Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??

_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
...
In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...

So it is illegal to ride a drunk horse in Colorado?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:

Yeah - i've heard the lawn mower story but that's a motorized vehicle.
You say cops CAN cite cyclists for DUI. But do they? I bet it's
super-rare.
A police officer can cite anyone doing anything stupid in the road and
impeding traffic, if there's a vehicle or liquor involved or not.

------

Having a motor doesn't automatically make a vehicle a "motor vehicle",
at least in some states.

In IL, the term "motor vehicle" is a technical term that only applies to
vehicles that are titleable and registerable--those being manufactured
according to some classification of federal motor vehicle definitions
AND that are marked with a standard federal 17-digit {V.I.N.} serial
number.

Lawn tractors may not meet these qualifications; are lawn tractors
titleable? Not to my knowledge, but I've never owned one. When bought
new, they would need to come with a Certificate of Origin, which you'd
need to go apply for a title.

The generic term for {something with a motor} is a "motorized vehicle".
Such as--a pocket bike or a barstool go-kart, which are not delivered
new with a certificate of origin, and so, have no titling or
registration requirements but are also not street-legal either. If you
get caught riding one of these on the street, you would be cited for
operating an "unauthorized vehicle", but not an "unregistered vehicle",
because there is no provision under state law where either of these
vehicles can be legally registered for street use at all.

(in IL, you cannot register an untitled vehicle, and you cannot get a
title on a new vehicle unless you surrender the certificate of origin.
If the vehicle is bought used, then you need to transfer ownership of an
existing title, of you'd need to reference/copy an already-existing
title for the vehicle)

I got into this while investigating the legality of operating motorized
bicycles in IL--which seem to be legal, because there's no part which
specifically prohibits them. An email to the IL DMV says they are not
required to be licensed, registered or insured, as long as they have an
engine that falls under moped power specifications. So here is a
"motorized vehicle" that is not a "motor vehicle".

And trailers (pulled behind cars) are considered "motor vehicles", even
though they have no motors at all,,,, -but there is a federal
classification for trailers, so they're counted as "motor vehicles", and
must be titled and registered.

Different states use different definitions and have different laws,
however.
~

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
...
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
...
In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...

So it is illegal to ride a drunk horse in Colorado?

If the horse is underage ...

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Bob wrote:

On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud wrote:
The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.

The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
public.

You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
say you don't vote.

The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.

Ya got things ass-backwards there.

The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.

That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.




Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.

Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.



There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.

It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Bo Raxo wrote:

On Aug 29, 3:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
wrote:
Bob wrote:

On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud wrote:
The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.

The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
public.

You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
say you don't vote.

The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.

The UK has no constitution. Kinda sinks your whole argument there.

The UK has no constitution embodied in a single document. That doesn't
mean it doesn't have a constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constit...United_Kingdom
#begin quote
The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law
which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists
mostly of written sources, including statutes, judge made case law and
international treaties. Because of the lack of a single codified
constitutional document, the UK constitution is commonly mislabelled as
an "unwritten constitution". For the most part it is written, but is not
redacted or reduced into a single document.[1] However, the constitution
does have some unwritten sources, including Parliamentary conventions
and the royal prerogatives.
#end quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asgur...tution03.shtml
#begin quote
What sort of Constitution do we have?

It is often said that Britain has an unwritten Constitution. This is not
quite true. Some of the British Constitution is written and some isn't.
What is meant by 'unwritten' is that it is not written down in one
volume as 'The British Constitution'. You could not go into a bookshop
and order a copy of our Constitution in paperback!

Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law,
common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is
the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a
clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by
Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as
it is still developing.
#end quote

We were, I thought, talking about the US. The constitution does define
the US federal government. Do I need to cite that obvious fact too?


I love it when people who know jack **** about the actual function of
a constitution and their rights step in with some wacky notion based
on what seems practical to them. "Why, the constitution only defines
what the government can do! If it isn't in there, you can do it!

What are you talking about? If the constitution didn't exist, then the
US wouldn't have a constitutionally defined government. I don't know
what sort of government the US would have. It certainly gets its form
from the consitution. Go read it.



Why, the constitution is the only thing that prevents anarchy! Why,
if the constitution gives me a right then nobody can pass a law
impinging on that right!" and so forth.

You are making all sorts of statements that I didn't make. Maybe it's
you who doesn't know what he's talking about.


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Bob wrote:

On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud wrote:
The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.

The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
public.

You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
say you don't vote.

The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.

Ya got things ass-backwards there.

The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.

That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.

Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
have your own uncommon usage they are not.

Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.

Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.

Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.

There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.

It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.

But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
worse without much fear.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


Bob wrote:

On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud wrote:
The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.

The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
public.

You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
say you don't vote.

The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.

Ya got things ass-backwards there.

The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.

That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.

Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
have your own uncommon usage they are not.

The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
existed. The US inherits the common law from England.




Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.

Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.

Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.

So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
of the constitution.




There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.

It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.

But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
worse without much fear.

Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
smart enough not to embrace anarchy.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
have your own uncommon usage they are not.

The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
existed. The US inherits the common law from England.

Geebbus H. The US constitution does not restrict the people. It restricts
government. Note that little appendage called The Bill of Rights.
Government is clearly restricted while everything not specifically
granted to government is left in the hands of the people. What 'the
people' means is the same as it does in today's language, the individuals
that make up the population of the nation.

Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.

Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.

Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.

So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
of the constitution.

Whatever you have in mind has no bearing on the statement I made above
that you replied to. Government has always been a tool by which some
people seek to enslave or otherwise control others. That is true for the
length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
government is often used to those aims.

There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.

It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.

But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
worse without much fear.

Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
smart enough not to embrace anarchy.

And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
government, not the absence of law.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
have your own uncommon usage they are not.

The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
existed. The US inherits the common law from England.

Geebbus H. The US constitution does not restrict the people. It restricts
government.

It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
by the People.


Note that little appendage called The Bill of Rights.
Government is clearly restricted while everything not specifically
granted to government is left in the hands of the people. What 'the
people' means is the same as it does in today's language, the individuals
that make up the population of the nation.

This is a quote of what was said:

#begin quote requote cut
ME The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
ME anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.

YOU Ya got things ass-backwards there.
YOU The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.

ME That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.
#end quote




Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.

Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.

Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.

So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
of the constitution.

Whatever you have in mind has no bearing on the statement I made above
that you replied to.

Didn't you reply to me? Or did you write this?: "You think the
Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please say you don't
vote."


Government has always been a tool by which some
people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.

Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.


That is true for the
length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
government is often used to those aims.

This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
*people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
think laws do?


There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.

It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.

But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
worse without much fear.

Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
smart enough not to embrace anarchy.

And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
government, not the absence of law.

I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
by the People.

How about this, you quote the portions where you think it controls the
people as opposed to defining what power government has and does not
have. Just go ahead and do that.... you're going to have a hard time of
it because it's not there.

non responsive blather deleted

Government has always been a tool by which some
people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.

Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.

Man never lived alone.

That is true for the
length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
government is often used to those aims.

This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
*people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
think laws do?

You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.

And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
government, not the absence of law.

I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.

*sigh* not everything need stem from force.