Irishdriver

No one did - but you tried to judge a car because a few guys spun the wheels...

How many Carrera GTs are there in the US? and of these three or four drivers have been caught out by the power of the car. How many more Carreras will be sold... so what is really the point? There are maximum a couple of hundred people in the US who "need to be warned".

There are millions of exploited low paid workers, there are millions having pension or health care problems with their employers - if you need to do a social service for the good of society I think you could use your energy better.

I took a dogmatic stand about having the right to buy a powerful car with all the risks that that involves. I have spun my 45 year old 60 HP 356 and I know it was my fault for pushing the car past its limits. I would expect to have the same right to drive a carrera GT to its limits without some ******* taking on himself to have Porsche neuter the car because some of its owners frightened themselves.

I do not see the relevance of guy buying a stick shift....every day a sales man persuades a customer to buy a few options he doesn't need or an alternative model. What do you want...you want every salesman to question adults rights to buy whatever they want? If he had bought a stickshift anything else would you have been as concerned about him? It is legal to sell cars and it would probably be an offence to refuse someone because you don't think he is skilled enough to handle it.

I don't need to protect Porsche - and US lawyers shouldn't need to protect people from themselves (to their own financial gain).

gabbagabbahey

What I find puzzling is that Corey, the deceased passenger, was an owner of a Lambo Murci and thus certainly no stranger to the concept of a 500+ hp sports car and all the responsiblity such a beast entails. I wonder how his lawyer is going to spin that fact? Its not as if Ben picked up a hitch-hiker off the street. Had Corey ever been to a HPDE before?

ahofam123

But in order to legally drive the motorcycle on the street, you need to have a motorcycle license. You need to prove that you know the handling differences between the motorcycle and the car. Thus the reason why the vast majority of motorcycle crashes are from the uninformed and unlicensed.

I do not think that Porsche or the US govt should require exotic car owners to get special licenses or pass special tests, but I do think that Porsche (and other high hp manufacturers in general) could do a lot more to educate their customers. SUVs have the roll over hazard warnings to let drivers know that they handle differently from sedans. Exotics do not need to have such a permanant warning, but maybe include a little brochure that can serve as the idiot's guide to driving exotic cars. Or maybe even flash driving tips on the GPS screen after startup.

It is not Porsche's responsibility to educate the public, however, they should realize that such a brochure could help save the lives of novice exotic car owners. By preventing such crashes, it could also protect Porsche's reputation and legal department.

But then again, none of this relates to Ben's case since he was in a semi-controlled track environment and was no stranger to high hp cars.

Greg Fishman

In my state you only need a permit, which is a written test. That permit is good for 6 months. Also just because you can ride a motorcycle (with or without a license) does not mean you can ride ANY motorcycle safely.

Thanks

Nick

Bob you are comparing a GT2-3 to a CGT? The CGT has over 250 more hp over the GT3 and 150 more than the GT2. It weighs less than both of cars. Can you imagine the difference in handling given the power and weight?

I have driven the CGT several times and it is in a league by its self when it come to performance. Unfortunately,the slightest incorrect input using the trottle or steering your in serious trouble and there is nothing to save your butt.. However, do everything right and your in sport car Nirvana. The line between sport car ecstasy and disaster is very thin when driving a CGT.

Finally, your examples of bad verdicts is misleading. Often facts which come out in trial are very different than what is published in the press. Do not forget, it is the jurors and not the lawyers deciding the case. As much as we would like to think otherwise, lawyers influence on jury verdicts is exaggerated.

Bob Rouleau

Who was it that said "take off all the warning stickers and let evolution carry on its good work"?

Too many seem to feel that everyone providing good or services has some obligation to protect us from ourselves.

In a free country, I don't want anyone protecting me from myself. I insist on the right the exercise my own judgement and be held accountable for my own actions.

If the attitude of 'poor baby it isn't your fault' persists, manufacturers will be obliged to go to extraordinary lengths to protect us from ourselves. We can kiss our high performance cars, bikes, boats, skis, and who knows what else goodbye.

One of the potential outcomes of the CGT lawsuit might be a requirement that buyers sign waivers before taking delivery of a car, especially something as potent as a CGT. Trial lawyers will work overtime finding ways to show that the manufacturer was negligent, preferably grossly negligent because waivers don't stand up to gross negligence in any jurisdiction I know.

I'm waiting to hear Nick's reply to my question as to whether Ferrari is negligent for allowing the electronic aids to be turned off. It is a virtual certainty that someone will shut down CST (their version of PSM) and crash. Probably, it has happened already. It won't be the driver's fault, oh, no, it will be Ferrari who made an unsafe car, they should have known that a driver would turn off the safety net and suffer the consequences.

Rgds,

Bob Rouleau

Nick - I pointed out that all the 'GT' cars from Porsche were consistent in that they do not have PSM. They cater to drivers who do not want electronics to interfere. Any of them will get a driver in trouble if he/she doesn't know how to drive. Again the fault is with the driver.

Rgds,

Nick

So long as Ferrari has provided safety devices any owner who chooses to turn them off should be held personally responsible for his/her injuries.

Regarding safety obligations, let me cite you an example which is close to the discussion we are having. A manufacturing press can cause serious injury to operators. We in the US insist that the press manufacture provide safety guards which will protect the operator from losing a finger, hand or arm. Using your standard you would not require that of press manufacturers?

Of course you would. Yet, you would deprive owner's of cars the same safeguards. How is that consistent?

gabbagabbahey

Nobody forces a consumer to buy a car w/o PSM !!!!.

Should Subaru be held negligent for not having as an option their Stability control system on their Outback 2.5XT 4 cylinder turbo since they do offer it on their 6 cylinder model? I read about a lawsuit from a Nissan SUV owner that was suing because he wasn't made aware of a back up camera option and sure enough ran over his daughter.

Where does the personal responsibility for making choices come in?

pcar964

I can't believe there are 18 pages of argument over this issue - anyone who thinks Porsche is at fault is AN IDIOT. I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. Oh sh*t I just tripped and fell and hurt my knee, my tennis shoes got caught on the carpet and... I guess I can sue Nike for making a dangerous shoe, and DuPont for making carpet with a dangerous flaw.

The amazing thing is, everyone on this forum is a Porsche owner and therefore probably above average in education and financial security. And probably, on par, above average intelligence. If we're split on this simple issue of personal accountability, can you imagine the mindset of the general population? Scary.

Ron_H

Pcar: Yes, that IS scary !! That is enough to make me shiver. Having experienced a jury trial for wrongful death by the family of a person who committed suicide after having failed twice earlier in a building I managed, bet the farm that what you say is surely scary. You will think you have traveled to another dimension if you are ever in such a situation. You will want to vomit.
You will not believe your ears and eyes. You will wonder about the laws of physics. You will think mathematical proof is a fairy tale. This thread is an insult, that's for certain. But what you say is an understatement for in this thread there are only a couple of loonies. Pray this is as close as you ever get to such a situation as you describe. No way I could have been responsible for this idiot's death; he wanted to kill himself and tried and tried and failed.....long before I ever knew of his existence on Earth. Finally he was successful, one day after walking into my building as a guest. Guess who gets sued?

pcar964

haha that's hard to believe... I'm sure it's not as funny when you have to deal with a court system that actually takes a lawsuit like that seriously. I guess all you can do is

magwheel

Hi Nick, I'll try and be more civil when I talk to you. Regarding the CGT vs the GT2..... I had a 2001 GT2 which I traded on the CGT. From my personal seat of the pants feeling, the GT2 felt almost as fast as the CGT. And to bolster my rear end feeling, I've read several articles where it said the GT2 in 0-60 times was maybe only a tenth of a second slower..... if that. Not too sure of the difference say 0-100 but I'm guessing again there wasn't that much difference either.

But, I know, and this is again my feelings, that whenever I went around curves at moderate to high speed in the GT2 and several other 911 models I had, there was always that insecure feeling where the car seemed as though it was floating somehow ever so slightly. I really can't explain whether or not it was the front end or the rear that seemed to float. I just know the feeling was there.

I don't have that feeling in the CGT! Honestly! It seems rock stable at whatever speed I go and again, as you guys already know, has only been up to around 110. I'm not into high speed freak cause I'm kinda chicken s _ _ t at very high speeds. Although IMO, the CGT does seems to have quicker steering than the CGT.

I'm sorry and don't mean to offend anyone, but I feel the legal system is out of hand in this country. People are getting sued for everything and anything. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not there's solid ground for the suit or not. Now, if meaningless suits that were brought and lost, and the person initiating the suit had to pay all attorneys fees and court costs, then and only then there may be a reduction of all the BS suits.

Bob Rouleau

Nick - so if the Ferrari owner turns off the safety device he has made a decision for which he will be held accountable. I like "accountable".

Now, the CGT owner who knowingly buys a car without said devices, is not held accountable, correct?

How is it that the former is held accountable and the latter is not.

With respect to presses, I would relate hand guards to things like airbags, safety belts, dual braking systems and other safety features which are mandated (repeat, mandated by law) in cars.

I also suspect that PSM is incompatible with the limited slip differentials used on the GT2,3 and CGT. They are purely mechanical and offer different locking characteristics on braking than on acceleration. As far as I know, PSM cars do not have this feature and make do with ABD - which uses the brakes to prevent wheelspin, but only up to something like 25 MPH or so. ABD is a poor substitute for an asymmetrical locking differential as used on the Porsche GT class of cars.

Rgds,

Nick

Michael, I understand your feeling regarding the difference between the GT2 and CGT. One of the problems I see is it does not appear you have given the CGT full throttle for any length of time. Getting up to 110 doesn't take very long in either car but particularly the CGT. You really haven't "exercised" your CGT and should not until you have a fairly good command of the car. Thus you cannot know the characteristic's of the CGT. Please do not take this as a derogatory remark. Your just being smart and I take my hat off to you.

Bob, my position is if Ferrari had failed to offer safety devices they should be held accountable. Stability control devices in high performance cars are a necessity. Manufacturers should include them just they they are required to have ABS, seat belt airbags et.certera. If owners thereafter decide to turn them off then they are responsible.

Personal responsibilty assumes people know what they are doing or are aware of the dangers. We all (including manufacturers of products) know that is not the case.