I just saw a piece of news from Hainan, and several traffic police stopped a cyclist, saying that he was drunk driving. We had the impression that only driving a motor vehicle was considered drunk driving, but now it has been expanded to include bicycles. Of course, the basis of ** is that it will cause safety accidents, which we have to admit that it is true. But we didn't think that if we arbitrarily expanded the scope of this security awareness, it would lead to a very serious abuse of the law. Let's put it another way, if a person is drunk and walks on the street, is there any danger, of course there is danger, and it seriously endangers the safety of other vehicles on the road, so is it an illegal act to drink and walk?If this logic continues, it is estimated that all wineries will have to close their doors. Otherwise, as long as the wine is made, there will definitely be a purchase, and there are only two purposes for buying wine, one is to give it away;One is to drink;And in the end, it must be drunk, so the question is, as long as you drink, even if you stay at home, it will not be alcoholic, will it be alcoholic, will it cause domestic violence, etc.
Of course, we all agree with appropriate security measures and safety regulations, which in itself is also a concept of safeguarding and safeguarding the interests of the masses. However, excessive safety measures and regulations have brought great trouble to people's production and life, which requires more thinking from our relevant departments. How effective can such security measures be, and do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, or do the disadvantages outweigh the benefits?In fact, the laws and regulations on drunk driving and drunk driving have caused huge controversy in the society, and we say that if a drunk driver causes a traffic accident, then of course it should be punished heavily, and the light case should be treated as intentional injury, and the serious case should be dealt with according to the crime of negligence causing death or intentional homicide, and we have no opinion. But being convicted without any traffic accidents, or being convicted by moving a vehicle, is obviously not in line with common sense and people's perception. And this kind of conviction thinking also runs counter to the legal theory that behavior and result are consistent, and there is a problem of expanding interpretation.
Of course, drunk driving or drunk driving will greatly increase the probability of accidents, but according to legal thought, this is only an aggravating circumstance, not the basis for conviction. I also understand that many people are very disgusted with drunk driving and drunk driving, believing that once such behavior occurs, it will cause a huge burden on two families, and at worst, it will lead to the destruction of two families. Perhaps the original intention of the legislators was to change this chaos by re-enforcing the code, but in recent years, it seems that it has not been effective in reducing the number of drunk drivers and drunk drivers, but on the contrary, it has led to a large number of families falling into crisis. For example, some families rely on driving for a living, which is the breadwinner of the family, and once this illegal and criminal phenomenon occurs, the whole family will fall into an economic crisis;For example, some people are imprisoned because of this, which not only brings great resistance to themselves, but also to their families, their children's schooling, joining the army, and employment. Judging from the results, it seems that after being convicted of drunk driving, there are more problems.
Just yesterday, there was another serious traffic accident in my area, which resulted in the death of a mother and her child, and after the accident, the active department held emergency consultations and established a rule prohibiting electric three-wheeled four-wheelers from the road. I wondered very much, in fact, the accident had nothing to do with the electric tricycle of the person concerned, but was caused by the driver of the truck who was driving fatigue and accidentally ran a red light. So such a result, and the reason can be attributed to the electric tricycle, isn't this a lie?If it's a pedestrian who hits and kills, won't you even be allowed to walk in the future?In this case, it is clear that it is the problem of the truck driver, why not ban the truck ?If there were no similar long-distance trucks in the future, it would not have caused serious fatigue to the driver, and such an accident would not have occurred, but why was the truck not considered the focus by the relevant departments, but instead caught the electric tricycle ridden by the injured party, thus proposing to ban the electric tricycle on the road?
I have always had a bad premonition, in my opinion, many of our policies and regulations are inclined to the interests of the strong, and we always like to trample on the interests of some vulnerable groups. In terms of electric vehicles alone, when an accident occurs between a motor vehicle and an electric vehicle, both parties to the accident are actually victims, but people tend to point the finger at the electric vehicle, but ignore that the motor vehicle is an important cause of the accident. If there are no motor vehicles in this society, at the current speed of electric vehicles, there will be few major traffic accidents, and even if there is a traffic accident, the damage to people is not great. If you really think about it from the perspective of safety, what should really be banned is the motor vehicles with greater quality, stronger kinetic energy, and faster speed, and banning electric vehicles will not solve the problem at all. Even if electric vehicles are banned, there are by no means a few traffic accidents on the road every day, so it seems that this kind of regulation is only for some weak people?
As we all know, most of the people who ride electric vehicles are some relatively disadvantaged groups, and although the driving family cannot be said to be all high-ranking officials, at least their conditions are much better than those of the people who ride electric vehicles. It is perfectly feasible to ban motor vehicles if urban public transport can be vigorously developed, but this idea is almost never mentioned, and the consensus is in favor of banning electric vehicles, isn't it surprising?Whether it is the safety hazard of electric vehicles or motor vehicles, I believe that through my description in the previous paragraph, everyone is very clear. After all, the reality is in front of us, and many of our regulations and policies are actually aimed at some vulnerable groups, and the realization of the interests of the other party is guaranteed by sacrificing the interests of the disadvantaged groups. Of course, this is just my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of others.
If we go back to drunk driving and drunk driving, the same is true. For some elite groups, they don't care about this rule, because some of them have drivers, some have special pick-ups, and many people don't have to drive themselves, so it doesn't affect them much. However, relatively speaking, if others drive drunk driving and drunk driving, it may cause great harm to their life and health safety, so this group is more inclined to be sentenced to drunk driving. There are several benefits, one is that there are fewer drunk drivers, which can reduce their safety risks;The second is that even if they themselves have drunk driving and drunk driving, under certain conditions, they can avoid the worst outcome by certain means (everyone guesses for themselves);The third is that after ordinary people are sentenced for drunk driving, it will have an impact on their families and future generations, but for some elite groups, the impact is not great and it also reduces the competition of ordinary people.
We say that according to the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment, if a drunk driver has a traffic accident, of course, it can be dealt with as intentional injury or negligence and intentional death, which is not necessarily related to drinking or not drinking, and drinking alcohol can be used as a condition for heavier punishment. However, if there is no traffic accident or other social impact, it can be dealt with through administrative punishment, and there is no need to be criminalized, which not only achieves the purpose of warning the society, but also protects the interests of a family, so that the balance of crime and punishment can be achieved. If all drunk driving is criminalized, then the interpretation of the crime is obviously expanded. For example, if a person has been wronged and may commit a crime, even if he does not commit it, and he walks out on the street with a knife, can we arrest and try him on the grounds that he may have committed a crime?Is an act that has no result called a crime?At most, it can only be called criminal preparation.
Therefore, I still don't agree with the behavior of the traffic police at the beginning of this article to investigate and deal with the drunk driving of bicycles, which is clearly an expansion of the interpretation of the law, which is already a matter of course. There is no necessary causal link between drinking alcohol and crime, so as long as you obey traffic safety laws and regulations after drinking, it is not illegal in itself. Article 89 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that pedestrians, passengers, and non-motorized vehicle drivers who violate road traffic safety laws and regulations on road traffic shall be given a warning or a fine of not less than 5 yuan but not more than 50 yuan. It is estimated that some people who say that it is illegal to ride a bicycle after drinking are based on this article, so if you follow their logic, it is also illegal to walk under the influence of alcohol, what do you think?If you have different views, you can criticize, but please be merciful, I reserve the right to pursue legal responsibility!
100 help plan