Won’t a good pair of Shimano’s stop the bike quickly enough?
Again, relevance? It probably says you can’t call the President (the current one, or a couple years ago, the last one, depending on your preference) a poopy-head. Article 88.
The definition of vehicle as you have presented it includes prosthetic legs and crutches. And pogo sticks. It would be interesting to know if it includes hovercraft.
Seventh Day Adventists can’t use washing machines from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, much less drive a vehicle. We don’t really need to look around for obscure legal codes that don’t apply to most people, do we?
The legal argument is revolves around the danger posed to other drivers due to their reactions (avoiding inebriated cyclist). On the other hand, maintaining control (and upright position) might be considered a sobriety test in and of itself.
I’d call them both poopy-heads, actually. But I can. I’m not an officer.
It is relevant because the question is whether you can get a DUI on a bicycle. The definition of ‘vehicle’ which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. With over 1.4 million active duty military personnel who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we number greater than the population of Hawaii. Combined with another 833,000 Guard/Reserve and almost 100,000 DoD personnel who are subject to DoD and installation policies, we number greater than the population of New Mexico and thirteen other states, all the U.S. Territories and Washington D.C. There are over 250 military installations worldwide, on which military law and regulation applies. Military installations, military reservations, training areas and maneuver areas combined occupy more square mileage than the state of Iowa (Source: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command) What a pity you don’t consider us and our property relevant.
You have cherry-picked my statement. If you read it again, please take note of the portion that pertains to prosecutoral and judicial discretion. I run a brigade law center. For every case we take from our commanders, we typically reject five to ten. Of the cases we take, about one third to one half fall apart under further legal scrutiny. Of the ones that pass legal muster, about 90% to 95% are disposed of non-judicially (Article 15) or administratively (Letters of Reprimand/reliefs for cause/transfers/reassignments, et cetera.) If a commander requested an Article 15 for a Soldier walking on crutches under the influence, lacking any other chargable offenses, I would reject it.
Finally, if we dismiss legal codes that don’t pertain to most people, then let’s dismiss the laws of our thirteen least populous states as irrelevant.
My intent wasn’t to cherry-pick your argument and I didn’t. I didn’t make sufficiently clear was that you who serve, long may you wave, are subject to a more restrictive set of laws than your civilian masters.
“I’m not an officer…I run a brigade law center.” Okay…
There are others who are under a less restrictive set of of laws; for example, Congressman can drive drunk to and from the Capitol when Congress is in session.
He should get a bumper sticker that reads, “Mr. Ed is my copilot.”
That kind of riding angers me. If I understand your post correctly and the jerk was the one with the busted collarbone, he got what he deserved. i’m surprised the cop didn;t cite him. most of the Boston cops won’t tolerate curriers riding like that if they see them.
It’s funny you mention that. I was stationed at Wainwright from 1996 to 1999. I recall a story of a dog sledder being drunk and passing out on his sled. The dogs, being dogs, simply pulled the inebriate and his sled home and he slept it off in the yard.
The officers practice law. I run the office. It’s a triple-role; Senior Paralegal, Legal Adminstrator, plus the duties inherent to being a Noncommissioned Officer with 31 Soldiers, Officers and DoD Employees to manage. But we’re getting off topic.
My intent was to provide another point of reference. The Manual for Courts-Martial is by no means obscure and we in the military are not irrelevant.
That’s fine but it seems like you are trying to ascribe to me a position I do not hold:
“…we in the military are not irrelevant.”
Didn’t say you were. The fact remains that the UCMJ, just like Sharia and Talmudic law, is irrelevant to most people in the U.S. That’s all I said. Last time I checked this wasn’t Military Car Talk. That’s all.
I beg to differ. Many of the tenants in the UCMJ are part and partial of special circumstances and exceptions to civil conduct that many would do well to understand. Learning to understand these exceptions for military use, gives the average person some guidelines to protect himself. “right to know” is a perfect example of a UCMJ concept which when fully understood, can help enlighten and protect the civil rights of non military personal. Military training is something that would indeed enhance communication skills and the understanding of civil rights on the part of a few “jamokes” I can think of.
It’s offensive to me to conflate these democratic civil exceptions as they may apply to a group whose job it is to protect these rights with religion just to make a trite statement and invalid comparison.
(Breathe. Count to ten.)
(Wait for it.)
(Go to a happy place.)
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is applicable to more people than populate the states of Alaska and Montana combined and also mentioned in this thread. Do you suggest that Alaska and Montana are also irrelevant?
IF it’ll make you happy, and IF it’ll get you to stop putting words in my mouth, then yes, Alaska and Montana are irrelevant.
Offhand, I’d say that a drunk on a bike is far less prone to cause someone else injury but if bicycle riders are going to demand they be given full rights to the roadway then they should be held to the same standard as someone in a car.
The point could be made that a drunk on a bike could wind up going through the windshield of a car and killing an occupant of that car or cause injury/death by darting out in front of a car and causing the car to veer into a utility pole, another car, etc.
Just last week I think it was a law was passed or took effect here in OK stating that anyone in a car who does not allow at least a 3 foot minimum distance between their car and a bicycle while passing may be issued a ticket. Sometimes that minimum distance can be hard to maintain on a 2 lane road with no shoulders and a bike rider in the same spot as 2 cars.
There have been several instances where I’ve almost tagged a few of them when they abruptly veered over on me. One guy I saw on a bicycle passed me and made a left turn from the middle lane at a 4-lanes either way intersection with the light on red and he never even slowed down; just blew through the lights. Several cars slammed on their brakes and started honking their horns after nearly smacking him.
Sat. afternoon, Spandex, gaudy helmet likely means he wasn’t drunk; just stupid, non-caring, etc. The drunk ones don’t worry me so much. It’s the numerous foolish ones such as the person on a 3 wheel recumbent bike (plastic body) who was on the open highway at dusk when headlights were coming on and riding this dark colored bike with no lights. A pickup ran up on them and had to swerve over into my lane to keep from crushing them and ths caused me to have to veer over to the shoulder.
At the time it happened I thought the pickup driver was drunk, on a cell phone, etc. and it was only after he passed that I saw why he had to veer.