Ford GT s getting taken out one at a time.

[shelbydoug]

I have about 1,000 miles of seat time in an '05 GT.  ..... but driving the car on public roads/traffic, it's a bit of a nuisance.

A friend sold his for exactly that same reason. People trying to take photos and nearly hitting you - everyone in a POS anything trying to race you. It was just too much to make the drive enjoyable. One time we were out and some guy in an 80s Caddie tried to get a race at 3 lights. I did keep his car cover - it fits the wife's Tbird pretty well except the mirror pockets are in the wrong spot.

I tend to drive on weekends getting an early morning start like 5:30 am and by return at say 8 or 9 am it is only then that the traffic is beginning to pick up. Also planned routes where there are fewer cars in addition to one's launch times makes driving any such car a joy again.

It's getting more and more difficult to drive them without attracting a crowd? I had one person pull me over like a cop would, roll down his window and yell, "do you know what that is?"

Another yelled, "is that real?"

Another pulled his car over outside a toll booth, stood on the center divider and waved at me to get my attention.

A freakin' marching band with the 'Playmate of the Year' nude would get less attention.

[deathsled]

Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?


attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:

The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

[shelbydoug]

Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?


attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:

The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?

[Grumpy]

Well a lot of original Cobra's were wrecked back in the good ol days. . Good thing they didn't have Carfax back then. 

[Bigfoot]

Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires.  A lot of these cars still have them, like hitting black ice.

Correct

[Bigfoot]

Most of the wrecks are due to the production Good Year tires.

No this type accident is 100% caused by low talent and a switch on the traction control. The ONLY way 90-95% of the population can drive a 500+ hp performance car is that the computer makes up for their lack of skills. Yes hard old tires aren't as grippy but the decent driver will adapt to the tire and not expect road race slick performance out of street tires.

Actually, tires are a major factor, and this happened to many cars that were not even two years old on the original sketchy Goodyears, which are plenty wide.
Not old tires

[deathsled]

Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?


attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:

The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?

But acting like kids. Kids can be charged as adults. Adults not charged as kids so they don't have much of a defense.

[shelbydoug]

Equivalent to the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?


attractive nuisance doctrine
Primary tabs
Attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on a landowner's property that may particularly attract children onto the land and pose a risk to their safety. In tort law, the attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to treat trespassing children the same as an invitee, and as a result, must exercise reasonable care to eliminate potential dangers or provide adequate warning. As the Supreme Court of Texas has stated, the rationale behind the doctrine is that a device of unusually attractive nature may be "especially alluring to children of tender years" thereby impliedly inviting children to come upon the premise, and by such invitation, the children should be considered invitees instead of trespassers. Furthermore, because the doctrine may impose a substantial burden on property owners, it is generally narrowly construed to not include common or ordinary objects like walls, fences, or gates.

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:

The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; and
The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children; and
The children do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling or coming within the dangerous area; and
The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to the children involved, and;
The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

These were all adults. Kids don't know what the cars are?

But acting like kids. Kids can be charged as adults. Adults not charged as kids so they don't have much of a defense.

Technically correct I suppose but in situations like this my Dad's advice to me when I was 17 or so is the most illustrative.

He said, "when you get into a fight, the cops don't care who started it. They hit you over the had with the club, throw you in jail overnight, and let the Judge work it out in the morning."

Do you know that in NY, you can't even open your jacket and flash your piece at someone? That is considered "threat with a deadly weapon". So basically you just need to be nasty to the aggressively curious.

[Bob Gaines]

For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new as spares.  I don't have the car anymore. They are NOS sealed up in trash bags stored in climate  controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.

[98SVT - was 06GT]

Well a lot of original Cobra's were wrecked back in the good ol days. . Good thing they didn't have Carfax back then. 

I've seen some pretty shabby repairs on cars with a clean Carfax. Cobras have the Nedfax and I doubt anything has escaped his little notebooks.

[deathsled]

For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new.  I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate  controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.

What happened to your GT?  Do you miss it?

[Bob Gaines]

For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new.  I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate  controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.

What happened to your GT?  Do you miss it?

Sold it a few years back . Yes sometimes I miss it. 

[deathsled]

For the nostalgia crowd ,I have a front and back set of the Goodyears for my 2006 Ford GT that I bought shortly after I bought the car new.  I don't have the car anymore. They are sealed up in trash bags stored in climate  controlled storage . I will post a for sale ad with pictures sometime next week since this thread reminded me that I had them.

What happened to your GT?  Do you miss it?

Sold it a few years back . Yes sometimes I miss it.

I understand.  It is difficult to hang on to everything as we pass through life.  In the end we lose it all.

[Wedgeman]

sure do miss it....

[68krrrr]

I just had  a fresh set of the recommended Bridgestone's put  on my (new to me) Gt ,the car came with the original Goodyears on it still ,which i kept for historical purposes .I figure i see people selling the original Goodyear speedways for our 67 Gt500's for show purposes ,so i might as well save these .