In article <PkCqj.4193$lr3.2490@trndny06>,
"ilaboo" <plener2@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Dana Myers" <dana.myers@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JJidnaAnif3qoTranZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > ilaboo wrote:
> >> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:od66q3tnnrefisr9eripiem8ub04n6t4ui@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
> >>> "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <plen...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
> >>>>> sidewalk-after
> >>>>> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
> >>>>> decided
> >>>>> to fight it
> >>>>>
> >>>>> will post follow up
> >>>>>
> >>>>> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
> >>>>> steroids--mind
> >>>>> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> time--explaination went no where
> >
> > <...>
> >
>
> >> i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.
> >>
> >
> > That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
> > You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
> > were too impaired to ride safely.
> >
> > Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
> > I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
> > not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
> > to choose between two scenarios:
> >
> > 1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
> > a bull**** excuse for breaking the law.
> >
> > 2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
> > safely.
> >
> > If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
> > perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
> > under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
> > as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
> > a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
> > choose to believe #1 and cite you.
> >
> > The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
> > the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
> > is poor.
> >
> > It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
> > so bad.
> >
> > Dana
>
> i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
> endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
> really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
> i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
> direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
> have let me do that
You felt wrong. About the only part of this that is conceivably
exculpatory is that you may have been out of your mind (as in legally
incompetent to form rational decisions) when this happened. Even so, as
lawyers love noting, offenses like riding on the sidewalk and most other
moving violations are based on "strict liability," which means that
anyone committing them is assumed to be guilty of them; criminal intent
is not necessary.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/traffic-ticket.htm
The rationale for such a rule is that the rules of the road are
essentially rules of mutual expected conduct, and no excuses for
disobeying them can fairly be abided as the safety of others depends on
collective respect for those rules.
In other words, if you get on your bike and ride, you are implicitly
agreeing to abide by the rules of the road. Part of the responsibility
that you take on when you mount a bicycle and ride it is that you are
physically and mentally competent enough to operate it safely.
You may object that you were on the sidewalk, not the road, but the
principle of strict liability is even more applicable there: pedestrians
have no expectations of encountering a bicycle on the sidewalk.
The best question you can ask, either of us or of yourself, is "in
retrospect, what should I have done?"
It's a question with a clear answer: you were mostly blind, disoriented,
and judged that you were not competent to ride your bike on the road
(good judgment!) You should have stopped and rested. If you proximately
feared for your life or your health, you should have made every effort
to seek aid (call 911, accost passers-by, or go up to the cop who was
about to give you a ticket). Barring such a fear, you should have
dismounted and walked your bicycle home.
If you really were so out of your mind that you didn't realize the
danger of what you were doing, owing to an unfortunate drug combo, well,
you may want to appeal on that basis, but you really shouldn't have
gotten on to your bike in that condition.
It's rather like how very few drunk drivers are permitted to use the
excuse that when they got in the car, they were too drunk to realize
they were too drunk to drive.
Is this a hard rule? Yes. I suppose it penalizes those legitimately
experiencing temporary insanity. But that's a pretty small population.
Also, if you try to plea that defence, a cynical judge might insist on
committing you for a psychiatric investigation.
So out of genuine curiosity, do you think in retrospect that the drugs
impaired your judgment enough to cause your (bad) decision to get on the
bicycle and try to ride home on the sidewalk when you could barely see?
I'm not asking to be a jerk, I really am seeking a reflective answer.
PS: despite what my signature says, I have no legal training. I
basically talk to computers for a living.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing