New Rule here at Fchat. And it's simple and easy to follow.

Hey, can we pick another spot? We're bombing/nuking that place soon and if that doesn't get you the depleted uranium will.(and anyone close to it)

 

obviously you are not an attorney, and I know the following represent the UK, but, how do you explain away this:

'Stupid' Teen Posts Speeding Video, Gets Arrested
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2177819,00.asp

 

You are not even close on this one. First, Rob has made a difficult decision. He is a smart hardworking guy. Not allowing video and pictures bragging of criminal acts is Rob's right even though it is obviously contraversial. He has explained his reasons.

Hersay and exclusionary evidence rules have nothing to do with it. There are several cases of kids filming graffitti and vandalism, posting the video, being identified, being arrested and then convicted. Here is a scenario: If you had your car vandalized and one of the people who did it posted video of it on the net. Would you want him prosecuted if he was later identified by something in that video ? Of course you would. Anyone would. So would Paul Revere, the King of England and P Diddy.

Regards,

Stew

 

now wait just a min....that's taking it too far.

 

What? Inquiring minds want to know.

Rik, not sure this has much to do with the new rule. I don't think showing a crashed and burnt Enzo carcass is 'glorifying' reckless driving as much as showing that the driver was an idiot.

Overall I don't see a problem with the rule and frankly it was common sense from day one. If I understand correctly, you can still take your Ferrari out on the track, take it up well past 150mph and post about it here, so I don't see this as discouraging motorsports participation. That's what Ferraris are all about anyway.

 

OK, Paul Revere was a stretch .

Regards,

Stew

 

You REALLY have never heard of someone driving irresponsibly in a Ferrari killing innocent passengers or bystanders???

Not a hockey fan, obviously.....

Don't make me throw down the dead supermodel photo...

Somebody wise this newb up...I have better things to do.............

 

Interesting read ... and it does make sense. But couldn't FChat get around this by adding a disclaimer to the terms of use? You know the usual "X does not condone the activity portrayed by its members blah blah blah"?

 

He flipped the Enzo in question and destroyed it....luckily he survived.....come on Bullfighter stay up with us......it was the one with the cut doors into a spyder, in the R&T article..

Thankfully most of the other Enzo wrecks have not been as bad, except the Russian in Nice........with the female newscaster, someone else's wife....

 

That could be considered a gratuitous outburst by some

Regards,

Stew

 

One thing you forget is irregardless how frivolous the lawuit being brought againt Fchat might be it still would cost a lot of money to defend it till/if it is thrown out or dismissed. When it comes time to sue lawers are going to name everyone they can think of that might have a remote chance of getting to pay. If I was Rob I would take steps to minimize as much as possible the chance of anyone bringing suit against me or my business. I think he has made a smart decision implementing this rule.

 

He has been charged, not found guilty. We obviously don't know the facts of the case but I'm sure his representation will want to challenge a few things.

 

I'm heartbroken and lonely now.....pretty homicidal with thoughts of self destruction as well..............where's my d@mn Ferrari keys?

Bring the jumper cables, it may take two or three cars.......

 

+ 1

Regards,

Stew

p.s. Irregardless is not a word. Irrespective is a word. You might mean regardless.

 

Without passing judgement on any person living or dead - I used it as an example in support of Rob's policy.

I take it that a lot of us remember this - but in a nutshell; it was running in a closed public road event at an estimated 170mph ++ when it topped a small rise and took air under the car. It blew up&over Mercedes Benz Lemans style and rolled end over end, axially, and every other way you can think of. Driver survived the crash with many critical injuries. The two cars Ric pictured were good honest rebuildables compared to what was left of this one.

My point was this - R & T plainly posted a glorification of this very same person & car claiming to have secretly run 215 on a similar western highway, even showing a photo of the speedometer. Illegally, and without sanction.

Can you imagine what would have happened if this accident had occurred earlier where there was no medivac, emergency equipment, people around to help, etc.? Or if some other supercar owner had been inspired to imitate it by the irresponsible article?

 

Technically, she was killed in a Lamborghini, along with the driver.....but I digress.........I'll post it all later before I unplug the terminal......

 

Where's my Maker's Mark?......hand it here........

 

I totally agree: either of these pictures show two extreems of carless driving, which makes for the start of debate. Such a catalyst on Fchat has been done many times.

I believe this site has the right and moral justification to enforce the rule. But I don't want to get a knuckle-rap for having posted an extreem [worth a thousand word] pic post.

I am not trying to make a mountain of a mole hill here [anyone ever seen a mole hill?]......I believe boasting is the attitude that will do someone in.

Having said that: if someone asks me how I drive, I drive, I feel, extreemly well on public roads, where in some instances, I have taken it over the speed limit. I can see both directions for miles, I know the current road conditions, I don't do it when others may be in jepordy....would I talk about such, now: prob. not....

BTW, always like your insights.

rik

 

Now you see, this is where I completely disagree.
If this is actually a community, we should support each other ... not turn one of our own in! FChat isn't a police department (and that's how you make it sound right now, definitely not cool) but a community for people who appreciate finer cars. This rule sure doesn't make it sound much like a community, but more like a sidewalk invaded by skaters. You have to allow them ... but deep down you really hate them.

If Fchat managers really despise speeders and spirited driving, perhaps it is time to hand down the reins and retreat back to aviatorchat.

FWIW, I won't even count the times when members have unanimously condemned reckless driving, even by FChatters. Why overrule something that is auto-regulated?

 

If a lawsuit is frivolous and found to be so, wouldn't the claimant be liable for legal charges? Furthermore, isn't there insurance for this type of thing? Wouldn't the prior post about disclaimers absolve much of this concern?

 

nailed it......sorry wet, but this is great post.

 

Thanks for pointing it out. English and grammer were never my favorites.

 

I agree. We are not here to report each other to the police or anyone else. We are here to support each other, ask questions, get advice and socialize. I also know Rob has made his decision in good faith.

Didn't Hillary Clinton say " It takes a village to maintain a Ferrari "

Regards,

Stew

 

We have a situation here in Calgary wherein videos posted by an exotic dealer and sponsor of F-Chat were oft quoted and formed part of a criminal investigation that the local constabulary had conducted against said sponsor and a couple of his clients. This event I am talking about occured a few weeks ago during a rural highway run which was well discussed here in the CANADA section. No charges were laid because there was insufficient evidence. I am sure you have all seen the video in question.......FWIW, the video was posted several months before the recent rural highway run and subsequent issues.

These videos were posted on You Tube and his own site.

He removed the videos from his own site.

You Tube has had no legal issues from this at all............why should F-Chat have issues in similiar circumstances ?

Would a disclaimer from the same individuals that are pushing this new policy not accomplish the same thing ? I sign liability waivers and other disclaimers all the time in the course of daily life.

Of course, I could go away muttering lawyers are the root of "all" problems........and in that regards.......I'd probably be correct. No offence intended as several of the lawyers here are pretty cool guys.

Anyways.......it ain't my site and I gotta follow the rules.......so that pretty much sums it up.