Google sponsored links
"Jeff Brown of Columbus, Ohio was arrested for DWI, spent four days in jail, and had his license suspended for six months when he refused to take a breath test after an officer confronted him on suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Brown was walking his bicycle across his own front yard. Brown has since made a YouTube video detailing his ordeal."
http://reason.com/blog/show/126435.html
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
"Jeff Brown of Columbus, Ohio was arrested for DWI, spent four days in jail, and had his license suspended for six months when he refused to take a breath test after an officer confronted him on suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Brown was walking his bicycle across his own front yard. Brown has since made a YouTube video detailing his ordeal."
http://reason.com/blog/show/126435.html
How can that be a DWI? He wasn't operating the vehicle. It should be public intox.
Police state. Imperialist. Squashing liberties. Happens to most, now it's us.
I'm not that impressed with the video.
How can that be a DWI? He wasn't operating the vehicle. It should be public intox.
Shouldn't be anything. He was in his own yard.
There has to be more to the story.
Dammit people!
If you ain't gonna stay home to get drunk, have you never heard of a bush party?
Coppers don't want to follow you for 5 clicks into the woods.
I believe it. Some states have changed their DUII laws to that you don't actually have to *drive* a car to be charged. Merely "operating" the car is enough. "Operating" the car can mean sitting in the drivers seat with the ignition off. This logic would extend to walking a bicycle across your lawn.
Well, since he chose to argue against DUI laws in general, rather than argue that walking ones bicycle in their own yard did not constitute DUI; I have a feeling that what really happened was:
The cops saw him riding down the sidewalk at night without a headlight. He makes it to his yard before the cops stop him. He plays word games by stating that he was stopped while walking his bike in his yard, but he leaves out the prior part of the story of his riding on the public sidewalk.
Therefore, the idiot deserves both the ticket for no headlight as well as the DUI bust.
Police state. Imperialist. Squashing liberties. Happens to most, now it's us.
This quote its the nail right on the head.
To be honest, I've got no problem with Ohio's zero tolerance approach. If they want to cite people for pushing grocery carts while intoxicated, more power to them.
He really doesn't know much about putting together a valid argument. 13,000 people die in alcohol related incidences vs 36,000 contracting the flu. The big difference is alcohol related incidences are avoidable, the flu isn't.
Get drunk go to jail. DOn't like it, don't get drunk.
To be honest, I've got no problem with Ohio's zero tolerance approach. If they want to cite people for pushing grocery carts while intoxicated, more power to them.
He really doesn't know much about putting together a valid argument. 13,000 people die in alcohol related incidences vs 36,000 contracting the flu. The big difference is alcohol related incidences are avoidable, the flue isn't.
By that logic the penalty for being in public under the influence of the flu should be three times as harsh as that of DWI, since getting the flu is unavoidable but being in a position of passing it to others is avoidable.
There's more to the guy's story, we're only hearing one side so any conclusions are just speculation at this stage. Although, assuming that he was DWI on the bike on the road then the punishment is very disproportionate to the offense in terms of the risk he may have posed to others.
What really irks me is being lumped in with motor vehicles when it suits the autocentric state (i.e. when there's revenue to be made from fines, etc.), and being discriminated against as a legitimate vehicle when it may cost the state, like including appropriate cycling facilities when building roads. That smells of discrimination to me. Discrimination is discrimination, no different to being discriminated against along the lines of race or gender.
I believe it. Some states have changed their DUII laws to that you don't actually have to *drive* a car to be charged. Merely "operating" the car is enough. "Operating" the car can mean sitting in the drivers seat with the ignition off. This logic would extend to walking a bicycle across your lawn.
I had a friend who got one for sitting in the drivers seat. She thought she was doing the right thing by waiting to drive, turns out you're better off driving: It would reduce the time spent in the vehicle, decreasing your chances of getting caught.
Well, since he chose to argue against DUI laws in general, rather than argue that walking ones bicycle in their own yard did not constitute DUI; I have a feeling that what really happened was:
The cops saw him riding down the sidewalk at night without a headlight. He makes it to his yard before the cops stop him. He plays word games by stating that he was stopped while walking his bike in his yard, but he leaves out the prior part of the story of his riding on the public sidewalk.
Therefore, the idiot deserves both the ticket for no headlight as well as the DUI bust.
That's pretty much the way I'm thinking as well.
There has to be more to the story.
I agree. If he was walking his bike across his front yard, why argue that the drunk driving laws are improper, just argue the facts, " I was not 'operating' the vehicle. There has to be more that we don't know.
Wow .... just wow. Big brother strikes again.
... Brad
This whole idea of citing someone for DWI/DUI while riding a bicycle is wrong in my view. Society punishes DUI severely b/c an intoxicated driver is mishandling a very large object capable of high velocity and quite possibly will kill/maim many others. The risk (s)he poses to him/herself is almost incidental. If drunk drivers could, through some magic, be confined to only doing damage to themselves how many of us would really care?
Walk past the bloody body while musing upon Darwinistic natural selection......
Drunk cyclists do not pose those issues. Most likely they run into the back of parked vans b/c they forget to turn the handlebars. (Don't ask...) In fact, you could argue, if they're licensed drivers and own cars, they've shown responsibility by not taking their car when they know that they'll be drinking.
I'm not in favor of public drunkeness and if this guy had been arrested for that there'd be no issue. But, he didn't drive an automobile while drunk and thereby put many others at risk yet he's liable to the same sanctions as if he had. Hell, why not take the car?
:beer:
To be honest, I've got no problem with Ohio's zero tolerance approach. If they want to cite people for pushing grocery carts while intoxicated, more power to them.
He really doesn't know much about putting together a valid argument. 13,000 people die in alcohol related incidences vs 36,000 contracting the flu. The big difference is alcohol related incidences are avoidable, the flue isn't.
Well I've scratched you off my next dinner party list. You'd probably sue me while stubbing your toe on the way out after two glasses of chardonnay.
Well I've scratched you off my next dinner party list. You'd probably sue me while stubbing your toe on the way out after two glasses of chardonnay.
Operating bi-leather vehicles while under the influence... tsk, tsk. You should be ashamed.
;)
This whole idea of citing someone for DWI/DUI while riding a bicycle is wrong in my view. Society punishes DUI severely b/c an intoxicated driver is mishandling a very large object capable of high velocity and quite possibly will kill/maim many others. The risk (s)he poses to him/herself is almost incidental. If drunk drivers could, through some magic, be confined to only doing damage to themselves how many of us would really care?
Walk past the bloody body while musing upon Darwinistic natural selection......
Drunk cyclists do not pose those issues. Most likely they run into the back of parked vans b/c they forget to turn the handlebars. (Don't ask...) In fact, you could argue, if they're licensed drivers and own cars, they've shown responsibility by not taking their car when they know that they'll be drinking.
I'm not in favor of public drunkeness and if this guy had been arrested for that there'd be no issue. But, he didn't drive an automobile while drunk and thereby put many others at risk yet he's liable to the same sanctions as if he had. Hell, why not take the car?
:beer:
+1
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Plus, it could give cycling extra exposure as a utility. "If I can do this drunk stupid maybe I can do it while I'm sober?" Maybe we should even encourage cycling as a way to get to and from the bar. People want to go to the bar, we funded a powerful gang system when alcohol was illegal because people wanted to go to the bar. Let them go! Just not in a car.
Just a thought.
Well, since he chose to argue against DUI laws in general, rather than argue that walking ones bicycle in their own yard did not constitute DUI; I have a feeling that what really happened was:
The cops saw him riding down the sidewalk at night without a headlight. He makes it to his yard before the cops stop him. He plays word games by stating that he was stopped while walking his bike in his yard, but he leaves out the prior part of the story of his riding on the public sidewalk.
Therefore, the idiot deserves both the ticket for no headlight as well as the DUI bust.
And if we are indulging in pure speculation:
He was drunk, he mouthed off to the cops "Screw you I can do whatever I want on my private property, this is 'Merika!" Which the cops didn't like and decided to throw the book at him for being a prick.
There has to be more to the story.
+1.
Why is the video attacking DUI laws in general? If I were arrested for trying to put my bike in the garage (after I left it in front of the house, went in, had a few beers, then came out again,) I'd fight my case on that basis. No cop I know would waste their time on such a useless arrest.
I'm not sure a drunk cyclist poses the same threat a drunk driver poses. A drunk cyclist poses the worst danger to himself. A simple fall could be very bad.
But challenging drunk driving enforcement is not good for cyclists. Motorists who drive drunk pose a danger to us. The original post seems like trolling for sympathy amongst cyclists, when we should be standing together against this threat.
IMO.
I wonder if I can get a DWI for being on bikeforums.net and drinking. If so, I might be in trouble... shhhsnort blblbl...hic.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/RF247547.jpg?size=572&uid=%7BB8A99C13-788B-413C-8F3F-1D45189F668B%7D
+1.
I'm not sure a drunk cyclist poses the same threat a drunk driver poses. A drunk cyclist poses the worst danger to himself. A simple fall could be very bad.
IMO.
Pete, a drunk poses a great risk to the bicycle and THAT, my young friend, is a crime!
In 1972, I had a friend in IA who was given a ticket for DWI while walking his bike. Judge threw it out.
I wonder if I can get a DWI for being on bikeforums.net and drinking. If so, I might be in trouble... shhhsnort blblbl...hic.
http://pro.corbis.com/images/RF247547.jpg?size=572&uid=%7BB8A99C13-788B-413C-8F3F-1D45189F668B%7D
"Crash" takes on an entirely different meaning, then...
;)
(Guilty as charged...)
The record contains scant details of the underlying facts of this case, but it appears appellant was riding a bicycle on a sidewalk on December 18, 2004, when he was detained by a police officer.
And if we are indulging in pure speculation:
He was drunk, he mouthed off to the cops "Screw you I can do whatever I want on my private property, this is 'Merika!" Which the cops didn't like and decided to throw the book at him for being a prick.I guess you had a hard time understanding the information above, provided in the linked story!:popcorn
Who can rely on a reporter?
Without further facts - that is, facts that do not come from the Melodramatic Media (I question the legitimacy of calling some of these folks the "news media") - we are - ahem - beating a dead horse.
:deadhorse:
-Kurt
i actually recently reviewed a police officer on the options of getting home drunk. his answer was use swat(a student run organization to get drunk students home safely), a taxi (not many of them around, or a DD (his strong recommendation). he told me that even having the keys on you while sitting in a car is enough to give you a DWI.
when i asked him about walking or bicycling, he said walking has the risk of a PI (public intoxication), but odds are if you werne't in the road, and not TOO drunk, he'd give you a ride home and let you off (depending on the mood). as far as bicycling goes, in texas, you can get a BWI. yes, bicycling while intoxicated. its almost as expensive as a DWI. lovely.
Well there is some validity to the idea that riding around wasted and weaving around can cause an accident, so I'm not going to say that riding while drunk is perfectly fine.
Also, I can't see how this story could be all of the facts, seems to be something missing, that or this will be the shortest course case ever.
Some months back. There was a story here at BF. Some motorist arrested under the suspicion of driving while drunk, because he choose to sleep it off in the car, rather than drive. He was never caught driving. Suspicion of driving under the influence is not driving under the influence. The laws are out of control. At least they should be seperate charges.
Well there is some validity to the idea that riding around wasted and weaving around can cause an accident, so I'm not going to say that riding while drunk is perfectly fine.
Also, I can't see how this story could be all of the facts, seems to be something missing, that or this will be the shortest course case ever.
He has already been convicted, appealed and lost the appeal.:thumb: Apparently, the video is the basic presentation, he made at appeal, that his conviction should be overturned.:rolleyes:
Kinda funny that his drivers license was suspended for 6 months. Last time I checked, drivers licenses were issued for the operation of cars, light trucks, motorcycles and CDL operation, NOT for the operation of a bicycle. The drivers license should have NEVER been an issue. But, since it's Big Brother...:wtf:
I think that you can drive drunk in any state, as long as it is on private property. SO if the Police never saw him on the road, I guess that they would then presume that he was going to drive drunk on a public road. There is a lot of room to get off on that, if you can pay a lawyer. Note-- if your going to do a drunken sleep in your car, you should ditch your keys so that you can point out that you had no intention of driving, since you dont have your keys!
I see this happening all over. If the city can't get more revenue in taxes, look for the local police department to be turned into a cash generating operation. I would expect that many cities will more than quadruple thier tickets in the next few years.
Good grief, this is the worst display of public authority ever...a DUI for WALKING a bicycle in his own front yard? I can't begin to express my discontent with this case.
I think that you can drive drunk in any state, as long as it is on private property. SO if the Police never saw him on the road, I guess that they would then presume that he was going to drive drunk on a public road. There is a lot of room to get off on that, if you can pay a lawyer. Note-- if your going to do a drunken sleep in your car, you should ditch your keys so that you can point out that you had no intention of driving, since you dont have your keys!
I think that some states used to only criminalize drunk driving if it took place on a public street, but I don't think that any do that anymore. I.e., if you operate a vehicle while intoxicated, you have committed the crime, no matter where you operate the vehicle.
In the cases I know of where a person is found drunk in a parked car by the side of the road, the assumption is usually that the person was drunk when they drove to wherever they were found. A jury is always free to disbelieve this theory however, and believe that the person soberly drove to the side of the road, parked, and then proceeded to drink. In practice, I don' t think that they believe this theory very often, however.
Note that this situation is not much different from what happens if the police find someone riding your stolen bicycle down the road. They didn't see him steal it, although, in many cases, they assume that he did. But a jury is entitled to believe whatever story the defendant makes up - he found the bike, he borrowed the bike from his cousin, you told him he could take it, etc.
I believe it. Some states have changed their DUII laws to that you don't actually have to *drive* a car to be charged. Merely "operating" the car is enough. "Operating" the car can mean sitting in the drivers seat with the ignition off. This logic would extend to walking a bicycle across your lawn.
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) is taking a crusade to prosecute almost anyone who drinks almost with religious fervor. Meanwhile they turn blind to cell phone use, which has proven more dangerous than DUI.
Only in America. :o
This books tells you what's going on on America's roads...
'It's No Accident: The Real Story Behind Senseless Death and Injury on Our Roads'
by Lisa Lewis
A COMMENT:
A Breakthrough [ No Rating ] 21 Dec 2005 (updated 21 Dec 2005)
by adamellis18
A much-needed, thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of public policy regarding traffic safety. Though Ralph Nader's UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED was useful in its day, the misguided pursuit of "safe crashing" since then has wasted resources and effort that would be better spent on technology, enforcement, and education to prevent crashes in the first place. I don't need anyone to buckle me up, rather, I need a policy that will slow others down. Safe crashing only saves crash dummies!
Interesting comment...
Bike riders are particularly at risk because there hasn't been any comprehensive effort on prevention, just on "safe crashing," and we all know just how safe a cyclist would be in a collision... :eek:
Some jurisdictions you don't even need to be operating a motor vehicle. You just need to be "in care and control". In other words, you're drunk and sleeping it off in the back seat of your car. You have the keys in your pocket. Bingo, you're in care and control while intoxicated. Same penalties as if you're operating impaired.
I think that you can drive drunk in any state, as long as it is on private property. SO if the Police never saw him on the road, I guess that they would then presume that he was going to drive drunk on a public road. There is a lot of room to get off on that, if you can pay a lawyer. Note-- if your going to do a drunken sleep in your car, you should ditch your keys so that you can point out that you had no intention of driving, since you dont have your keys!
I see this happening all over. If the city can't get more revenue in taxes, look for the local police department to be turned into a cash generating operation. I would expect that many cities will more than quadruple thier tickets in the next few years.
I think in some jusridictions it doesn't matter if you're driving drunk on private property. A perfect example are the people who get arrested for operating a riding lawnmower while drunk.
I believe it. Some states have changed their DUII laws to that you don't actually have to *drive* a car to be charged. Merely "operating" the car is enough. "Operating" the car can mean sitting in the drivers seat with the ignition off. This logic would extend to walking a bicycle across your lawn.
In Pennsylvania a bicycle IS the same as any 'powered' vehicle. And in many places, you can get a DUI/DWI just for sitting in you car if you have the keys on you/in the car. You are in control of a vehicle. Doesn't matter if it is private property or not.
I have a friend who is a raging alcoholic, and he decided, after running out of beer at home, to WALK up to the corner bar about 1/2 miles down the road. Well, me and his gf jumped into my truck (i was sober i rarely drink) and went up there to get him.
While on the back patio, smoking, my buddy went in to use the bathroom, and a guy was standing there, you could tell he was either military or law enforcement... So, I asked... off duty Sheriff.
he says to me: "You friand isnt driving is he?" and I said no way.
Anyways, I asked this question, as its been a debate amongst me and my friend and his GF for quite some time.. she was there as well, she heard it first hand...
If you have an alcoholic beverage UNOPENED in the cabin of your car, you COULD be charged with intent to consumer while driving. Even though you havent committed a crime by consuming it, the possibility is there that you may decide to consume it while driving, which is illegal. So always put alcohol beverages in the trunk, or somewhere NOT in the passenger cabin...
But what strikes me is this: They can charge you with a DUI for INTENT to drink. you havent actually drank it, you havent done anything wrong, but the POSSIBILITY is there, and thus you can be charged. IMHO thats bull****. and WRONG. But those are the laws, and nothing will change it.
Also, I can be nailed for a DUI on my lawnmower in my own yard.
I can charged with a DUI for sitting in my truck... they recommend putting the keys ontop of one of your tires if you decide to sleep off your drunkiness.
I realise Drunk driving is bad, and I do not condone it at all. I support giving punishment to those who do it. But unfortunately, the punishment doesnt really fit the 'crime' because all it is, is a big money maker for everyone involved. The attorneys, the courts, the state, the cops. Huge money maker.
Which brings up ANOTHER point. In civil cases, losing everything you own (money) isnt considered 'punishment' Yet, in criminal cases, it is. Go figure.
Well in PA, you can be a pedestrian walking a bike. And peds must be much more drunk to get a ticket. At least that was a few years ago. You had to be 3.0 if you where walking to could get a ticket. He could of said that he was too stinkin drunk to ride and so he had to "walk" his bike.
Also, I can be nailed for a DUI on my lawnmower in my own yard.
Perhaps if your intent was to go onto the commonwealth road.
http://1490newsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/cops-man-dwi-on-lawnmower.html
This dude was in the street--
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/bizarre&id=4789896
In NM, you can only be busted by the state for DUI on private property, not by the municipality, unless you tell them that it is ok to bust on the private property. I can see walmart parking lots as differnt that running a car on your own personal dirt track.
http://jec.unm.edu/resources/benchbooks/dwi/ch_1.htm
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.