bmurphypdx Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Revised Code of Washington Section 46.61.665 - "Embracing Another While Driving" states: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state when such person has in his or her embrace another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving. So, no extra snugs from your pillion while driving if such in any way prevents the free and unhampered operation of your moto!! Link to comment
quaintance Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm just impressed that some lawmakers actually wasted the time on singling this of all things out into an offense? how about making it unlawful to change lanes without looking first... pfft Link to comment
Francois_Dumas Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Don't they mean that the 'pilot' is not allowed to embrace anybody while riding/driving? Perhaps I am interpreting this wrong? Seems pretty daft the other way 'round. Link to comment
skinny_tom (aka boney) Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm just impressed that some lawmakers actually wasted the time on singling this of all things out into an offense? how about making it unlawful to change lanes without looking first... pfft Maybe they heared about one of our fire engines getting totaled (yes totaled- any idea what kind of impact it takes to total a fire engine?) by an SUV driven by guy who was being "embraced" (from the passenger seat) by a naked girl. Oh- and the insurance company won't pay since it wasn't the driver's car and he "didn't have permission" to drive it, according to his girl friend (not in the car at the time of the crash ) This leaves the city trying to recoup the costs of a $185,000 piece of equipment from someone who has no ability to pay it. Come to think of it, I don't see how that law would help the situation. Link to comment
RonStewart Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Don't they mean that the 'pilot' is not allowed to embrace anybody while riding/driving?I think Francois has it. No riding with your toddler on the gas tank. Link to comment
MotorinLA Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Don't they mean that the 'pilot' is not allowed to embrace anybody while riding/driving? Perhaps I am interpreting this wrong? Seems pretty daft the other way 'round. That's the way it reads to me too. As the driver/operator of the motorcycle, you are not allowed to embrace another person. I guess if you are the operator and you're facing backwards so that you may embrace your passenger, that would be reckless driving. Or does this occur when your passenger is seated in front of you, but then who is the operator? The person in front or the one in the back? Okay, I think I'm getting dizzy now... Link to comment
MotorinLA Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Revised Code of Washington Section 46.61.665 - "Embracing Another While Driving" states: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state when such person has in his or her embrace another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving. So, no extra snugs from your pillion while driving if such in any way prevents the free and unhampered operation of your moto!! Exactly how do you operate a motorcycle while using your arms to embrace another person? Link to comment
Lawman Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Francois, I agree with you..As I read it I think it only applies to the rider..Shhesh....More government infringement into our personal lives..Before you know it they'll be passing laws against receiving fellatio while riding... Link to comment
JamesW Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 As a resident of WA I am not surprised. This is not an easy place to operate a motor vehicle. The state patrol are very agressive and they don't have a sense of humor, not one bit. Link to comment
Fugu Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Oh- and the insurance company won't pay since it wasn't the driver's car and he "didn't have permission" to drive it, according to his girl friend (not in the car at the time of the crash ) Hell hath no fury... But for this to work, I'd assume she's also swearing out a complaint against him for theft of the SUV? Otherwise, especially if they are co-habitating, the vehicle was available to him for regular use and they (insurance) are going to end up paying (not that the $15k minimum limits they probably have will help much). WA courts do not like insurance companies anyhow. BTW, this law about embracing has been around in one way shape or form for a while - it's not new (unless I'm remembering it from another state) so they must have just made a minor re-word or moved it. This is the sort of thing they use as a pretext to stop you at 2AM, or as a tack on charge if you cause a wreck in my experience, anyhow. Link to comment
BrianT Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Revised Code of Washington Section 46.61.665 - "Sex While Driving" states: It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state when such person is having sex which prevents the free and unhampered operation of such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving. Fixed it. However, if it's hands free like the new cell phones is it ok then? Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 As the driver/operator of the motorcycle, you are not allowed to embrace another person.The law doesn't say anything about motorcycles, I bet it's meant for people driving with a baby in their lap. Link to comment
Bud Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 As the driver/operator of the motorcycle, you are not allowed to embrace another person.The law doesn't say anything about motorcycles, I bet it's meant for people driving with a baby in their lap. I bet it is not. They already have to have the child in a car seat. It's another sledge hammer attempt to swat a fly. I guess they already have an unsafe operations law on the books that covers this situation. Link to comment
Bud Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm just impressed that some lawmakers actually wasted the time on singling this of all things out into an offense? how about making it unlawful to change lanes without looking first... pfft Maybe they heared about one of our fire engines getting totaled (yes totaled- any idea what kind of impact it takes to total a fire engine?) by an SUV driven by guy who was being "embraced" (from the passenger seat) by a naked girl. Oh- and the insurance company won't pay since it wasn't the driver's car and he "didn't have permission" to drive it, according to his girl friend (not in the car at the time of the crash ) This leaves the city trying to recoup the costs of a $185,000 piece of equipment from someone who has no ability to pay it. Come to think of it, I don't see how that law would help the situation. Wonder why the exgirlfriend was upset? It wasn't like they were having sex, the passenger was only naked. This law is a perfect example of "activist" lawmakers running a muck. Seems to me that part time legislatures are a good thing. They wouldn't have time for this stuff. Link to comment
bmwk100 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 This brings back some great memories of being "embraced" by a pillion as I rode from Georgia into South Carolina. It must have been some type of federal offense. Link to comment
WyreNut Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 The law doesn't say anything about motorcycles, I bet it's meant for people driving with a baby in their lap. So I guess that pretty much makes pregnant females into scofflaws?? WyreNut Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.