Don't Ride Drunk

On 12/9/2010 4:16 AM, MikeWhy wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

Your argument is a good one, but bicyclists are considered to be
"drivers" -- at least for most purposes. The odd part of this is that
it punishes people who may be trying to be responsible, viz., they
ride a bike instead of driving a car, albeit drunk. I do think the
two should be treated differently since a drunk bicyclist typically
injures only himself or herself -- and usually not that bad. Not true
with cars.-- Jay Beattie.

I hear what you're saying. But it doesn't diminish the urge to gouge my
eyes out for having read such offensive tripe. Which was worse? The
miscarriage of justice, or riding home from the tavern after doing what
people do in taverns? Maybe I can petition Allah to fasttrack me
someplace sane if I give him just a bit help on this planet.

The vehicular cyclists speak often of the danger of cyclists being
banned entirely from the street. I worry much more about being lumped in
with motorists. This example is what I worry about. I think it's nuts.

On 12/8/2010 7:48 PM, fiultra5 wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, Jay wrote:
The Oregon Court of Appeals just issued this decision upholding the
permanent revocation of driving privileges based on drunk bicycling.http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141099.htm

Hey, that guy is now a dedicated, lifetime bicyclist!

I worked with a fellow whose claim to fame was that at Cambridge he
was arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. He rose to become
chairman of one of the iconic British companies. -- AJ

I think that if you're going to be drinking, you should definitely
take the car.

MikeWhy wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:07 pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Jay Beattie" wrote in message

...


The Oregon Court of Appeals just issued this decision upholding the
permanent revocation of driving privileges based on drunk bicycling.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141099.htm

Hey, that guy is now a dedicated, lifetime bicyclist!

Very cute. I think his attorney should be disbarred. What is the
definition of "driving" in that state?

"(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the
provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the
driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways * * *

Your argument is a good one, but bicyclists are considered to be
"drivers" -- at least for most purposes. The odd part of this is that
it punishes people who may be trying to be responsible, viz., they
ride a bike instead of driving a car, albeit drunk. I do think the
two should be treated differently since a drunk bicyclist typically
injures only himself or herself -- and usually not that bad. Not true
with cars.-- Jay Beattie.

I hear what you're saying. But it doesn't diminish the urge to gouge my
eyes out for having read such offensive tripe. Which was worse? The
miscarriage of justice, or riding home from the tavern after doing what
people do in taverns? Maybe I can petition Allah to fasttrack me
someplace sane if I give him just a bit help on this planet.


http://rlv.zcache.com/isapi/designal...iew_auto =1.4

http://preview.tinyurl.com/nu5zzs

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Dec 9, 9:16*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:07 pm, "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Jay Beattie" wrote in message

....

The Oregon Court of Appeals just issued this decision upholding the
permanent revocation of driving privileges based on drunk bicycling.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141099.htm

Hey, that guy is now a dedicated, lifetime bicyclist!

Very cute. I think his attorney should be disbarred. What is the
definition of "driving" in that state?

"(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the
provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the
driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways * * *

Your argument is a good one, but bicyclists are considered to be
"drivers" -- at least for most purposes. The odd part of this is that
it punishes people who may be trying to be responsible, viz., they
ride a bike instead of driving a car, albeit drunk. *I do think the
two should be treated differently since a drunk bicyclist typically
injures only himself or herself -- and usually not that bad. Not true
with cars.-- Jay Beattie.

I hear what you're saying. But it doesn't diminish the urge to gouge my eyes
out for having read such offensive tripe. Which was worse? The miscarriage
of justice, or riding home from the tavern after doing what people do in
taverns? Maybe I can petition Allah to fasttrack me someplace sane if I give
him just a bit help on this planet.

There used to be a real live American courtroom on television here a
few years ago. People watched it just to count the number of times the
judge got it obviously wrong... This one sounds like a classic. -- AJ

On Dec 9, 2:40*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 7:48 PM, fiultra5 wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, Jay *wrote:
The Oregon Court of Appeals just issued this decision upholding the
permanent revocation of driving privileges based on drunk bicycling.http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141099.htm

Hey, that guy is now a dedicated, lifetime bicyclist!

I worked with a fellow whose claim to fame was that at Cambridge he
was arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. He rose to become
chairman of one of the iconic British companies. -- AJ

I think that if you're going to be drinking, you should definitely
take the car.

He got to be the boss of a brewery group. He definitely had to take
the driver that came with the job! -- AJ

On 12/9/2010 8:59 PM, fiultra5 aka André Jute wrote:
[...]
him just a bit help on this planet.
There used to be a real live American courtroom on television here a
few years ago. People watched it just to count the number of times the
judge got it obviously wrong... This one sounds like a classic.

Goes all the way to the top, with at least 5 members of SCOTUS at times
giving more consideration to their personal political and religious
beliefs than what the Constitution says.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 12/8/2010 7:48 PM, fiultra5 wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, Jay wrote:
The Oregon Court of Appeals just issued this decision upholding the
permanent revocation of driving privileges based on drunk bicycling.http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141099.htm

Hey, that guy is now a dedicated, lifetime bicyclist!

I worked with a fellow whose claim to fame was that at Cambridge he
was arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. He rose to become
chairman of one of the iconic British companies. -- AJ

I think that if you're going to be drinking, you should definitely
take the car.

Uff corshh ahm driving. Ahm in no cun--cun--Kun-DISHIN to walk.

--
Michael Press

In my small town, a clear majority of cyclists is composed of guys who
have had their drivers' licenses suspended or revoked, so they ride
their bikes to the liquor store instead. Most still believe that
anybody who's anybody will drive a car, and that only losers ride a
bike. Some people around here have the attitude that only a person
who's had his license revoked would ride a bike in the first place, so
they tend to lump all cyclists into that category.

?"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
On 12/9/2010 8:59 PM, fiultra5 aka André Jute wrote:
[...]
him just a bit help on this planet.
There used to be a real live American courtroom on television here a
few years ago. People watched it just to count the number of times the
judge got it obviously wrong... This one sounds like a classic.

Goes all the way to the top, with at least 5 members of SCOTUS at times
giving more consideration to their personal political and religious
beliefs than what the Constitution says.

But enough about Ginsberg, Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer and Sotomayor.

Bill "atheism a 'religious belief' for purposes of argument" S.

fiultra5 aka André Jute wrote:
[...]
him just a bit help on this planet.
There used to be a real live American courtroom on television here a
few years ago. People watched it just to count the number of times the
judge got it obviously wrong... This one sounds like a classic.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
Goes all the way to the top, with at least 5 members of SCOTUS at times
giving more consideration to their personal political and religious
beliefs than what the Constitution says.


More 'penumbras and emanations' recently? I missed that one.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971