NYC cycling update

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 8:28:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/7/2017 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 2:35 PM, wrote:

Drunk driving is an offense that is particularly prone to repetition. According to MADD statistics, "an average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest" and "every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes" and "about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders." Any individual who is arrested for DUI or DWI has likely, therefore, driven drunk tens of times before, and has an extremely high chance of doing so again.

But this is all a joke and should be demonstrated with sarcasm - right?

The question was: What exactly do you propose should be done about it, Tom?

You provide lots of ranting, but very few realistic answers.

And as usual the obvious flies right past you. All it takes is enforcing traffic laws since the danger to the public comes from people breaking these laws. Let me here you say "duhhhhhhh" as usual.

Wow, how simple! Just "enforce traffic laws."

OK, so a guy gets caught driving drunk. They give him the maximum fine
allowed by law, and let him go, as the law demands. They've just
enforced the traffic law.

The next evening he gets back in his car and drives drunk. He gets
caught. They take away his driver's license. They've just enforced the
traffic law again.

A week later, he gets in his car and drives again. So what's going to
happen? "Hey, I think that's that's Tom, and I remember hearing from
cops two districts away that he lost his license, so I'll pull him over
without probable cause just to check whether that's really true."

In real life, most of the time he drives, no cop will ever see him. If a
cop does look at him, he won't recognize him or know he has no license.
In some places there are plate-reading cameras, and they may be
programmed to catch plate numbers of people who have lost their license,
but in most jurisdictions they're going to sample only a tiny percentage
of the cars on the road.

So sorry, "just enforce the law" is simplistic claptrap.

And once again, reality hates you, Tom.

--
- Frank Krygowski

You might want to ask your friend Jay before frothing at the mouth about not having probable cause after a man has had his car impounded. But then no one believes that a liberal is going to be able to work these things out for themselves. You have to have someone like Hillary to lead your way.

On 10/7/2017 2:45 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 8:28:16 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 5:59:00 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 12:25:57 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/6/2017 2:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 11:35:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 11:05:40 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 9:50:55 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/6/2017 10:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
-snip snip snip-


Don't you trust the Air Force?

Uh, you mean _after_ John Slocumb retired?

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

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:28:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 2:35 PM, wrote:

Drunk driving is an offense that is particularly prone to repetition. According to MADD statistics, "an average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest" and "every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes" and "about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders." Any individual who is arrested for DUI or DWI has likely, therefore, driven drunk tens of times before, and has an extremely high chance of doing so again.

But this is all a joke and should be demonstrated with sarcasm - right?

The question was: What exactly do you propose should be done about it, Tom?

You provide lots of ranting, but very few realistic answers.

And as usual the obvious flies right past you. All it takes is enforcing traffic laws since the danger to the public comes from people breaking these laws. Let me here you say "duhhhhhhh" as usual.

Wow, how simple! Just "enforce traffic laws."

OK, so a guy gets caught driving drunk. They give him the maximum fine
allowed by law, and let him go, as the law demands. They've just
enforced the traffic law.


You need better laws :-)

Read up on the Maine laws:
http://www.maine.gov/dps/bhs/impaired-driving/laws.html

Note that Driving Under the Influence is a criminal act and that loss
of license, for a period and a 500 fine is the penalty for the first
offence.

And, if you are under 21 years of age the penalty is much more
serious. Driving with any measurable level of BAC results in loss of
license for one year.

Arizona, and quite a number of other states have, I believe, even
stricter laws.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:31:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/6/2017 9:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:50:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/6/2017 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/6/2017 10:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.3545213



We need sensible regulation, dammit. Drunk driving ought
to be against the law.Â* Anyone piloting a motor vehicle
on a public road should have to pass a skills competence
test and a written statute-based test and then carry a
document with their picture on it. More laws! Yep that
oughta do it.

Your sarcasm is noted. But what do you propose? No
requirement for driver's licenses, no limit on blood alcohol
while driving?


Since those great ideas are hardly practiced, back at you.

Our local news regularly notes arrests for 6th, 8th, 12th offense DUI.
We don't have as many illegal aliens (no registration, no license, no
speak English) as they do in SoCal but the trend is clear.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2490337.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-15-times.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...307-story.html

The topic seems to have suddenly shifted from drunk drivers to illegal
aliens. Those topics may overlap, but they are not one and the same. The
guy in your article is Hispanic, but I didn't see that he was in the
U.S. illegally.

For the record: I'm not in favor of illegal immigration any more than
I'm in favor of drunk driving. But I haven't heard much here about
really practical ways of stopping either.

I'm not impressed by arguments that say things like "Here's a guy who
committed a crime despite a law, so laws do no good." If someone makes
such an argument, I think it's fair to ask them what _should_ be done.

I suggest "just enforce the laws you've got". Years ago people were
actually scared to get arrested for drunken driving as the penalties
handed down were severe. Now, apparently, as I read about "6th, 8th,
12th offense", it is more of a slap on the wrist sort of thing.

Suppose that drunk driving was punished by a minimum sentence of 6
months loss of license for first offence and permanent loss for
second, and driving without a license was a minimum of 6 months
imprisonment for first attempt and one year for second.

Would there be as much crime?

I'll note that what you're proposing is not "enforce the laws you've
got." You're proposing new, much harsher laws. And while I don't
necessarily disagree with the concept, I think those will be politically
impossible to get written into law.

I suggest that you read up on the various states laws about DUI.
Arizona, for example:

When you are stopped on suspicion of a DUI by a police officer and
either fail or refuse to take the BAC/breathalyzer test, the Arizona
Motor Vehicle Division will typically suspend your driver's license
(regardless of any criminal findings) on the spot for:

12 months.
OR
24 months, for a 2nd refusal or failure within 84 months.

For a 1st offense of a standard DUI, you may face:
10 days in jail.
A fine of $1,250.
Required completion of an alcohol/drug screening, treatment, and
education program.
An ignition interlock requirement for every vehicle you drive.
Community service.


I've been involved with passage of a few state laws, plus several
village ordinances. Simplistic solutions run into practical and
political roadblocks.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Considering that everyone entering the base has to pass through a security check-point, I leave it to the Air Force to decide who will and won't be allowed on the premises. Don't you trust the Air Force?

Absolutely - so why the whining about illegal aliens being arrested for being in a national security area?

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:55:34 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:31:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski

I'll note that what you're proposing is not "enforce the laws you've
got." You're proposing new, much harsher laws. And while I don't
necessarily disagree with the concept, I think those will be politically
impossible to get written into law.

I suggest that you read up on the various states laws about DUI.
Arizona, for example:

When you are stopped on suspicion of a DUI by a police officer and
either fail or refuse to take the BAC/breathalyzer test, the Arizona
Motor Vehicle Division will typically suspend your driver's license
(regardless of any criminal findings) on the spot for:

12 months.
OR
24 months, for a 2nd refusal or failure within 84 months.

For a 1st offense of a standard DUI, you may face:
10 days in jail.
A fine of $1,250.
Required completion of an alcohol/drug screening, treatment, and
education program.
An ignition interlock requirement for every vehicle you drive.
Community service.

Which is the reason I have a medical exemption from taking those "head back, look straight up and walk three steps to the left" tests. With the medication I'm taking I cannot even walk a straight line. That doesn't mean my driving or bicycling is impaired save that I can no longer ride with no hands..

I am still required to use a breathalyzer or give a blood sample.

But I don't drink more than I should unless I'm sitting around watching the TV in evening and there's a little wine left after dinner.

On 10/7/2017 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 11:28:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/7/2017 10:22 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 2:18:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/6/2017 2:35 PM, wrote:

Drunk driving is an offense that is particularly prone to repetition. According to MADD statistics, "an average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest" and "every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes" and "about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders." Any individual who is arrested for DUI or DWI has likely, therefore, driven drunk tens of times before, and has an extremely high chance of doing so again.

But this is all a joke and should be demonstrated with sarcasm - right?

The question was: What exactly do you propose should be done about it, Tom?

You provide lots of ranting, but very few realistic answers.

And as usual the obvious flies right past you. All it takes is enforcing traffic laws since the danger to the public comes from people breaking these laws. Let me here you say "duhhhhhhh" as usual.

Wow, how simple! Just "enforce traffic laws."

OK, so a guy gets caught driving drunk. They give him the maximum fine
allowed by law, and let him go, as the law demands. They've just
enforced the traffic law.


You need better laws :-)

Read up on the Maine laws:
http://www.maine.gov/dps/bhs/impaired-driving/laws.html

Note that Driving Under the Influence is a criminal act and that loss
of license, for a period and a 500 fine is the penalty for the first
offence.

And, if you are under 21 years of age the penalty is much more
serious. Driving with any measurable level of BAC results in loss of
license for one year.

Arizona, and quite a number of other states have, I believe, even
stricter laws.

I do not know and I have no opinion but I strongly suspect
that the practice of charging or not charging DUI[1] may
vary a lot from State to State as I strongly doubt that
actual DUI varies so much among populations:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/number...sts-per-state/

Note that Wisconsin shows one per 140 persons and then next
door Illinois is rated 1:2621. I know that Illinois has a
history of vacated charges for DUI which are both
ridiculously expensive and also routine in the Chicago metro
area, but that rate seems unconnected to reality.

NJ with 1:362 versus NY at 1:773 are not as dramatic as a
comparison to DE at an unbelievable one to 4219 persons.

In sum, I believe there are significant factors we have not
considered. You can't make the case that a legal (by statue
or by prosecution or sentencing practice) could make that
magnitude+ sized difference.


[1] Perhaps reporting/not reporting?

p.s. I dropped that list into a spreadsheet with ratios.


State DUI Arrests in 2015 Population Size RATE
Alabama 14,991 4,802,740 320.4
Alaska 5,538 722,718 130.5
Arizona 39,746 6,482,505 163.1
Arkansas 11,707 2,937,979 251.0
California 214,828 37,691,912 175.5
Colorado 28,198 5,116,769 181.5
Connecticut 8,235 3,580,709 434.8
Delaware 215 907,135 4 219.2
Florida 61,852 19,057,542 308.1
Georgia 25,421 9,815,210 386.1
Hawaii 5,812 1,374,810 236.5
Idaho 11,850 1,584,985 133.8
Illinois 4,909 12,869,257 2621.6
Indiana 23,475 6,516,922 277.6
Iowa 14,147 3,062,309 216.5
Kansas 13,080 2,871,238 219.5
Kentucky 2,363 4,369,356 1849.1
Louisiana 7,977 4,574,836 573.5
Maine 7,270 1,328,188 182.7
Maryland 23,714 5,828,289 245.8
Massachusetts 12,941 6,587,536 509.0
Michigan 35,534 9,876,187 277.9
Minnesota 29,832 5,344,861 179.2
Mississippi 11,629 2,978,512 256.1
Missouri 34,004 6,010,688 176.8
Montana 4,240 998,199 235.4
Nebraska 13,692 1,842,641 134.6
Nevada 14,445 2,723,322 188.5
New Hampshire 4,571 1,318,194 288.4
New Jersey 24,313 8,821,155 362.8
New Mexico 9,741 2,082,224 213.8
New York 25,169 19,465,197 773.4
North Carolina 49,599 9,656,401 194.7
North Dakota 4,003 683,932 170.9
Ohio 19,088 11,544,951 604.8
Oklahoma 18,980 3,791,508 199.8
Oregon 17,015 3,871,859 227.6
Pennsylvania 53,319 12,742,886 239.0
Rhode Island 2,778 1,051,302 378.4
South Carolina 14,742 4,679,230 317.4
South Dakota 6,190 824,082 133.1
Tennessee 26,322 6,403,353 243.3
Texas 90,066 25,674,681 285.1
Utah 6,894 2,817,222 408.6
Vermont 2,647 626,431 236.7
Virginia 27,732 8,096,604 292.0
Washington 34,952 6,830,038 195.4
West Virginia 4,429 1,855,364 418.9
Wisconsin 40,549 5,711,767 140.9
Wyoming 7,159 568,158 79.4


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

Strata your organization n get back to us

similar to our current goverment product

Nightmare ?

Rump Fed with 10 year trillions deficits in tax cuts eliminating the Fed Gov ...

Kansas city gona KC here we go...sung to Eliot Wave Theory...Savings n Loan ballad