|
evilweasel posted:Prescription opiates or benzos are legal but you shouldn't drive on them. There's also drugs that can interact with each other to create an impaired effect that don't on their own. Not having a generic "driving while intoxicated/impaired" statute leaves a big old loophole that you don't really want to exist every time someone finds a new way to get hosed up on purpose or accidentally. You can legally drive on opiates or benzos? Cause regardless of the legality of the drug, that's a DUI. Weird accidental effects are criminalized unless no negligence could possibly apply. We have a generic driving while intoxicated statute. Nice piece of fish posted:We do have a discretionary "you don't appear fit to be in traffic" statute, but it usually also requires drug/alcohol testing and we don't usually do any performative tests. It's just the policeman's observations. There's one for "you are visibly too hosed up to drive" which can be combined with all sorts of good stuff, but they usually also test for drug dosage and calculate equivalent BAC (our minimum is 0,02% so it doesn't take much) because you can apply that to the regular DUI statute if you can make a convincing forensic BAC argument (which you can, never seen it fail). The only loophole I've ever seen applied to our road traffic law would be the no time limit for student drivers (you can be a student driver as long as you like so long as someone with a license accompanies you). What you all seem to be doing is regularly relying on the say-so or spitballing judgement of law enforcement, as opposed to doing so only in the exceptional cases where you absolutely have to. That seems counterproductive. Then again that's what like 70% of traffic law is, so... blarzgh posted:Keyword there being "Norwegian." People forget that in the US, "Police" means one of 20,000 different city, county, state, or federal agencies, each one with its own separate budget, equipment, capabilities, pool of voters deciding what they can and can't have, etc Man, it's so hard to relate things to the US. I keep loving this up, I forget you are more like a series of rubes than a single yokel if you know what I mean. BonerGhost posted:It's really easy to detect whether someone's taken a specific drug, it takes blood testing and a fair bit of pharmacology to determine when they took it or whether it's at a level where it impairs. Oh, the science behind it is not at all important, it just need to look right for the courts. I've argued this poo poo till I'm blue in the face about how forensics is bullshit science nowhere near as accurate as the courts think, and never been heard on it once. Your impression is pretty much correct, but I wouldn't worry too much. In Norway, you either wouldn't qualify for a license at all or you'd have a doctor's note (for free! socialism!) stating that your dosage is at a level below the minimum requirement for DUI which the forensic experts can't argue against.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Do we even have self-driving trains or light commuter rail? That problem is so much easier to solve technically than fully autonomous cars, and yet all the light rail I've ever been on still has someone up front, even systems that were free to ride so there's no need to collect fares. I suppose you could say they're there for other public safety reasons, like to monitor passengers, open & close doors if need be, etc. but you could put cameras in every car and have remote staff monitor them to do that too. I'm gonna guess that in the event anyone comes up with super reliable full autonomy the law is going to catch up and insist that a responsible person with a brake pedal be up front all the time anyway, because inevitably one of those cars is going to run over a child and everyone will freak out even though taken as a whole they'd still be vastly safer than cars driven by (sober) humans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Do we even have self-driving trains or light commuter rail? Do systems fully contained within single compounds count? Plenty of large airports have fully un-manned systems like that. Probably still someone watching a cam from somewhere with a big red STOP button but that’s a failsafe, not a driver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You can legally drive on opiates or benzos? Cause regardless of the legality of the drug, that's a DUI There’s a lot of people out there on very low doses of these drugs, and other drugs like the add medicine mentioned early. A lot of America doesn’t have any viable public transportation and you have to work to keep your job to keep the health care you can’t actually afford, so you gotta drive good ol America
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
the internet posted:Opiates and opioids can stay in your system for up to one week. Saliva tests can detect the drugs for between 24 and 48 hours. Urine tests can detect opiates and opioids for about seven days. You can see how being "on" some kind of drug is a really poorly defined state and Norway's system sounds terrible. Opiates all hit me extremely hard and even I have never been high from one dose for more than 12 to 14 hours, let alone a full day or two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Do we even have self-driving trains or light commuter rail? That problem is so much easier to solve technically than fully autonomous cars, and yet all the light rail I've ever been on still has someone up front, even systems that were free to ride so there's no need to collect fares. I suppose you could say they're there for other public safety reasons, like to monitor passengers, open & close doors if need be, etc. but you could put cameras in every car and have remote staff monitor them to do that too. There's absolutely no way you can reasonably expect someone to be paying attention to the road if their car is fully autonomous. Expecting a passenger to just sit there and watch the road like a hawk 100% of the drive time ready to pump the brakes at a second's notice is just not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:You can see how being "on" some kind of drug is a really poorly defined state and Norway's system sounds terrible. Opiates all hit me extremely hard and even I have never been high from one dose for more than 12 to 14 hours, let alone a full day or two. Oh no, don't worry about that. If you register for drugs below the minimum DUI limit, and you don't have a prescription or a doctor's note, you are assumed to be an addict. For one, using drugs (as in if you are tested for drugs you are not allowed to take) is criminal and can get you a record, and being a drug addict violates the general sobriety requirement of owning a license so you would immediately have yours administratively revoked pending a full health audit and possible drug program.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Outrail posted:There's absolutely no way you can reasonably expect someone to be paying attention to the road if their car is fully autonomous. Expecting a passenger to just sit there and watch the road like a hawk 100% of the drive time ready to pump the brakes at a second's notice is just not going to happen. You seem to have a really weird belief that legislatures have to act reasonably or that liability has to follow your thoughts about what makes sense. There's nothing preventing a legislature or court from imposing liability on the human inside a car even if the human is not touching any control surfaces at relevant times. (For a silly analogy, pilots can be held liable for crashes that occur while an autopilot is on.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Outrail posted:There's absolutely no way you can reasonably expect someone to be paying attention to the road if their car is fully autonomous. Expecting a passenger to just sit there and watch the road like a hawk 100% of the drive time ready to pump the brakes at a second's notice is just not going to happen. I completely agree with you, but legislators write laws based on public expectation, not science. The law-makers will want to ensure there's someone to blame for tragedy, the automakers will hand them millions of dollars and talk about jobs etc., so I fully anticipate that the driver who has zero things to do 99.999% of the time will still have full liability for the 0.001% of the time when they didn't slam the brakes in time to avoid the child the car decided not to notice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:(For a silly analogy, pilots can be held liable for crashes that occur while an autopilot is on.) That is a silly analogy, because aircraft autopilot is little more than "fancy cruise control" and is not and was not intended to be autonomous in any way. Which is why I always found Tesla using that marketing term vs. the capabilities they are trying to bill it as having so hilarious. They HAVE achieved some version fancy cruise control. Mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Autonomous cars will not be regulated any differently than ordinary cars unless all cars are autonomous and the entire roadway is equipped to facilitate them. So never. We’ll see autonomous commercial trucking before autonomous private cars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Autonomous cars will not be regulated any differently than ordinary cars unless all cars are autonomous and the entire roadway is equipped to facilitate them. So never. truckin' and fuckin' is all that i crave. don't take that away from me
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Oh no, don't worry about that. If you register for drugs below the minimum DUI limit, and you don't have a prescription or a doctor's note, you are assumed to be an addict. For one, using drugs (as in if you are tested for drugs you are not allowed to take) is criminal and can get you a record, and being a drug addict violates the general sobriety requirement of owning a license so you would immediately have yours administratively revoked pending a full health audit and possible drug program. this is hosed up. so you get busted for possession, they're going to take your license whether or not driving had anything to do with it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:truckin' and fuckin' is all that i crave. don't take that away from me Lot lizards are gonna have to find something else. No more cheap hot snacks for truckers
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That is a silly analogy, because aircraft autopilot is little more than "fancy cruise control" and is not and was not intended to be autonomous in any way. Yep! It's a totally dumb analogy that's exactly what legislators are going to use when drafting laws even if the technology is completely different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:We’ll see autonomous commercial trucking before autonomous private cars. Do you mean trains? Arcturas posted:Yep! It's a totally dumb analogy that's exactly what legislators are going to use when drafting laws even if the technology is completely different. Unfortunately true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:this is hosed up. so you get busted for possession, they're going to take your license whether or not driving had anything to do with it? This is my question as well
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
Tree law success story! From the AITA thread:Jack-Off Lantern posted:Its been 2 years and I can finally post about this. this is juicy so get ready.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
They didn't edit the post to show the hedgehog footage however 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:this is hosed up. so you get busted for possession, they're going to take your license whether or not driving had anything to do with it? Sure. They are certainly likely to, and if they decide to do that there's basically no way to fight it. I know, because I've tried to the point of suing the justice department. Administrative revocation is also done on the same grounds for hunting licenses, weapon permits etc. The police in Norway are both the police authority and the public authority in ultimate charge of civil permits such as driver's license and weapon permits. Isn't that bad though, don't they have kind of a conflict of interest here and shouldn't they be prevented from mixing police autority with general public authority and can't the police then use police-only information such as criminal case charges and indictments to revoke permits without necessarily having to secure a conviction first??? Also yes. I have personally fought and sued against administratively revoked permits (and seizures) based on criminal suspicion alone... and never won once. It's the result of departmental policy of aggressive mixing of police and public authority and the use of administrative revocation to supplement law enforcement against undesirables. When I worked at the prosecutor's office I did a stint with the public administration side and they used basically everything; admissions to mental care, drunk and disorderly arrest logs, possession arrests logs, the general police case intake logs, criminal record, these days they probably use facebook posts too, and with these they searched out and identified high risk individuals cross-referenced to the permit lists and issued revocations. Isn't this a great public safety service though? Don't you want to identify mental illness, substance abuse and violent behaviour and prevent these people from having access to firearms and vehicles? Sure, and the departmental statistics probably say it works great to prevent incidents and accidents. Is it draconian and affects people it shouldn't? Also yes. But you gotta remember; permits are privileges, not rights. That's the literal departmental line on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
That sequoia story is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 10:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That sequoia story is awesome. I agree, but that is one loving expensive tree goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
Tree Law is fuckin bizarre but the stories where it gives a deserving jackass a very expensive boot to the face never fail to warm my heart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Sure. They are certainly likely to, and if they decide to do that there's basically no way to fight it. I know, because I've tried to the point of suing the justice department. god drat. at least the cops here will get out of their drat cars to gently caress your life up. imagine getting a letter in the mail saying your license is no good and you can't drive to work tomorrow because you posted pics of your bong on facebook. having a police department harass "undesirables" is super gross. i'm already bitching about a police state where you get stopped on the sidewalk for no reason and need papers to travel, i can't imagine living like that. police browsing your medical records and deciding to pull your hunting permit. that would not fly here at ALL. thank you for making me appreciate my country. usa #1 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 15:01
|
|
|
On the other hand, a cop in the US can straight up kill you which I don't think is true in Norway
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:On the other hand, a cop in the US can straight up kill you which I don't think is true in Norway Like in Albuquerque just a day or so ago. Guy doesn't show up to work. Employer calls police to do a welfare check. Police show up and kill dude in his own home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 15:18
|
|
|
Welfare: CHECKED
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:On the other hand, a cop in the US can straight up kill you which I don't think is true in Norway Fuckin lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:god drat. at least the cops here will get out of their drat cars to gently caress your life up. imagine getting a letter in the mail saying your license is no good and you can't drive to work tomorrow because you posted pics of your bong on facebook. having a police department harass "undesirables" is super gross. i'm already bitching about a police state where you get stopped on the sidewalk for no reason and need papers to travel, i can't imagine living like that. police browsing your medical records and deciding to pull your hunting permit. that would not fly here at ALL. thank you for making me appreciate my country. usa #1 Imagine talking to a cop that doesn't even carry a firearm on the job. Imagine if you're arrested for something you didn't do, held for a few days while they investigate, get a free lawyer of your own choice (literally, any lawyer you want to help you they have to take the case and the state pays), and in the end if you're not convicted you get paid a significant amount of money as reperations for the police bothering you. Imagine there are no plea bargains, and that the cops are forced to investigate and hold a trial wherein you get the benefit of the scrutiny of one of the best systems in the world (well, at least close to that) and the full coverage of rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. Imagine that you are a psychopathic mass murdering piece of poo poo who's killed 69 people of those 33 children, and the police will not only not kill you on sight but actually arrest you and allow you to stand a fair trial, where the judge will get up and come shake your hand to personally guarantee you your right to a fair trial, and then you don't even get the death penalty. There are pros and cons to everything, buddy, but on the balance I feel great about living where I do. All you can do is work to improve. Hoshi posted:On the other hand, a cop in the US can straight up kill you which I don't think is true in Norway I mean, they did kill a guy a few years back by accidental strangulation, september of 2006. That was pretty terrible and caused a national uproar, but the three officers were never charged. Terrible, in my opinion. At the very least it ought to have been a negligent manslaughter thing. At least there hasn't been anything like that since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Imagine talking to a cop that doesn't even carry a firearm on the job. I knew you'd correct me
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Hoshi posted:I knew you'd correct me Yeah I do kind of come off like that kind of guy, don't I? I blame [myself], really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
This was posted in the coronavirus thread, curious what you law goons think aside from "gently caress HOAs forever" https://twitter.com/associatesmind/status/1244957130848952322
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
IANAL but good luck this is not really enforcable, working from home is not commerical activity and anyone laywer would be done with this in 30 seconds. Also what proof do they have.. person could be laid off etc and still be home. Is child rearing commercial activity since stay at home parent is a "profession"? Like if dude is repainting cabinets all day every day on his driveway that's probably going to be enforceable that he's doing commercial work at home. but touching a computer all day.. lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
It's certainly not real but if it were real my lawyerly opinion is the HOA doesn't get to decide any of that, they'd lose handily in court
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:This was posted in the coronavirus thread, curious what you law goons think aside from "gently caress HOAs forever" Looking at the reddit thread it seems to be confirmed as somewhat possibly actually real. My guess is it's one dude who runs the HOA through proxy votes, probably serious case of old as hell rich white dude brain, thinks that either this is "funny" or that he's finally found the One Weird Trick to kick out all the people he doesn't like, something he's been looking for ever since his kids told him he had to stop using the paper bag test. The letter itself has a serious case of "that's not how any of t hi is works" going on but a lot depends in the wording of the HoA covenants. My guess is one of these twenty five people will find a good lawyer and this guy will get his teeth handed to him, probably via discrimination lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Cool, my hope is that he gets his teeth and rear end kicked in and/or catches the 'rona for making people's lives miserable through this whole lovely process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:This was posted in the coronavirus thread, curious what you law goons think aside from "gently caress HOAs forever" Not enforceable as against public policy
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
"I'm sorry sir are you running your rental empire out of YOUR condo too? That sounds like working from home. Better put yourself on the list."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Imagine talking to a cop that doesn't even carry a firearm on the job. there are pros and cons to everything, but on the whole i think i prefer our system of badge-wielding psychos with big guns and tiny dicks arbitrarily enforcing the laws they feel like to yours of an institution revoking peoples "privileges" like being able to work and travel by mail because they've been deemed undesirable got to admit, someone getting murdered by the police being that terrible thing that happened back in '06 instead of an everyday occurrence sounds nice and it sure would be swell if the state had some kind of accountability for bringing charges against innocent people. i guess my takeaway is that it's real bad everywhere
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
How far does criminal liability for COVID infections go? If an assistent manager goes to work sick and sickens other people, they get charged, but what if they only show up because their superior threatened their job over it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2020 23:11
|
|
