You forgot to read the very first section of Georgia Code Title 40, one of the most important sections in this whole law. Section 40-1-1 (75) defines "vehicle" as meaning "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn UPON A HIGHWAY, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."

I haven't seen too many riding lawn mowers or electric wheelchairs used upon highways, and neither have you (while sober). "Highway" is also defined at subsection (19), and it does not include private golf course cart paths.

Obviously, I have learned more law than you have!

It has been held in Georgia case law that a vehicle (in so far as the DUI laws are concerned) can be virtually any motorized vehicle. It also must not necessarily be on a "Highway, byway or thoroughfare" for there to be a DUI Charge.

This passage was found at www.dui1.com and supports my position:

Vehicle Defined

Inherently, every DUI statute prohibits a person from driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle. The problem arises where the law fails to provide the type of devices that it intends to be covered or fails to define the terms that are used in the statute. Ultimately, because the statute is not specific enough, the final determination is left up to the courts.

Most DUI statutes use the terms "vehicle" and "motor vehicle". The Uniform Vehicle Code uses the term "vehicle". Obviously, the term “vehicle” is broader in scope than motor vehicle. For example, one court rejected an argument that the defendant’s automobile was not a vehicle since it was stuck in the mud it did not have the ability or capacity to transport. Some statutes define a vehicle as a device to transport people; hence a road roller was not considered a vehicle.

Still, courts have determined that most devices with a motor satisfy the “vehicle” definition. Golf carts and farm tractors have been held to be vehicles even though they do not strictly transport people. On the other hand, bicycles, horses and snowmobiles have been held to be vehicles in some states, but not others.

The fact of the matter is this:

1. Severe injury and death can occur by a golf cart accident. The cart could hit a pedestrian or bicyclist while being driven on the path and cause great injury.

2. He should have submitted to the state administered test as is the implied consent he gave when he obtained a license in Georgia to drive. A driver's license is a priveledge, not a right. There are certain responsibilities that go hand in hand with the priveledge of possessing a driver's license. One of those is that one MUST submit to the STATE ADMINISTERED CHEMICAL TEST. He (as do all of us) have the absolute right to refuse any field sobriety tests, but not the
State test. had he submitted to toe test, it may have been found that he was not culpable after all, but we will never know.

3. I am sure that he hired a competant attorney, and why would he plead guilty if the law did not apply to golf carts?

You may not like the law, but it is there. Contact you state Legislators and attempt to have it changed. It is just irresponsible to operate and vehicle after having consumed alcohol.

The punishment meted out to PTC manager McMullen for driving a golf cart under the influence of alcohol in a parking lot was described as follows: He was sentenced to spend 24 hours in jail as required by Georgia law, an $800 fine, a year’s probation, 40 hours of community service and several other conditions such as a ban on alcohol consumption with random drug and alcohol screening. His refusal to submit to an alcohol test also earned him a driver’s license suspension for a year.

Apparently, he got no more and no less than what the average drunk driver gets when caught on the street.

But he wasn’t on the street, and he wasn’t driving a car.

Every day, in just about every country club where golfers tool around in golf carts, there is some drinking by some of the drivers (with open containers). As they are on private property, our Georgia law leaves them alone and they are not subject to arrest. If that’s the cause of serious accidents, we don’t hear a lot about them.

McMullen was not on a private golf course, but he wasn’t on a highway either. And he was not at the wheel of a 2-ton car.

I am willing to bet that when he drove a car McMullen was a lot more careful than when he drove a golf cart. The vehicle is bigger, the speed is higher, and there’s a lot more traffic and signals to worry about. Most of us would be more careful in those circumstances.

I am aware that MADD has convinced a lot of people that to drink and drive is illegal. But what is illegal is drinking to excess and then driving. Drinking in moderation and driving afterwards is legal. That’s why we test when there is suspicion that a driver may be impaired.

Because he wasn’t on the street and was not driving a car, the law, and the judge, should have treated McMullen differently than if he had been driving a car on a public road. That’s my basic point.

What disappoints me about the comments made about this is the absolute lack of charity exhibited by some of my fellow Fayette county citizens. In a county with so many churches, how can we have so many unchristian people with no awareness of the second greatest commandment, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself? (Mark 12:31)

It’s been said that a conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested for a DUI. The day may come where the law will come and bite some of these inflexible uncharitable people, and it will take a lot of effort for people like me to have sympathy for them. (You reap what you sow.)

Eyinvest, your point about drinking in moderation is fine. However, I don't think the city manager's case reflected drinking in moderation.

Looking at the larger picture, if you are allowed to make allowances and turn a blind eye at certain types of unlawfulness, then you should be able to do it across the board, a small amount of drugs while not driving should be acceptable.

I commend your compassion, few have it in today's world, but the law is the law. Drunken people in golf carts pass by pedestrians, bicycles, and they cross public streets, posing a public danger. We can have compassion for the city manager, even with his current sentence, and we ought to show it.

Vote Republican

DUI laws address operating a "motor vehicle" while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating drugs, and a golf cart is indeed a motor vehicle.

Only the Peachtree City police chief would take it to the extreme he did. After one of the officers had called a cab, another phoned the CHIEF and a demand that Bernie take the field test ensued. He refused and the rest is history.

I wish Bernie luck. It was a mistake, we all make mistakes, but it's one you can live down, Bernie.

They followed the letter of the law. I would have been pi$$@# if they had let him off, just because of his positon. If those officers had let him off or called a cab for him, this city would have been opened up to a lawsuit from everyone ever convicted of DUI here.

”Only the Peachtree City police chief would take it to the extreme he did. After one of the officers had called a cab, another phoned the CHIEF and a demand that Bernie take the field test ensued. He refused and the rest is history.

Where was this information listed?

HERE you go.

There was some discussion about calling a cab for Mr. McMullen.

He was on public property.

On private property there are laws that will bring in police. And the owner is liable for what happens.

So, there is no place without laws, restrictions and liabilities.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

You break the law. You face the consequences.