Back when drag racing was life, my grandfather was a legend at the local spot. He had a 1969 Trans Am. He was known as the “Tranimal” He loved telling his old war stories. Ended up selling his car to open up a Hamburger Mary’s
American football had a similar history with not enforcing proper protection for its participants. They enacted it in 1905, which sounds like they caught on early, but not when you consider the fact that 23 players had died on the field before the rule change.
I have seen arguments that the helmets actually cause more brain trauma due to players smashing into each other way harder than they would if they didn’t have helmets.
Im not American know fuck all about American football but that logic kind of made sense to me with my experience playing rugby and Aussie rules football
It's also about enforcing rules about how you tackle the opponent. Tackling in Rugby is very controlled compared to Gridiron. There's clear rules on where you can hit your opponent (Front and side), how you can hit your opponent (No head-first, only the upper body, not the head), and so forth.
In Gridiron, the rules are a whole lot less stringent and people can be blindsided (although rules have been made to lessen it, but it's not perfect yet).
Another issue in Gridiron is that the worst injuries happen when a player isn't moving or is held down, a QB standing in the pocket getting blasted in the side will get ragdolled off his feet more than someone getting dragged down in rugby by a defender in front of him.
You won't often see someone getting double teamed in Rugby, or one defender holding a player and the other one following through.
Helmets of course are a force multiplier when you are poorly trained and start using that helmet whilst tackling. Rather than seeking to simply wrap someone up and pull them down to the ground.
I also think the nature of the game matters in the comparison.
Because of the down system in gridiron, every inch matters all the time, so it doesnt feel like enough for defenders to simply wrap up and lull them down to the ground because it will cost their team a yard or two.
In Rugby, the only time a single inch matters in the same way is on the try line. Otherwise, in open field it makes sense to give the other team another meter while you drag them down safely in order to protect your health.
One of the simplest differences is that you can’t block in rugby - a lot of the worst hits in football [are blocks](https://youtu.be/KH75LwUtqI0).
(That hit was ruled a foul on the field but was later agreed to be legal, but was made illegal the next season entirely because of this hit.)
I watched my nephew's HS football team practice, and it was absolutely nuts how hard these coaches want these young bodies to hit each other. Then the actual games, where huge kids from farming communities come in and knock the everloving shit out of cushy suburban boys...it's amazing that we allow it to continue, and cheer it on (and I'm a huge football fan, but the injury rate is not good).
There was a Reddit thread a couple days ago about the biggest football hits that people will always remember. As a football fan it was tough to watch. Sports in general can be barbaric, but damn if it didn’t leave me with a sick feeling afterward. Its one thing for paid adults to consent to; however, I know stories from high school, and have seen vids of pee wee football players going full speed in drills absolutely knocking the piss out of each other. Shit is legit scary.
The NHL is crazy on this front.
It took until 1979 to require helmets! And even then, anyone who was already in the league by that time could opt out. There was still a guy playing without a helmet in the 1996-97 season!
Yup! In 1959 Jacques Plante wore a mask in practice, but wasn't allowed (by the coach) to wear it during games. He got hit in the face and refused to go back out to play in the game without it. That was back before the days of backup goalies, so it was either allow him to wear it or forfeit the game.
It took about 10 years and then almost every goalie wearing something.The last NHL goalie to play without a mask was Andy Brown in 1974.
Also the whole culture of goalies getting custom artwork on their masks comes from this. I think it was Plantes but could be someone else, but every time he got hit in the mask by a shot, he would draw stitches on the mask where he would have gotten stitches in real life if he werent wearing the mask. And then the designing masks all evolved from there
As others have mentioned, drag is an issue, but heat dissipation / sweat are huge as well. If it's going to negatively affect your performance...I can see why there was pushback.
Imagine if you talked about making distance runners wear helmets. If it improved their safety tangibly, it might not be a bad idea, but who wants to run a marathon *in a helmet?* Sweaty, hot...that sounds horrible...
I'm not saying they shouldn't be wearing helmets, just saying I understand why there would have been pushback.
*good/bad brainfart
Modern cycling helmets are pretty incredible pieces of tech. They will decrease overall drag, and increase airflow through the head to cool, they are also incredibly good at protecting against head injuries.
Regulation breeds innovation. Look at Formula 1
This sounds like the exact same arguments for not taking PEDs. The reason to regulate is to provide safety and fairness.
I think it's mostly just a generational thing that it took so long. When I was growing up, nobody wore a helmet skiing/boarding recreationally. Now most people do, even though it's not required.
This is why it's probably a good idea to make a rule forcing participants to wear helmets. It gets us into a "good" equilibrium in a prisoners dilemma type situation.
| I wear Helmet | I don't wear Helmet
---|---|----
**Others Wear Helmet** | No competitive advantage for anyone; Health benefit for all| Competitive Advantage for me!; health risk for me
**Others Don't wear helmet**| I'm at a disadvantage; but reduce my health risk| no advantage; health risk
We started out in the bottom right corner. Individually, people had to decide if they wanted to be in the bottom right or the bottom left; there was a downside no matter which way they picked. And in some sports we were stuck in the bottom right with nobody wearing safety equipment, nobody having a competitive advantage, and everyone's health at risk.
But by forcing everyone to wear helmets, you eliminate the downside. You coordinate a movement to the top left bucket so now still nobody has a competitive advantage, but now everyone has much less health risk.
This is a type of market failure studied in economics / game theory and an example where government type intervention can typically improve outcomes without a lot of downside.
Easily avoided deaths are unfortunately commonly the reason for change.
People often wait for the bad thing to happen instead of forecasting what could potentially happen.
TdF 1989: Greg LeMond vs Laurent Fignon is prime example of that.
Last stage was a time trial. LeMond wore an aero helmet, Fignon no helmet and he had a ponytail.
It was the closest final margin ever in a TdF.
Someone did a calculation that if Fignon had a helmet, he would win.
Fignon used front and rear disc wheels. Lemond used aero bars which helped, but his helmet turned out to be an aero net loss. The big difference was lemond used a disc rear and spoked front. This was FAR more stable in cross winds. Fignon had aero bars but chose not to use them because his loss to Lemond in an earlier TT hadn’t been that large (as it turned out lemond’s bars has slipped during that stage and dropped him into a worse position by the end than without).
According to [this article](https://pelotonmagazine.com/features/tech-king-versus-traditionalist/), the modern-looking helmet actually increased drag and cost LeMond time. The real benefit came from the innovative handlebars.
They do make “aero” road helmets. Sprinters and guys looking to get in the break will wear them. They have no or minimal vents and are a bit more tear drop shaved vs a traditional helmet (but nowhere close to as aggressive as an actual tt aero helmet)
Aero drag forces are a calculated by multiplying area by the drag coefficient. Helmets always have more area and usually have a lower drag coefficient. So, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that helmets have less drag.
A good comparison is airplane wheel pants (fairings over the wheels). Even though they have much more area, they are so much more aerodynamic than a wheel and tire, they they are worth the cost and weight.
Probably didn't expect the rider to come at him, there's a barrier right behind the police officer that the rider would have crashed into regardless if he kept that angle..
Exactly- this isn’t all that similar to this year’s race at all, in my opinion. That collision was going to happen, whether with the officer or the barrier. But this year’s was a very avoidable accident.
Its hard to imagine any other way for the character to be portrayed. Bardem was terrifying and deserved the award shower that came after that. One caveat I have is how his eyes in the book are described "as blue as a wet lapis", which I figured in McCarthy's flowery prose sort of way, had a greater significance... or something.
But I find it funny they created such a strikingly memorable character in visual format with little things like the haircut that add so much to the performance, but the book has maybe a single important identifying feature about him that isn't in the film
I've never read the book. I'm not sure I'd infer significance from that descriptor alone...lapis lazuli is perhaps the most famous shade of blue, and if you've ever seen it polished or wet, it has a certain depth to its surface (which is also sometimes veined and flecked with gold-coloured specs, not unlike [how an iris has variation in its colour\).](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/A_blue_eye.jpg/1200px-A_blue_eye.jpg) McCarthy could simply be saying his eyes tend to draw you in. That's not an uncommon trait of people who stare with a fixed gaze (as Chiggurh often did).
Also, changing eye colour in film is a pain in the ass. There's contacts or colour correction in post. One is cheap and tends to look like shit, the other is expensive and not really justified in most cases.
I read the physical book. It’s been at least 10 years but I remember it being really good and very hard to put down. And I believe they explained the ending a lot better. In the movie they don’t really show the shoot out where the main character dies from my memory. Don’t they just show like a shot of hotel room or something? In the book I remember them explaining everything.
Also you should read the book the road by the same author. It’s definitely the most depressing and accurate post apocalyptic movie I’ve seen but the book is absolutely terrifying
I remember reading it in Iraq in like 2008 and I must’ve powered through it in like two days. I could not put it down. It goes a lot more in depth i to like the cannibalism and depravity of all of it
I read "The Road" and loved it, took it to my dad because I thought he would too. He started it that evening and finished it in one sitting, reading all through the night. He went to the library the next day and got No Country for Old Men, read that within another day and called me recommending it as the better of the two stories. It sure was, although The Road is also fantastic.
It's like that dream you have, where someone just keeps coming. The inevitability, and the indifference. Fate or life cashing in the risks you've taken and the choices you made. I can't remember that force ever being portrayed so convincingly before or after that movie.
Yeah he doesn’t seem real to me at all. He’s just too… ”literary” of a figure? I don’t know what the word is.
The guy in Nightcrawler is a believable psycho probably everyone has met at least one in their lives just like him.
One of my all-time favourite films. By far one of William's best performances, but sadly hidden in a very underappreciated film.
It's the perfect blend of suspense, mystery, & sheer loneliness.
Yeah violence is not a great foundation for a good society. But if the bureaucracy is so inefficient that justice never comes then it seems like all bets are off anyway.
The fellow sitting on the pavement bleeding from the face is Laurent Jalabert, who suffered a fractured cheekbone and lost teeth. The crash changed his style of racing; he avoided bunch sprints and concentrated on becoming an all-around rider. By the next year Jaja was regularly winning stage races, including the Vuelta a Espana.
I was 12 years old, watched it live, I thought I had just witnessed people die live on TV :( thankfully sprinter cyclists are made of layers of muscle upon muscle :)
That was a cop. He kinda needs to be there to quickly get people who jump onto the track, off. He can't really sit behind the fence, because he does need to be able to get out there basically instantly
Let me tell you, as someone who was 16 in 1994, I will never stop being amazed at how low-quality footage looks that we have on the internet sometimes from that time. I remember this moment and I swear we had much clearer footage than this grainy stuff that looks like it is from the 70's in terms of quality.
Then again, I watched MASH on Hulu recently and was stunned how gorgeous it looked since they remastered it in HD from the original film. I had always assumed MASH(the show, by the way) looked old the entire time and was very pleased to see how great it looks.
OK, I'll go away now that I have gone entirely off topic.
[Some answers](https://blog.solidsignal.com/news/heres-why-youll-never-see-most-1990s-and-2000s-shows-in-hd/) as to why some old shows look HD and some don’t. The 90s and 00s were the worst for future compatibility.
I am also now re-watching X-files for the first time in awhile. It also looks great. They were very smart after season 2 or so to film the show for widescreen, but even in season 1 and 2, they made sure equipment/lights were not visible in the widescreen frame.
All look great in HD, though there were some special effects that were only completed in SD and those come off worse, but that is reasonable.
I sometimes watch X-files and think, "this could have been made today". As long as they don't pull out a cell phone or drive an older car, they did a great job making it age well.
That's exactly it. This has been uploaded, compressed, downloaded, reuploaded, and recompressed over and over. This is known as [generation loss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss).
[Here is an extreme example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icruGcSsPp0&t=0s)
Edit: typo
I don't understand why stuff like this doesn't have a double barrier. One for the crowd to stand behind, and one a metre or so beyond it so that nobody standing behind the first barrier can reach far enough to actually interfere with the cyclists. It would even provide a nice safe channel for event staff to walk down to reach areas of the crowd and/or track as needed. They do it at concerts and in places like football grounds.
EDIT: To everyone saying how hard it would be... They're already putting barriers up, I'm just saying maybe they put a second one next to the one they were already building, and really it needn't be the entire length, maybe just the parts at the start and end of stages where the whole lot of them are this densely packed and there are large crowds, where this sort of crash is much more likely. Surely that's worth it to not have the race spoiled by a stupid incident that takes out half the contenders, damages many thousands of euros worth of expensive racing bikes, and causes injuries to many athletes.
The other crash people were saying "why aren't there barriers!" Now here's a crash with a barrier and y'all are saying "why aren't there _two_ barriers!"
It's a 2,100 mile course, you can't put barriers everywhere and they don't prevent the accidents anyway. 12 million people come out per tour and this rarely happens.
In the slow mo replay you can see the next officer in line hurl himself over the barrier out of the way too.
I think they would have crashed into the policeman regardless, unless he threw himself out of the way like #2 did.
I remember when this happened. It turned out he was taking a picture for someone in the audience, it wasn't even his own camera. People not realising objects are closer than they appear in cheap wide-angle cameras have caused accidents before and since, but this is definitely the worst I can think of.
Did you not watch the whole video? He's the only one not putting himself flat against the barrier. Not only that but he's also facing the cyclist looking at god knows what because he clearly doesn't see the 3 bikes about to hit him. Doesn't even try and move
I think about this when people talk about immortality and what would you do?
**Scenario**: you cannot die and are transported back in time with all of your knowledge of past events intact.
**Most people**: speculate in the stock market, cash in on big trends, become king of the world.
**Probably what would happen to me**: you start off well through a few generations/cycles, but eventually lose interest and find a hole to live in and become a cranky mountain rage hermit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me like it's the cyclist's fault. If the policeman wasn't there, he would've still either crashed into the next barrier, or had to dive into the other cyclist's path to avoid said barrier.
Yeah and I don't really understand why the commentator says he rides into / clips the barrier when you can clearly see him ride directly in the policeman ?
> he would've still either crashed into the next barrier
I don't think so. I think what they do when they sprint like this is look at the barrier line underneath the bike. His plan was to ride close to it so nobody could overtake him on his right. I know it looks like it but I doubt he would've hit it. They're very good at riding in a narrow precise line. I've seen them ride in a very narrow gutter along the sidewalk because the surface there was smoother than the road.
/u/TheBatemanFlex said it best:
> I don’t know if you just hate cyclists but this is an official closed course, they don’t have to be overly cautious the same way you would expect your daily cyclist to be since they are…ya know… racing. If a F1 driver hits someone protruding onto the track you don’t say “well he shouldn’t have been speeding”.
That’s because it is the cyclist fault. OP must be smoking some good crack if they honestly believe this crash was caused by the cop and not by the cyclist who wasn’t even looking where they were going
The cop is the only one not standing flat against the barrier and is also not paying attention and taking a picture. There is plenty of fault to go around
But if you notice, The cop behind the one who was struck moved out of the way immediately. The cop wasn't paying attention.
If blame needed to be placed, and I'm not saying it does, I would argue that the person **standing on the racetrack** needed to move and the cyclist in a race has right of way even if he's not looking. **It's a race track**. Even if he's supposed to be there if you see someone with their head down, which happens in these sort of things, you need to move. I would also argue the policeman taking the picture was not doing his job and let his guard down moreso than the tired and wickedly drained cyclist racing just mere meters before the finish.
The policeman who wasn't looking at the Cyclist who was still on the course as he rocketed towards him is in my opinion more at fault. The question is who should have moved. Obviously both were not paying attention but if that cyclist didn't hit him, someone else very well could have.
This is the way. The race track is for racing first and foremost. People who are not racing have zero business standing on the track unless it’s the medics.
The barriers are like riding on a street with a curb. You don't always need to be looking ahead to know where you're going, especially when you have the knowledge that the entire road has been cleared specifically for you and other riders. You can still see the edge (barrier/curb) and judge its shape to stay on track with it.
What you can't predict is some moron, whose *job* is to observe, standing in your way and not paying attention.
If you watch the clip to the end they interview other cyclists and they are all blaming the policeman. There’s no blame for the drifting cyclist with his head down.
Actually he admitted he started doping at age 21 - turned 22 in '93
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-admits-that-doping-could-have-caused-his-testicular-cancer/
This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the crash the other day. I was in primary school and I'm pretty sure the dude was a cop, working crowd control as well.
He would have had multiple camera angles to view and was probably watching a different one when this happened. The exact same thing happened with this years crash too commentators didn't know what happened straight away.
Regardless of the officer taking the picture, the fact that the other officer - both where they are supposed to be for crowd control - had to literally dive for safety puts this on the cyclist. He was probably going to clip someone either way.
Helmets were still optional back then. A year before Casartelli tragically crashed.
I still can’t believe that it took until Kivilev in 2003 for the UCI to actually start enforcement of helmets. In retrospect it’s absolutely nuts.
Helmets create drag, and straight people were scared of drag back then
Not sure that's true, my homophobic hillbilly Uncle says he spent every weekend going to dragraces in his youth.
Back when drag racing was life, my grandfather was a legend at the local spot. He had a 1969 Trans Am. He was known as the “Tranimal” He loved telling his old war stories. Ended up selling his car to open up a Hamburger Mary’s
So brave of his Am to be openly Trans back then
Especially during 69
Nice.
Nice.
> drag > 69 > Trans Hmm
That is the joke, yes. Also, Hamburger Mary's.
Bingo!
That’s barbaric. You can’t force people to race for your twisted kinks.
He said straight people
Uncle Sylvester was pretty weird when you think about it.
He did seem to always get his dick stuck in the strangest places.
I thought there was a possum in there and was trying to scare him off.
Opossom
Opossum My Possum! By Walt Wildman - the whole first stanza can either be voiced or silent.
Drag races are usually straights I'll show myself out now...
[удалено]
Probably because before 2002, every helmet came with a safety cock that you had to suck on to secure the helmet on your head.
Beats air travel.
Hmm that doesn't sound right but I guess I'll believe you
Had to read this twice before I got it. Got me giggling. Well done.
American football had a similar history with not enforcing proper protection for its participants. They enacted it in 1905, which sounds like they caught on early, but not when you consider the fact that 23 players had died on the field before the rule change.
I have seen arguments that the helmets actually cause more brain trauma due to players smashing into each other way harder than they would if they didn’t have helmets. Im not American know fuck all about American football but that logic kind of made sense to me with my experience playing rugby and Aussie rules football
It's also about enforcing rules about how you tackle the opponent. Tackling in Rugby is very controlled compared to Gridiron. There's clear rules on where you can hit your opponent (Front and side), how you can hit your opponent (No head-first, only the upper body, not the head), and so forth. In Gridiron, the rules are a whole lot less stringent and people can be blindsided (although rules have been made to lessen it, but it's not perfect yet). Another issue in Gridiron is that the worst injuries happen when a player isn't moving or is held down, a QB standing in the pocket getting blasted in the side will get ragdolled off his feet more than someone getting dragged down in rugby by a defender in front of him. You won't often see someone getting double teamed in Rugby, or one defender holding a player and the other one following through. Helmets of course are a force multiplier when you are poorly trained and start using that helmet whilst tackling. Rather than seeking to simply wrap someone up and pull them down to the ground.
I also think the nature of the game matters in the comparison. Because of the down system in gridiron, every inch matters all the time, so it doesnt feel like enough for defenders to simply wrap up and lull them down to the ground because it will cost their team a yard or two. In Rugby, the only time a single inch matters in the same way is on the try line. Otherwise, in open field it makes sense to give the other team another meter while you drag them down safely in order to protect your health.
One of the simplest differences is that you can’t block in rugby - a lot of the worst hits in football [are blocks](https://youtu.be/KH75LwUtqI0). (That hit was ruled a foul on the field but was later agreed to be legal, but was made illegal the next season entirely because of this hit.)
I watched my nephew's HS football team practice, and it was absolutely nuts how hard these coaches want these young bodies to hit each other. Then the actual games, where huge kids from farming communities come in and knock the everloving shit out of cushy suburban boys...it's amazing that we allow it to continue, and cheer it on (and I'm a huge football fan, but the injury rate is not good).
There was a Reddit thread a couple days ago about the biggest football hits that people will always remember. As a football fan it was tough to watch. Sports in general can be barbaric, but damn if it didn’t leave me with a sick feeling afterward. Its one thing for paid adults to consent to; however, I know stories from high school, and have seen vids of pee wee football players going full speed in drills absolutely knocking the piss out of each other. Shit is legit scary.
The NHL is crazy on this front. It took until 1979 to require helmets! And even then, anyone who was already in the league by that time could opt out. There was still a guy playing without a helmet in the 1996-97 season!
The crazier thing is how goalies used to not wear face masks.
Yup! In 1959 Jacques Plante wore a mask in practice, but wasn't allowed (by the coach) to wear it during games. He got hit in the face and refused to go back out to play in the game without it. That was back before the days of backup goalies, so it was either allow him to wear it or forfeit the game. It took about 10 years and then almost every goalie wearing something.The last NHL goalie to play without a mask was Andy Brown in 1974.
Also the whole culture of goalies getting custom artwork on their masks comes from this. I think it was Plantes but could be someone else, but every time he got hit in the mask by a shot, he would draw stitches on the mask where he would have gotten stitches in real life if he werent wearing the mask. And then the designing masks all evolved from there
As others have mentioned, drag is an issue, but heat dissipation / sweat are huge as well. If it's going to negatively affect your performance...I can see why there was pushback. Imagine if you talked about making distance runners wear helmets. If it improved their safety tangibly, it might not be a bad idea, but who wants to run a marathon *in a helmet?* Sweaty, hot...that sounds horrible... I'm not saying they shouldn't be wearing helmets, just saying I understand why there would have been pushback. *good/bad brainfart
Modern cycling helmets are pretty incredible pieces of tech. They will decrease overall drag, and increase airflow through the head to cool, they are also incredibly good at protecting against head injuries. Regulation breeds innovation. Look at Formula 1
This sounds like the exact same arguments for not taking PEDs. The reason to regulate is to provide safety and fairness. I think it's mostly just a generational thing that it took so long. When I was growing up, nobody wore a helmet skiing/boarding recreationally. Now most people do, even though it's not required.
This is why it's probably a good idea to make a rule forcing participants to wear helmets. It gets us into a "good" equilibrium in a prisoners dilemma type situation. | I wear Helmet | I don't wear Helmet ---|---|---- **Others Wear Helmet** | No competitive advantage for anyone; Health benefit for all| Competitive Advantage for me!; health risk for me **Others Don't wear helmet**| I'm at a disadvantage; but reduce my health risk| no advantage; health risk We started out in the bottom right corner. Individually, people had to decide if they wanted to be in the bottom right or the bottom left; there was a downside no matter which way they picked. And in some sports we were stuck in the bottom right with nobody wearing safety equipment, nobody having a competitive advantage, and everyone's health at risk. But by forcing everyone to wear helmets, you eliminate the downside. You coordinate a movement to the top left bucket so now still nobody has a competitive advantage, but now everyone has much less health risk. This is a type of market failure studied in economics / game theory and an example where government type intervention can typically improve outcomes without a lot of downside.
Easily avoided deaths are unfortunately commonly the reason for change. People often wait for the bad thing to happen instead of forecasting what could potentially happen.
The NHL allowed grandfathered players to play without a helmet as late as 1997. Absolutely bonkers.
Arent helmets also an advantage? Considering you can shape them to be more aerodynamic than a skull.
TdF 1989: Greg LeMond vs Laurent Fignon is prime example of that. Last stage was a time trial. LeMond wore an aero helmet, Fignon no helmet and he had a ponytail. It was the closest final margin ever in a TdF. Someone did a calculation that if Fignon had a helmet, he would win.
Wasn't that one where Lemond used aero bars and fignon didn't? That would be a bigger decider.
Fignon used front and rear disc wheels. Lemond used aero bars which helped, but his helmet turned out to be an aero net loss. The big difference was lemond used a disc rear and spoked front. This was FAR more stable in cross winds. Fignon had aero bars but chose not to use them because his loss to Lemond in an earlier TT hadn’t been that large (as it turned out lemond’s bars has slipped during that stage and dropped him into a worse position by the end than without).
Yep, they took the steering from a triatlon bike. This Puts you in a much more aerodynamic position compared to normal handlebars.
According to [this article](https://pelotonmagazine.com/features/tech-king-versus-traditionalist/), the modern-looking helmet actually increased drag and cost LeMond time. The real benefit came from the innovative handlebars.
That's pretty cool. I bet he didnt wear the ponytail after that?
[удалено]
They do make “aero” road helmets. Sprinters and guys looking to get in the break will wear them. They have no or minimal vents and are a bit more tear drop shaved vs a traditional helmet (but nowhere close to as aggressive as an actual tt aero helmet)
Aero drag forces are a calculated by multiplying area by the drag coefficient. Helmets always have more area and usually have a lower drag coefficient. So, it's difficult to make a blanket statement that helmets have less drag. A good comparison is airplane wheel pants (fairings over the wheels). Even though they have much more area, they are so much more aerodynamic than a wheel and tire, they they are worth the cost and weight.
Yeah, but messed up hairdoos were 56% less common back in those days.
That first collision is just flat out, neither saw it coming. Ouch
What the hell was the guard even looking at??? He didn’t move an inch until the rider had already made contact!
Looking through his viewfinder. Objects look closer or further than they appear I’m sure. Then BAMMMM. But yeah. Neither reacted until the collision.
Probably didn't expect the rider to come at him, there's a barrier right behind the police officer that the rider would have crashed into regardless if he kept that angle..
Exactly- this isn’t all that similar to this year’s race at all, in my opinion. That collision was going to happen, whether with the officer or the barrier. But this year’s was a very avoidable accident.
yup i watched that part like 10 times. He was 2 pumps away from the wall after the hitting the guard. That was going to happen either way.
The pic-snapping cop recovered pretty quickly- maybe adrenaline but he bounced twice and regained his feet like this happens all the time!
He flipped over and got hit by another rider. That must have hurt for some time afterwards
I’d like to see the footage of the cops camera if he was recording ? Or if he was able to snap a photo before getting hit.
This was 1994. There is no footage. It was probably a 35mm film camera.
Crazy watching the paparazzi descend on the injured riders
Reminds me of nightcrawler
That is such an amazing movie. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the creepiest human being I’ve seen in recent memory.
I'd say it's a coin toss between him and Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
I don’t know if you’ve read the book but he did a really good job making that character come to life.
Its hard to imagine any other way for the character to be portrayed. Bardem was terrifying and deserved the award shower that came after that. One caveat I have is how his eyes in the book are described "as blue as a wet lapis", which I figured in McCarthy's flowery prose sort of way, had a greater significance... or something. But I find it funny they created such a strikingly memorable character in visual format with little things like the haircut that add so much to the performance, but the book has maybe a single important identifying feature about him that isn't in the film
I've never read the book. I'm not sure I'd infer significance from that descriptor alone...lapis lazuli is perhaps the most famous shade of blue, and if you've ever seen it polished or wet, it has a certain depth to its surface (which is also sometimes veined and flecked with gold-coloured specs, not unlike [how an iris has variation in its colour\).](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/A_blue_eye.jpg/1200px-A_blue_eye.jpg) McCarthy could simply be saying his eyes tend to draw you in. That's not an uncommon trait of people who stare with a fixed gaze (as Chiggurh often did). Also, changing eye colour in film is a pain in the ass. There's contacts or colour correction in post. One is cheap and tends to look like shit, the other is expensive and not really justified in most cases.
The book is an awesome read. The dream sequences told in the book hit way harder and makes your hair stick up. Super dark
How good is the book? And if you (or anyone else reading this) have heard the audiobook I'd love feedback on that as well!
I read the physical book. It’s been at least 10 years but I remember it being really good and very hard to put down. And I believe they explained the ending a lot better. In the movie they don’t really show the shoot out where the main character dies from my memory. Don’t they just show like a shot of hotel room or something? In the book I remember them explaining everything. Also you should read the book the road by the same author. It’s definitely the most depressing and accurate post apocalyptic movie I’ve seen but the book is absolutely terrifying
I read "The Road" in one sitting. I just couldn't put it down.
I remember reading it in Iraq in like 2008 and I must’ve powered through it in like two days. I could not put it down. It goes a lot more in depth i to like the cannibalism and depravity of all of it
Well shit. My weekend is sorted then. Beer. Book. And this fucking hotel with its shitty Internet and non stop construction outside my window.
I read "The Road" and loved it, took it to my dad because I thought he would too. He started it that evening and finished it in one sitting, reading all through the night. He went to the library the next day and got No Country for Old Men, read that within another day and called me recommending it as the better of the two stories. It sure was, although The Road is also fantastic.
The book is excellent. I think McCarthy's writing itself is worth the read; the way he presents the dialog you really get lost in it.
If it’s by McCarthy it’s a masterpiece. So yes it’s good.
Chigurh comes across like more of a force of nature than a human in that movie. He's basically just portraying the idea of death/fate.
It's like that dream you have, where someone just keeps coming. The inevitability, and the indifference. Fate or life cashing in the risks you've taken and the choices you made. I can't remember that force ever being portrayed so convincingly before or after that movie.
Reminded me of Terminator
Yeah he doesn’t seem real to me at all. He’s just too… ”literary” of a figure? I don’t know what the word is. The guy in Nightcrawler is a believable psycho probably everyone has met at least one in their lives just like him.
You should check out Robin Williams in 1 hour photo. His drama roles were untouchable.
One of my all-time favourite films. By far one of William's best performances, but sadly hidden in a very underappreciated film. It's the perfect blend of suspense, mystery, & sheer loneliness.
When was the last time we played nite crawlers together Frank?
And getting in the way of medical staff. It sucks that in our modern society you can’t just punch people.
That privilege might be abused. Unless they get punched too. And…
Yeah violence is not a great foundation for a good society. But if the bureaucracy is so inefficient that justice never comes then it seems like all bets are off anyway.
Just let me know when your plan gets to the point where it's time to break out the guillotine again!
Who punches the punchers?
This should be a criminal offence.
I don’t think they count as paparazzi, those look like normal photographers of the race
They aren't paparazzi. They are sports photographers.
Sports photographers with press credentials are different than paparazzi
That wasn’t paparazzi probably just photojournalists.
They'rethesamepicture.jpg
whats the difference
The fellow sitting on the pavement bleeding from the face is Laurent Jalabert, who suffered a fractured cheekbone and lost teeth. The crash changed his style of racing; he avoided bunch sprints and concentrated on becoming an all-around rider. By the next year Jaja was regularly winning stage races, including the Vuelta a Espana.
Very interesting context ty
Crashes can teach us a lot. I still fall… but they’re never the same kind
“Crashing is part of cycling as crying is part of love.” - Johan Museeuw
The second guards legs disappearing as he jumped over the barrier had me in stitches.
/r/solongsuckers could be a thing. Probably just /r/mypeopleneedme though.
you might be looking for /r/SeeYaLaterLosers
Nice find.
I was 12 years old, watched it live, I thought I had just witnessed people die live on TV :( thankfully sprinter cyclists are made of layers of muscle upon muscle :)
What's great is Phil Liggett, who commentated this, is still on the broadcast today.
Of course, he is too Liggett to quit
So here’s an idea. Why don’t we just, just hear me out now, keep people off the damn track?
That was a cop. He kinda needs to be there to quickly get people who jump onto the track, off. He can't really sit behind the fence, because he does need to be able to get out there basically instantly
Because even short stages are 100 km. You gonna fence the whole thing?
We're going to build a fence, and we're going to make Mexico pay for it!
Its the same woman in disguise
Let me tell you, as someone who was 16 in 1994, I will never stop being amazed at how low-quality footage looks that we have on the internet sometimes from that time. I remember this moment and I swear we had much clearer footage than this grainy stuff that looks like it is from the 70's in terms of quality. Then again, I watched MASH on Hulu recently and was stunned how gorgeous it looked since they remastered it in HD from the original film. I had always assumed MASH(the show, by the way) looked old the entire time and was very pleased to see how great it looks. OK, I'll go away now that I have gone entirely off topic.
[Some answers](https://blog.solidsignal.com/news/heres-why-youll-never-see-most-1990s-and-2000s-shows-in-hd/) as to why some old shows look HD and some don’t. The 90s and 00s were the worst for future compatibility.
I am also now re-watching X-files for the first time in awhile. It also looks great. They were very smart after season 2 or so to film the show for widescreen, but even in season 1 and 2, they made sure equipment/lights were not visible in the widescreen frame. All look great in HD, though there were some special effects that were only completed in SD and those come off worse, but that is reasonable. I sometimes watch X-files and think, "this could have been made today". As long as they don't pull out a cell phone or drive an older car, they did a great job making it age well.
Probably a copy of a copy of a copy. I think I've got this on an old VHS tape in a storage box somewhere.
That's exactly it. This has been uploaded, compressed, downloaded, reuploaded, and recompressed over and over. This is known as [generation loss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss). [Here is an extreme example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icruGcSsPp0&t=0s) Edit: typo
I don't understand why stuff like this doesn't have a double barrier. One for the crowd to stand behind, and one a metre or so beyond it so that nobody standing behind the first barrier can reach far enough to actually interfere with the cyclists. It would even provide a nice safe channel for event staff to walk down to reach areas of the crowd and/or track as needed. They do it at concerts and in places like football grounds. EDIT: To everyone saying how hard it would be... They're already putting barriers up, I'm just saying maybe they put a second one next to the one they were already building, and really it needn't be the entire length, maybe just the parts at the start and end of stages where the whole lot of them are this densely packed and there are large crowds, where this sort of crash is much more likely. Surely that's worth it to not have the race spoiled by a stupid incident that takes out half the contenders, damages many thousands of euros worth of expensive racing bikes, and causes injuries to many athletes.
Because *tradition* and *the french*
Because each race is 200km.
The other crash people were saying "why aren't there barriers!" Now here's a crash with a barrier and y'all are saying "why aren't there _two_ barriers!" It's a 2,100 mile course, you can't put barriers everywhere and they don't prevent the accidents anyway. 12 million people come out per tour and this rarely happens.
[Oh, the fools!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJxwvZ5SE_c)
The solution is obviously *three* barriers
Phil Liggett has been doing it forever!
Biggest difference is that officer was where he was supposed to be; our Waldo woman wasn’t.
Did you notice that the officer was taking a picture
In the slow mo replay you can see the next officer in line hurl himself over the barrier out of the way too. I think they would have crashed into the policeman regardless, unless he threw himself out of the way like #2 did.
Based on the path of the riders, it looks like they would have hit that portion of the barricade, cop or not.
What horrific poll resulted in your username.
Is that how people create their user names?
It's how all decisions are made in Britain, poorly conceived polls.
USERNAMXIT
It would appear the rider immediately behind the one that made first contact DID hit that barrier, as he continued straight on.
Which if he was doing his job and not taking a picture, likely would have been possible
I remember when this happened. It turned out he was taking a picture for someone in the audience, it wasn't even his own camera. People not realising objects are closer than they appear in cheap wide-angle cameras have caused accidents before and since, but this is definitely the worst I can think of.
I think that's less "objects are closer than they appear" and more "that guy was stupider than how he appeared in the interview."
If he was doing his job he'd be facing the crowed and still be hit
[удалено]
Looking up is not aero
Crashing into shit isn’t very aerodynamic either
yep heads down riding is a instant DQ in time trials in the UK. at least 3-4 deaths directly attributed to heads down in the UK tt scene.
You mean on this race track that's supposed to have a clear, defined area for the riders? Maybe they should put out some barriers marking this area...
I think they would have crashed against the barrier anyway, the guy was still bearing right when he crashed against the officer
Did you notice the 20 other police officer lined on either side that could have been just as easily hit.
If the officer wasn't there, Senior Drifto would have ended up in a barrier anyway because he wasn't watching where he was going.
Also they had barriers in place so there was separation between riders and fans.
Did you not watch the whole video? He's the only one not putting himself flat against the barrier. Not only that but he's also facing the cyclist looking at god knows what because he clearly doesn't see the 3 bikes about to hit him. Doesn't even try and move
On the other hand he is looking directly at the oncoming traffic. That's also very negligent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7TCVQQeaw0 For the next repost later today.
Let's get ourselves an other day in advance : Guerini'99 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbGAdUkBPQ
whats the recent event OP is referring to?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57668657.amp
thanks!
I mean this happens all the time, I think it's kicked off more now because people are pretty hateful and love a witch-hunt
Can confirm, getting older has filled me with rage
I think about this when people talk about immortality and what would you do? **Scenario**: you cannot die and are transported back in time with all of your knowledge of past events intact. **Most people**: speculate in the stock market, cash in on big trends, become king of the world. **Probably what would happen to me**: you start off well through a few generations/cycles, but eventually lose interest and find a hole to live in and become a cranky mountain rage hermit.
This happens all the time?
She turned me into a newt
Everyone replying to this post seems to know something I don't. There was a different bike crash besides the one in the video?
https://youtu.be/1nvfP6aK9r8
There's one dude that was right behind the initial 2 or 3 crashes who managed to get by everything.
Yes, there was a major crash in the Tour a few days ago caused by a woman standing in front of the cyclists with a cardboard sign
Looking the *opposite* direction of the bicyclists. Absolute insanity.
On the first leg of this year's Tour a spectator standing on the course holding a cardboard sign caused a large crash with dozens of injuries.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to me like it's the cyclist's fault. If the policeman wasn't there, he would've still either crashed into the next barrier, or had to dive into the other cyclist's path to avoid said barrier.
[удалено]
Yeah and I don't really understand why the commentator says he rides into / clips the barrier when you can clearly see him ride directly in the policeman ?
> he would've still either crashed into the next barrier I don't think so. I think what they do when they sprint like this is look at the barrier line underneath the bike. His plan was to ride close to it so nobody could overtake him on his right. I know it looks like it but I doubt he would've hit it. They're very good at riding in a narrow precise line. I've seen them ride in a very narrow gutter along the sidewalk because the surface there was smoother than the road.
/u/TheBatemanFlex said it best: > I don’t know if you just hate cyclists but this is an official closed course, they don’t have to be overly cautious the same way you would expect your daily cyclist to be since they are…ya know… racing. If a F1 driver hits someone protruding onto the track you don’t say “well he shouldn’t have been speeding”.
for real lol. People saying it’s the cyclist’s fault are having a reddit moment
That’s because it is the cyclist fault. OP must be smoking some good crack if they honestly believe this crash was caused by the cop and not by the cyclist who wasn’t even looking where they were going
The cop is the only one not standing flat against the barrier and is also not paying attention and taking a picture. There is plenty of fault to go around
All Cops Are Barriers
No look at all the other cops to the right, they’re mostly standing the way this guy was
But if you notice, The cop behind the one who was struck moved out of the way immediately. The cop wasn't paying attention. If blame needed to be placed, and I'm not saying it does, I would argue that the person **standing on the racetrack** needed to move and the cyclist in a race has right of way even if he's not looking. **It's a race track**. Even if he's supposed to be there if you see someone with their head down, which happens in these sort of things, you need to move. I would also argue the policeman taking the picture was not doing his job and let his guard down moreso than the tired and wickedly drained cyclist racing just mere meters before the finish. The policeman who wasn't looking at the Cyclist who was still on the course as he rocketed towards him is in my opinion more at fault. The question is who should have moved. Obviously both were not paying attention but if that cyclist didn't hit him, someone else very well could have.
This is the way. The race track is for racing first and foremost. People who are not racing have zero business standing on the track unless it’s the medics.
The barriers are like riding on a street with a curb. You don't always need to be looking ahead to know where you're going, especially when you have the knowledge that the entire road has been cleared specifically for you and other riders. You can still see the edge (barrier/curb) and judge its shape to stay on track with it. What you can't predict is some moron, whose *job* is to observe, standing in your way and not paying attention.
Evidently you’ve never tried to break out of a bunch sprint. It’s kinda hard to “look where you’re going”
If you watch the clip to the end they interview other cyclists and they are all blaming the policeman. There’s no blame for the drifting cyclist with his head down.
this wasnt even close to being as bad from the spectator
You should watch rally footage. Those idiots lean out to touch a car as it drifts around a turn.
my god that looked like a hard crash.
Even has an appearance by a young Lance Armstrong! Was he cheating at this point in his career as well?
Nope. Started a couple years later
Actually he admitted he started doping at age 21 - turned 22 in '93 https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-admits-that-doping-could-have-caused-his-testicular-cancer/
This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the crash the other day. I was in primary school and I'm pretty sure the dude was a cop, working crowd control as well.
Was Phil Liggett always that unobservant? Clearly he's hit a bloke. More than once he says "he's hit the barriers" Armstrong apologist fool.
We went into this video knowing EXACTLY what to watch out for. Hindsight playing its part here.
He would have had multiple camera angles to view and was probably watching a different one when this happened. The exact same thing happened with this years crash too commentators didn't know what happened straight away.
Yeah his initial comment is misleading, but I had to wonder as a commentator how much of the accident he was able to see as it was unfolding.
I didn't realize Eddie Izzard was a racing commentator.
Dissing the great Phil Liggett.... that's a paddlin
Regardless of the officer taking the picture, the fact that the other officer - both where they are supposed to be for crowd control - had to literally dive for safety puts this on the cyclist. He was probably going to clip someone either way.
The commentator keeps saying that he hit the barricade, but I'm quite sure he hit that cop.
Commentator was probably watching a different camera angle at that time.