NYC cycling update

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-7, 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?

Jay's business is getting criminals off.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-7, 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?

Jay's business is getting criminals off.

I don't do criminal work. But if you're talking about lawyers in general, don't forget that we comprise the DOJ, local district attorneys and prosecutors of every stripe. Who do you thing is prosecuting criminals? Santa?
He knows whose been good or bad, but he's not getting indictments.

-- Jay Beattie.

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

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


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/6/2017 8:22 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 08:52:58 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

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

We need sensible regulation, dammit. Drunk driving ought to be against
the law. 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.

Maybe breathalyser interlocks should be required on all cars as a matter
of course...


There's your Minnesota Nice showing, Tim.
Your average human is more devious.

Or maybe not. I hear on the news that restrictions of
abortion will force millions of women to unlicensed illegal
procedures but restrictions of firearms will encourage
criminals to obey that one law so they will comply.

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

1 April, 1971

I drive good, I can turn a dry road into a sheet of ice. I pay attention. Every trip is the Mille Miglia. I have a safe drivers license.

POINT


everyone else, ceptin mega$ owners, will drive to enter the road way on the oncoming side n pullout as my big white van enters their space. The oncoming into the roadway vehicles turn right into the side of the big white van. How can anyone in their right mind do this ? They do it when I'm moving at 70 mph on a narrow patchy road. MIND**** !

BUTBUTBUT... traffic moves along every day thru construction against temp concrete walls. ? I know their white knuckled n at their limit but they do it very day on the way home from the mill in the rain......

conscious choice/forced n unavoidable ongoing choice. ( case for driverless cars ! )

On 10/7/2017 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-7, 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

-snippity snip snip-

Jay's business is getting criminals off.


*ahem*
His practice is corporate defense in civil courts

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

On 10/7/2017 10:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:25:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-7, 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. 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?

Jay's business is getting criminals off.

I don't do criminal work. But if you're talking about lawyers in general, don't forget that we comprise the DOJ, local district attorneys and prosecutors of every stripe. Who do you thing is prosecuting criminals? Santa?
He knows whose been good or bad, but he's not getting indictments.


And without lawyers we'd be short big chunks of humor!

Like Lisa Bloom, a joke unto herself. Plaintiff's counsel
for Bill Cosby's [alleged] sexual escapades but now defense
for Kim Jong Fat's evil twin Weinstein against similar
charges. Solidarity, sisters!

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

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 9:00:33 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/7/2017 9:25 AM, wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-7, 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

-snippity snip snip-

Jay's business is getting criminals off.


*ahem*
His practice is corporate defense in civil courts

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

if you have legs, try the AZ outback tour n a stay in Flagstaff/Sedona after looping the Tetons with a trip down the Snake

Sedona is dirt bike. Sedona is DIRT BEACH. The girls are AAA. Sedona is 21C American Kitsch done perfectly for MoMA.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 8:00:42 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

I don't do criminal work. But if you're talking about lawyers in general, don't forget that we comprise the DOJ, local district attorneys and prosecutors of every stripe. Who do you thing is prosecuting criminals? Santa?
He knows whose been good or bad, but he's not getting indictments.

Actually I'm not concerned about getting criminals off. That's generally the job of the jury to decide and if they can be led about by the nose by a lawyer the tried deserves to get off.

What I am concerned about is convicted criminals not getting punishments to fit the crime. Not just short sentences but murderers that get better treatment than homeless vets.