Comments on: Tucson-Pima Bike Advisory Committee Meeting to include County Attorney’s Office Representative

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:53:55 +0000

The prosecutor’s point was well made and I
probably have not done it justice here.
Driving 38mph in a 35mph zone is illegal
but probably not considered reckless by
anyone, especially by someone ticketed for
it. But, if you’re going 38 in a 35 and hit
and kill someone, then what? Has that made
the act of driving 38mph any more or less
reckless? If it was 105mph, then no question
about the recklessness. Speed is something we
all like and are guilty of one time or other.
Cyclists, with their butts hanging out there, see
DUI as an intentional disregard no matter what
the BAC%. But the law sees it (the speed & DUI
thing) to be in parallel. And maybe it shouldn’t
be if you want to eliminate the behavior. Maybe
above a certain BAC point it should be a felony.
Then if you kill someone it becomes a murder
punishable by more than a lousy 14 years. (A
sentence, BTW, just over 30% of the maximum)
The stakes have to be really high for people
to stop doing some things. Obviously we’re not
there and seemingly we’re hesitant to go there.

By: Opus the Poet

Opus the Poet — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:36:03 +0000

I think DUI being illegal should be a bright line of defining reckless behavior. I think if you are already doing something illegal then by definition you are acting reckless and with wanton disregard for your fellow road users. The BAC% that defines DUI was set at a level that shows significant impairment, and driving at that level shows reckless behavior. I can’t think of any more ways to put it, DUI is reckless.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:58:47 +0000

It would seem DUI is only used to help determine the
level of recklessness and not with the intent or
deliberate bahavior of compromising public safety.
It’s a fuzzy line when an incident occurs, but you
can be charged with DUI whether or not something bad
happens. This is what bugs us because we are among the
most vulnerable ones out there.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:34:16 +0000

Wow. I wonder what legal mind came up with that load of scheis;”… a person could be driving reasonably, even though DUI, and be involved in an accident resulting in a death…” What sophistry! I think any jury would conclude that it is unequivocally impossible to be Impaired, driving a car, and having reasonable reactionary times. And therefore, it is UNreasonable to expect normal reaction times with an impaired cerebellum.
With all the PSA about DUI, one would have to conclude any result while DUI would be above just negligence, but gross negligence; knowingly self intoxicating, its biological consequences of physical impairment and getting behind the wheel AND THEN killing someone.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:24:17 +0000

Bruce Chalk made some enlightening comments about
the prosecution process, but, of course, could not
comment directly about the on-going cases. He did
say, I believe, that a person could be driving
reasonably, even though DUI, and be involved in an
accident resulting in a death and recieve no charge
further than the DUI. The DUI does not broaden the
charge because it’s a misdemeanor. In a felony, the
getaway driver in the car gets charged with a murder
committed by the gunman in the bank. So I guess until
DUI becomes a felony, victims are at the butt end of
this scenario. A point was brought up about the lack
of investigation and/or prosecution and you can imagine
how that went….enforcement won’t investigate if it
feels prosecution won’t prosecute and prosecution can’t
prosecute if there is no investigation.
The presentation was worthwhile for those attending;
however, the take away for me was nothing much will
change as long as police departments skimp and booze
reigns supreme. I don’t understand civil court too
much so maybe that’s where the justice takes place.

By: P.S.

P.S. — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:35:00 +0000

Anything of note from the meeting?

By: Charlotte

Charlotte — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:49:32 +0000

I’ll see you there!

By: d

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:18:13 +0000

At Himmel Park Library, correct? What time?