Tuesday, January 31, 2006

I’m Wrong Again (still HB1190)

The new story on HB1190 is being told! And yes, here I sit, wrong again. I’m ok with that.

Hennies – my understanding is he wrote the bill -
Hennies said he's heard from cycling advocates on the issue. "I have answered them all, and they're wrong," he said. "They just won't accept the answer. It's not a motor vehicle. They'll still be subject to the laws inside any city."
And The Owner says –
"I know for a fact that this law is not designed to do anything to cyclists, but (legislators) don't have much control over what lawyers say tomorrow," he said. "This law is a step in the wrong direction.”
(isn't he good! And I get to be friends with him.)

Break it down –

“I have answered them all” – I believe this to be correct. I appreciate it too. My own district Senator cannot make the same claim.

“and they’re wrong” – as this blog proves, I base much of my life on being wrong about Global Warming. I’m willing to be wrong on this bill too.

“They just won’t accept the answer” – this guy is good, he’s right again. No one in the legislature, not even the governor himself could convince me to accept this answer. A court is one of two entities that could convince me to accept this answer and that’s part of my point for fighting this bill. I need to be certain BEFORE I’m in court that a bicycle IS a vehicle.

“It’s not a motor vehicle” – Wow, he’s right again! SD Law clearly indicates that motor vehicle is a self propelled version of vehicle.
(39) “Vehicle," a device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; including bicycles and ridden animals.
(17) "Motor vehicle," a vehicle, as herein defined, which is self-propelled;
Suddenly! Clarity – the problem HB1190 is trying to address is that DUI laws shouldn’t apply to bicycles. But the forest is right here amongst all these trees! Hennies says it himself! If DUI laws apply to MOTOR VEHICLES, then DUI laws don't apply to BICYLES! Therefore, there is no need to change the definition of vehicle!

“They'll still be subject to the laws inside any city" – I have to argue this one. I’m no lawyer; buy my lay reading of the 1994 Supreme Court case, a case right here within my own city, I think proves differently.

In addition, Hennies surely realizes that cyclists actually do, believe it or not, sometimes ride far enough to find themselves outside of a city. In fact, some cyclists have the ability to leave one city and arrive sometime later in an entirely different city. And then they turn around and ride all the way back! Even in South Dakota, where the cities are so far apart and the wind blows so hard. ADDITIONALLY, 90% of our local cycling population actually PREFERRS to ride this way.

2 comments:

Pete said...

Why the heck don't they just change the drunk driving laws to specifically exclude animals and bikes, rather than do it this ass-backward way?

BikingBis said...

I don't think putting a drunk on a bicycle is such a great idea either. How about walking or calling a cab? In any case, this bill needs to die. Great coverage on this issue!