Ron_H

Shane:

Good for you. Go out and breed and make more of you. You did the American thing.

You are not guilty of a crime just because someone has accused you of committing it.

You are not guilty of a crime until you have been proven guilty of that crime legally using a procedure that is legal itself.

You are not guilty of violating a law that has no scientific or legal basis and is enforced using non-legal methods. We have courts and appeals rights to challenge just such tactics. Laws are struck down all the time when not able to stand against rational scrutiny. Yea USA.

MBMB is RIGHT when he states that the system is predominately amoral.

If you wish to have drivers take responsibility for their actions, then we need to institute licensing laws that are drastically more rigorous and demanding, based on facts, not wishfull thinking and erroroneous reasoning. Watch how long drivers in their fartmobiles continue to poke along in a fog at or below the limit saying to themselves: " I am safe because I am adhering to the law". Watch how long the insurance companies stay profitable then. And we need to have limits, if their are any limits, set according to law by engineers using methods based on scientific and objective data, and set realistically.

If you think you should "take responsibility" because you may have exceeded an arbitrarily set limit in a machine that, operated properly, is capable of THREE times that limit safely, then most of the population should turn in their licenses voluntarily and hang their heads in shame.
Someone once wrote that he among you who is without sin should cast the first stone. Hey, not me folks.

I recall testimony from Oliver North who said he followed ANY order he was given by a superior officer. And Senator Daniel Inouye chastised him by reminding him that it states in the Uniform Code of Military Justice he must obey:" any LEGAL order".

Shane, may your family have peace and happiness.

perrys4

Heres my two cents. I figure if I have gone a long time without getting cited and suddenly I get popped, I will just pay the fine if I am guilty. One ticket every two or three years wont affect your insurance. It is called taking responsibilty for your actions! It is quite arrogant to say that because you are driving a 928 it is okay to break the speed limit. I guess those that cant afford nice cars have less rights? Being in a nice car doesnt make it safer to speed. There is reaction times, braking distance (which likely most any new car will out do your 928) and a varible of things to consider. Yes it sucks when you are picked out of a crowd all doing the same speed, but if you know you are guilty live up to it. If you honestly feel you arent guilty then fight it.

bcdavis

I always think it's funny when people on a sports car message board, or a motorcycle board, debate issues of speed, or safety. If you are than into being safe, then drive a Volvo. What is the point of owning a car meant to do 170, if you won't go over 55? What's the point of having 300 horsepower, if you won't go over 35mph in town? If you just like the smoothness, or comfort, or refinement of the 928, there are a lot more comfortable cars out there. And if you say you love "spirited" driving on twisty roads, I would say that kind of driving is a lot more dangerous than going 90 on a flat, open freeway. You have no idea if some kids or a deer are in the road around the next corner. But the freeway is pretty safe, if you keep your eyes open, and stay aware of your surroundings.

Shane

I guess you missed my point. If I had been in a suv or pick-up truck like the other two, I most likely would never have been pulled over. If it would have only been the $158 for the speeding ticket I'd have paid for it no problem. I live and work in Alaska and walk to work from my apartment, so it is not like I am in danger of getting a ticket everyday. But the insurance company would have raised my rates for the very same reason I got the ticket, because I own and drive a Porsche, therefore I must be speeding all the time. It was all about making money for the state and increase revenue for the insurance companies, not about making the roads safer.

If you want to pay your fines go ahead, be my guest. Not me. And maybe you should check your brakes, because mine haul my car to a stop quite quickly, much faster than any of the other cars I've had or driven.

MBMB

Okay, you've convinced me with your inassailable logic. Shane should have just paid his ticket because this country is ruined, and lawyers did it. How could anyone disagree with such an erudite statement?

Next time I get caught speeding, I'll just pay the ticket. I'd rather pay the government $150 and my insurance company $1,000 than pay a lawyer $350. I'd rather pay the government the $350, knowing that the money would go to pay for clean needles for pregnant crack ****** or whatever ludicrous scheme the government has dreamt up, than pay the lawyer $350 to buy tires for her 928. This is true even if I was driving at a speed that was safe and reasonable. If I break the government's arbitrary speed limit and get caught, I'll pay.

I feel so strongly that lawyers have ruined this country that principle compels me to go to prison or to the death chamber before paying a lawyer to defend me. (You wouldn't? Then, as Shaw would say, we're just haggling over the price.)

Things were so much better in this country before the lawyers started running things. Just thinking about those lawyers makes my blood boil. That Thomas Jefferson guy, and that John Adams fellow (not just a lawyer but a criminal defense trial lawyer, damn him) really screwed things up. Not to mention the other 22 lawyers who signed the Declaration of Independence.

What were those idiot lawyers (who were writing the Constitution when the state of the art in medicine was a lancet and a bowl) thinking making this a nation of laws? Giving everybody rights? Giving even guilty guys like Shane the right to a jury trial and the presumption of innocence? Making the government prove its allegations before it can take away our property, our freedom, and our lives? Giving free speech to people I don't agree with? Giving us the right to possess firearms? Forbidding the government from quartering soldiers in our houses? Forbidding the government from searching our homes without good reason?

Clearly, those ignorant fools thought that government was a thing not to be trusted -- imagine that! Don't get me wrong, I think innocent people should be entitled to the presumption of innocence, but not people who have committed a crime. What this country needs is another George III. I sure am glad we live in more enlightened times, and we're getting back to the good old days -- before those 24 lawyers and their 32 friends (bunch of spoiled rich white liberals) came along -- when the government could be trusted to decide who was guilty and who wasn't, and never would conceivably punish anyone too severely. I'm sure the constitutional rights of the innocent can be protected just fine without those guilty people slowing the system down by exerting their own rights.

Not to mention, four score and some years after the first batch, another lawyer (damn civil trial lawyer) came along and freed the slaves. What was that about? A perfect example of a law that was bad for American business. Imagine how low prices would be if slave labor were legal in the U.S.

Rez, you're right, we'd be so much better off without lawyers. Sure, there'd be a lot more innocent people in prison, but at least the guilty ones wouldn't go free. Sure, corporations would be free to maim people for a profit, but stuff would be cheaper.

Ron_H

The 928 is not a "nice" car. It is a Grand Touring car meant to travel for hours at speeds far in excess of those discussed anywhere in America, at safety levels far above the capability of other cars on the road. Safety is not limited to braking capability, though the 928 certainly has that in abundance. Safety is an attitude of awareness and capability.

"Taking responsibility" is not synonymous with "admitting to being a criminal and begging for forgiveness for your sins". It is irresponsible to expect animals to act contrary to their capabilities and compromise their natural tendencies and thereby create unsafe conditions, and then pass the blame for such reactions on to the animals rather than those entrusted with the "regulation" of the animals' behavior. That is precisely what illegally set and enforced speed laws do. And the "regulators" know it, expect it and thrive on it just like parasites. The people who condone it and feel shame for acting naturally are guilty of allowing it to continue. They are literally escaping responsibility by "coping out" and paying the fine. Taking responsibility for violating an illegal law is no reponsibility at all; it is taking responsibility that should have been borne by the accusers and is a sick mechanism for avoiding responsibility altogether, like any sheepish animal. Analogy: place some pigs into a sty and feed them garbage and let them trample the ground into mushy mud. The pigs will appear to be fat, dirty and repulsive animals. But the pigs had no control over their situation under threat of death for defiance. Should they feel shamed for their position in life? Are they responsible? In reality, pigs are intelligent animals who roam about and remain fit and clean. Unless someone forces them into the above situation.

They came to take my neighbors away, and I did nothing. They came to take my parents away and I did nothing. They came to take my childrent away and I did nothing. And then they came to take me away and it was too late to do anything.

Time is running out, and soon it will be too late.

Hey, I’ll put it bluntly: If you think Shane should “take responsibility” for criminal behavior by violating a posted speed limit on accusation of a police officer alone, and pay a prescribed fine, then ALL of us should march our okoles down to the courthouse and pay up regularly and admit we are transgressors and confess. Who will volunteer to be first in line???

Donald

Imo000 (were your parents mad at you? ), Rez & Perry:
I agree - please send me any amounts you feel you owe to various and sundry governmental authorities, and the church for that matter, for any past violations and I will try not to spend it on lawyers.
My, isn't it a Good Thing there are no lawyers supported by the government?

perrys4

Shane, didnt miss your point. I understand you cant exactly run to the courthouse. I still dont believe that your insurance would have jumped way up unless you have had more than a couple tickets in the last couple years. Most insurance companies I have dealt with only raise an eyebrow when several tickets are gotten in a short period of time. Therefore my feeling that paying the fine might have been the cheaper route to take.
B.C. I think we all love to drive our cars fast, speeding down a freeway full of other cars isnt the safest thing to do. I get to drive my car on closed tracks and autocross courses and that is where I do my harder driving. Where it is safe.
I know if I screw up and hit someone with my car and know it is my fault I will take responsibility and make good on the damage. If the logic I am reading here is we are all innocent until proved guilty, would you deny you were at fault and fight having to pay for the other persons damage knowing you were indeed at fault ? I look at speeding the same way. I made the mistake or chose to break the known law and if I get caught then there is a penalty to pay.
Whether this country is screwed up or whether lawyers are evil is not the basis of this discussion.

MBMB

Perry,
You may have hit on the heart of the matter: There's a difference between offering restitution ("making good on the damage") and accepting retribution ("paying the penalty"). The first is what you do when you admit fault after injuring somebody. The second is what you do when you don't make the government prove a criminal case against you. The first makes an injured person better-off; the second doesn't help anybody.

Donald

The topic is speed laws & fines, not paying for damages resulting from collision. Is there a valid argument that traveling at 90mph, or 120mph, in a well maintained 928 is more dangerous than 70mph in a lifted F350 with swamp tires? That more collisions result from driving at a speed in excess of a legislated number than from bad driving?
Perry- are you saying you pay for closed circuit damages out of your pocket, and do not insure your car, or just that you are more willing to admit guilt under those circumstances?

Niels Jørgensen

I love this subject.



NO! All cars a not equal when it comes to speeding safely. It is not about how "nice" or "expensive" a car is, but it *is* about stability at speed, under heavy braking and when executing a fast lane change, and it *is* obviously about efficiency of brakes. And yes, a 928 has better brakes and is more stable at speeds than most cars out there. In an ideal world, there should be different speed limits for different cars all the way down to make and model. Not going to happen, for obvious reasons, but it would be more fair.

NO! You should not pay for beeing *accused* of speeding. If you feel it was wrong or reckless to speed, you shouldn't have done it in the first place. If you feel it makes sense to pay when you get caught on the merit that it is "living up to ones responsibility", should you not also pay when you're not caught? Or are you only responsible when you get caught?

"Illegal" is not "Irresponsible".
"Illegal" is not "Imoral".
"Illegal" is not "Dangerous".
"Illegal" is not "Harmfull".

"Illegal" IS "Against the law", but laws are made for a variety of reasons, some of which fit into the above categories, some of which do not. Speed limits were originally designed to save lifes, but are now primarily used by attention ****** and revenue collectors because it is so damn easy to show a picture of a 20-year old kid tinned in his Civic and wrapped around a tree and go: See, speed kills!

Facts are, however, that there is no evidence of any correlation between speed limits and number of deaths and amount of injuries. A lot more accidents are caused by people who do not pay attention, than by people who exceed the speed limits (don't we all?), but it's just not as easy to make a law against not paying attention (Imagine having 50%, 70% and 90% awareness zones).

Politicians simply took the easy way out and patched things up, probably not discouraged by the chance to collect a little (?) in the process. What else is new?

Normy

Yeah Imo- that's an impressive time for a stock '85! My '85 S2 can only turn a 13.86.....

-On the issue, I tend to believe what Imo thinks. I also think it is impressive that nobody has attacked him yet- a testament to this community. But in the end, I think that 70 mph speed limits on our highways are a bit low, and as such doing 90 mph in a 928 is not unreasonable. Though I speed all the time, I'm pretty careful about keeping it down to 80 on Florida's rural highways, which is the typical traffic speed anyway. The the real problem isn't Shane's driving...it's with unreasonable laws. What can you do about that situation?

N?

MBMB

The thing to do about unreasonable laws is to fight them every step of the way, making it more expensive for the government to enforce them. If everybody popped for doing a reasonable speed over the posted limit fights the ticket, the government will shift its resources toward ticketing people who are truly dangerous.

Incidentally, in most places it is illegal to drive at a speed that is not "reasonable and prudent." The posted speed limit is presumptively unreasonable, but the defendant can rebut the presumption and show that he was driving at a reasonable speed for the circumstances. This is a defense; 90 mph, if reasonable and prudent, is not illegal!

Niels -- great post!

Flott Leben

MBMB,
Great points all around and very eloquently stated.

SharkSkin

Now... while I and of course most 928 owners would agree the first part of that statement, the law in fact states the opposite, yes?

Just clarifying because either that was a typo or I have a LOT to learn about fighting tickets.