Autos can be made safer and quicker.

No, I didn't. Show me ANY state where you can lose your drivers license permanently, never to regain it again. (short of putting you in life in prison)

Show me any state that has really meaningful impoundment laws where if they catch you in a vehicle and your not supposed to be driving they tow it and sell the vehicle, then reimburse the owner, less towing and sale fees.

Here's a quote for you:

To us, the 'great laboratory of the states' continues to be a disappointment in not keeping its promises to crime victims." --Roberta Roper, president of the Maryland Crime Victim Resource Center and National Victims Constitutional Amendment Passage's co-chair

OK, here's another one:

MADD Concerned with Implications of U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Drunk Driving

"..A drunk driver knows or should know that getting behind the wheel will likely cause serious injury or death to him/herself or innocent people on the roadways. In MADD's opinion, as well as the opinions of several state courts, this conduct is enough to raise the culpability level to that of a violent crime..."

The reason that current safety laws for vehicle operation don't work is simply that they aren't draconian enough. Unless you do something actually horrible, such as deliberately running down your ex-wife, your going to get your car back, espically if the car your in belongs to someone else. And the same goes with the licensing, if your caught repeatedly drinking.

What the US culture has decided to do is punish drunks that repeatedly drunk drive by fineing the hell out of them. The thought has always been that prisons are for violent criminals and if the guy is just some schmoe that gets sauced a few times a year and drives his beater into the ditch, that he isn't going to get jail time.

How many states out there routinely setup roadblocks on major roads after midnight and do sobriety tests on everyone that goes through them?

Um, crime is in the eye of the beholder. A Liquor seller pre-Prohibition wasn't a criminal, during Prohibition he became a criminal in the eyes of the law. No wonder the crime rate skyrocketed, your now counting a whole lot more people as criminals who aren't acting any differently than they were previously.

But in any case, this is a side issue - what the value of Prohibition was is that it really serves as proof positive that in the United States, that democracy doesen't work a lot of times. Too many people like to cling to the belief that here in the US it's always majority rule and the government is always going to follow the wishes of the majority, that simply isn't true.

That is an axiom, yes, but the thing is, that it's a matter of percentages.

Prohibition failed because the percentages were all wrong - you had 80% of the population that was opposed to it, 20% for it. The 20% got their way in the political process, but the fact is that you can win the war but unless you have the suppport of the majority of the population you will still be unable to govern what you won - as the US is once again relearning with Iraq.

Drunk driving and reckless driving is an entirely different thing altogether.

80% of the populace is most definitely not in favor of it.

And meaningful speed laws are the same thing. Sure we all know that speed kills, but an across the board speed limit is unrealistic. The maximum road speeds should be all set MUCH higher than they are - and the "acceptable speed for prevaling conditions" laws need to be enforced. In other words, if it's a bright sunny day and the traffic is light I should not be cited for going 60Mph on a 2 lane feeder road (which right now would be marked

45) but if it's a stormy day and traffic is heavy I should be cited for going 35Mph on that same road, despite the speed sign being marked 60Mph speed limit.

If the speeding laws had meaningful reform than you would in fact see 80% of the populace support their inforcement. Because speed limit laws today are mainly designed as feel-good political items, and most of the populace knows this, there is little support for them, which is why everyone breaks them.

That is absolutely not true. You can set your laws so that they actually produce safe results, and demonstrate this to the citizenry, and then only the minority are going to continue to break them. And the majority will then support getting that minority off the streets, permanently.

What you CANNOT do is legislate unrealistic and unfair laws and expect people to respect your legislative ability.

We have a real problem with this in the United States today. People seem to think now that just because they don't like something that they can just legislate it out of existence. This is where all the laws against stem cell research, death with dignity, and so forth are coming from. People know that these laws are political and are not based on fairness, and so they don't respect them, and as a result they figure if the congressional representatives are making laws that benefit their friends and line the rep's pockets, then why should I respect ANY laws coming out of them?

Look at the whole problem with motorcycle helmet laws in the country. It is a fact that helmets save lives. But in most of the states that implemented helmet laws, it was done with an "us non-motorcycle riders know what's best for you dumb idiots that are riding bikes so we are going to stuff this law down your throats" attitude. So no wonder the riders fought them.

If the states that put in helmet laws had actually conducted meaningful helmet education campaigns - keeping in mind that such campaigns take years to successfully carry out - and gotten the buyoff of the riding community, then you wouldn't see any support for the dumb minority of riders who run around and try to convince you that a helmet is going to kill them.

And when they get repeatedly caught for doing this then sent to prison, they will stop doing it as they cannot drive a car in prison.

Try explaining to the Tokyo police sometime how useless it is to enforce laws against throwing cigarette butts on the sidewalk.

I am not talking about making vehicles safer by modifying their structure or passing laws requiring automakers to do it. I am talking about making vehicles safer by getting the minority of dangerous drivers - dangerous because they are drunks, or because they are half-blind, or because they are stupid - off the road.

That is just not true. Listen, in any given population there's a percentage of people who for one reason or another just cannot make safe vehicle operators. Maybe they are morons, maybe they are addicted to some drug like meth or alcohol, maybe they are too old to drive, maybe they are too young to have any brains to drive. Maybe they have been given the chance to drive then repeatedly muffed it. Maybe they never learned to drive properly.

These people have to be weeded out and the only way you can do this is with laws. Unless you get them off the street you won't have safer operators. Now, maybe some of this group can be rehabilitated - addicts can go off the sauce permanently lots of them have, the ignorant can be trained, the blind can have cataract surgery and see again. But, the law shouldn't give a crap about it - it should be telling those people - either you do what you need to do to meet the standard, or go to hell.

The problem today is that the big corporations make a lot of money off promoting the idea that every man, woman, and child in the US no matter what has a God-given right to own a car and drive it on the highway. You can't watch an hour of TV without seeing a car advert that has this as a central theme.

And the insurance companies make a lot more money off no-fault insurance so they have a vested interest in seeing that all the blame in an accident doesen't fall on one party, as long as there's no medical claims. They don't want to see one of the drivers blamed. They want to have an excuse to have both drivers blamed so that nobody can say "gee that one fella he's too unsafe to be owning car, we should prevent him from ever driving again" they would rather both drivers be blamed, just not too much, so that they both keep driving, and paying insurance.

So, the corporations have modified the law so that it sets up no real barrier to getting a drivers license, or owning a vehicle, or keeping a vehicle. Nor does it do much when those vehicle users and owners misuse their vehicles, unless someone gets really hurt, and sometimes not even much then. After all, to an automaker, a driver that has just smashed his car into the guardrail is a potential customer for a new car! Perish the thought that we might prevent him from every buying another to replace the one he smashed!

Ted

Don't know the number but it does happen. New York for one. But you know, just like I said, it means nothing. The people drive anyway as soon as they are able too.

Not only is the vehicel towed but you go directly to jail.

I know several people who have lost the little plastic card by a judge and STILL drive even after dooing time. Short of killing these people you can do nothing, they do not care.

I do not know of that happening, there are ALWAYS arrest made.

Yea, crime you can say is in the eye of the beholder, but at that time it was illegal, so a crime. The point being is that people did it any way law or no law.

You finally said something mostly true. But I will point out the founding papers refer to this as a republic not as a majority count democracy.

The percentages are on my side. Just look out your window at how people drive.

Write your congressman, maybe hell change it just for you.

Show where it has happened, we already have plenty of examples where it does not.

Because you feel its ok that laws ought to be made just for your belief? You can not have it all your way.

I've never heard the helmet is going to kill you crap. The fact is every body I know who voted to repeal helmets laws did it to say "it's my choice". They know that the helmet can potentially prevent head injury. The same reason people do not put on the safety restraints in there own cars and trucks, they know that it can potentially prevent some injuries they do not buckle up out of choice law or no law. No education need, they already know. The fact is that the percentage of uneducated people who think that a helmet can injure you is small, if any at all.

When they get out they drive. It happens get your head out of the sand.

Different place different attitudes, I said there has to be an attitude change, it aint going to happen.

Aint going to happen. Look at our law makers Ted Kennedy comes to mind.

The roll bar is a killer for people who are not wearing protective head gear. Think before you hit the keys.

Richard.

Arkansas Minnesota Kansas Colorado Illinois Texas New Jersey

And these are just the states that showed up in a simple google search.

Now you're upping the ante. In fact, you never mentioned mandated impoundment in your original post. Are you that unsure of yourself that you need to make your standards a moving target?

See above"Integral roll cage // side curtain air bags" kinda negates your point for the average consumer. I believe that's what we're referring to here, Right?

Quote whatever associations you want, but this not a laboratory, and we are not lab rats. We are human beings with human failings.

While the roads need improvement for sure, vehicles are actually reasonably safe. Just as with weapons, it's not the mechanical entity which kills, it's the nut behind the wheel/shooter/whatever. Special driving schools won't fix that. You have to teach RESPONSIBILITY. To much of society is geared to take responsibility from the individual and put it on government; helmet laws being a prime example.

Just as with a great many motorcyclists, I totally object to the depth of governmental intrusion into our lives... Responsibility must be placed where it belongs. On the individual. If I choose to ride without a helmet, or drive without a seatbelt, or smoke while I drive, that is my right. If, in doing so, I screw up, then that is my responsibility.

There was a mention of testing every 2 years, and every year after age

75, as well as after any citation. There is the formation of a major bureaucracy which will never go away no matter how safe vehicles get. And it's everyone's tax dollars will be sucked down that black hole. I don't know about elsewhere, but the lines at DMV in California are already a major problem even out here in the rural areas. Can you imagine the lines if all those others now had to be added to the already pain in the butt lines? How much cheaper would vehicles be if governmental intrusion was kept to a minimum?

Not every 75+ driver is a hazard. In fact, more of them are actually safer than teen drivers. The teen may have faster reaction times, but is also more apt to take unacceptable risks. I investigated FAR more accidents involving young drivers than I did old drivers. And far more of those young driver accidents were fatalities; generally multiple. Why? Because a car is loaded with a teen and their friends, driving around with the tunes jammin' and laughing and joking, etc, and not paying attention to driving.

When I was in my early 20s, in the military, four of us used to go to San Francisco every chance we got. Responsibility was each of us sharing by watching for traffic, making sure the way was clear, etc. The driver drove, Shotgun handled the map and watched the right. Rear passengers watched left, right and rearward. OK, so I'm old. But it worked. In all our trips into the big city, in traffic congestion we were not used to, we never had an accident, and the only ticket we ever got was for parking.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Ah, sorry for playing but none of these permanently revoke them - Kansas does have a permanent revocation law on the books - but the list of exceptions to it is a mile long, they offer hardship licenses (that have to be approved by the court and your parole officer) that allow limited driving. And it takes FIVE dui's to even get to this point. Wanna bet on how many people make it to 5 DUI's without having a major accident?

The original post stated:

"In short, you get 1 DUI but the second one means your license is gone - forever"

Now let's see here:

Arkansas:

. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, Arkansas suspends operators' licenses. Ark. Code Ann. §

27-16-915(b)(1)(A).

1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Any drug-related offense, including illegal possession. Ark. Code Ann. §

27-16-915(b)(1)(A).

1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Six months. Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-915(b)(1)(A).

Minnesota:

. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, the state revokes driver's licenses for drug related offenses, including driving while impaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271, 169A.54(1) and

171.172.

1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Drug sale or possession while driving a vehicle and driving while impaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271 and 169A.54(1).
2. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Thirty days to two years, depending upon time elapsed since prior offenses. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271, 169A.54(1) and 171.172.

Kansas:

1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Kansas passed a resolution on 11/10/2000 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for driving-related alcohol and drug-related offenses. Kan. Stat. Ann. §

8-1014(b).

1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Kan. Stat. Ann. §

8-1014(b).

1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? The drivers licenses of first-time offenders are suspended for 30 days and then restricted for an additional 330 days. Second and subsequent convictions result in suspensions of one year. On the fifth or subsequent occurrence, driving privileges are permanently revoked. Kan. Stat. Ann. §

8-1014(b). The drivers licenses of first-offenders who are less than 21 years of age are suspended for one year. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1014(c).

Colorado:

1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, the state revokes drivers' licenses based upon drug-related offenses. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-2-125(1)(b) and (1)(k)(I).
2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of a controlled substance or while a habitual controlled substance user and a range of drug-related offenses. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-2-125(1)(b) and (1)(k)(I).
3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Not less than one year. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-125(2).

Illinois:

1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Illinois passed a resolution on November 9, 2000 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for drug-related offenses. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-201(a)(7) and

5/6-205(a)(2).

1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and drug-related convictions while in physical control of a motor vehicle. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-201(a)(7) and 5/6-205(a)(2).
2. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Individuals may apply for restoration after one year. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-208 and 5/6-206.1.

Texas:

1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Texas passed a resolution on 5/4/2001 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for drug-related offenses. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 521.341 and .372.
2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence and a range of drug-related offenses. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 521.341 and .372.
3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? For drug-related offenses: one hundred and eighty days; for driving under the influence: a period not exceeding one year. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§

521.312, .341, and .372.

New Jersey:

1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, individuals convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for drug-related offenses forfeit their driving privileges. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.
2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Any drug-related offense. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.
3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Six months to two years. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.

I said:

"And in order to avoid mandatory jail time you must present a bill of sale for any vehicle titled in your name within 90 days of a conviction."

"And you will never be permitted to own a passenger vehicle again."

Quite obviously, if this ISN'T done then what, you think no problem, let's just let it slide? If the original owner doesen't sell it by the deadline you gonna do nothing? Sorry if you thought that's what I meant.

For a law like this to mean anything, the vehicle MUST be sold, no matter what the owner does. If he refuses and you have to send him to jail, that makes no difference to the sale process, it still commences. To be done legally means it has to be impounded so someone can sell it. It only makes good sense to wait 90 days before impoundment commences to give the owner a chance to sell it.

Do the research. Permanent revocation of passenger car drivers licenses is a myth. Besides which for the few states that do revoke them, those states honor other states licenses - so in the case of Kansas, you just move to another state, get your license there, and bingo, your legal to drive in Kansas again.

The penalties are much more severe for commercial drivers licenses, and in fact it isn't hard to get a CDL permanently revoked, just drive drunk a few times and a lot of places will do it.

Face the facts - the laws are simply not written this way for typical passenger car licenses. I happen to be a proponent of reforming criminals rather than incarcerating them for the rest of their lives, for many offenses. But, when it comes to vehicle safety crimes, particularly drunk driving which is responsible for a huge number of accidents, it is simply asinine to not adopt a policy of 2 strikes and your out. For God's sakes man, the highways are crowded with too much traffic as it is. We need fewer, not more, cars on the road. Why bend over backwards to get people back in their vehicles and back on the streets when they are caught drinking and driving a second time?!? Are there no busses? Is there no mass transit? Get them out of their cars and decrease the surplus auto population!!! ;-)

Ted

Wrong. There is no permanent loss of a standard passenger car license in New York. See here:

1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? For drug-related offenses, six months. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 510(2)(b)(v). For driving while ability impaired, 90 days for the first conviction or six months for a prior conviction within the previous five years or two prior convictions within the previous ten years; for driving while intoxicated or ability impaired by drugs - six months for a first conviction or one year for a prior conviction within the previous ten years. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1193(2).

That is why the only way to make a revocation effective is to strike at the heart of the matter and make sure that the person that has lost their licence loses their vehicle as well and is prevented from owning another.

And of course, I'm not talking about stuff like an administrative suspension. Many states use administrative suspensions - Oregon for example - these are license suspensions, but not criminal suspensions. They use them for things like if you don't pay parking fines and other tickets and such, and there is no time limit - once you pay up or whatever the suspension is lifted.

I'm talking about a criminal suspension, because you have been convicted for a traffic crime such as a DUI.

Since the states issue the car title why do they issue titles to people who aren't allowed to drive a car - because they have a revoked or suspended license? It's absolutely crazy.

How about TAKING AWAY THEIR CAR. Who's car are they caught driving? Their girlfriends? Don't you think that if girlfriend loses her car because boyfriend was driving with a revoked license this might possibly result in loss-of-pussy-availability to boyfriend, who then might become motivated to not drive girlfriends next car again?

Obviously there's some work that needs to be done to flesh this kind of idea out, you have to put appropriate safeguards in. Maybe boyfriend was driving gf's car without permission - in which case for this excuse to work, gf has to press charges for auto theft- or something.

:-) Ok, this is the "everybody drives like crap except for me" argument. I have to admit this argument appeals to me - because after all everyone does drive like crap, except for me. You included. ;-)

Actually, the state I live in is a Western state and as such we have a different attitude about speeding in the government than a lot of Easterners. I know this as I periodically follow what the committee in the dept of transport does in my state. When we western states got together and forced the rest of the country to revoke 55Mph, it triggered a long range plan within the department to gradually raise speeds out here. There has been some legislation passed within the last few years - quietly, without public fanfare - that has given some specific direction to raise speeds. And as a result on the Interstates the speeds have, in fact, risen several times since the end of 55Mph. They are very careful where this is done, and it's only done where there's clearly no risk of increased accidents.

But, what I'm talking about is a political shift in how speed limits are viewed by the general public. Most of the GP seems to have the same idea you do about speed - higher speeds are fine for ME but NOT for everyone else on the road. Very few of the GP understand that speed limits need to be raised for everyone, not just themselves.

Well, look at the cocaine laws for one. The majority understands cocaine is a bad drug and the majority supports laws against it, that's why we have 'em.

Precisely, I'm glad you have grasped it. This is correct - the conservatives that want laws paying money to religious schools, in clear violation of separation of church and state, have no more right to have these laws than the liberals do to have laws like the kyoto treaty that limits emissions of pollutants, yet does it in a way that allows some of the favorite countries to continue to pollute without restraint.

People understand this, they know that both these kinds of laws are bad law, as they are personal beliefs. It destroys the respect for the law when EITHER side does this. When conservatives try to pass laws that usurp states rights by making things like death with dignity illegal, it erodes respect for law, and when liberals try to pass laws that block the rights of oil companies to drill in Alaskan land that they have legally purchased, it also erodes respect for the law.

You aren't around bikers much, then. The usual line is that the helmet restricts my vision and I can't see as well, so I'm more likely to have an accident.

Some did, and this was what I was talking about. It disgusts most real bikers to see idiots in tee-shirts and no helmets riding down the street, and if we had crafted the helmet laws to get these morons off the road, then we wouldn't be voting against our own law. But the helmet laws in general were crafted by non-riders to make non-riders feel good about them, and have little to do with safety.

For example, the laws require helments sure - but only DOT-approved. The problem is that motorcycle helmets that ONLY meet DOT standards are completely unsafe. To be safe a motorcycle helmet needs at minimum to meet Snell standards. By not requiring this, it is obvious the helmet laws don't give a crap what you wear on your head, they don't give a crap if what your wearing actually works. In short, feel-good laws that do nothing to make anything safer.

There is a limit to this when every time they get out of prison and start driving they get caught and sent back for a longer and longer time, eventually they never get out again. This is called setting an example and that is one of the functions of prisons, a function that in our modern society a lot of people have missed. Not everybody though - a number of states have in fact passed get-tough laws over the last decade and there are some states (like Oregon) that have rules now that repeated lawbreaking will eventually put you permanently behind bars. Even if the crime is minor. For an example, look up 'measure 11' crimes in Oregon in your favorite search engine.

After Vietnam people said the government would never go to war again.

At one time people's careers could be destroyed by someone claiming they were a commie Red.

At one time people thought the world was safer the more nuclear bombs their country had.

At one time people actually paid good money to listen to Elvis Presley.

At one time people didn't think that it affected childrens development for them to watch a lot of TV

Things change.

He ain't going to live forever and who is going to follow him? Hell the Kennedy family is about played out in politics anyway, a Kennedy hasn't had national power in what, 3 decades or longer?

Attitude shifts go on in the US society all the time and people don't realize it, because they happen so slowly that people don't realize they are happening. The large corporations are very skilled at engineering these, why do you think that today people have so much credit card debt? Can you imagine 150 years ago the early pioneers that settled the country sat around saying "Gee, I really need to dump my used but still working plow and run out and buy the newest model I just saw, so that I can establish credit!" So tell me, how did we get from that - to today?

Still believe attitude changes don't happen?

Ted

No, I didn't. Show me ANY state where you can lose your drivers license

My best friend is banned for life from ever holding a Florida license, and that began in 1964 when he was 16. Seems they do not like kids who wire sparkplugs to the tailpipe of 56 Pontiac 'verts and fry the fronts of cop cars that get behind them.

Let's say you are married. Your spouse goes out and gets totaled at a baby shower and gets nailed on the way home. Now, along comes the state and takes away the vehicle, of which you are a 50% owner (and it may be that you are the only income so you're paying 100% of the cost). How will you react to that "law" now?

This is much the same as A wife having no idea her spouse is out picking up a hooker, not only has to deal with that situation, but now, because in some places they confiscate the vehicle, she has no transportation to go get food for the kids, etc.

In neither case did the other owner of the car know it was being used in violation of the law, and yet they are being punished financially by the loss of the vehicle, followed by what that does to their credit rating, etc etc etc.

So much for fairness and protection under the law.

Finally, from this patrolman's view, you want it your way.... fine. BUT remember this... I can get behind you and I don't care how carefully you drive, at some point you will commit a violation for which I will be able to pull you over and issue a citation. Been out drinking and you are standing next to your car, with the keys in your pocket, but with no intention of driving? In many locations you are subject to arrest if it's pushed.

And you want to increase the depth and severity of the laws? You simply make it that much easier for me to catch you. -------------------------------- They came for the criminals and I didn't speak out. They came for the mental patients and I didn't speak out They came for the Jews and I didn't speak out They came for me and there was nobody left to speak out ----------------------------------

You want to punish all you see as being bad. When they come for you, do you think anyone will be left to come to your aid?

Twenty one years in law enforcement taught me a lot about life and people. First, the law as written is black and white, but law enforcement is not. It is really many many shades of gray. And people like you are the ones who scream the loudest when the law is being enforced upon them when they have been caught in the wrong. Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Bullshit! Hank

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16