Got Pulled Over Doing 105 MPH

[NSXDreamer2]

For the Dad and son arguements... I can see you both right, cuz I would agree with one of you in a given day, well, depends on my mood.

yes, driving is dangerous, driving fast is even more dangerous, with skill, experience and proper equipments; you may lower the risk, however it's still there.

It's a really classical arguement when you guys brought in the 75000 lbs truck, exotic cars in the aguement, what about throw in an automatic 600 hp Mercedes which allows a monkey to drive like a pro... Just for fun??

My experience tells me, even Charles got away everything, he will learn that he lost respect from some people (dad? ), he lost precious time and his money over the whole deal. Insurance premium increase, and like I said in one of the post, it could endanger his career... He's an adult, the opportunity cost is much higher than some 16 years old who got nothing to lose... Not that saying that he would not take the car to 8000rpm in third gear again, but at least he would think twice before he does it again.

Disclaimer, I do 90+ at my freeway offramp frequently, especially when the track is closed in the winter and I have the need for speed , so I'm no saint either....

 

[charleysung]

Disclaimer, I do 90+ at my freeway offramp frequently, especially when the track is closed in the winter and I have the need for speed , so I'm no saint either....

Amen. My kinda guy.

 

[Yellow Rose]

Multiple Rebuttals

SO dad1 and dad 2 I suppose you drive 55 mph in your NSX all the time!!!

As I have told others, do not ever put words in my mouth, as the above is not what I said. I have done 163 before. Stupid? Yes. But I don’t get offended by folks like endless that say that is stupid. And if I had been caught, I would not waste taxpayer's money trying to squirm out of it. I’ll take my (painful) lumps and be done with it.

Did you go 105?
Yes you did.

Did you get caught?
Yes you did.

Is that illegal?
Yes it is.

So if Charley answered yes to all three, why is he trying to get out of it? What-sa matter, can’t accept the punishment for your crime (that you were fully aware of being committed at that time) when you were driving fast. WHAT GETS ME IS THAT CHARLEY IS A LAWYER AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Could you use a little more tact in your wording to not appear abrasive and not offend people? Yes you can.

I dunno about this one. He reminds me of me. I like his approach to tell it like it is.

But to my defense, it was 3am on the AC Expressway and I was literally the only car in sight on a 4 lane highway on a dry day.

Oh pooh pooh on that logic. Here is one to think about. A murder is committed but nobody knows about it. Is this ok?

 

[NSXDreamer2]

Re: Multiple Rebuttals

WHAT GETS ME IS THAT CHARLEY IS A LAWYER AND SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Hey Andy, this quote is spot on, but your understanding is different than mine:
Charley is a lawyer so going into the court without fighting is losing...
If everyone treating the law system as you said, there'll be no job for any lawyer.

Do these two make perfect sense for Charley when he tries to get away from the 3 offenses?

Do you think he should really get 3 tickets in one harmless (yet) offence?? I would think that the officer assume he would hire lawyer to fight the citations, so he wrote more than one.

I believed the law system is to let someone learn not to commit crime again; not that you take the punishment and you are square. I might be wrong, but you gave me the feeling that if someone go robbing a bank, he got caught, stay in prison for couple years; as long as he knew he will take the "responsibility" to be in prison again, He can go rob again?? It will be sad... and obviously a lot of people think that way.

 

[brahtw8]

Re: Multiple Rebuttals

Oh pooh pooh on that logic. Here is one to think about. A murder is committed but nobody knows about it. Is this ok?

I disagree with your logic.

Murder is mala in se, i.e. wrong in and of itself.

Speeding is mala prohibita. It is wrong because it is prohibited.

An act of speeding on a highway may become morally wrong if it endangers the lives of others, but then it is no longer speeding in and of itself, but rather reckless driving or reckless endangerment.

Thus, if speeding is done when no one is around, it is only mala prohibita, not mala in se. Murder being mala in se is wrong without regard to who is present.

Brought to you by your friendly Lawyer-Philosopher. (BA in Philosophy and a JD)

 

[Edgemts]

i don't understand how you all could be encouraging him./QUOTE]
Thats a STUPID statement. We are not encouraging him, I dont see anyone telling him to do it again, or go faster, all I see is several people trying to help him minimize the damage his brief moment of less than ideal behavior is going to cause him and all of us.
If he was facing a fine as a slap on the wrist we could say you do the crime etc etc. But its the long lasting effects, insurance rates etc that make it unreasonable to just accept the punishment.
If his insurance goes up then Average rates for NSX Ins goes up.


Did you go 105?
Yes you did.

Did you get caught?
Yes you did.

Is that illegal?
Yes it is.
Should It be???
There are many more things that go on - on our highways that are a lot more dangerous than an alert driver driving a capable car at 100mph.

Speeding/tickets are a revenue generating resource for the police-only

Quote-lemansnsx- You've no right to be endangering other (innocent) people by your irresponsible actions.
Count yourself lucky that you weren't arrested and your car impounded, shutup, and accept your punishment.
Edit: speed in and of itself is not the prime factor here. The prime factor in many accidents is the speed differential between the fastest and slowest vehicle. Think closure speed.
(therefor speed in itself should not be illegal)
Unsafe driving should-

was anybody endangered- I think Not-
Was anyone hurt???? SO why should Charley be subject to thousands of dollars in fines/ ins rates increases etc.
Because it makes money for New Jersey.
There are much better ways to make our highways safer, but that wouldnt create revenue for the the local police.

Quote-Oh pooh pooh on that logic. Here is one to think about. A murder is committed but nobody knows about it. Is this ok?YES
(just kidding)
But its STUPID to compare murder and speeding(no victim-no cost to anyone)

 

[lemansnsx]

(therefor speed in itself should not be illegal)
Unsafe driving should-

Bzzzt! Wrong. Faulty logic. Read it again: speed per se is not the cause of most accidents - the cause of most "speed related" accidents is the difference in speed between the fastest vehicle and the slowest vehicle.
If speed itself "should not be illegal" the result will be a higher speed differential and a higher accident rate given the current state of driver education, road congestion, engineering, etc, etc. The nation's highway system was designed for 70mph. Could today's automobiles safely travel faster on these roads at the traffic volume they were originally designed for? Yes. Is that applicable to the real world of today? No.
Not to mention the impossibility of licensing drivers according to skill level - everybody on the road considers themselves to be an "expert" driver.

 

[steveny]

I don't have an NSX, so I don't (and can't) reach those speeds.

So you are not aware how easily and safely a NSX can be operated at high speeds.

Then how about super high end exotics, like the Carerra GT, etc? Because they are even more nimble than the NSX, they should be allowed to drive even faster, because the reaction on the cars are faster? The Elise and the Exige have one of the best braking abilities in the world; so because they can come to a full stop quicker than the NSX, they should be allowed to go even faster than 105? And according to your logic, it's even safer than the NSX, because it's lighter.

Absolutely! the 55mph speed limit is outdated. The speed limit of 55mph was set in place long ago when cars, even super low end econoboxes, were a lot less responsive and agile as the cars that are manufactured today. The 55mph speed limit has been kept in place because it generates a lot of revenue, not because it is safe.

I don't want a truck coming at me, nor an NSX coming at me. Either way, I DIE. With that amount of force from both vehicles, I become a bloody mess, literally. Taking someone else's life into your hands (in a bad way, such as this) is very very selfish. If both the truck driver and the NSX were going at moderate speeds, then both are safe vehicles. If I was hit by either vehicle (me in another car, mind you) at moderate speeds, I would probably survive.

Simple physics would show that mass+speed is a much more deadly killer than speed alone. Would you rather hit your finger with a hammer going 10mph or a 10 pound sledge hammer going 10mph?

To not pay the fine and accept the punishment is weak and selfish; doing so costs more money for your city, because of court time, fees, etc etc, which is tax payer money best spent elsewhere.

There is nothing wrong with using the system to your advantage. I will always fight every ticket to the bitter end whether I am guilty or not. I make sure when all is said and done it will be them at a financial loss not me. I refuse to pay for an outdated 55mph speed limit law.

 

[Zman]

Charley,

You live in the wrong state. On many freeways around here you would be keeping up with traffic at that speed!! I have frequently had cars blow by me and I was going 90mph!!

 

[apapada]

Re: Multiple Rebuttals

I dunno about this one. He reminds me of me. I like his approach to tell it like it is.

Tact is not something one is born with it. Tact is learnt through education. Everyone can say things like they are and offend. Not everyone can say things like they are without offending.

But to my defense, it was 3am on the AC Expressway and I was literally the only car in sight on a 4 lane highway on a dry day.

Oh pooh pooh on that logic. Here is one to think about. A murder is committed but nobody knows about it. Is this ok?

Comparing speeding with murder is ridiculous. Even if it's a remote analogy you are making, I can see why you say this; in the US it's been hammered in driver's minds that speeding on a public road is a crime and that speed kills, hence the analogy with murder. First of all, speed doesn't kill (it's the sudden stop ). More seriously it's again the lack of driver's education that kills thousands every year, proof is Germany or more locally Montana (used to be no limits). Second point about speeding being a crime is ridiculous since one speeds almost daily in our commutes and 99% of the time nothing happens, no one is hurt. This would not be the case nor the same result or consequences as if someone was commiting a murder daily. Yes last one was quite a simplistic demo, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Was speeding at 105 mph stupid ? No, maybe irresponsible at worst. Did he brake the law ? Yes and he should pay for it. Should he pay the full fine ? No, since even at 105 mph he was probably less of a danger than so many idiots driving their high-cog SUVs while talking on the phone, eating with the other hand while steering with their knees and still doing 55mph in the left lane.

 

[Yellow Rose]

Speeding vs Murder

OK, I admit that this is a bad comparison. The point I was trying to make is that Charley is a lawyer, knows the ramifications of rules infractions, yet tries to exonerate himself just because he was the only car on the road at the time.

HELLO, he still broke the law and he should pay for it.

 

[apapada]

Re: Speeding vs Murder

HELLO, he still broke the law and he should pay for it.

I agree with you 100% as said before...

Was speeding at 105 mph stupid ? No, maybe irresponsible at worst. Did he brake the law ? Yes and he should pay for it.

 

[Edgemts]

Charley,

You live in the wrong state. On many freeways around here you would be keeping up with traffic at that speed!! I have frequently had cars blow by me and I was going 90mph!!

I must also live in the wrong state. Only problem is that when there is traffic your ok "going with the flow" but at 5am when there is no traffic and traveling at the same speed you are now revenue.

What SteveNY said!!!

Bzzzt! Wrong. Faulty logic. Read it again: speed per se is not the cause of most accidents - the cause of most "speed related" accidents is the difference in speed between the fastest vehicle and the slowest vehicle.
If speed itself "should not be illegal" the result will be a higher speed differential and a higher accident rate given the current state of driver education.

Exactly- most drivers are not educated/cant drive/ dont respect the responsibility.
"current state of driver education" IT suchs. my 2 year old could pass the drivers test( the driving part anyways)
Just like racing, it is the person doing the overtaking that is responsible for making a clean safe pass, Speed differential is a function of a drivers ability to survey his/her surroundings, therefor speed may need to be adjusted accordingly. Someone doing 55mph not paying attention is much more dangerous than an attentive driver doing 90mph.

The nation's highway system was designed for 70mph. Could today's automobiles safely travel faster on these roads at the traffic volume they were originally designed for? Yes. Is that applicable to the real world of today? No.
Not to mention the impossibility of licensing drivers according to skill level - everybody on the road considers themselves to be an "expert" driver. /QUOTE]
We are certainly not talking about trying to do 105mph in heavy traffic.

Thats why drivers tests should be 100 times harder, maybee it would wake people up.

And by the way dont get me wrong, I am all for much more severe penalties for screwing up. You hurt or kill someone you suffer greatly.

A little off the subject but tell me what rational has Charley paying thousands in legal fees etc and who knows what else, and a Drunk congressman can kill a motorcyclist by running a stop sign at 70mph(not the first time-drunk or running same stop sign) and do less than 30 days in Jail????????????
Probably cost him nothing, we probably paid the legal fees.

 

[Edgemts]

Re: Speeding vs Murder

OK, I admit that this is a bad comparison. The point I was trying to make is that Charley is a lawyer, knows the ramifications of rules infractions, yet tries to exonerate himself just because he was the only car on the road at the time.

HELLO, he still broke the law and he should pay for it.

I dont believe he is trying to exonerate himself, I think he is just trying to turn it into a small scratch instead of a compound fracture.

I bet the cop, did 110mph at the way back to the station to tell his buddies he just caught a big fish.

 

[hlweyl]

Re: Speeding vs Murder

HELLO, he still broke the law and he should pay for it.

Is drifting your car backwards against oncoming traffic breaking the law?

 

[Ojas]

Re: Speeding vs Murder

Is drifting your car backwards against oncoming traffic breaking the law?

That’s hilarious. Actually, I think Andy was moving in the same direction as traffic, just facing the backwards. Maybe that’s the difference.

 

[Yellow Rose]

Gorilla / Ojas - good catch; however, I could explain to Mr. Officer the situation of an honest mistake vs Charley hauling ass.

 

[Andrie Hartanto]

Simple physics would show that mass+speed is a much more deadly killer than speed alone. Would you rather hit your finger with a hammer going 10mph or a 10 pound sledge hammer going 10mph?


There is nothing wrong with using the system to your advantage. I will always fight every ticket to the bitter end whether I am guilty or not. I make sure when all is said and done it will be them at a financial loss not me. I refuse to pay for an outdated 55mph speed limit law.

I agree with most of your point. But the hammer analogy not necessaily true. It all depends on how heavy and how fast. Speed will be the more determining factor as KE=.5mv^2

 

[steveny]

I agree with most of your point. But the hammer analogy not necessaily true. It all depends on how heavy and how fast. Speed will be the more determining factor as KE=.5mv^2

Absolutely, but I was talking about both objects traveling at the same speed.

The 10 pound sledge hammer is going to do a lot more damage to your finger than a regular 18oz hammer at the same speed. The same goes for an 18 wheeler vs. a NSX. If someone in a Chevy cavalier is hit by a NSX doing 60mph they have a much greater chance of surviving than someone hit by a 18 wheeler doing 60mph.

 

[Yellow Rose]

I'm Not Perfect

To the person that sent me this in private, related to this thread - "i wish we could all be perfect like you" - I have a few words for you. I never said I was perfect. EVER. I even admitted to doing 163 on a public road, which is not a smart thing to do. My point is, if Charley got caught, he should take his lumps. Please tell me how that makes you think that I am perfect, when I (nor you) am not.

 

[paladin]

Re: I'm Not Perfect

To the person that sent me this in private, related to this thread - "i wish we could all be perfect like you" - I have a few words for you. I never said I was perfect. EVER. I even admitted to doing 163 on a public road, which is not a smart thing to do. My point is, if Charley got caught, he should take his lumps. Please tell me how that makes you think that I am perfect, when I (nor you) am not.

Well if you had established a private conversation to argue over, what justified you posting a reply in the thread so we all have to read it?

 

[Yellow Rose]

Please Read Carefully

Well if you had established a private conversation to argue over, what justified you posting a reply in the thread so we all have to read it?

Paladin / Ninja - I did not establish the private conversation.....had you read my post and digested its contents thoroughly, you would've correctly concluded that it was somebody else that initiated the “discussion” not me, thank you very much.

Oh, and as others tell me.....there is always the delete key. Or you can be a "bigger man than me" and simply ignore my post as I seek out who has the boner against me. Hopefully, Troll Patrol will help me out.

 

[paladin]

Re: Please Read Carefully

Well if you had established a private conversation to argue over, what justified you posting a reply in the thread so we all have to read it?

Paladin / Ninja - I did not establish the private conversation.....had you read my post and digested its contents thoroughly, you would've correctly concluded that it was somebody else that initiated the “discussion” not me, thank you very much.

Oh, and as others tell me.....there is always the delete key. Or you can be a "bigger man than me" and simply ignore my post as I seek out who has the boner against me. Hopefully, Troll Patrol will help me out.

my point, if you'll allow me to clarify, is this.
he sent you a message. If you wanted to reply it is very easy to hit the message button at the bottom of every pm. instead you browse back to the forum, so we all get to see.

 

[Yellow Rose]

One Last Time

In the profile section of the red-vs-green reputation scale, there is no means to reply back in private. Now, do you get my point?

 

[apapada]

Re: One Last Time

In the profile section of the red-vs-green reputation scale, there is no means to reply back in private. Now, do you get my point?

if it's a troll, don't you worry as your reputation is not affected by people with low post numbers (it was outlined by Lud I think in some thread). It's just shows there, but that's all. This was done in order to prevent people with registring with different username to blast people off. Nice feature imho...