Comments on: Is "Recklessness" Like Obscenity?

By: podraza

podraza — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:56:45 +0000

I can't let you get away with bringing up the DUI thing again without objection. The woman in the story you linked to was found driving without her lights on. That's probably dangerous, but not sufficient to demonstrate she was impaired. I've left my lights off before by accident. If the road is well lit, it can be hard to tell sometimes.

So if we subjected this woman to an objective, reasonable person test, I don't think anybody on earth would find her guilty of driving while impaired. A DUI conviction and corresponding DUI level punishment (often severe) for the crime of no lights and a .03 BAC is not reasonable, and thus should fail your own preferred standard.

That's the issue. I don't think it has anything to do with having a right to drink and drive. I'll shut my mouth right now if you show me where anybody, victim or blogger has ever said anybody has a "right to just one glass". I've never seen anybody suggest that before.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:46:32 +0000

I'm less concerned about the license than I am about the insurance. Tho as I understand it you need a license in order to get insurance (we city folk don't own cars, see, so we don't have to deal with car (or motorcycle) insurance…)

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:06:47 +0000

A large percentage of motorcyclists on the roads do not have insurance or a motorcycle license. For what it's worth.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:01:30 +0000

What's reckless is that they guy was fined for driving without insurance.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:16:29 +0000

Having owned and operated a motorcycle, 128 mph is patently ridiculous and reckless under uncontrolled circumstances (not closed-course racing). If we didn't have speed limits, it wouldn't be reckless. But we have speed limits because we've determined that there is a public safety issue involved. Regardless of whether or not other motorists are on the road, other motorists may merge onto the road. Not an unreasonable expectation.

While a motorcycle is stable at speed, particularly the model of Yamaha that Mr. Carman was probably riding, any sudden change in conditions will have a significant, immediate impact. As an example, a motorcyclist in my area sped along the highway in excess of 80mph. Not inherently dangerous, but he miscalculated the exit ramp and took it too fast. (Sense of speed fades at higher motorcycle speeds.) Police found his head still inside his helmet many yards away from the rest of his body, which was by the tree he'd hit when he was unable to hold the road.

Also, this story explains that he passed the trooper at 82mph, then sped up to elude the officer. That's not reckless?

By: doinkicarus

doinkicarus — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:51:36 +0000

Most departments' procedural guidelines demand that a police officer end pursuit in such circumstances.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:42:45 +0000

Seems to me that requiring the trooper to risk his life and public property (i.e., the patrol car) qualifies as "wanton disregard

for the safety of persons or property."

By: Brandon Berg

Brandon Berg — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:34:24 +0000

Makes sense to me. If the endangerment of others is a necessary condition to establish reckless driving, then how can driving fast on an empty road constitute reckless driving? It sounds to me as though the judge very much wanted to convict him but could find no authorization in the law for doing so.

Here's the relevant law. Note the first annotation--apparently there's some precedent.

By: Tom Chatt

Tom Chatt — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:06:34 +0000

Wow, that's pretty astonishing. My understanding, in California at least, is that more than 20 MPH over the speed limit was *per se* reckless driving. I guess that's not a uniform code?