Judge rules: "Driving at 150mph not dangerous"

[CFster]

Even a cat is enough to tear the nose off a car at 150.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: CFster
Not only that, but some cars get very floaty at high speeds. And who's to decide you're driving a particular car faster than it was designed for.

Not to mention that most people drive around with underinflated, or worn tires.

Also, you've got to love those car chase videos where some kid is driving way to fast and discovers what happens when you give it too much steering input. Fishtail, then he never catches it.

Weird things happen over 100mph.

You have never driven a Porsche, have you.

Sure have.

At speed.

And plenty of other sports cars as well.

Grand Turismo != real life

 

[CFster]

Think what you want.

I'm just fortunate to have a job where I get to play with cars like that.

 

[Goosemaster]

BEST DAMN LAWYER EVA!

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: CFster
Think what you want.

I'm just fortunate to have a job where I get to play with cars like that.

Work in a computer game arcade?

 

[JDrake]

at least this judge actually thinks about his decisions

 

[CFster]

Work in a computer game arcade?

Love to.

Probably better than turning wrenches all day. Sure it doesn't pay as well though.

 

[Slew Foot]

Its not going 150 mph that kills you. It's the deceleration from 150 to 0.

 

[spaceghost21]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I agree with the judge's conclusion

Me too.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: CFster

Work in a computer game arcade?

Love to.

Probably better than turning wrenches all day. Sure it doesn't pay as well though.

Remind me not to take my performance cars to your shop! They'll get an 'extra' road test!

 

[enyce2k9]

well by the time im 21 i can have my own posche... so if this ever happens to me you will read "An uninsured 21 year old caught doing more than twice the legal limit in his OWN Porsche

 

[SampSon]

He was only dangerous to himself.

 

[McCarthy]

Back in my younger days I was riding along with a friend and we decided it'd be fun to do a speed run. Straight road, good visibility, all that jazz. Woman on a side road either didn't see us coming, or saw we were far enough away that under normal circumstances it would be safe for her to pull out. Luckily she made a right instead of a left and the other lane was open. There was no way we could have gotten slowed down in time.

If it's a closed road or a road posted "drive as fast as you want" I have no problem with him going 150. In those cases I'd just ask "Why so slow?". Those cases don't apply to the road he was driving on, and other people with access to the road aren't expecting it. Sure, you're supposed to drive defensively, supposed to anticipate, but when someone's this far out of the norm it's not the fault of another driver - like the lady we blew by that night - if they didn't anticipate correctly. (Which is the reply I'd expect to get on here)

 

[DigDug]

This reminds me of the law school discussion in torts class about defining negligence. Is negligence inherent in a particular activity, or can we only label an action retrospectively, based on the outcome of the act?

Noone would argue that speeding on a road which resulted in a woman being run over (and assuming she wasn't contributing to the accident) was not negligent. However, if a car were speeding and noone got hurt - can we say that it is inherently negligent? And if so, then why no negative result? Can the fact that nothing happened itself be proof of the non-negligence of the act?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Its not going 150 mph that kills you. It's the deceleration from 150 to 0.

You could die before you come to a complete stop.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Its not going 150 mph that kills you. It's the deceleration from 150 to 0.

You could die before you come to a complete stop.

That's what he said.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I agree with the judge's conclusion

Same here. Speed limits are too low, anyway.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
I agree with the judge's conclusion

:thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
We can't have everyone thinking they're allowed to do stupid stuff because they get themselves into situations where others might have to risk themselves to rescue the idiots.

Don't rescue the idiots. Problem solved.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Too bad you would never see a US judge rule this way...IMO.

Yeah, they would be salivating over the money that the tickets generate too much.

 

[drinkmorejava]

i don't get it, the dad has a porshe and no insurance?