Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??

skipfromla wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS wrote:

I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.

In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
(trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.

Animals are not directly powered by humans so horses, donkeys, cows,
etc., and can be considered vehicles for the purposes of the DUI
section if being ridden. I recall a arrest for DUI on an saddled
ostrich about 30 years ago.

Skateboards and roller skates are examples of things that are not
vehicles because they are directly powered by humans.

Arrests for DUI on bicycles and animals happen occasionally but are
usually filed as disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals. One of
the problems with prosecution for DUI charges is that the chemical
tests admonishment for a blood alcohol test refers losing a drivers
license if it is refused. The suspect won't be losing a drivers
license because he wasn't driving something that requires one. Since
the DUI on a suspect won't be losing his non existent ostrich or
bicycle license if a blood alcohol test if refused, there is no way to
legally compel a DUI on a bike or horse to take such a test.

During trials for non motor vehicle DUI cases "Consiousness of Guilt"
is brought up to cover the refusal and lack of a blood alcohol test.
You wouldn't think so but juries convict DUIs on non motor vehicles
more often than not.

So when they say that you refused to submit to the blood or breath test
due to your supposed "Consciousness of Guilt" while riding an ostrich
drunk, you should say that you didn't refuse the test for any such
reason but rather because you are of a libertarian mindset and always
refuse to do what members of government demand especially when riding an
ostrich drunk?

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

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.

I recall stories where DUI bicycle riders had their driver's licenses
taken/suspended/whatever and one story where a bicycle rider without a
license was forced to get one so it could be suspended.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.

I recall stories where DUI bicycle riders had their driver's licenses
taken/suspended/whatever and one story where a bicycle rider without a
license was forced to get one so it could be suspended.

So it's best to be under 16 and not legally able to get a driving
licence if you are riding your bike back from the bar drunk?


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

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.



Simplistic. There's a law against you being intoxicated in public. I won't
waste my time explaining to you why it's constitutional, but since it is,
you're obviously wrong.

On Aug 26, 11:54 pm, Bo Raxo wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS

wrote:
I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.

Yes, they do. http://www.just****inggoogleit.com

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/3913.0.html is a good article on
various state statues. Oh, he has a bicycle law book coming out soon.

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.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Aug 28, 10:48 pm, 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.

Regards,
Bob Hunt


The interstate commerce clause is a good example of how the
Constitution limits the powers of the people. Or try to run a white-
people-only public accomodation like a restaurant or a retail store,
and find out if your "powers" are limited. Any document that defines
two or more rights inherently creates limits, because rights will bump
up against each other.

As for voters, there's an old college poli sci exercise where you send
the students to a mall with a copy of the Bill of Rights. Have them
tell people it's a petition to amend the Constitution, and see how
many people will sign. You'd be lucky to get one in ten to sign -
most will tell you that the whole thing is far too radical.


Bo Raxo

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway... here's an article that may help:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff166.html

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.

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!
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.