I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@BillRM,

Quote:

Is that another opinion that you just pull out of thin air?

No, that's a fact.

And you're the one who keeps pointing out that the drivers in most serious DUI accidents have BAC levels generally over .16--people in that range of intoxication tend to be habitual alcohol abusers/binge drinkers.

Quote:

Strange that no information on the cyclist conditions or his bike before the accident had been released.

Such as was the cyclist himself under the influence of drugs and or alcohol and did his bike had lights on or not.

It's not strange--a driver is legally responsible for operating a motor vehicle so he avoids hitting anything in the path of his car. The cyclist didn't drop from the sky and suddenly appear in front of the car--he would have been visible in the illumination of the street lights, as well as in the range of the car's headlights--he was traveling in front of the car, moving in the same direction as the car.
I can see cyclists when I drive at night--even when they have no backlights. It's no different than seeing a pedestrian or a cat or dog who might be crossing the street. They are visible in the headlights too. If you can't see cyclists or pedestrians on residential streets, you shouldn't be driving after dark.

Whether the cyclist had drugs or alcohol in his system is irrelevant to Swift's DUI manslaughter charge--the car hit the cyclist from behind, and the collision caused his death, and Swift was DUI.

And no other driver hit that cyclist--only a driver we know was drunk.

You also overlook the fact that Swift was also ticketed for Careless Driving--meaning the cause of the accident is being placed squarely on him and the way he was driving. The accident may well have been witnessed by other drivers.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It's not strange--a driver is legally responsible for operating a motor vehicle so he avoids hitting anything in the path of his car.

Sorry but a cyclist have an equal duty to the driver to obey the traffic laws and avoids accidents when using the public roadways.

In fact a cyclist is even cover by the DUI law in Florida and can be charge under them for operating a bike under the influence on the public roadways.

In fact I had read a few years ago of a gentleman in Key West Florida who not being allow to drive any longer due to past DUI was cycling home drunk and the Key West cops stop him and charge him under the DUI law for cycling drunk.

1 Reply

@firefly,

http://clearwaterattorneyduilawer.com/dui-elements-explained-driving-vehicle

A Horse is a Horse, of Course?
One question that occasionally arises in Florida DUI law involves the definition of “vehicle”. A vehicle is further defined in Florida law as a device which can transport, or draw, people or property upon a highway. Interestingly, trains and trolleys are specifically exempted from the definition of vehicle, because they are limited to traveling on stationary rails or tracks. However, other “devices” can be vehicles under Florida DUI law. Bicycle DUI cases are not rare and the law is well settled that you cannot operate a bicycle if you are over the legal blood limits, or impaired, from alcohol or chemical substances. Interestingly, the first bicycle DUI case in Florida occurred on Key West’s Duval Street during the 1980’s. Since then bicycle DUI cases are not-uncommon and many have been charged and even successfully prosecuted in the Tampa Bay area, including Pinellas County. Other devices which can be used to commit a DUI include riding lawnmowers, mopeds, scooters and even horse-drawn buggies or carts. However, in Florida the jury is still out as to horseback riding, and it would appear that the Florida DUI statute would not include a drunken horseback rider, since a horse would not easily be termed a “device”, although any contraption tethered to the horse would be. In some other States DUI horseback has been charged due to the difference in the definition of “vehicle”. Presumably, in those cases, it was the rider who was intoxicated and not the horse!

0 Replies

@firefly,

I'm not certain of the law, but I think that bike reflectors are encouraged but not mandatory.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

I'm not certain of the law, but I think that bike reflectors are encouraged but not mandatory.

In Florida lights are require on bikes when used after dark not just reflectors!!!!!!!

The Federal government however mandate that all new bikes be sold with reflectors.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry but a cyclist have an equal duty to the driver to obey the traffic laws and avoids accidents when using the public roadways.

The cyclist in this case was obeying the traffic laws--he was riding on the correct side of the road. No other cars hit him. He didn't run into anyone, or run into anything--he was hit from behind.

Meanwhile, we know that the person who hit the cyclist was drunk, he hit him from behind, and he was ticketed for Careless Driving.

You are not making any meaningful points, or even any logical ones, given what we do know.

Suppose a pedestrian was crossing the street at night--pedestrians are not walking around with lights on--a driver is expected to see that person in the illumination of streetlights and his car's headlights, and either stop or swerve to avoid hitting him. But drinking impairs night vision as well as depth perception, alertness and reaction time. Swift didn't even see the cyclist until he bounced off his windshield--that's why he thought he might have hit a pedestrian.

I have no problems seeing cyclists or pedestrians at night when they are in front of my car. And, on a normally illuminated residential street, I can see them considerably before they are in the range of my headlights. And I've yet to see a cyclist at night with a rear light on the bike around here, but I still have no problems seeing them if they are traveling in front of my car. Even if they fell off their bike, I could stop or go around them, because I don't drive that close to other vehicles. But I'm a careful driver, and I'm sober when I drive.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The cyclist in this case was obeying the traffic laws

We dont know this...there has been no assertion made by the state that Barry was operating a legal rig.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

I'm not certain of the law, but I think that bike reflectors are encouraged but not mandatory.

Most bikes have a small rear reflector that's built in. Mine does. It's clearly visible when any light shines on it.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

I have no problems seeing cyclists or pedestrians at night when they are in front of my car.

Sure, because your headlight illuminates their rear reflector. Thom had just turned the corner, he very possibly had little ability to see that Barry was there if there was no flashing rear light on the bike because his headlight hit the reflector only seconds before impact. This is assuming that there was a reflector, and that it was not covered up by Barry's coat, something that we do not know.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

We dont know this...there has been no assertion made by the state that Barry was operating a legal rig.

It doesn't matter--Swift never saw him, even though the cyclist was traveling in front of him, and should have been visible in his headlights, even without any reflectors or lights on the bike. Had Swift seen him, he wouldn't have hit him. The fault is with the driver of the car who was inattentive and drunk.

Does the term, "blind drunk" ring any bells?

Meanwhile, the state is asserting that Swift engaged in Careless Driving, in addition to DUI.

This accident may well have been witnessed.

1 Reply

all these things we don't know that the turds are building their sandcastles on don't mean squat.

barry coulda been on a camo bike in a ninja suit, and it's still thom's responsibility to pilot his vehicle without hitting any obstructions. especially human ones.

this is all silly straw men...

that he was drunk just added fuel to the fire.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

It doesn't matter--Swift never saw him, even though the cyclist was traveling in front of him, and should have been visible in his headlights, even without any reflectors or lights on the bike. Had Swift seen him, he wouldn't have hit him. The fault is with the driver of the car who was inattentive and drunk.

It does not matter because under current law the one who drives drunk is legally responsible for what ever goes wrong during that drive, irregardless of how much it was their fault in reality. The law does the same thing to men in sex law, it makes men responsible for anything that goes wrong during sex if the man takes the risk of operating without verbal affirmative consent, regardless of how responsible the woman is for the situation in reality. The laws disinterest in reality debases the law, as well as the state which runs this slipshod "justice" system.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Thom had just turned the corner, he very possibly had little ability to see that Barry was there if there was no flashing rear light on the bike because his headlight hit the reflector only seconds before impact.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Find the link to the police report that says Swift had just turned a corner and post it. Otherwise, there is no evidence, at all, to support what you are saying.

The police statement I read said both cars were traveling in the curb lane of the road in the same direction.

Even if he'd just turned a corner, the cyclist would not be standing still at the corner--he'd be moving, so there would be distance between the car and the bike.. And even if there were only seconds between noticing the bike and the impact, you'd still hit the brake to try to avoid a collision--it's a rather automatic response. Swift never hit the brake. He never saw the bike. He never stopped his car. He thought it was a pedestrian who bounced off his windshield. And he kept on driving...

Next you'll probably claim the cyclist backed into the car. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

barry coulda been on a camo bike in a ninja suit, and it's still thom's responsibility to pilot his vehicle without hitting any obstructions. especially human ones.

It is also our responsibility to take reasonable efforts to see that we do not end up plastered on a auto windshield. Before we let the state ring Thom up for his 13 years in prison without comment it would be nice to know if Barry did his part to avoid his death. If he did not care enough about continuing to live to do so then I dont see why I should get worked up about him being dead, nor do I see why Thom should get such a heavy penalty.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

barry coulda been on a camo bike in a ninja suit, and it's still thom's responsibility to pilot his vehicle without hitting any obstructions. especially human ones.

this is all silly straw men...

Agreed.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Find the link to the police report that says Swift had just turned a corner and post it. Otherwise, there is no evidence, at all, to support what you are saying

Common sense...if you look at where Thom started and where he contacted Barry on a map the most reasonable route has him making a right hand turn immediately before impact. Absent any claim on the contrary I am assuming that Thom was going from the club to home, which is a reasonable assumption.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

It does not matter because under current law the one who drives drunk is legally responsible for what ever goes wrong during that drive, irregardless of how much it was their fault in reality.

Which is precisely why someone shouldn't drive drunk.

When you are legally, and chemically, impaired, it's hard to say you weren't at fault when you hit a man on a bike, from behind, since your driving abilities, and accident avoidance abilities, have been negatively affected by all that booze in your bloodstream.

People shouldn't drink and drive. Then they won't have these sorts of problems with the law.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

People shouldn't drink and drive. Then they won't have these sorts of problems with the law.

I am well aware of the "might makes right" argument. I am also rarely persuaded by it.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Before we let the state ring Thom up for his 13 years in prison without comment it would be nice to know if Barry did his part to avoid his death.

Well, I suppose if the cyclist hadn't been on the road that night, he might have avoided his death.

But, the state, quite rightly, is interested in the part Swift played in causing that death, since his car was the homocide weapon. And, since Swift failed, completely, to see the cyclist in the path of his car, before plowing into him, from behind, there doesn't seem to be much the cyclist could have done to prevent that.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

since Swift failed, completely, to see the cyclist in the path of his car, before plowing into him, from behind, there doesn't seem to be much the cyclist could have done to prevent that.

lights and reflectors have been proven to work to aid in nighttime visibility, let then start there shall we......

And what about the fog that has been reported on this night? Has this been established? Do yo care if it was present?

2 Replies

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know