criminal court--bike

ilaboo said:

went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at that
time--explaination went no where

peter

A freind of mine was pulled over in his car and commenced with a huge
long-winded yarn about why he had been speeding. The story involved
the dog pound, his sister's girlfriend, and went on and on. When he
was finished, the officer said that was the goddamndest, stupidest,
most bull-[censored] story he'd ever heard, and chukling, let us go with a
warning.

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all manner
of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other was
warranted. Your allegic reaction to medicine wasn't compelling enough.

Claim it wasn't you.

Joseph

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

ilaboo said:

went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at that
time--explaination went no where

peter

A freind of mine was pulled over in his car and commenced with a huge
long-winded yarn about why he had been speeding. The story involved
the dog pound, his sister's girlfriend, and went on and on. When he
was finished, the officer said that was the goddamndest, stupidest,
most bull-[censored] story he'd ever heard, and chukling, let us go with a
warning.

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all manner
of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other was
warranted. Your allegic reaction to medicine wasn't compelling enough.

Claim it wasn't you.

Joseph

My favorite story along those lines was driving upstate in NY and
getting stopped for speeding. I explained that I was taught in
driver's education that it was important to maintain the speed that
everyone is doing and that if the speed limit is 55 and everyone is
going 70, you have to go 70. I really was taught that.

The cop smiled and said: "but you were going 75". But he didn't give
me a ticket. I guess it was a good enough line.

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

ilaboo said:

went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
that
time--explaination went no where

peter

A freind of mine was pulled over in his car and commenced with a huge
long-winded yarn about why he had been speeding. The story involved
the dog pound, his sister's girlfriend, and went on and on. When he
was finished, the officer said that was the goddamndest, stupidest,
most bull-[censored] story he'd ever heard, and chukling, let us go with a
warning.

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all manner
of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other was
warranted. Your allegic reaction to medicine wasn't compelling enough.

Claim it wasn't you.

Joseph

My favorite story along those lines was driving upstate in NY and
getting stopped for speeding. I explained that I was taught in
driver's education that it was important to maintain the speed that
everyone is doing and that if the speed limit is 55 and everyone is
going 70, you have to go 70. I really was taught that.

The cop smiled and said: "but you were going 75". But he didn't give
me a ticket. I guess it was a good enough line.

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

tia
peter

ilaboo said:

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
> sidewalk-after
> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
> decided
> to fight it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> will post follow up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
> steroids--mind
> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
> that
> time--explaination went no where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> peter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A freind of mine was pulled over in his car and commenced with a huge
long-winded yarn about why he had been speeding. The story involved
the dog pound, his sister's girlfriend, and went on and on. When he
was finished, the officer said that was the goddamndest, stupidest,
most bull-[censored] story he'd ever heard, and chukling, let us go with a
warning.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all manner
of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other was
warranted. Your allegic reaction to medicine wasn't compelling enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Claim it wasn't you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Joseph

Quoted message said:

My favorite story along those lines was driving upstate in NY and
getting stopped for speeding. I explained that I was taught in
driver's education that it was important to maintain the speed that
everyone is doing and that if the speed limit is 55 and everyone is
going 70, you have to go 70. I really was taught that.

Quoted message said:

The cop smiled and said: "but you were going 75". But he didn't give
me a ticket. I guess it was a good enough line.

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

tia
peter

I know it was true, but the officer just tuned it out as noise. They
hear so much bs and real sob stories, that your specifics maybe didn't
even interest the officer enough to even form an opinion about your
veracity.

I suppose your best bet might be to go the mitigating circumstances
route and try to get the judge to realize you are a reasonable
responsible person. You knew it was wrong to ride on the sidewalk, but
under the circumstances, you knew it was best to do so for everyone.
You needed to get home expeditiously and not be a danger to yourself
and others due to your condition at the time.

As you noticed and said in your last post, most of the folks down at
court are not exactly model citizens. If you stand out as a "normal"
person that will make a big difference with a judge. You don't want to
seem like a lunatic or somebody without a full deck.

In my experience in traffic court and related places, if you are
presentable, pay attention, speak clearly and concisely (and not go
off reciting paragraph numbers of various vehicle codes) and don't
ramble, you will get as good treatment as possible.

Good luck!

Joseph

ilaboo said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
> sidewalk-after
> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
> decided
> to fight it
>
> will post follow up
>
> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
> steroids--mind
> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not
> make it home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost
> closed at that

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

If you could hardly see, should you have been riding at all?

Quoted message said:

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all
manner of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other
was warranted.

=v= Actually, the REAL moral of this story seems to be that most
cops are motorists, see the world from a driver's seat, and are
sympathetic to the plight of other motorists even when they're
jackasses driving as menaces to society. Your speeding friend
deserved a ticket, though of course that would only have brought
him to traffic court, where consequences are minor and generally
waived on any pretense.

=v= Bicyclists, on the other hand, usually harm nobody with our
infactions, but as nonconformists we are seen as a threat to the
public order, and must be ticketed and prosecuted.
<_Jym_>

Quoted message said:

In my experience in traffic court and related places, if you
are presentable, pay attention, speak clearly and concisely
(and not go off reciting paragraph numbers of various vehicle
codes) and don't ramble, you will get as good treatment as
possible.

=v= Yeah, never mind the facts or anything (e.g. 40,000 people
killed each year in the U.S. by bad drivers). Just look good,
and the traffic commissioner -- who's also a motorist -- will
see your offense as good clean fun that could happen to anyone.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: Also, have the foresight to be born white.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Jym Dyer said:

Quoted message said:

The moral of the story is that police officers have heard all
manner of dumb explainations as to why some infraction or other
was warranted.

=v= Actually, the REAL moral of this story seems to be that most
cops are motorists, see the world from a driver's seat, and are
sympathetic to the plight of other motorists even when they're
jackasses driving as menaces to society.  Your speeding friend
deserved a ticket, though of course that would only have brought
him to traffic court, where consequences are minor and generally
waived on any pretense.

=v= Bicyclists, on the other hand, usually harm nobody with our
infactions, but as nonconformists we are seen as a threat to the
public order, and must be ticketed and prosecuted.
    <_Jym_>

In The Bronx where the OP was ticketed, in an area where the officer
would bother to ticket somebody for sidewalk riding, I'm sure it was a
pretty pedestrian area. Listening to some guy with puffy eyes going on
about how he is allergic to steroids wasn't very reassuring to the
cop. I'm sure if he had pulled over a motorist and got the same story,
the consequences would have been even worse.

I think you are reading too much into the cop's behavior. He didn't
single the OP out because he is a non-comformist whatever that is, he
did it because he thought he was doing something dangerous.

Joseph

I'm pretty sure a motorist would have gotten a bigger fine for driving
on the sidewalk, too.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

ilaboo said:

went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on sidewalk-after
tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but decided
to fight it

will post follow up

had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and steroids--mind
confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at that
time--explaination went no where

peter

The most likely reason your explanation went nowhere with the cop is
he was thinking, "So then- you're confused, disoriented, and can
barely see because your eyes are almost swollen shut. Get off the bike
and walk. You're endangering pedestrians." Apparently the judge agreed
with that assessment of the situation. Pay the fine.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

In The Bronx where the OP was ticketed, in an area where the
officer would bother to ticket somebody for sidewalk riding,
I'm sure it was a pretty pedestrian area.

=v= What makes you so sure? The Bronx ain't Manhattan; though
it has reasonable pedestrian density there *are* stretches of
sidewalk where few people venture on foot. (Also, these tend
to be along heavily-travelled roads that are very unsafe for
bicyclists.)

Quoted message said:

I think you are reading too much into the cop's behavior.

=v= Perhaps, though my perspective on the situation is informed
by plenty of first-hand experience with the NYPD, many of whom
behave precisely as I described.
<_Jym_>

ilaboo said:

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),

Quoted post said:

On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
> sidewalk-after
> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
> decided
> to fight it
>
> will post follow up
>
> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
> steroids--mind
> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make it
> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
> that
> time--explaination went no where

<...>

Quoted message said:

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a [censored] excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

"Dana Myers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ilaboo said:

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
>> sidewalk-after
>> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
>> decided
>> to fight it
>>
>> will post follow up
>>
>> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
>> steroids--mind
>> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
>> it
>> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
>> that
>> time--explaination went no where

<...>

Quoted message said:

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a [censored] excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

this is the bronx and no police officer i have ever come in contact will
make any decision that is not a police matter--i could tell you tales!

lets see what happens

pter

ilaboo said:

"Dana Myers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ilaboo said:

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
> "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
>>> sidewalk-after
>>> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
>>> decided
>>> to fight it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> will post follow up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
>>> steroids--mind
>>> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
>>> it
>>> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
>>> that
>>> time--explaination went no where

Quoted message said:

<...>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

Quoted message said:

That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Quoted message said:

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

Quoted message said:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a [censored] excuse for breaking the law.

Quoted message said:

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

Quoted message said:

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

Quoted message said:

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

Quoted message said:

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Quoted message said:

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

this is the bronx and no police officer i have ever come in contact will
make any decision that is not a police matter--i could tell you tales!

lets see what happens

pter

I take it your case hasn't been heard yet? Good luck with the judge.
Maybe the officer will fail to appear ;-)

Cheers,
Dana

Dana said:

Maybe the officer will fail to appear ;-)

That's why you have to go down the day before and say you have to
change the date because you have a job interview. The extra scheduling
increases the chances of the officer not showing.

Joseph

In article <PkCqj.4193$lr3.2490@trndny06>,

ilaboo said:

"Dana Myers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ilaboo said:

"dgk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:43:04 -0800 (PST),
> "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 12:37 pm, "ilaboo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> went to criminal court ( da bronx) re summons riding bike on
>>> sidewalk-after
>>> tons of aggrivation--went at 8 am got out at 10.15--$75.00 fine but
>>> decided
>>> to fight it
>>>
>>> will post follow up
>>>
>>> had a massive allergic reaction that day given benadry and
>>> steroids--mind
>>> confused and disorientated--took short cut as i knew i might not make
>>> it
>>> home safely--told officer about it ( my eyes wherfe almost closed at
>>> that
>>> time--explaination went no where

<...>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i was not making any bs excuse--i could hardly see.

That's *never* an excuse for breaking the law while riding/driving.
You were attempting to excuse your infraction by explaining that you
were too impaired to ride safely.

Let's see how this plays out with the officer... "Sorry, sir,
I'm confused and I can barely see". You're telling the officer you're
not capable of riding/driving safely at the time. The officer is forced
to choose between two scenarios:

1. You're really capable of riding/driving safely, and are making up
a [censored] excuse for breaking the law.

2. You're really not lying, you really *are* incapable of riding
safely.

If the officer believes #2, he/she has to impound your vehicle and
perhaps offer to call a ride for you (if not detain you for riding
under the influence; in many states you can be arrested for DUI
as a result of over-the-counter or prescription drugs). This is
a hassle, so unless you're falling-down/passing-out, he/she will
choose to believe #1 and cite you.

The same explanation won't play out any better in court. Again,
the judge is forced to choose between #1 and #2, and your credibility
is poor.

It only cost you $75 and couple of hours in court - that's not
so bad.

Dana

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

You felt wrong. About the only part of this that is conceivably
exculpatory is that you may have been out of your mind (as in legally
incompetent to form rational decisions) when this happened. Even so, as
lawyers love noting, offenses like riding on the sidewalk and most other
moving violations are based on "strict liability," which means that
anyone committing them is assumed to be guilty of them; criminal intent
is not necessary.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/traffic-ticket.htm

The rationale for such a rule is that the rules of the road are
essentially rules of mutual expected conduct, and no excuses for
disobeying them can fairly be abided as the safety of others depends on
collective respect for those rules.

In other words, if you get on your bike and ride, you are implicitly
agreeing to abide by the rules of the road. Part of the responsibility
that you take on when you mount a bicycle and ride it is that you are
physically and mentally competent enough to operate it safely.

You may object that you were on the sidewalk, not the road, but the
principle of strict liability is even more applicable there: pedestrians
have no expectations of encountering a bicycle on the sidewalk.

The best question you can ask, either of us or of yourself, is "in
retrospect, what should I have done?"

It's a question with a clear answer: you were mostly blind, disoriented,
and judged that you were not competent to ride your bike on the road
(good judgment!) You should have stopped and rested. If you proximately
feared for your life or your health, you should have made every effort
to seek aid (call 911, accost passers-by, or go up to the cop who was
about to give you a ticket). Barring such a fear, you should have
dismounted and walked your bicycle home.

If you really were so out of your mind that you didn't realize the
danger of what you were doing, owing to an unfortunate drug combo, well,
you may want to appeal on that basis, but you really shouldn't have
gotten on to your bike in that condition.

It's rather like how very few drunk drivers are permitted to use the
excuse that when they got in the car, they were too drunk to realize
they were too drunk to drive.

Is this a hard rule? Yes. I suppose it penalizes those legitimately
experiencing temporary insanity. But that's a pretty small population.
Also, if you try to plea that defence, a cynical judge might insist on
committing you for a psychiatric investigation.

So out of genuine curiosity, do you think in retrospect that the drugs
impaired your judgment enough to cause your (bad) decision to get on the
bicycle and try to ride home on the sidewalk when you could barely see?
I'm not asking to be a jerk, I really am seeking a reflective answer.

PS: despite what my signature says, I have no legal training. I
basically talk to computers for a living.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

ilaboo said:

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

I call BS on this whole story. If it was only two blocks you should
have walked in the first place. If it was any further, this story
clearly illustrates why one should get a ride -- be it from a friend,
foe, or taxi -- to and from medical procedures involving anesthetics or
other drugs. When I had my wrist surgery, I was *not* allowed to
provide my own transportation home, even by taxi. If you had no other
means, by your own argument[1], you should have stayed in the hospital
unless the effects wore off.

\\paul
[1]"i ahve an intrinsic right not to endanger myself or others"
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the ph to f to reply:.

Paul M. Hobson said:

ilaboo said:

i agree with all of which you say but--i ahve an intrinsic right not to
endanger myself or others--if becasue of circimstances i am in danger--i
really was becoming disorientated and only had 2 blocks to get home and felt
i could make it--when i got back on my bike i started in the wrong
direction--one could make a strong argument taht the police never should
have let me do that

I call BS on this whole story. If it was only two blocks you should
have walked in the first place. If it was any further, this story
clearly illustrates why one should get a ride -- be it from a friend,
foe, or taxi --

My friend, the taxi driver, likes to tell impaired clients that his
services are cheaper than a lawyer's. When he tell's that to lawyers
he gets a big laugh and a fat tip.

Quoted message said:

to and from medical procedures involving anesthetics or
other drugs.

Lots of people are randomly and regularly dosing themselves with
combinations of over-the-counter and prescription drugs.
Frighteningly great numbers of them operate dangerous machinery in
public places despite the printed warnings against it.

I'll take my chances with a pot-head or some bakatype on steroids
biking over a suicidal adolescent on SSRIs, gasoline and booze.

Quoted message said:

When I had my wrist surgery, I was *not* allowed to
provide my own transportation home, even by taxi. If you had no other
means, by your own argument[1], you should have stayed in the hospital
unless the effects wore off.

The two times I've been under a general anesthetic they wouldn't let
me go home with any one but a friend or relative despite 24 hrs. or
more spent in hospital post surgery. After the local anesthetics,
when getting the screws removed, they just assured themselves I
wasn't driving and assumed I wasn't riding a bike since I'd brought
crutches. I took a bus home and was back on the bike in two days.

Quoted message said:

\\paul
[1]"i ahve an intrinsic right not to endanger myself or others"

--
zk