Today I was given my sentence for 115 in a 55 on a suspended license

I slow down, myself...I think I'm still on probation from absent mindedly running a red light in rush hour traffic....

The officer was amazed at the manuver, as was I....

To be out on a suspended license doing shenanigans.......boggles the mind.
My attorney once told me, "If you'll only break one law AT A TIME..my job will be much easier...", so I try to comply with that.

So far so good!

 

not with impunity, no. but, if you lend me one, i'll be glad to wring it out for you.

 

Which is exactly why he won't.

What Bill is saying is that times are a changing, not necessarily for the better, but they are changing.

Like Bill, I turned 14 in the 60s when I got a restricted license (and promptly ignored the rule about having an adult in the car). The speed limit was 70 and doing the Ton (i.e., 100 mph) was a big deal.

Did my buddies and I do a lot of stupid things? What do you think? One buddy installed a keg in the front of his corvair and had drinking tubes coming out of the vents into the seats. We almost had mo fun than the law allows.

Of course, today, this stunt would land you in jail.

Me? I'm taking my fast driving to the track. I'll drive an old banger or a Miata on the road.

Dale

 

Did you do time in the UK and other places prior to this jail conviction? If you had to go to jail again, would you do it in VA?

 

One influencing factor was probably the suspended license.
The courts may look poorly upon that.
I think many readers here only caught the speed as the main issue.





PS - mentioning it on a public forum isn't the best possible form either.

 

What does this have to do with Ferrari?

 

Driving on a suspended license would most certainly have aggravated the sentence. I can confirm as I have heard it come from a judge's mouth myself and witnessed Fairfax judges sentencing speeders (without a suspended license) that over 90mph in Fairfax is jail time. Nick's sentence was a sweetheart deal. Especially given his short suspension period post-sentencing.

Normally, I'd expect to see something more like 50 days (2 days for every mph over 90 of which you serve only 25 as you get the 2-for-1 credit), plus whatever the driving on a suspended brings, plus a minimum 6-month loss of license, plus a stiff fine of maybe $500 or more, even.

And, all of this assumes that you have a clean driving record (+5 points in VA).

That's the norm.

CW

 

One mechanic asked me why I keep the Alfa spider, despite having a Ferrari and an EVO. Answer: Refresher training.

The EVO and Ferrari have such elevated capabilities that you can't push the limits on public roads .... usually. I spent about three years on temp assignments driving only the Celica ST-165 (WRC homologation) (or snow-cats). My first winter back in New England, I dang near lost it in a corner. I had developed bad habits from lack of practice at the limits.

Highly capable cars let you drive poorly and get away with it ---- most of the time. But when winter comes, ...

(Dang: the Alfa's been in storage for 2 years. But the local roads wouldn't even push that old machine's limits.)


So what do we do? The "right" answer (based on safety) is to maintain strict licensing requirements ... potentially with periodic re-testing. (It's not just old people who forget how to parallel park.) (Compare Biennial Flight Reviews for private pilots.)

But as that would cut ticket revenue and annoy a lot of voters, that's not going to happen. Nor is it really practical without a viable public transportation system. (I worked it out for one trip -- a ten minute cab ride in the Alexandria area would take about an hour and 45 minutes via public transit. Public transit goes to DC and back. To go elsewhere requires two sides of a triangle.)


So the other answer is to restore access to the race tracks.

I think one of the reasons for California street racing is that those kids don't have access to race tracks -- due to liability laws, insurance exclusions, and a lawsuit-happy environment. (Remember the lawsuits against the track and corner workers thread?)

You can't drive fast on the tracks, you can't drive fast on the roads. You get sloppy if you drive good cars too slowly.

Where does that leave us?

Driving skills have become not only optional, but undesireable, judging by the vanishing opportunities to acquire and maintain them.

It's that "lowest common denominator" thing, again. As long as nobody is any good at anything, nobody has to worry about someone being "better".

Back then, cops weren't "the enemy". When I see people's reactions to a police car, I want to drag out the old WWII line: "Relax, it's one of ours".

Alas, today they work for revenue enhancement planners.

 

problem is i need my fix every couple of days. and with the cars sitting in the garage begging for it, i can't make it out to the track enough.

 

Wow, had not noticed this thread had become so huge!

Not sure I want to revive the flame ... but hey.

As mentioned, today's cars are extremely capable, but very few people can actually tell that safe speed just depends. In my truck, I'll never go over 70mph, in my DD, the steering gets too light for my liking past 100mph, but in the Citroen C5 I had in Spain, at 120 the damn thing was rock solid, just had no steam left (wanted to crack 200km/h but couldn't!). Not just the car, over here people you pass are doing 60ish ... in Europe most everyone is doing 100, and driving 70 is nearly impeding traffic!

There are so many variables, it is impossible for me to say xx speed is safe, and xx speed is dangerous. I don't mind if others think this way ... I just think they're wrong.

Every time I think about this, I have to wonder how so many sheep can be convinced 64 mph is safe, but 66mph isn't. What if to get your license you had to prove you can actually judge of safe speeds? If only it did not cut into the revenue generation habit.

Just for kicks, anyone remember of this fellow, a certain Thomas Bscher (sp?), McLaren owner, claiming he hit top speed every single day on his commute to work (in germany) ... when the car went in for maintenance ... McLaren confirmed he hit 350+km/h on a daily basis. A bit extreme, but it sure sheds some light on what is considered safe or not. Put a decent car in good hands and good head ... and you have interesting results.

 

Another show on one of the history channels tonight talked about the Autopilot Highway, where the roads run the car for you. (The episode was called "Future Tech", which was amusing, since I was involved with a study of that technology over 30 years ago.)

The state is getting computer controlled speed limit signs so they can dynamically set speed limits, some of the on-star type systems already "tell on you" if you exceed designated speeds, and the state is looking into speed tracking monitors. New cars are getting back-up proximity warning beepers, and state following distance monitors may not be too far off.

Your car might monitor you (and give you automatic tickets?) in the future, but there are several reasons why I don't think they're ever going to get to the Autopilot Highway.

I think the biggest reason comes from one question: What happens when a kid wanders out in front of a car being "driven" by a government owned control system and gets run over?

From the State's perspective, the driver fills a critical role: Designated Scapegoat.

The bureaucracy will take authority to tell you how to drive. They'll tell you that they're protecting you. But the responsibility will still get dumped on you.

When the politicians promise to make all "bad things" go away, the bureaucracy needs someone to blame when bad things happen anyway.

Responsibility without authority is a raw deal.

But that's where the future auto owner is headed. The worst of both worlds.

"We're from the government and we're here to help you." Uh huh.

 

Just a short note - the reason for the change in the law in Montana was that the state couldn't justify "reasonable and prudent" (the old standard) to the satisfaction of its own Supreme Court and it was struck down under the "void for vagueness" doctrine. See State of Montana v. Stanko, 974 P.2d 1132 (Mt. S.Ct 1998). In that case, Rudy Stanko was charged and convicted of failing to drive in a reasonable and prudent manner, in violation of Sec. 61-8-303(1), MCA. Stanko overtook and passed a Montana Highway Patrol car while traveling west on Highway 200, just after the Highway 24 and Highway 200 junction at Flowing Wells, and the patrolman followed him. He was clocked at a constant 85 MPH for 8 miles, which the patrolman said wasn't safe. Stanko challenged his conviction on the basis that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The Montana Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the basis that the statute was void for vagueness. After that decision, Montana was essentially left without a speed limit on freeways for approximately 5 months. The legislature eventually enacted new speed limits.

I had the opportunity to drive my 246GTS in Montana several times during both the "reasonable and prudent" and the "no limit" periods. I only pushed it over 120 a few times, but then decided not to push my luck. I discovered that the steering got very light above 120, what appeared at first to be a straight and smooth road soon would not remain so straight and smooth, I started thinking about what would happen if I had a blow out, a friend of mine hit a hawk while doing 95MPH and it destroyed his windshield, and then I started thinking about the deer lurking virtually everywhere along I-90 in western Montana, both night and day.

I realized that if I, or something else, screwed up, it would likely just be me that would be killed, but that was of little comfort.

Mark

 

One of the biggest problems is the lack of driver training and not continuing to maintain those skills. A few years ago the DMV sent a renewal to my LEGALLY BLIND grandmother!!! No tests required, just here you go.

This country sees driving as a right, not a privilage. To decrease accidents, people need to become better drivers.

I do think a street racer is dangerous, as is someone on a congested road weaving in an out of traffic.

However, I live in Nevada. I do not think it should be illegal for me to find some deserted road in the desert and take my car that was designed to go 200mph up over 100mph. There are several roads out here that you can see for miles, and you can be out there for hours and never see another car.

 

I have never heard the ramifications of this discussed by any forum, but it has been pointed out to me that the constitution of the United States, lists it as a right for its citizens to freely travel the nations roads by whatever common convienience so exists. Surely such forward thinking people such as the founders of this country, could forsee some means of travel beyond the simple horse and buggy of thier day.

It is also my understanding that when the courts were overthrown by the judiciary, and jurys powers were stripped, that it was the beginning of case law taking over citenzens basic rights and freedoms.

Most everyone today in America has been so brainwashed they no longer understand what rights they no longer have, and the courts have enacted legislation to blind the populace of the truth at every turn.

Long ago, if for example a man were to run his horse and buggy through town and scare people or hurt someone, he could be brought to court on charges of disturbing the peace, being a nuisance, or some such charge, and spent time in the slammer. Today you need some very specific statute that takes a Philedelphia lawyer to understand, so hence, they just wrap it all up under speeding. I highly doubt anyone running fast over open country would have bothered anyone a century ago, but it sure seems to ruffle some of your feathers today. IMHO what we have today is a lot of misguided individuals who dont even know how to drive trying to vote through mob rule, instead of concise educated thought prevailing to ensure all of our basic rights and freedoms. But thats just me talkin. I havnt even mentioned that the need to be licensed is almost wholly un-constitutional, but maybe thats for another topic.

 

1.Yes, and Congress and the States may impose laws for the health and welfare of the populous, so long as it does not interfere with the free movement of people or goods, and has some rational basis.

2.Not sure I'm tracking here.

3.Brainwashed we may be, but we don't have the right to violate a law that has a rational basis and is otherwise within the power of the legislatures. If, for example, some draconian law were enacted that violated basic human rights- a law discriminating against a race or religion comes to mind as an easy example- one might choose to violate it as repugnant to morality, but could readily be convicted for the violation, no matter how unfair the law really is, until the law itself is overturned. Also, note that legislatures enact legislation, not the courts (although some do argue that the courts are often 'legislating' by their judicial rulings). Typically, the courts test these laws for things like constitutionality, vagueness and other challenges and otherwise have the job of applying the statutory law. (Courts make law too, eg, 'common law,' but that's not what's usually at stake in traffic and moving violations).

4.Actually, there are lots of potential violations on the books, from reckless driving, and failing to signal, to tailgating and improper passing. I think you are painting with too broad a brush here.



5.Not sure I get this one either. The laws have a basis, whether you agree with them, or how they are enforced is a different question. States certainly have the right to regulate the privilege, test for competence, charge for inspection and periodic renewal of the privilege. Not sure how that's wholly unconstitutional, but I hestitate to provoke another thread.



Respectfully,

 

...............................

Sounds kind of like Posse Comitatus.

As per Wikipedia (but what do they know?):

"Members of the Posse Comitatus frequently refuse to pay taxes, to obtain driver's licenses, or otherwise to comply with regulatory authorities. They deny the validity of United States fiat money as not backed by gold, which they claim the Constitution requires."

But wait, there's more:

"Many Posse members embraced the antisemitic and white supremacist beliefs of Christian Identity. Some believe that the U.S. Federal government is illegitimate and in the hands of "ZOG," an alleged Jewish conspiracy. Posse charters were issued in 1969 in Portland, Oregon, by Henry Lamont Beach, a retired dry cleaner and one-time member of the Silver Shirts, a Nazi-inspired organization that was established in America after Hitler rose to power in Germany."

 

Well, have to hand it to you to make a comparison to about the most extreme group you could find. So now, those of us who believe excessive speed should NOT be treated as a felony conviction with prison time, somehow must be siding with the most extremist neo-nazi groups? Maybe you should run for public office and come up with some more sleight of hand comparisons to make all us evildoers look bad. But then I could paint you with the same broad brush for owning a high powered sports car capable of high speed that also doubles as a gross polluter and destroyer of the environment. You know, all you Ferrari guys are always speeding or you wouldnt own a car like that!

Perhaps the way to fix all of this would be simular to the laws regarding ultralight aircraft, so as to level the playing field for everyone, and force all the evildoers to comply. You guys could probably propose a law limiting horsepower to 27HP, about the output of a 3 cylinder farm diesel, and limiting overall speed to 45 mph. This would have the secondary effect of saving us from our excessive use of our ancient methane derived oil reserves. We could also limit fuel capacity to 5 gallons so as to limit our range. We could all have ourselves strapped into underpowered Geos yet. Go Algore!!!!

 

I almost forgot that the car needs a new name, maybe something from history to go along with its utilitarian underpowered packaging, yet something snappy to make the populace feel comfortable about thier governments new car requirements. How about "The peoples car"? It will remind everyone of another underpowered POS from days gone by, brought to us from one of the most democractic societies the world has ever seen. The same government that disarmed everyone to make a better society.

 

sorry, hitler already got that one.

 

Sign up, and you too can be an author of Wikipedia. It's a collection of contributed articles. Like the Internet in general, there's lots of information ... some of it even accurate.

*the* Posse Comitatus?

The Posse Comitatus act of 1878, intended to remove military control of elections in former Confederate states, generally prohibits the military from being used in a law enforcement capacity within the US.

It's under much debate, recently, due to proposals for Homeland Security to make use of military forces within US borders.

You're referring to that term as applied as the name of an obscure, only intermittantly active group of religious vigilantes who believe that the federal government has been taken over by enemies; an obscure group mostly referenced as a talisman of "badness".

If the obscure anti-semitic group is being flogged around again, at a time when the Posse Comitatus act is under fire --- Can you say "smoke and mirrors"?

This reminds me of the Rush Limbaugh broadcasts: The media is balanced and represents all views: Conservative views, for example, will be fairly represented by "Honko the Clown".

That's a debating technique known as "poisoning the well". On the Internet, it's known as "Godwin's Law" as applied to "... logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil". (also from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

Speaking of Godwin's Law: I think we're there.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sorry, but your picture needed altering.......
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well that's pretty much a given.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This starts to make sense only when you consider that the main purpose of a driving license in this country is for the state to obtain a waiver of rights. A current, signed license application means the state needn't serve process and can search your car because your signature subscribes to it and much, much more in the DMV code. Compare the driver test in this country as compared to, say, France. There, it's like taking the Bar exam.

 

Nick,

I see you have posted again. Does this mean you served your time and are out okay?

I hope so.......