New cop cars
02-26-2008, 07:35 PM
#11
GTRForums Staff
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 280
Glad I'm not way off base and the only one that thinks this is wrong at least. You bring up a very good question about what happens to the lienholder. I have to think someone that loses a car like that just stops making the payments, which then totally screws the lienholder. I would guess the law is of the opinion of "that's the risk they took when financing the car for them". Either which way you look at it though, it is just wrong.
I understand that it's a deterrent and that's why they do it, but there should be a line, and I think that is crossing the line. But why draw the line there? They should start seizing the cars of drunk drivers too. They injure and kill FAR more people than street racing and it is a much larger problem. And how about wreckless drivers that drive like maniacs on the freeway. Might as well take their cars too.
Hell, let's take it another step, why don't we start cutting off the fingers of people who graffiti things? That would be a good deterrent. It costs the goverment and property owners billions annually. That would be a good deterrent. My point is, there are plenty of good deterrents for crimes, but there is definitely a line, and they crossed it by taking cars, and now they are rubbing the former owners' noses in it even by using them for law enforcement instead of just auctioning them off or something. Disgusting.
I understand that it's a deterrent and that's why they do it, but there should be a line, and I think that is crossing the line. But why draw the line there? They should start seizing the cars of drunk drivers too. They injure and kill FAR more people than street racing and it is a much larger problem. And how about wreckless drivers that drive like maniacs on the freeway. Might as well take their cars too.
Hell, let's take it another step, why don't we start cutting off the fingers of people who graffiti things? That would be a good deterrent. It costs the goverment and property owners billions annually. That would be a good deterrent. My point is, there are plenty of good deterrents for crimes, but there is definitely a line, and they crossed it by taking cars, and now they are rubbing the former owners' noses in it even by using them for law enforcement instead of just auctioning them off or something. Disgusting.
What many dont realize is that the term "street racing" can be used to not only describe the organized races by idiot punk kids, but also can be applied (scarily) to other situations. Two cars on the highway gas it...maybe even for a few seconds, or even one person just racing himself. I have seen the term street racing applied to many situations, and with penalties like this its a bit rediculous. Drunk driving is far more dangerous and a far bigger problem, but because it is sadly more accepted, you dont see things like this go over to drunk drivers.
Not that I want it to, I stand by my original comment that property should not be involved. Just seems a bit beyond reasonable seizure of property.
02-27-2008, 07:38 AM
#12
GTR Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 517
Not that I want it to, I stand by my original comment that property should not be involved. Just seems a bit beyond reasonable seizure of property.
I think that the best way to figure this out is to sit down and come up with a list of deterrents that can best incentivize people to act the "best" way. There is some problem in this case because it's hard to come up with a definition of street-racing. It's also hard to determine if the party/parties involved were actually street-racing..
I also agree that the 'eye for an eye' type justice is wrong. It's most typically found in areas of the world with a strong religious law/rule/governance, and it would never fly in the US. We are too concerned with offending people's feelings.
02-29-2008, 10:54 AM
#13
GTR Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 64
I'm not sure this is such a bad idea as a deterrent. Of course, I'm sure my opinion would be different if it had happened to me. I'm kind of on the fence. I understand everyone's point so far, however, in the case of drunk driving and narcotics, there is nowhere else for someone to do those things legally. Racing has a place, and it's on the track, not on the streets. Whether it's gassing it at a light, racing yourself, drifting in an empty parking lot or actual full blown street racing, all those things you can do at your local track on track day. You can't drive drunk at a track on track day and call it legal. You can't sell drugs or steal at a track and call it legal. They may be going about it the wrong way, but if nothing else is getting the message across, than different measures need to be taken.
Now let me say this before everyone starts attacking me for siding with the cops. I am not siding with anyone, I said I'm on the fence and can understand both points. However, racing in general has a place, and that is on the track. Everything else you have mentioned has no place to make those activities legal in the first place. Just my $.02.
Now let me say this before everyone starts attacking me for siding with the cops. I am not siding with anyone, I said I'm on the fence and can understand both points. However, racing in general has a place, and that is on the track. Everything else you have mentioned has no place to make those activities legal in the first place. Just my $.02.
02-29-2008, 04:44 PM
#14
Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Does drunk driving, driving while high, doing drugs and stealing from someone need to be legal or "have a place"? Also, there are legal places to do these things, it's called Mexico. 
Just kidding of course.
For a lot of us, there are no tracks nearby, when there was a 1/4 mile track nearby, before it was removed and became an office park, we used to go there, it was wait in line for an hour and a half to go through safety inspection, and then get turned away because some stupid little detail that they wouldn't let go because of insurance reasons (I remember once being turned away because my NOS bottle was not bolted down the exact way they wanted it and they speculated that IF my car rolled it MIGHT come loose(it was pretty well secured)), or if you did pass safety inspection, then you'd go wait another 60-90 minutes in line to get one 10-15 second span of enjoyment. And then wait another 60-90 minutes to go again. If they really wanted to do something about it, they would open up more tracks, or make more legal and convenient ways for people to do it legally, so there was a viable option to doing it on the street, but that's an entirely different issue.
Just kidding of course. For a lot of us, there are no tracks nearby, when there was a 1/4 mile track nearby, before it was removed and became an office park, we used to go there, it was wait in line for an hour and a half to go through safety inspection, and then get turned away because some stupid little detail that they wouldn't let go because of insurance reasons (I remember once being turned away because my NOS bottle was not bolted down the exact way they wanted it and they speculated that IF my car rolled it MIGHT come loose(it was pretty well secured)), or if you did pass safety inspection, then you'd go wait another 60-90 minutes in line to get one 10-15 second span of enjoyment. And then wait another 60-90 minutes to go again. If they really wanted to do something about it, they would open up more tracks, or make more legal and convenient ways for people to do it legally, so there was a viable option to doing it on the street, but that's an entirely different issue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)