Originally Posted by
Poguemahone
A few years ago, the commonwealth of Virginia passed a $900 statewide fine for driving sans license. The outcry against this "unfair" law was notable, and it was quickly rescinded, along with greatly increased speeding fines. The auto lobby lined up and whined very loudly...
Okay, how was that "unfair?" And I would think that the auto lobby/industry would want the people using their products to be properly trained and licensed. I like the suggestion that would impound a person's car if they're caught driving without a license or insurance as well as the steep fine. And how if they can't pay their debt that their car(s) is/are sold to cover those costs.
Originally Posted by
Poguemahone
I talked with my DWI pal a bit, and yeah, they get the screws put on them-- he estimates by the time it's all done,he'll be out about 10,000$ total, between insurance, fines, and court costs.
Did he by any chance happen to admit that he brought it on himself?
Originally Posted by
Poguemahone
As to the DWI on a bike, the big difference between a bike and a car is the drunk is most likely to hurt himself on a bike. One good pothole in the dark should do it. Granted, you can hurt yourself just fine in a car too, but the 2000 pounds of hurtling steel can can put a hurt on someone else purty darn good. I'll admit to more than a few drunken bike rides in my past, but I've never driven a car drunk. The chance for catastrophe in a car is exponentially greater. Even fueled with a liter or so of Jamey's, I can grasp that. So the fines and charges on a car should be a lot greater-- it's all in a metric of potential damage, I think-- sorta the same reason cyclists don't require insurance.
True, up to a point. If one runs a red light or stop sign then they're a danger to others. But yes, I agree that by and large that a drunk on a bike is mainly a danger to themselves.