On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:12:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Heh, I saw that one come up recently.
> 
> My brother (a cop) once stopped a guy in a truck for using the commuter
> lane[1] with only one person in the truck. His argument was that since
> the back of the truck held a couple dozen frozen bodies on the way to
> the medical school, he had plenty of people to meet the commuter limit.
> Judge said "We'll let you off this time, but don't do it again." :-)

Heh.....That's good, I know my cousin (who's a Sheriff's deputy) has lots 
of stories like that.  Best quote from him to date:  "I love my job.  
Where else do I get to shoot guns, drive fast, and mess with people?"

> There was also a case here where a lady got stopped for being alone in
> the commuter lane. She pointed out she's 8 months pregnant, and if she
> can't have an abortion it must be because the "baby" counts.  The judges
> actually agreed with this one. :-)

Seems reasonable to me....

> [1] Special lane on the freeway reserved for cars with multiple people,
> which tends to go faster during rush-hour, because americans are too
> lazy to find neighbors going the same way at the same time to save gas.
> :-)

Yeah, we have those here as well, though you can buy a tag that lets you 
use it as a single person occupied vehicle.  They also give the tags to 
people who drive hybrids.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, we have those here as well,

That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a 
country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with 
people driving one to a car. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no
   CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, we have those here as well,
> 
> That was more a clarification for anyone reading who doesn't come from a
> country with people dumb enough to  clog an 8-lane-each-way highway with
> people driving one to a car. :-)

Oh, right - long day here. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?

Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.

Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 8:26, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/25/2009 6:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> This is deciding "what does it mean to drive drunk?"
>> Is sitting in your running car in the parking lot "drunk driving"?
> 
> Same thing here in Oregon.  I know a guy who got a DUI conviction 
> because he'd been out drinking, decided he was too drunk to drive home 
> and went to sleep in his car on the side of the road.
> 
> Unfortunately for him, he left the keys in the ignition, so even though 
> the car wasn't started the police still wrote him up when they found him.

There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might 
argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while 
drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to 
think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take 
you home it might just work.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:

> while drinking no
> though was given on how to get home safe.

The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
to because it wouldn't be safe".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> while drinking no
>> though was given on how to get home safe.
> 
> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
> was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or 
something like that? You know there is a difference between somebody 
thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
> to because it wouldn't be safe".

I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not 
after.

(BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I 
have never drunk alcohol at all.)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> while drinking no
>>> though was given on how to get home safe.
>> 
>> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I
>> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done
>> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until
>> I was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.
> 
> I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or
> something like that? 

A couple of margaritas over the course of a large dinner.  For me that 
normally isn't "too much".  They mixed them stronger than I thought they 
would, and this became apparent when I got up to head back to the hotel.

> You know there is a difference between somebody
> thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

Uh, yeah, I do know that.  I don't drink excessively, but I do like a 
drink now and then.  And I tend to be *extremely* aware when I'm too 
inebriated to drive, because, as I said, I made the mistake of driving 
under the influence before and it scared the ever-living-shit out of me 
when I got up the next morning and wasn't sure how I'd gotten home.

Oh, and I've got a cousin who did time in prison for vehicular 
manslaughter as a result of DUI.  I'm *painfully* aware of the 
consequences of making a bad error in judgment about being too impaired  
to drive (for whatever reason, be it drink or sleep deprivation).

>> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely,
>> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not
>> going to because it wouldn't be safe".
> 
> I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not
> after.

Yeah, well, before I started on my two drinks at the restaurant I knew my 
tolerances and knew that I normally could handle two of that particular 
drink with a large meal and be able to operate the car fine.  After 
having the drinks and realizing that they mixed them about 4x as strong 
as any normal establishment would have done, I opted to not drive until I 
was safely able to.

The fact that I opted to sit in the car with the AC blasting was to keep 
me from falling asleep while the effects of the alcohol wore off.  I 
certainly didn't want to wake up the next morning still in the parking 
lot.

> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
> have never drunk alcohol at all.)

You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 

>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
>> have never drunk alcohol at all.)
> 
> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as
>>> I have never drunk alcohol at all.)
>> 
>> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)
> 
> I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

LOL, fair enough. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message