Florida Ford GT Owner Crashes Because He's "Unfamiliar" With Manual Transmission: Police
The driver had just purchased the 2006 Heritage Edition GT for $704,000 at a Barrett-Jackson auction last month.
www.roadandtrack.com
Oh boy: Florida Ford GT Owner Crashes Because He's "Unfamiliar" With Manual Transmission: Police
- Thread starter FlyinJ
- Start date
www.roadandtrack.com
"...old tires, muddy pavement, and a fresh detailing (?!) were all factors causing the 550-horsepower supercar to swing out and hit a tree..."
"...his license suspension was due to an unrelated department of motor vehicles "clerical error.""
A wise man once said, "Just because you're qualified to write the check does not mean you're qualified to drive the car"...to which I would add: "or be able to come up with believable reasons why you wrecked it and/or why your driver's license was suspended at the time."
(1) I cannot see how "a fresh detailing" could play even the slightest role in wrecking a car.
(2) Look at all the photos. 'See any mud anywhere? Clouds, yes. But no mud anywhere...just dry dirt on the shoulder of the roadway in the photo at the upper right hand corner above.
(3) WHY mention the tires were "old"? Wouldn't that at least imply they ought not be on the car?
(4) Uh...perhaps Guarini's "umbrella policy" reads different than mine, but, it's my understanding U.P.s only cover amounts over and above the coverage provided by your 'primary' insurance policies...which in the case above would mean his auto policy...and the auto policy he didn't have ought to have covered that $704K...so...
Another wise man once said, "Never pass up a good opportunity to keep your mouth shut."
Why the devil would Guarini choose to speak with Road & Track about the incident - AND tell them something different from what he told the P.D. to boot?
I be thinkin' the gentleman may not have both oars in the water.
"...his license suspension was due to an unrelated department of motor vehicles "clerical error.""
A wise man once said, "Just because you're qualified to write the check does not mean you're qualified to drive the car"...to which I would add: "or be able to come up with believable reasons why you wrecked it and/or why your driver's license was suspended at the time."
(1) I cannot see how "a fresh detailing" could play even the slightest role in wrecking a car.
(2) Look at all the photos. 'See any mud anywhere? Clouds, yes. But no mud anywhere...just dry dirt on the shoulder of the roadway in the photo at the upper right hand corner above.
(3) WHY mention the tires were "old"? Wouldn't that at least imply they ought not be on the car?
(4) Uh...perhaps Guarini's "umbrella policy" reads different than mine, but, it's my understanding U.P.s only cover amounts over and above the coverage provided by your 'primary' insurance policies...which in the case above would mean his auto policy...and the auto policy he didn't have ought to have covered that $704K...so...
Another wise man once said, "Never pass up a good opportunity to keep your mouth shut."
Why the devil would Guarini choose to speak with Road & Track about the incident - AND tell them something different from what he told the P.D. to boot?
I be thinkin' the gentleman may not have both oars in the water.
Last edited:
It's obvious he made a mistake...and followed up with a few more.
Oh no. I've done far more than my share of stupid stuff, but well before I made 50, I learned to stop digging when I find myself in a hole.
I could forgive someone for taking a new (to them) car for a short spin before getting it registered. I could forgive someone for having an expired license, but when you check all of the voilation boxes...
A friend of mine once said, I'll have a few beers and drive, I'll sometimes drive fast, but I don't do both at the same time.
I could forgive someone for taking a new (to them) car for a short spin before getting it registered. I could forgive someone for having an expired license, but when you check all of the voilation boxes...
A friend of mine once said, I'll have a few beers and drive, I'll sometimes drive fast, but I don't do both at the same time.
STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES
Howard Jones
Supporter
never talk to the police
He was in Boca, go figure
Bill Kearley
Supporter
I'll just keep my mouth shut !!
The railroading of people such as Richard Jewel and Gen. Flynn taught me never to speak to LEOs whether city, county, state or federal.
HOWWWWW EVER...y-e-a-r-s ago ('early '80s), I had no such reservations. Of course, back then law enforcement was - rightly or wrongly - held in higher esteem than it is these days.
A friend of mine and I were witnesses of sorts to the arson of an abortion clinic back then. 'Looooooooong story as to why we happened to be on the scene just a minute or two after the fire started. Fast forward to a week or so later:
We were sitting in a coffee shop when in walked an FBI agent wanting to talk to us about what we had seen...so we did! 'Answered every question he asked...I even volunteered some additional info he hadn't asked about! He thanked us for our "help" and he left. That was the last we saw or heard from him or anybody else about the incident. (The arsonist was caught shortly thereafter and sent to the slammer.)
NOW, after viewing the above video, I shudder to think about what might have happened as a result of that interview - especially if the actual 'perp' hadn't been caught!
Live and learn...
SMH
Howard Jones
Supporter
Hey, don't take me in the wrong way. I am completely supportive of law and order, people being held responsible for their deeds good or bad, and law enforcement doing their job as the law requires, BUT...................you cannot afford to be on the wrong side of a mistake, even an honest one.
Talk to your lawyer first. That should be the only thing you say to the officer, "Sir, I believe I should speak to my lawyer first before I give a statement. thank you for your understanding"
Talk to your lawyer first. That should be the only thing you say to the officer, "Sir, I believe I should speak to my lawyer first before I give a statement. thank you for your understanding"
I didn't, Howard. ;-)
Ditto.
However, from now on something like; "Sir, I believe I should speak to my lawyer first before I give a statement. thank you for your understanding", is going to be the 'Golden Rule' governing any crime-related chat I might have with LEOs in general simply because, as you said, I "cannot afford to be on the wrong side of a mistake, even an honest one." I'm too darned old now to waste time dealing with some zealous D.A. 'spin artist'...to say nothing about being railroaded into a lengthy stay at 'The Grey Bar Hilton'.
Oh, BTW, a sort of 'coincidental' aside:
Yesterday afternoon I had the honor of meeting "America's Sheriff" David Clarke, Jr. (Milwaukee County, Wisconsin). He is thee man in law enforcement 'far as I'm concerned...a 'square shooter' if there ever was one. In fact, he's one LEO with whom I might just be comfortable enough to throw caution to the wind and violate my new rule above. He doesn't play games...none of which I'm aware anyway. I like the guy.
IMPO, the country could use about 30 or 40 million more people just like him.
Sheeeze! Thread drift much???
I'm shuttin' up now...
SMH