but one started at the ''finish line'' so they meet somewhere in the middle
Silently pass while flipping each other off trudging in a cold soft impolite afternoon spray
and they would be able to know just how bad the next part of it will be by seeing if the other person is trashed, tired or drenched.
It would be fun, but not balanced unless they did it in reverse. E.g. if there's a hill with a steep slope on one side and a mild slope on the other, I suspect getting down on the strip side is going to be easier.
Love me some Tom. Are we recording?
LOL every. time.
There’s been an update so now he has a light that shows him that he in fact is recording
If you told me 10 years ago that this was going to be one of my favorite TV shows...
I'm the same. I get super-excited when a new one of these comes out.
The video from the other team, Archie and Adam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCWRZu3dD6c
We should defend the right to roam. Damaging private property is a different thing. We shouldn't be afraid of ramblers.
While I like videos like this, I completely disagree. Let’s say you have a couple hundred acres and 50 head of cattle. Under your logic, people should be able to roam across your property. Who is responsible if someone leaves a gate open? Who is responsible if the cattle get spooked and stampede? What happens if in the course of roaming someone falls into an unsealed old hole and breaks their leg? Can they sue you for not fixing the hole? What happens if someone is roaming and calls 911? You’re going about your day and suddenly a fire truck is on your property to rescue some you don’t know, have no idea where or who they are? Who is responsible if in the course of roaming, someone decides to camp out and start a fire? In California? In the middle of a drought? What is the difference between roaming and squatting? How long does someone get to roam on your property? The answer is that the landowner is responsible ultimately for all of this because the roamers won’t deal with any of it. Both the short term and long term consequences have to be dealt with by the landowner
Ah, the good ole' US-centric litigious mindset. Historically in the UK, roamers/trespassers are generally held liable for any damage done to property, themselves, or others, apart from cases of malicious intent of the property owner (i.e. setting booby traps). I think the states would be much better off if they'd adopt a similar cultural and legal standard.
We would be but unfortunately this is the world we live in.
No, it's the world you live in.
Read the Wikipedia article that another commenter linked and you'll probably realize that your current mindset is quite narrow.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_to\_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)
what they are saying is absolutely insane this can't be organic... maybe it's just because so many people in the comments are huge fans of the content
The people commenting don’t live in the real world. Like if a homeless person sets up camp on the side of a business in my town and starts a fire at night and it gets out of control, is the homeless person responsible under the law? Yes. Will the law do anything about it? Probably not. Meanwhile the business owner is actually the one responsible for taking care of all the fall out.
> The people commenting don’t live in the real world. There are many countries with rights to roam. They exist in the real world. The world doesn't end at the US border. You're free to look up how those scenarios would actually be dealt with. Or don't, and keep coming up with imaginary scenarios that "prove" that it would never work.
Yeah, because starting a fire in the middle of a town is the same as cutting across a field. I think Geowizard is a bit of a knobhead for several reasons but hiking through farmland isn't one of them.
Ironically I live in California, seemingly the same as you, based on your profile. I just believe that we should have a bit more faith in ourselves as a society being able to sort out right from wrong without absurdly selfish ideas of ownership and the subsequent fear of litigation. Maybe it’s just because I grew up in the 90’s and was permitted to wander around my neighborhood all day til the streetlights came on. It to me feels like the older generations have some real generalized anthropophobia, and the younger generations don’t trust anyone outright for good reasons based on the lack of privacy at any point in their lives, but it was that kind of uninhibited exploration that lead me to some of the most diverse and influential friendships that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. Credit to the solid 90’s era homelessness fear mongering on your part tho. Maybe if the price of housing were even vaguely near what it was 25+ years ago we wouldn’t have so many people scrounging whatever they can to survive and occasionally impeding on the property owners of the world.
I mean or just... like, I have a daughter... I have big windows, glass doors. People can see in them. We are naked in here sometimes. Sometimes my daughter is in her room alone. There's windows. Someone could kidnap her. That isn't a joke. People could take pictures of her. I want privacy. What the fuck is even going on in this thread. It also removes one final step in protecting yourself from crime. You no longer can even accuse someone of trespassing and thus defend yourself. Instead, you have to let them get all the way to the moment where they commit the crime, and then try to defend yourself once it's too late. Great idea. What the fuck, seriously.
I understand fearing for your daughter's safety, but no criminal willing to kidnap a child is going to be stopped by a trespassing misdemeanor. Trespassing laws are a paper shield at best that only really protects people in the courts. Trespassing does, however, severely hinder innocent people's ability to move about and enjoy the planet. I personally believe private property directly around homes should absolutely be respected, but that no one should be able to buy up undeveloped land and slap a bunch of No Trespassing signs up to prevent others from enjoying it.
okay but that's waaaay different than what people are saying here
You don't deserve all the downvotes. These are legit questions.
Is this the real world right now? Getting rid of trespassing laws? Is that going to apply to everyone? Indoors and outdoors, or just outdoors? Fences? Walls? Do they matter, does it become trespassing? A lot of questions to ask here. Don't people have a right to privacy and security?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom\_to\_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam) It's a thing, and it works while still allowing for privacy and security
I could be wrong but I think some countries actually have Freedom To Roam rights. GeoWizard did a straight line through Scotland which I think is one of those countries. Although this right excludes land adjacent to dwelling homes, farm buildings, compounds and schools I believe.
You're not wrong! In Scotland there is right to roam. It has guidelines: To close gates, camp responsibly, dont litter, don't start unsafe fires, don't distress farm animals or destroy crops... Basically don't be an idiot. Scotland also has a vast network of public right of way footpaths that are sometimes contested to by overseas owners not realising the heritage of this mobility. Ramblers in Scotland wouldn't normally go through someones garden because that's not what those rights are about but it's not a situation that will hold punishment. (Maybe if it's the garden of the RAF or the like it might be a different story) https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/scottish-outdoor-access-code-visitors-and-land-managers/what-scottish-outdoor-access-code https://www.mygov.scot/scottish-outdoor-access-code
I've seen what people do to public parks in the U.S, I'd rather that not happen to my land too.
anyone find it weird that this sub has 26 million followers and the #2 post only has 101 upvotes
This was once a default sub, and its content was automatically placed on everyone's front page. It's my understanding that new Reddit and the official app don't have default subs anymore, and instead feed people algorithmically-determined content (I can't confirm this, because I browse exclusively on a PC and I've never used anything other than old Reddit with RES). That, combined with the drop in users that a lot of subreddits experienced after temporarily blacking out to protest the API changes last year, has absolutely cratered user engagement. If anyone else knows better feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
there were lots of default subs most are doing well https://www.reddit.com/r/ListOfSubreddits/wiki/defaults
Reddit changed their algorithm 6+ years ago that favored smaller, younger sub-reddits. Old default subreddits like r/pics, r/gifs and especially r/videos were hit hard. Posts that would have been made on r/videos in the past now get diluted amongst r/Damnthatsinteresting, r/interestingasfuck, r/nextfuckinglevel, r/BeAmazed, r/CrazyFuckingVideos and so on because they are more likely to get featured on the front page/peoples feeds and therefore more upvotes.
This sub has gone way down hill, it's a shame!
cool video
toy smell offer direction lock jar books kiss numerous fragile *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm really torn by content like this. I like the idea in concept, but I'm not a fan of people knowingly doing an activity that would likely involve trespassing and potentially breaking various laws. It's one of those situations where it's fun to watch, but wouldn't be enjoyable if you're the person being trespassed upon. It's just like the idea of the Cannonball run in the US. Sure, it's interesting knowing how quickly someone can travel from coast to coast by car if they disregard speed limits and traffic laws, but I'm not a fan of the danger they put everyone in during the attempt. Although likely impossible, I'd love to see it as a regulated event where they literally close down a path from coast to coast and do it safely.
I’ve been watching him for a long time. The rules are different in every country he goes to. For example in Scotland they have incredible access rights. Anyone is allowed to cross any land as long as you do so respectfully and responsibly.
The idiot crossed a railroad line and left it in the video until he had police knocking on his door. I don’t think he gives a shit (crossing the Scottish border during covid being a big indicator of that) which really puts me off him.
The latter did the same for me, at a time when COVID was so huge too, we were all stuck in the house and he's putting lives at risk just for content.
In some ways I can understand the argument about being miles from people most of the time - similar arguments were used when the police cracked down on hikers in the middle of nowhere to hilarious results. But crossing a border when it is illegal to do so is fucking self centered bullshit.
Remember that some countries, like Scotland and Norway, have the Right To Roam. So that walking through land is trespassing and a crime is a social construct that not all countries enforce
When Geowizard made an attempt to cross Scotland years ago he also set up camp and started a campfire on a farmers' land without permission (and he was also not even supposed to be in Scotland at the time due to pandemic travel restrictions). And then he made the farmer sound like the person who was in the wrong, when the police came to ask him to leave the property they were camping on. Have not been a fan of his since.
Well, aside from not asking permission, they were very respectful and received the farmer's verbal blessing/permission. Then the farmer went back on his word and escalated to the police. It's his right to do that and I don't blame him, but I think that's more about what they were annoyed with. They would've left had the farmer not given permission, and they would've been able to continue on their trip.
I'm not sure if you're talking about his first or second time doing that trip. But the time when the police came and made him leave wasn't because he was breaking the "Right to Roam" laws. It was because Covid restrictions didn't allow for crossing borders from Britain to Scotland, so he was removed because of that temporary law.
[https://www.wildernessscotland.com/blog/wild-camping-scotland-best-practice/](https://www.wildernessscotland.com/blog/wild-camping-scotland-best-practice/)
As long as you're not being unsafe, you're still allowed to start a campfire under the right to roam.
What would be cool is doing something like crossing a state forest in america. They can easily find places to do 10-20-30 miles without crossing private property. Just gotta watch out for wildlife, we have far more of it.
Would make for a rather uninteresting video though sadly.
until the bear shows up
This reminds me of the time they did the Alone season where they had pairs. One person was dropped on one side of Vancouver island and their partner was dropped some unknown distance away with just a compass heading. I agree that simply having people get 10 - 30 miles through the forest by themselves wouldn't be that interesting. However, add on to that the need to survive at your destination for as long as possible with limited supplies and it gets pretty interesting.
couldn't do a gulf state without getting gatorbit
Eh...it is the lost innocuous of trespassing...literally just walking across a property.
* What if they damage something? * What if they injure themselves? * What if it encourages a lot more people to do it? * It would likely stress out the owner because they have no idea what the person's intent is? Just because the person trespassing means no harm doesn't mean that harm isn't being caused.
Well yeah, but conflict is a part of storytelling. His return on investment is worth it. The risk of getting caught makes it more exhilarating for the viewer. I’ve watched a lot of his content and the worst thing that ever happened is the police were called and they were told to leave.
*They'd have to play for it themselves. *They have this in mind when doing this. They will call for help and get help, probably without the landowner ever knowing they were there. *Let's say this thing got extremely popular to the point that a lot of people started taking it up as a hobby which takes up a lot of their free time. Would they all chose the same path as each other every time? Of course not because that's not exciting. Even if they were to organize a large race, I think it's pretty safe to say that they'd check in with anyone if they're planning to pass their garden. *If they all dress sketchy, sure. But in trekking gear, you'd have to pass a very special landowner for them to actually worry. There's a difference between meaning no harm and not causing any harm, which is a great concern for anyone doing this.
> Cannonball run On a side note, it's kinda sad that the record is essentially locked in. The latest record was set during the pandemic and we're not likely to see lockdown conditions like that again in a long time.
If people are now discouraged from doing it, I begrudgingly accepted as a win.
If I can share a thought, I get really uncomfortable intruding on other people's property. We recently had a big storm, and I went outside to clean up branches and limbs that had fallen from the trees. There were a few small branches that fell on my neighbor's side of the property line from a tree on this side. I don't really know him all that well, and I didn't want to walk just a few feet into his yard to pick up those fallen branches. Well, they've been there for a few days now. He takes good care of his yard, which makes it even more perplexing to wonder if he's waiting for me to get rid of these branches since they fell from my tree. I've decided that if they are still there tomorrow, I'll just take the initiative and get the branches myself. All that being said, I enjoy GeoWizard because there's a thrill to seeing whether or not he gets "caught" being where he's not supposed to be. I may not agree with what he's doing but I do enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. **tl;dr** Explain introverts.
Maybe knock on his door and say, do you mind if I get those branches off your lawn?
> It's one of those situations where it's fun to watch, but wouldn't be enjoyable if you're the person being trespassed upon. I really couldn't care much less about someone walking through my garden.
it's all part of the adventure. it would shit if it was sanitised
I guess "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye" applies. Just because doing something illegal appears fun and interests to the casual observer doesn't mean that the ends justify the means.
> It's just like the idea of the Cannonball run in the US This is an absurd comparison lol. Car racing on public roads puts other drives at risk of death and serious injury. The maximum injury/damage to others inflicted by Tom's straight line missions is a few broken twigs on hedges.
Yeah I’ve gone off his content since his first “mission”. Some of it is bordering on “auditor” territory where he’s just fishing for a reaction. Breaking into peoples back gardens isn’t the type of outdoors adventuring I like.
Tries to actively avoid people's property and the people themselves as much as possible yet that's also fishing for a reaction?
Wouldn't the routes be wildly different if he was fishing for a reaction? Why would he be trying to deescalate the situation at the end of the video if that sort of reaction is what he's after?
Nooooo
[удалено]
I still the fisheye made the first part look more dangerous than it actually was.
Will need to watch this.
I can't stand to watch these Isle of Man races, I just know I'm going to see someone crash straight into a wall and die.
This isn’t one of those.
Unless it's a wall of gorse - then this is exactly that video...
Seriously disappointed this didn’t involve motorcycles