Man Gets DWI After Riding Motorized Cooler

[Daseal]

AS crippling as a DUI is some changes need to be made to the law. IE the mowing your lawn, sleeping in the back seat of a running car, etc.

[saden1]

LOL...'A' for effort, 'F' for execution.

[Daseal]

If your riding a bike on a public street you can be charged in som if not all states. I don't think if your cutting grass on your property you can get a DUI but they might be able to give you a drinking in public.

I don't think this is correct. The whole share the road movement is because bicyclists have to be on the road. They can be ticketed for riding on sidewalks. As far as cutting your grass on your property, you can get a DUI, IF you're within (I think) 10 feet of a public road. Because anything 10 feet on either side of a government road is 'government property.' It's ridiculous, but yes -- you can get a DUI while cutting your grass. However, you can blow a .01 and .00 on a breathalizer and still be dragged in on DUI charges. .08 as arbitrary as that is isn't the set in stone number for Virginia, in fact, there isn't one -- it's a guideline.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I don't think this is correct. The whole share the road movement is because bicyclists have to be on the road. They can be ticketed for riding on sidewalks. As far as cutting your grass on your property, you can get a DUI, IF you're within (I think) 10 feet of a public road. Because anything 10 feet on either side of a government road is 'government property.' It's ridiculous, but yes -- you can get a DUI while cutting your grass. However, you can blow a .01 and .00 on a breathalizer and still be dragged in on DUI charges. .08 as arbitrary as that is isn't the set in stone number for Virginia, in fact, there isn't one -- it's a guideline.

Looks pretty set in stone to me.

Legislative Information System

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

Looks pretty set in stone to me.

Legislative Information System

Those are disjunctive - any of them is DUI, not just .08.

18.2-26(i) means that .08 is presumptively a DUI (i.e., they don't have to prove you were actually impaired).

18.2-26(ii) means that you could blow .01, but it could be a DUI if they can otherwise prove you were impaired by alcohol.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Those are disjunctive - any of them is DUI, not just .08.

18.2-26(i) means that .08 is presumptively a DUI (i.e., they don't have to prove you were actually impaired).

18.2-26(ii) means that you could blow .01, but it could be a DUI if they can otherwise prove you were impaired by alcohol.

I was just trying to get some clarification about what Daseal meant. In my experience, most every state has a "set in stone" number as to the legal limit for DWI. Now I see that VA takes it a step farther by establishing probable cause for "impairment".

It's not like that in NC. If you don't blow a .08 a magistrate will automatically find no probable cause. The lesser offense we can charge people with is driving after consuming, which is only punishable by a fine and court costs.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

Looks pretty set in stone to me.

Legislative Information System

THe .08 is the legal limit in VA. I had a friend pulled and he had the field test and then the officer still took him in. He was charged with DUI and then blew a .04 and was then still held in jail. His car was towed and it cost him around $140 to get it back. He went to court (without a lawyer) and the case was thrown out because he was not legaly drunk said the judge. The judge then lectured the cops about waisting court time and money and also reimbursted my friend the $140.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

THe .08 is the legal limit in VA. I had a friend pulled and he had the field test and then the officer still took him in. He was charged with DUI and then blew a .04 and was then still held in jail. His car was towed and it cost him around $140 to get it back. He went to court (without a lawyer) and the case was thrown out because he was not legaly drunk said the judge. The judge then lectured the cops about waisting court time and money and also reimbursted my friend the $140.

Again, this is just not correct. The statute is clear that you don't have to blow a .08 to get convicted under 18.2-266.

Now, anecdotally, you may find that people are not often convicted under 18.2-266(ii). However, it does not change what the law actually is.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I can't defend a dumb law like that.

[MTK]

I guess the message is don't drink and go near anything with wheels.

Could you get a DUI in a wheelchair?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I guess the message is don't drink and go near anything with wheels.

Could you get a DUI in a wheelchair?

It says you can in the first post.
Seriously, how pissed would you be if you had to rely on a wheelchair and a cop gave you a DUI for using it?!?!?! That would be a pretty low move on the cop's part.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I guess the message is don't drink and go near anything with wheels.

Could you get a DUI in a wheelchair?

Now now, that doesn't apply if you happen to be at a NASCAR event. Which by the way that looks like a awful good place for that cooler w/ wheels....

Really at some point common sense has to come into play along the way somewhere, doesn't it....never mind.

[djnemo65]

I thought the main purpose of DUI laws was to protect people from injury. Hard to see this guy riding his scooter resulting in anything worse than him driving into an open manhole cover.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I thought the main purpose of DUI laws was to protect people from injury. Hard to see this guy riding his scooter resulting in anything worse than him driving into an open manhole cover.

Well, he could have swerved into traffic and caused an accident. I don't necessarily agree with him getting a DUI but the possibility of some sort of accident/injury was there.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Well, he could have swerved into traffic and caused an accident. I don't necessarily agree with him getting a DUI but the possibility of some sort of accident/injury was there.

Right, but the danger there isn't due to him operating heavy machinery - it's due to him putting an object in the road and causing other cars to have to react. The laws are designed to protect against certain occurrences, and I don't think DUI laws are designed to protect against what this guy was doing.

How fast is 13mph, anyway? Slower than a bike and faster than you can run?