<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<atom:link href="https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=1858&amp;type=rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<title><![CDATA[Bicycle Austin forum / APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
		<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1858</link>
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles".]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 May 2015 17:52:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FluxBB 1.5.11</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5791#p5791</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>It&#039;s not the Texas Traffic code.&#160; It&#039;s the Texas Penal code.</p><p>To be more precise, CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES of the Penal code explicitly uses the definition of motor vehicle from Sec. 32.34.&#160; FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, also in the Penal code.</p><p>It&#039;s weird, yes.&#160; But it doesn&#039;t affect the Traffic code, which is most of what we worry about around here.</p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><div><p>With such logic a calash, a litter or a rickshaw could be considered &quot;motor vehicles&quot;</p></div></blockquote></div><p>If he&#039;s operating it while intoxicated, absolutely, for purposes of getting a DWI anyways.</p><p>But if it doesn&#039;t have an engine, this doesn&#039;t mean it will require a muffler or catalytic converter or insurance (though other regulations might require insurance for a rickshaw if it&#039;s used like a taxi) or anything like that.</p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><div><p>Legalese instead, seems to operate in a Kafkaesque maze with a blind person casting a dice to choose any one word&#039;s meaning at any given moment, sentence or location.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I&#039;m no lawyer.&#160; If I can get to the bottom of this and explain it, it can&#039;t be *that* bad.</p><p>That said, you don&#039;t see me delving into the federal tax code ...</p><p>Ultimately, I think things like this come from how the law is made.&#160; A problem (or opportunity to favor a campaign contributor, unfortunately)&#160; is identified, and they try to fix it in the easiest way possible -- but with little regard to how the end result will look.</p><p>In this case, I suspect that MADD was pushing on them to close loopholes regarding DWI, and not allowing a drunk cyclist to get a DWI is indeed a loophole as far as they&#039;re concerned, so rather than change &quot;motor vehicle&quot; to &quot;vehicle&quot;, they chose another definition of motor vehicle -- perhaps to obscure the purpose of the change from those who weren&#039;t paying close enough attention?</p><p>&quot;Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.&quot; - Otto von Bismarck</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (dougmc)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2015 17:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5791#p5791</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5790#p5790</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Well, even if it may be true that in the TX traffic code a bicycle is descibed as a motor vehicle; it still makes no sense.<br />With such logic a calash, a litter or a rickshaw could be considered &quot;motor vehicles&quot;, and that is plainly absurd, no matter the robe of the speaker.<br />Language is meant to serve as a vehicle of communication; Legalese instead, seems to operate in a Kafkaesque maze with a blind person casting a dice to choose any one word&#039;s meaning at any given moment, sentence or location.<br />I give up.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (bizikletari)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 23:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5790#p5790</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5789#p5789</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>dougmc wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>In their defense, at the PBKTC &quot;Pedaling for Safer Roads III&quot; event last Thursday, the police officer there brought up Frankie&#039;s case extensively and said that because of that, they&#039;ve changed their policy so that they will be writing up crash reports for incidents that don&#039;t involve motor vehicles as well.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>Yes, and had APD not been called out on their failure publicly in a big Chronicle article, they would have been happy to continue to blow off Frankie, and others like her.&#160; They finally acted, but we saw what it took them to do so.</p><p>Twenty years ago I kept calling trying to find out what was happening to the case against a drunk driver who killed a cyclist, and the authorities just kept telling me it was &quot;under investigation&quot;, for *months*.&#160; Finally the TV news came out and interviewed me, and I pointed out that when a drunk driver killed a cop, they police charged her within *hours*.&#160; After that report aired, suddenly the investigation was completed.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (MichaelBluejay)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 20:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5789#p5789</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5788#p5788</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>MichaelBluejay wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>Yes, the police always consider bicycles to be motor vehicles with regards to operator responsibilities and punishment.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>Well, APD doesn&#039;t give you a ticket for riding your bicycle without insurance, registration, plates, an effective muffler, etc.</p><p>For most of the transportation code, bicycles are treated as *vehicles*, but not *motor vehicles*, and most of the transportation code talks about *vehicles* rather than *motor vehicles*, and the laws that explicitly say *motor vehicles* don&#039;t apply to bicycles.</p><p>But as I already said, the DWI code is an exception, where the law says *motor vehicles* and then points to a definition of motor vehicle that applies to bicycles.&#160; Weird, but it&#039;s the law.</p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><div><p>But if the issue is rights (like being able to get a crash report when you&#039;re injured)...not so much.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>In their defense, at the PBKTC &quot;Pedaling for Safer Roads III&quot; event last Thursday, the police officer there brought up Frankie&#039;s case extensively and said that because of that, they&#039;ve changed their policy so that they will be writing up crash reports for incidents that don&#039;t involve motor vehicles as well.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (dougmc)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 19:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5788#p5788</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5787#p5787</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>In the case of the DWI law ... a bicycle *is* a motor vehicle, and so the police are correct here.</p><p>PENAL CODE<br />TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS<br />CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES <br />Sec. 49.01.&#160; DEFINITIONS.&#160; In this chapter:<br />...<br />(3)&#160; &quot;Motor vehicle&quot; has the meaning assigned by Section 32.34(a).<br />...<br />Sec. 49.04.&#160; DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED.&#160; (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.</p><p>PENAL CODE<br />TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY<br />CHAPTER 32. FRAUD<br />Sec. 32.34.&#160; FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE.&#160; (a)&#160; In this section:<br />(2) &quot;Motor vehicle&quot; means a device in, on, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.</p><p><a href="http://tdcaa.infopop.net/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&amp;s=347098965&amp;f=157098965&amp;m=7681027902" rel="ugc">Lawyers say it&#039;s absurd</a> and <a href="http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-147515.html" rel="ugc">so do cops</a>, but it&#039;s the law.</p><p>APD will normally give you a class C public intoxication charge if they catch you riding your bike drunk, but if you really piss them off or cause injury or something, a class B driving while intoxicated charge *is* a legal option.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (dougmc)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 19:29:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5787#p5787</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5786#p5786</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the police always consider bicycles to be motor vehicles with regards to operator responsibilities and punishment.&#160; But if the issue is rights (like being able to get a crash report when you&#039;re injured)...not so much.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (MichaelBluejay)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 19:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5786#p5786</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[APD believes bicycles are "motor vehicles"]]></title>
			<link>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5785#p5785</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>The UT&#039;s Daily Texan reports that APD considers bicycles to be &quot;motor vehicles&quot;</p><p><a href="http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2015/05/08/apd-officers-caution-against-inebriated-biking" rel="ugc">http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2015/05 … ted-biking</a></p><div class="quotebox"><blockquote><div><p>According to APD officer Nathan Blake, operating a bicycle at or above a blood alcohol content of .08 is a punishable crime.</p><p>“[Motor vehicle] is one of the elements of a DWI,” Blake said. “From a police officer’s perspective, a bicycle is a motor vehicle.”</p><p>Section 49.04 of the Texas Penal Code defines the elements of a DWI offense and section 32.34 defines a motor vehicle as a device that can transport a person on a highway, excluding devices on stationary rails or tracks. The penalty for a DWI on a bike is the same as a DWI in a car. A first DWI offense carries a penalty of up to six months in prison and a maximum $2,000 fine. </p><p>Blake said operating a bicycle while intoxicated in a public place is especially problematic.</p></div></blockquote></div>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[dummy@example.com (bizikletari)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2015 17:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://bicycleaustin.info/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5785#p5785</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
