The first 110 years went pretty well:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>
> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/

There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.

On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>
>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>
> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>

'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!

It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
snowballs from there:

https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html

As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:

Once you solve the problem, the money stops.

Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
be improved.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> The first 110 years went pretty well:
> >>
> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
> >>
> >> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
> >
> > There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
> >
> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>
> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
> snowballs from there:
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>
> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>
> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>
>
> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
> be improved.

You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?

On 11/13/2021 10:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>
>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>
>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>
>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>
>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>> snowballs from there:
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>
>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>
>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>
>>
>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>> be improved.
>
> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?

Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>
>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>
>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>
>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>
>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>> snowballs from there:
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>
>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>
>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>
>>
>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>> be improved.
>
> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?
>

Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.

As with every other National Crisis, much activity and much
money will move around as long as nothing is ever improved.
Then on to the next crisis, real or imagined.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
> >>>>
> >>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
> >>>
> >>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
> >>>
> >> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
> >>
> >> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
> >> snowballs from there:
> >>
> >> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789..html
> >>
> >> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
> >> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
> >> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
> >>
> >> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
> >>
> >>
> >> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
> >> be improved.
> >
> > You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?
> >
> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.

Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation. Watch the Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then watch the public hearings. Citizen groups are behind a lot of legislation. A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury actions. I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones, too. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/

It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy. The fact is that those who work hardest have the successes. Yes, it is work getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low BAC statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc. And of course, you need the votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings the other way. The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in Texas. That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a different state..

Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level. Federal commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole other thing -- but again driven by MADD. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/13/2021 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>>>
>>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>>>
>>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>>>> snowballs from there:
>>>>
>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>>>
>>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>>>
>>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>>>> be improved.
>>>
>>> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?
>>>
>> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.
>
> Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation. Watch the Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then watch the public hearings. Citizen groups are behind a lot of legislation. A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury actions. I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones, too. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/
>
> It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy. The fact is that those who work hardest have the successes. Yes, it is work getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low BAC statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc. And of course, you need the votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings the other way. The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in Texas. That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a different state.
>
> Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level. Federal commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole other thing -- but again driven by MADD. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Much agreed that this is not an area for Federal action.

Riding as I do on WI rods, where DUI is about as criminal as
shoplifting in SF, legal changes aren't reflected in actual
solutions. As an attorney, you know that more strict
criminal statutes bring out smarter better paid counsel for
defense. Which is fine and their right but after many years
of thrashing about, parsing, pronouncements and blather,
change is yet 'coming soon'.

Meanwhile ya gotta love Wisconsin, bless our pointy little
heads:

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/a-flaw-in-our-current-law-ride-your-atv-to-the-bar-to-avoid-another/article_66ef0475-efce-585e-b8bc-6f300818d454.html

To be clear I'm not advocating stronger policing of
unlicensed offroad vehicles driven by drunks on public
roads. I'm perplexed that my fellow citizens think like
that. (not all 'change' is legislative or governmental. Real
change, cultural change, is another thing entirely.)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:42:34 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
> >>>>>
> >>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
> >>>>
> >>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
> >>>> snowballs from there:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
> >>>>
> >>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
> >>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
> >>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
> >>>>
> >>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
> >>>> be improved.
> >>>
> >>> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do you?
> >>>
> >> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.
> >
> > Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation. Watch the Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then watch the public hearings. Citizen groups are behind a lot of legislation. A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury actions. I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones, too. https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/
> >
> > It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy. The fact is that those who work hardest have the successes. Yes, it is work getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low BAC statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc. And of course, you need the votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings the other way. The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in Texas. That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a different state.
> >
> > Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level. Federal commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole other thing -- but again driven by MADD. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Much agreed that this is not an area for Federal action.
>
> Riding as I do on WI rods, where DUI is about as criminal as
> shoplifting in SF, legal changes aren't reflected in actual
> solutions. As an attorney, you know that more strict
> criminal statutes bring out smarter better paid counsel for
> defense. Which is fine and their right but after many years
> of thrashing about, parsing, pronouncements and blather,
> change is yet 'coming soon'.
>
> Meanwhile ya gotta love Wisconsin, bless our pointy little
> heads:
>
> https://journaltimes.com/news/local/a-flaw-in-our-current-law-ride-your-atv-to-the-bar-to-avoid-another/article_66ef0475-efce-585e-b8bc-6f300818d454..html
>
> To be clear I'm not advocating stronger policing of
> unlicensed offroad vehicles driven by drunks on public
> roads. I'm perplexed that my fellow citizens think like
> that. (not all 'change' is legislative or governmental. Real
> change, cultural change, is another thing entirely.)

In Ory-gun, you can get busted for drunk driving any vehicle, including a bicycle. My DA friends call it PUI -- pedaling under the influence.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/13/2021 12:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem
>>>>>> is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>>>>
>>>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>>>>> snowballs from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>>>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>>>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>>>>> be improved.
>>>>
>>>> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and
>>>> not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be
>>>> forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do
>>>> you?
>>>>
>>> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.
>>
>> Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation.  Watch the
>> Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then
>> watch the public hearings.  Citizen groups are behind a lot of
>> legislation.  A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the
>> child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision
>> precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury
>> actions.  I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon
>> that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones,
>> too.
>> https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/
>>
>>
>> It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people
>> have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they
>> actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy.  The fact is
>> that those who work hardest have the successes.  Yes, it is work
>> getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push
>> legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is
>> revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low
>> BAC  statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc.   And of course, you need the
>> votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings
>> the other way.  The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in
>> Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in
>> Texas.  That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a
>> different state.
>>
>> Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level.  Federal
>> commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole
>> other thing -- but again driven by MADD.
>> https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/
>>
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Much agreed that this is not an area for Federal action.
>
> Riding as I do on WI rods, where DUI is about as criminal as shoplifting
> in SF, legal changes aren't reflected in actual solutions. As an
> attorney, you know that more strict criminal statutes bring out smarter
> better paid counsel for defense. Which is fine and their right but after
> many years of thrashing about, parsing, pronouncements and blather,
> change is yet 'coming soon'.
>
> Meanwhile ya gotta love Wisconsin, bless our pointy little heads:
>
> https://journaltimes.com/news/local/a-flaw-in-our-current-law-ride-your-atv-to-the-bar-to-avoid-another/article_66ef0475-efce-585e-b8bc-6f300818d454.html

IANAL, but that one seems to have an easy fix: Redefine "motor vehicle"
to include ATVs. No? It wouldn't cure drunk driving, but it should
reduce drunk ATV driving.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:36:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>
>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>
>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>
>
>'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>
>It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>snowballs from there:
>
>https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>
>As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>
>Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>
>
>Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>be improved.

As I have been saying, you've got the laws, just enforce them.

I just looked up the Illinois laws about drunk driving and the
Internet says:
"Any person convicted of DUI faces up to one year in prison and is
subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 2:08:58 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 11/13/2021 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem
> >>>>>> is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
> >>>>> snowballs from there:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
> >>>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
> >>>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
> >>>>> be improved.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and
> >>>> not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be
> >>>> forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do
> >>>> you?
> >>>>
> >>> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.
> >>
> >> Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation. Watch the
> >> Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then
> >> watch the public hearings. Citizen groups are behind a lot of
> >> legislation. A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the
> >> child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision
> >> precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury
> >> actions. I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon
> >> that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones,
> >> too.
> >> https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people
> >> have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they
> >> actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy. The fact is
> >> that those who work hardest have the successes. Yes, it is work
> >> getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push
> >> legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is
> >> revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low
> >> BAC statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc. And of course, you need the
> >> votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings
> >> the other way. The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in
> >> Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in
> >> Texas. That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a
> >> different state.
> >>
> >> Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level. Federal
> >> commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole
> >> other thing -- but again driven by MADD.
> >> https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Jay Beattie.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Much agreed that this is not an area for Federal action.
> >
> > Riding as I do on WI rods, where DUI is about as criminal as shoplifting
> > in SF, legal changes aren't reflected in actual solutions. As an
> > attorney, you know that more strict criminal statutes bring out smarter
> > better paid counsel for defense. Which is fine and their right but after
> > many years of thrashing about, parsing, pronouncements and blather,
> > change is yet 'coming soon'.
> >
> > Meanwhile ya gotta love Wisconsin, bless our pointy little heads:
> >
> > https://journaltimes.com/news/local/a-flaw-in-our-current-law-ride-your-atv-to-the-bar-to-avoid-another/article_66ef0475-efce-585e-b8bc-6f300818d454.html
> IANAL, but that one seems to have an easy fix: Redefine "motor vehicle"
> to include ATVs. No? It wouldn't cure drunk driving, but it should
> reduce drunk ATV driving.

I think I've handled four or more ATV death cases, typically drunks on various types of ATVs launching off the top of sand dunes and landing on other unsuspecting ATVers. DUII laws in Oregon apply to all vehicles and boats, as they should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO4Ck3uKzuc&ab_channel=DougADeShazer

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:24:16 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 2:08:58 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 11/13/2021 12:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 11/13/2021 10:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:58:35 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>> On 11/13/2021 9:42 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:36:20 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem
> > >>>>>> is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
> > >>>>> snowballs from there:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
> > >>>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
> > >>>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
> > >>>>> be improved.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You don't really think that this will cause less drunk driving and
> > >>>> not cause additional problems itself do you? Would you prefer to be
> > >>>> forced by law to buy a new car at the $80,000 present going rate do
> > >>>> you?
> > >>>>
> > >>> Citizens can think whatever but don't get a voice.
> > >>
> > >> Really? MADD was behind a lot of drunk driving legislation. Watch the
> > >> Wisconsin legislature, see what bills are being proposed and then
> > >> watch the public hearings. Citizen groups are behind a lot of
> > >> legislation. A couple of Kaiser nurses/soccer moms were behind the
> > >> child MHL in Oregon, and then the trial lawyers piled on a provision
> > >> precluding the non-use of helmets as a defense in personal injury
> > >> actions. I can think of some massive pieces of legislation in Oregon
> > >> that were proposed by citizen groups -- and a lot of smaller ones,
> > >> too.
> > >> https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-cyclists-2020-stop-signs-yield-idaho-stop-transportation/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It seems to be part of the rightwing narrative that ordinary people
> > >> have no voice, and when leftwing groups are successful because they
> > >> actually try, then it is seen as some sort of conspiracy. The fact is
> > >> that those who work hardest have the successes. Yes, it is work
> > >> getting a state representative in your corner and willing to push
> > >> legislation, but it is done all the time, particularly if it is
> > >> revenue neutral, like a lot of drunk driving legislation, like low
> > >> BAC statutes and Dram Shop acts, etc. And of course, you need the
> > >> votes -- and you're not going to get them if the legislature swings
> > >> the other way. The Texas abortion statute would not get a hearing in
> > >> Oregon, and the Oregon marijuana law would not get a hearing in
> > >> Texas. That means you have to campaign for your guy/gal or move to a
> > >> different state.
> > >>
> > >> Most drunk driving legislation is at the state level. Federal
> > >> commerce clause legislation requiring interlocks, etc., is a whole
> > >> other thing -- but again driven by MADD.
> > >> https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-bill-seeks-require-anti-drunk-driving-vehicle-tech-2021-08-02/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Jay Beattie.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Much agreed that this is not an area for Federal action.
> > >
> > > Riding as I do on WI rods, where DUI is about as criminal as shoplifting
> > > in SF, legal changes aren't reflected in actual solutions. As an
> > > attorney, you know that more strict criminal statutes bring out smarter
> > > better paid counsel for defense. Which is fine and their right but after
> > > many years of thrashing about, parsing, pronouncements and blather,
> > > change is yet 'coming soon'.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile ya gotta love Wisconsin, bless our pointy little heads:
> > >
> > > https://journaltimes.com/news/local/a-flaw-in-our-current-law-ride-your-atv-to-the-bar-to-avoid-another/article_66ef0475-efce-585e-b8bc-6f300818d454.html
> > IANAL, but that one seems to have an easy fix: Redefine "motor vehicle"
> > to include ATVs. No? It wouldn't cure drunk driving, but it should
> > reduce drunk ATV driving.
> I think I've handled four or more ATV death cases, typically drunks on various types of ATVs launching off the top of sand dunes and landing on other unsuspecting ATVers. DUII laws in Oregon apply to all vehicles and boats, as they should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO4Ck3uKzuc&ab_channel=DougADeShazer

As they should. But as I said, DUI laws do nothing because they are unenforceable unless someone is visibly intoxicated you can't simply stop them because of the hour when everyone on the roads is probably drunk.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:48:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?

The problem isn't drinking, it's bad judgement and criminal
irresponsibility.

Get rid of irresponsible drivers and drunks cease to be a problem.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 21:57:52 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:48:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?
>
>The problem isn't drinking, it's bad judgement and criminal
>irresponsibility.
>
>Get rid of irresponsible drivers and drunks cease to be a problem.

Sure, and most, probably all, States have existing laws that will do
that. Just enforce them (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 21:57:52 -0500, Joy Beeson
> <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:48:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?
> >
> >The problem isn't drinking, it's bad judgement and criminal
> >irresponsibility.
> >
> >Get rid of irresponsible drivers and drunks cease to be a problem.
> Sure, and most, probably all, States have existing laws that will do
> that. Just enforce them (:-)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I'd say no. The laws on the books have minimal penalties associated with them. And drunkenness has a special excuse. Drunk is the excuse. Its used to say you are not responsible, excusable, because you are drunk. Out of your mind in essence. Kind of like a child is not responsible for anything.. Or a mentally deficient, retarded, person is not legally responsible. You are still financially liable. But not really punishable. Such as being put in prison for life or given the death penalty for murdering, killing, someone. You may lose your license for a month or year and have to pay for insurance deductibles and maybe some other lawsuit settlement payment. But the murderer criminal is not really punished.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 19:24:56 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:06:18 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 21:57:52 -0500, Joy Beeson
>> <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:48:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> ><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?
>> >
>> >The problem isn't drinking, it's bad judgement and criminal
>> >irresponsibility.
>> >
>> >Get rid of irresponsible drivers and drunks cease to be a problem.
>> Sure, and most, probably all, States have existing laws that will do
>> that. Just enforce them (:-)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I'd say no. The laws on the books have minimal penalties associated with them. And drunkenness has a special excuse. Drunk is the excuse. Its used to say you are not responsible, excusable, because you are drunk. Out of your mind in essence. Kind of like a child is not responsible for anything. Or a mentally deficient, retarded, person is not legally responsible. You are still financially liable. But not really punishable. Such as being put in prison for life or given the death penalty for murdering, killing, someone. You may lose your license for a month or year and have to pay for insurance deductibles and maybe some other lawsuit settlement payment. But the murderer criminal is not really punished.

Errr... The law in Illinois is "Any person convicted of DUI faces up
to one year in prison and is subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500"

I really believe that if Illinois was to actually enforce that law to
the fullest extent drunk driving would be reduced, probably by an
remarkable amount.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:52:59 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> Errr... The law in Illinois is "Any person convicted of DUI faces up
> to one year in prison and is subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500"
> I really believe that if Illinois was to actually enforce that law to
> the fullest extent drunk driving would be reduced, probably by an
> remarkable amount.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I think yes and no, mostly no.

Yes because culture trumps enforcement every time, and enforcing a law can be one element in changing culture, but it's often a smalld one.

No because it assumes the economic theory of crime - criminals weigh the costs (probability of getting caught combined with the severity of the punishment) and the benefits (doing what their friends do, and the payback from the crime.) This theory dates to Jeremy Bentham, who died in 1832, but our criminal justice system in the US is still based on it. It's wrong and has always been wrong.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 6:57:56 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 10:48:13 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Do those posting here have solutions to the problem of drunk driving?
> The problem isn't drinking, it's bad judgement and criminal
> irresponsibility.
>
> Get rid of irresponsible drivers and drunks cease to be a problem.

Joy, pardon me, that isn't a solution - that is nothing more than reiteration of the problem.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 5:27:26 AM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:52:59 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> > Errr... The law in Illinois is "Any person convicted of DUI faces up
> > to one year in prison and is subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500"
> > I really believe that if Illinois was to actually enforce that law to
> > the fullest extent drunk driving would be reduced, probably by an
> > remarkable amount.
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John B.
> I think yes and no, mostly no.
>
> Yes because culture trumps enforcement every time, and enforcing a law can be one element in changing culture, but it's often a smalld one.
>
> No because it assumes the economic theory of crime - criminals weigh the costs (probability of getting caught combined with the severity of the punishment) and the benefits (doing what their friends do, and the payback from the crime.) This theory dates to Jeremy Bentham, who died in 1832, but our criminal justice system in the US is still based on it. It's wrong and has always been wrong.
There is a strong problem with drunk laws and the cops know it - unequal enforcement. So rather than face the fact that a black drunk is two to three times more likely to be pulled over than a white driving a Mercedes, they simply only pull over the most egregious acts.

On 11/13/2021 5:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:36:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>
>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>
>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>
>>
>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>
>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>> snowballs from there:
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>
>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>
>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>
>>
>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>> be improved.
>
> As I have been saying, you've got the laws, just enforce them.
>
> I just looked up the Illinois laws about drunk driving and the
> Internet says:
> "Any person convicted of DUI faces up to one year in prison and is
> subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500.
>

Statutes are similar across the various States. Applied in
theory but not so much in practice.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 05:27:24 -0800 (PST), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 2:52:59 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> Errr... The law in Illinois is "Any person convicted of DUI faces up
>> to one year in prison and is subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500"
>> I really believe that if Illinois was to actually enforce that law to
>> the fullest extent drunk driving would be reduced, probably by an
>> remarkable amount.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I think yes and no, mostly no.
>
>Yes because culture trumps enforcement every time, and enforcing a law can be one element in changing culture, but it's often a smalld one.
>
>No because it assumes the economic theory of crime - criminals weigh the costs (probability of getting caught combined with the severity of the punishment) and the benefits (doing what their friends do, and the payback from the crime.) This theory dates to Jeremy Bentham, who died in 1832, but our criminal justice system in the US is still based on it. It's wrong and has always been wrong.

Well, Singapore proves your theory wrong as they have, what might be
called rather draconian laws there, which are enforced.

For example the death sentence for dope dealers and they do hang them.
And they have a rather unique system in which all death sentences are
automatically appealed to the President, who may pardon the
individual, order a retrial, or simply ignore the matter, in which
case the convicted individual is executed, usually within a week of
being convicted.
Singapore has the lowest drug use in the world.

Another example... Singapore has a $1,000 fine, and up to 6 months in
prison, for using a hand phone while driving and they enforce it.
Results? Nobody uses a hand phone while driving.

I could go on, if that is not sufficient.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 10:06:53 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/13/2021 5:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 09:36:15 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/13/2021 9:07 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:49:42 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> The first 110 years went pretty well:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/co-owner-of-barnard-schwinn-bike-shop-determined-to-fulfill-orders-after-shop-damaged-in-oak-park/ar-AAQE2nY
>>>>>
>>>>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/6157495-barnards-schwinn-boke-store-in-oak-park-collapses-after-car-crashes-into-building/
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing you can do about drunk drivers. The entire problem is a lack of judgement when under the influence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'nothing' ?? There's always _something_ which may be done!
>>>
>>> It usually starts with punishment of the innocents and
>>> snowballs from there:
>>>
>>> https://news.yahoo.com/congress-mandates-car-technology-stop-051419789.html
>>>
>>> As with government programs, money will be spent, fortunes
>>> will be made, loser relatives of connected people will
>>> ascend into sinecures and Rule #1 will be observed:
>>>
>>> Once you solve the problem, the money stops.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every effort will be made to obscure, lest anything actually
>>> be improved.
>>
>> As I have been saying, you've got the laws, just enforce them.
>>
>> I just looked up the Illinois laws about drunk driving and the
>> Internet says:
>> "Any person convicted of DUI faces up to one year in prison and is
>> subject to pay a fine of up to $2,500.
>>
>
>Statutes are similar across the various States. Applied in
>theory but not so much in practice.

Which is what I said (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.