Ron_H

It is a matter of opinion unsupported by fact that temporarily exceeding the tires ability to maintain traction with the surface of the road is a) dangerous b)reckless c) a signal that control has of the vehicle has been lost. Gaze at Ruf's Fazination video of their yellow bird for evidence supporting the above. Personally, I don't find 911 weight distribution a problem, but an asset. (in the hands of an experienced and skillful driver), which can be used to advantage and control. That 3000 teeth broke a law has not been established. If he did, the validity of the law as administered by the San Jose Police Dept, has not been established or confirmed. It may be argued that 3000 teeth lost control of his vehicle. But if he did, he regained that control and no ill effects came of the whole matter. Spinning one's wheels is not unintentional in many cases: ask a drag racer who needs to keep on the cam to keep his engine within effective torque range. Ask Bill Ball how many times during his many infamous burnouts he endangered anyone's life and/or property outside of his own? If there is one thing I do own, it is my life.
Pay? 3000 teeth chose to do just that, in the form of a bail forfeiture, which established that he chose to not raise the issue. Issue no longer exists. I may not make the same choice depending on circumstances. Did forfeiting bail change 3000 teeths's behaviour? I doubt it. Do I fear his presence on the streets I share? ( I do share those streets with him you will notice) I couldn't give a rat's a** about him driving those streets because I doubt he presents as much of a threat to my safety with his occasional urges and spasms as most of the other cell phone using airheads in their SUVs around here. Net result? someone extorted some cash from a citizen over an imagined irritating action in a deserted industrial neighborhood on an otherwise quiet and uneventful day in San Jose. Wow! What a bust! What else did it accomplish? Did it scare 3000 teeth into submissiveness and subservience and inhibition? I doubt it. Did it protect the citizens of San Jose from a madman? I doubt it. What else did it accomplish? Did it stop a violent and dangerous street race? No. (walks off scratching head wishing he had his tax dollars more effectively spent on real issues.) There were no noise issues in that part of the city at that time of day or in the week. Just jealousness directed toward zeal.

Ron_H

I apologize to you David for not answering the question directly. Here is the law from the California Vehicle Code:

23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving.
(b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking
facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty
of reckless driving.
(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days
nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred
forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided
in Section 23104 or 23105.

I am too busy today to conduct a search(which I suspect will yeild zero results) for noise or tire screeching prohibition. Someone else might want to add their knowledge.

dcmelik

I knew I would get an earful when I asked you a loaded question, Ron. Let's say, heaven forbid, 3000teeth, hit someone jaywalking, perhaps even a drunk pedestrian who had no business in the road. A far fetched what-if, I know. But let's say that the potential exists and, in this hypothetical, it happened. Wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property if he plowed into the pedestrian or, to avoid a pedestrian into a plate glass window of a local business? Wanton disregard for property or safety of the person if he exceeded the posted limit? Consider the concept of negligence per se.

Something similar occurred where I live on Saturday. A Ferrari, avoiding a bicyclist, plowed into obstacles off street near a hotel and totaled his car. Read about it here:

http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pb...918/0/BUSINESS

sendarius

Charge the cyclist!

Ron_H

C'mon, he could as easily hit a drunk pedestrian while traveling 20 mph in the same zone. The area was deserted so the odds of him hitting an ant were very low. Life without risk is unrealistic. Was he in danger of loosing control of his car? I won't continue this argument for lack of merit. I can present "what ifs" until we are all mutated into a vegetative state of fear and rendered lifeless with caution. Don't bathe. You might drown. Sheesh !!

I will offer a story of my own. I was passing a line of cars along a road with clear vision in all directions and no side streets or driveways. One lane in each direction and no oncoming traffic. As I came alongside one of the cars, it turned out suddenly into my path as if to pass the cars in front of it. I had a split second decision: take the driver's door almost perpendicular and surely ruin her breakfast and probably alot more of her, or swerve to avoid her and hit a pole head-on. No time for brakes. Well, I tood the pole on the other side of the road and she went on her way without knowing I almost killed her probably. My insurance company, the ****** that they are, said I should have hit her because then they would know if I was telling the truth.

Now speaking of drunks, I will repeat a story I've told here before. And I think the police would be better off spending their time waiting outside of a bar for some of the drunks to come to their car. The problem of drunk driving is far worse for our safety than 3000 Teeth leaving some rubber on a deserted street. But the real problem is the alcoholic drunks, not the occasional drinker who has one too many beers. The alcoholic constantly drunk driver doesn't realize he is intoxicated and just drives off thinking he is not impaird and the kills someone. The occasional beer drinker knows when he has one too many and that he is impaired. And he drives accordingly. Whatchagotasayaboutdat?

And while I'm on that soapbox, let me assert one other point, arguable though it is. The fact 3000 Teeth was driving a Porsche 928 scores a ton of point against the theory that his actions while driving anywhere were with wanton disregard for safety of persons and property.

dcmelik

"The fact 3000 Teeth was driving a Porsche 928 scores a ton of point against the theory that his actions while driving anywhere were with wanton disregard for safety of persons and property."

This is like singing the national anthem on this list. Who will argue with you? Not me. We can agree to disagree on the other points, as we surely will, but on this we can agree. Have a good night.