Write off one R8 GT

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120215/IRL/120219918

 

Indianapolis 500 winner and 1988 CART World Series champion Danny Sullivan appears to be OK after a potentially devastating road-car crash on Feb. 10 in California.

 

Sullivan, the 1985 Indy 500 champion and who scored 17 wins in a CART career that spanned 12 seasons, on the morning of Feb. 10 left his Monterey, Calif., home at about 8:15 a.m. Pacific time. Shortly thereafter, another driver--a German tourist who was texting at the time and driving on the wrong side of the undivided two-lane road, according to someone close to Sullivan who spoke with Autoweek--struck him head-on in a rental car. The crash totaled Sullivan's new Audi R8 GT supercar, but both drivers walked away.

 

However, Sullivan on Wednesday told Autoweek--ironically, via text--that he is bruised badly and was in a hospital awaiting a CT scan to check for more serious consequences of the accident.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120215/I...8#ixzz1mZjCMXUl

 

So it's that "German tourist" line again.

 

Reminds me of the Enzo SLR drag race story!

Man I am really getting to the point where I would support a cell-signal ban in cars that are in motion. Meaning the cell signal is unblocked only when the car is stationary, by some sort of small jammer that only has the wattage to cover the inside of the car.

 

Warning to those who disagree: Until it happens to YOU, as it did to my Aunt last year who was in a minor (luckily) crash with someone who was texting while driving, you may want to withold your vocal opposition to such a radical plan.

 

When it happens to you it's different, it really is like the anti-drunk driving campaigns of the 80s. No one gives a shit until it's at the front door.

 

Glad Sullivan was unhurt, but I fear it will take some sort of celebrity/beloved figure's death to really enact change on this issue, particularly as auto manufacturers are going the OPPOSITE direction currently by equipping newer models with direct internet connections through the Nav to give full email, skype, facebook, and all the rest of the bullshit, access for the driver...

Man I am really getting to the point where I would support a cell-signal ban in cars that are in motion. Meaning the cell signal is unblocked only when the car is stationary, by some sort of small jammer that only has the wattage to cover the inside of the car.

 

Warning to those who disagree: Until it happens to YOU, as it did to my Aunt last year who was in a minor (luckily) crash with someone who was texting while driving, you may want to withold your vocal opposition to such a radical plan.

 

When it happens to you it's different, it really is like the anti-drunk driving campaigns of the 80s. No one gives a shit until it's at the front door.

 

Glad Sullivan was unhurt, but I fear it will take some sort of celebrity/beloved figure's death to really enact change on this issue, particularly as auto manufacturers are going the OPPOSITE direction currently by equipping newer models with direct internet connections through the Nav to give full email, skype, facebook, and all the rest of the bullshit, access for the driver...

 

I agree with you. Something needs to be done. Either you train drivers to be better (which won't happen because people see driving as a right not a priviledge and making it cost $6k like Germany for real driving schools would never work here) or you need to ban cell use. This is a perfect example of needing to force people to do the right thing.

I agree with you. Something needs to be done. Either you train drivers to be better (which won't happen because people see driving as a right not a priviledge and making it cost $6k like Germany for real driving schools would never work here) or you need to ban cell use. This is a perfect example of needing to force people to do the right thing.

 

Agreeing with you David is a slippery slope

Agreeing with you David is a slippery slope

 

 

Damn straight! Next thing you know you're an atheist and buying your wife's love with jewelry from Stutgart!

someone who was texting while driving, you may want to withold your vocal opposition to such a radical plan.

I once saw this during Oprah, the show was about people who were texting while driving, they showed a guy who killed someone texting and driving. He came to the show and apologized to the family etc.

 

I don't condone any of this but I was still amazed that these people practically let go of the wheel to text or didn't even pay attention to the road. People are so dumb, like the message needs to be send instantly.

Not very long ago, (unsure as to where I recall hearing/reading this) a guy created something to the effect of not being able to send/receive texts while in motion. I see people do this a lot and it scares me more than texting, scrolling Facebook while driving. Is it really that important that you must know that your boss's bull was just castrated and his wife's ferret is in heat? Really?

Warning to those who disagree: Until it happens to YOU, as it did to my Aunt last year who was in a minor (luckily) crash with someone who was texting while driving, you may want to withold your vocal opposition to such a radical plan.

Or perhaps exactly the opposite. You're emotionally biased due to personal circumstance, not the best frame of mind to be making regulations for the rest of us.

 

Texting while driving in Kalifornia is already illegal, and yet this accident still occurred. We don't need more laws; we don't need more restrictions (such as a cell-blocker in cars). What we need is enforcement. Make the punishment for a cellphone related accident very, very painful. On the order of DUI (because that's basically what it is, driving under influence). Repeat offenders get a cell-blocker, just like the drunks get an interlock. Some draconian punishments... rather than dumbing down the world to meet the needs of the dumbest.

Or perhaps exactly the opposite. You're emotionally biased due to personal circumstance, not the best frame of mind to be making regulations for the rest of us.

 

Texting while driving in Kalifornia is already illegal, and yet this accident still occurred. We don't need more laws; we don't need more restrictions (such as a cell-blocker in cars). What we need is enforcement. Make the punishment for a cellphone related accident very, very painful. On the order of DUI (because that's basically what it is, driving under influence). Repeat offenders get a cell-blocker, just like the drunks get an interlock. Some draconian punishments... rather than dumbing down the world to meet the needs of the dumbest.

 

What is the argument for NOT having the cell-blocker? DUI laws are a joke. It should be the case that your first DUI is loss of driving priviledges for life.

 

How is the cell-blocker dumbing down anything? If the only thing it prevents is cell-use whilst driving (but should have a 911 provision), the only 'dumbing down' would be preventing someone who WANTS to use it whilst driving from doing so. Otherwise, it goes unnoticed.

Or perhaps exactly the opposite. You're emotionally biased due to personal circumstance, not the best frame of mind to be making regulations for the rest of us.

 

Texting while driving in Kalifornia is already illegal, and yet this accident still occurred. We don't need more laws; we don't need more restrictions (such as a cell-blocker in cars). What we need is enforcement. Make the punishment for a cellphone related accident very, very painful. On the order of DUI (because that's basically what it is, driving under influence). Repeat offenders get a cell-blocker, just like the drunks get an interlock. Some draconian punishments... rather than dumbing down the world to meet the needs of the dumbest.

 

I agree to some extent as being a lifelong resident of the state I definitely feel the "Kalifornia" stuff is out of control.

 

But let's not get confused here, this isn't some dipshit in San Francisco trying to write laws preventing a "circumcision" or some other nonsense that makes us roll our eyes right out of our heads.

 

I just don't believe that heavy punishments are a deterrent for any behavior really, as just one example, the fines for driving in the carpool lanes here now range from $700 to over $1000, even for first time offenders.

 

And yet people being popped for illegally using the carpool lanes has risen disproportionately to the population growth and enforcement level, despite the fine growing over that span by 500%.

 

I love draconian punishments, let the shitheads pay the price and all that, but this is identical to driving while intoxicated...some people are just going to do it no matter what.

I agree to some extent as being a lifelong resident of the state I definitely feel the "Kalifornia" stuff is out of control.

 

But let's not get confused here, this isn't some dipshit in San Francisco trying to write laws preventing a "circumcision" or some other nonsense that makes us roll our eyes right out of our heads.

 

I just don't believe that heavy punishments are a deterrent for any behavior really, as just one example, the fines for driving in the carpool lanes here now range from $700 to over $1000, even for first time offenders.

 

And yet people being popped for illegally using the carpool lanes has risen disproportionately to the population growth and enforcement level, despite the fine growing over that span by 500%.

 

I love draconian punishments, let the shitheads pay the price and all that, but this is identical to driving while intoxicated...some people are just going to do it no matter what.

 

 

 

And let's face it; society promotoes that dipshit behavior. Firstly, the entire concept of a bar or public place that serves alcohol basically INVITES you to drink and drive. Only in a few cities (NYC, London, Chicago, etc.), where cabs are everywhere and few drive, is something like this 'safe'.

The same goes for cell phones; we have all of these products to make doing OTHER things whilst driving easier, meanwhile, people don't know how to do the primary activity (viz., driving) in the first place!!!

I agree with what is being said here. I must admit that I sometimes text while driving myself; and it is stupid. It doesn't take long to end up in the wrong lane with your eyes on your phone. It is also illegal to text & drive here (GA). The problem is that everyone knows how hard this is to enforce, so , they chance it.

What is the argument for NOT having the cell-blocker?

Personal freedom. The right to do what you please, and own the ramifications. MANY people would advocate a governor in your Lambo, because nothing good can happen when you push past 55MPH. How do you feel about that one?

 

You can't believe in freedom only when it's convenient to yourself. It goes both ways.

Personal freedom. The right to do what you please, and own the ramifications. MANY people would advocate a governor in your Lambo, because nothing good can happen when you push past 55MPH. How do you feel about that one?

 

You can't believe in freedom only when it's convenient to yourself. It goes both ways.

 

You didn't address any of the logical problems we exposed with your thinking, which tells me you're not interested in a discussion. You believe one way, and God himself couldn't change your mind, I get it.

 

However, drinking and driving isnt a "personal freedom", and there are far too many grieving families "owning the ramifications" from it (on both sides).

 

Not everything can be spun into a simplistic Ron Paul sound bite. If my house is on fire, I do need the government to come and save my ass, no question. Laws that make sense are absolutely beneficial to modern society, most of us have no desire to go back to some misguided Wild West mentality of self-governance.

 

The Lambo governer argument is flawed, simply because the car has other options for speed that are legitimate and legal (track, exhibition, etc, etc, etc). Texting while driving on the other hand is never a valid option for drivers in the States that have declared it to be illegal.

 

Calling this something that's simply "convenient" for the rest of us to believe in could have described every illegal act that we've ever created a law to stop, including murder itself. I'm sure there were plenty of real tough guys back in the day who probably thought they could self-regulate that capital crime without a needless law either...

You didn't address any of the logical problems we exposed with your thinking

I didn't see any logic in the response, so no need to address.

 

The Lambo governor analogy is perfectly accurate. Similar to a 911 pass-through on your cell blocker, you can have a governor pass-through when your Lambo GPS recognizes your current location as being "sanctioned by the federal government as a race track or other performance driving area". Or some such BS. We already know it's possible to do much of that, just ask an early model GTR owner.

 

Don't get me wrong here. I'm really troubled by the average schmuck texting while driving. Shit, I'm troubled by the average schmuck driving at all. If it isn't texting, then it's eating, makeup, newspaper, children, radio, GPS, or any other driving distraction. I just don't want my elected officials forcing my car to make decisions for me.

It's not the Wild West because we already have deterrents against inattentive driving, causing accidents, hurting people, etc. and yet it all still happens. And how far do you take it? Certainly a computer is safer at driving then a human, so why not disallow human drivers? Go ahead and laugh, but get back to me in 50 years. Both the Fed and Cal Berkeley (PATH Program) have already road tested such systems.

 

Of course Drinking and Driving is a personal freedom. Everyone who does so on public roads is exercising that freedom, illegally. It's a horrible, wrong thing to do, and when caught you should be turned over to Wiggs for judge/jury/executioner. Going 200 on public roads is also personal freedom. We all pretend condemn it, then giddily watch Rob's latest video. It goes both ways.

 

Here's a question... Since DUI and texting are equally dangerous (roughly), why don't we require every vehicle to have an interlock?

Personal freedom. The right to do what you please, and own the ramifications. MANY people would advocate a governor in your Lambo, because nothing good can happen when you push past 55MPH. How do you feel about that one?

 

You can't believe in freedom only when it's convenient to yourself. It goes both ways.

 

Terrible analogy. Either through inate or learned ability, once can learn to safely travel at high speeds under certain conditions and in certain vehicles (a well-maintained Lambo for instance). certainly safely at greater than 55MPH. One cannot ever drive truly safely whilst texting because it involves either (1), looking away from the road, (2), taking at least one hand off of the wheel, or (3) BOTH 1 and 2.

 

 

 

We gave up personal freedom when we got a driver's license in many respects; you can't try to use that now.

Going 200 on public roads is also personal freedom. We all pretend condemn it, then giddily watch Rob's latest video. It goes both ways.

 

Here's a question... Since DUI and texting are equally dangerous (roughly), why don't we require every vehicle to have an interlock?

 

 

I don't condemn going 200 on public roads because there are times when you can be the only one in danger; and, at those times, it's your personal choice to do so. Being drunk; however, eliminates your ability to make rational decisions so you can't make a comparable analogy to DUI.

I'd be fine with interlock on every vehicle. There'd be a pretty sweet way to do it to. All vehicles have Push Button Starts and those start buttons can do a BAL. I have NEVER nor WOULD EVER drive drunk so it's all good by me.

Governors in our Lambos! That sounds like a blast.

 

While we are at it, lets also fine anyone is who out of shape and a fat fvck. Anything above 12% bodyfat.

They take up my airplane space and are too busy looknig for the next buffet of fast food restaurant to keep their eye on the road.

 

 

Gents, all you guys are really arguing for the what's coming in the future. Cars that drive themselves.

 

Drunk drivers...done

Distracted drivers...done

Sleepy drivers...done

Speeders...done

 

It's coming. THere will be private tracks/roads where you can self drive, but the future is going to be automated automobiling.

Gents, all you guys are really arguing for the what's coming in the future. Cars that drive themselves.

 

Drunk drivers...done

Distracted drivers...done

Sleepy drivers...done

Speeders...done

 

It's coming. THere will be private tracks/roads where you can self drive, but the future is going to be automated automobiling.

 

 

I would LOVE that. Have big 'automated' highways where people who don't want to drive, don't. And then have self-drive highways for the people who do!

That doesn't bother me one bit so long as the honeys still check me out when I roll up to da clubbbb

 

Gents, all you guys are really arguing for the what's coming in the future. Cars that drive themselves.

 

Drunk drivers...done

Distracted drivers...done

Sleepy drivers...done

Speeders...done

 

It's coming. THere will be private tracks/roads where you can self drive, but the future is going to be automated automobiling.

 

Either through inate or learned ability, once can learn to safely travel while while texting under certain conditions and in certain vehicles

That is a reasonable revision, albeit for a very small and disciplined part of population!

Just like how very few drivers are SAFER when driving faster. I will concede that you may be one of them, and thus you shouldn't be subjected to some stupid governor! Let you decide.

 

That's basically my point. It doesn't matter if YOU think you can safely drive at 200, safely text while you drive, or whatever, because there will always be people that think otherwise, and want to restrict you.

You just don't want those other people making that decision for you because usually you'll be disappointed with what they force upon you!

 

Automated cars are def in the pipeline. Can you imagine a Lambo that drives itself?! Barf...