Daniel Hynes

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Archives
    Archives Contains a list of blog posts that were created previously.

While driving among many of the highways in New Hampshire such as 101A, 93 and the Everett Turnpike, you likely notice those lighted signs off the side of the road that promote different messages. Sometimes, the signs will tell you about upcoming construction, or tell you if there is an accident. These are clearly good uses for the signs. On other occasions, the signs will give some advice regarding traffic safety such as: if you are drinking don't drive, drive safely, and drugged driving is drunk driving. These signs are more political in nature, but at least they were related to active laws.

Today, I saw a sign that informed me that this week is seatbelt week in New Hampshire. I find this sound outrageous. It is not against the law in New Hampshire to wear seatbelts. I personally do not wear one and that is my choice. We live in the "live free or die" state. I should not have to view these signs by government officials that are clear endorsements of a political issue. (Its bad enough I have to see the sign when I cross the border of another state coming into N.H. that says seatbelts required for those under 18, common sense for all. It is not an issue of common sense, it is a medical decision. My body my choice.)

I occasionally go to the legislature to testify regarding potential bills. I usually testify regarding laws related to DWI. I also testify every-time someone promotes a bill to make it mandatory to wear seatbelts. I believe it is my right  to not wear a seatbelt. There shouldn't be laws forcing someone to wear a seatbelt just as there shouldn't be a law saying someone can not wear one. On a personal note, one of the main reasons every State but N.H. has a seatbelt law is because the federal government gets involved and bribes states by withholding funding if they don't pass the law. Putting aside this bribe money, New Hampshire consistently defeats the seatbelt law.

We also do not have a helmet law for motorcycles. Is the next sign going to be helmet week? Where will it end where the government will not be distracting you as you are driving along with potentially offensive political signs? How about a sign no smoking and driving, or don't listen to the radio while driving, or don't put makeup on while driving? These things are all safety issues, but it is presently not against the law to do those things. Whoever is in charge of these signs should not have free reign to promote any personal idea he feels is important.

If this week is seatbelt week, then I would like to see a sign every other week of the year telling drivers it is not seatbelt week and it is entirely their choice to where a seatbelt or not. At some point, it is a first amendment issue when the government promotes certain ideas. For example, the United States Supreme Court has held the State of New Hampshire can not force drivers to have the phrase "live free or die" on their license plate. If you choose to do so, you can cover it without any penalty as the government is involved in forced speech. I believe the seatbelt week sign is a similar unlawful sign as I am forced to view it.

...
Hits: 4421
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

I previously reported that the ex chief of the FAA was charged with dwi. He ultimately resigned. And now, was found not guilty.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS403669441620120511

"

Babbitt, 65, resigned his post in December after he was arrested for an alleged wrong-way DWI in Virginia. Babbitt underwent an alcohol breath test at the scene, but police initially declined to publicly release the results of that test.

...
Hits: 4388
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

According to a post on findlaw, the top 3 mistakes when hiring a dwi lawyer are:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/03/top-3-mistakes-when-hiring-a-dui-lawyer.html

"

  1. Lack of experience. An attorney whose practice focuses on DUI — also called DWI or OVI, among other variations depending on your state — is often your best bet. Experienced DUI attorneys know the best ways to reduce or eliminate jail time, fight for you to retain your driver license, reduce your charge to a lesser offense, and even negotiate a plea bargain.
  2. Lack of knowledge. An attorney who’s unfamiliar with DUI laws may not know how to handle the nuances of a DUI case. These may include how to challenge breath tests, blood tests, and police procedures. Traffic and motor-vehicle laws also come into play in DUI cases. That’s why knowledge about your specific jurisdiction is required: DUI, traffic, and other laws are different in each city, county, and state, and they are subject to change.
  3. Lack of commitment. Lawyers are busy people, and usually handle a heavy caseload. It’s best to hire a lawyer with whom you can connect, and who’s committed to getting you the best possible outcome. If you choose an attorney who’s too busy, your case may be largely handled by paralegals or other support staff, or — in a worst-case scenario — fall by the wayside and not get handled at all."
Hits: 4386
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/spray-makes-instantly-drunk-only-lasts-few-seconds-231548193.html

"A French American scientist has invented a new alcohol spray that instantly intoxicates the user. However, the effects are nearly as brief, wearing off in a matter of moments."

"Reportedly, not only does the sensation of being drunk wear off almost immediately but the user would also supposedly be able to pass a breathalyzer test, verifying that they are no longer under the influence of alcohol."

I have no idea why someone would want to be instantly drunk for a few seconds. I do wonder if it causes someone to have a nystagmus.

Hits: 4491
Rate this blog entry:
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/john-goodman-polo-tycoon-ordered-pay-46-million-222011584.html

"John Goodman (not the actor) has been ordered to pay $46 million to the parents of a 23-year-old man, Scott Wilson, whom Goodman killed while driving under the influence."

"Of course, there is also a criminal case. Goodman faces up to 30 years in prison for manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. He was found guilty last month,"

"Goodman claimed that his $200,000 car malfunctioned and lurched forward, which caused him to plow into the victim's car, pushing it and Wilson into a nearby canal. Wilson drowned. Goodman  denied being drunk at the time of the accident. However, experts testified that Goodman's blood alcohol level was more than twice Florida's legal limit three hours after the crash."

Hits: 4520
Rate this blog entry:
0