At the risk of sounding heartless in situations with liability, I try to think of the long term consequence of a ruling indemnifying this driver. Even if he ha

At the risk of sounding heartless in situations with liability, I try to think of the long term consequence of a ruling indemnifying this driver. Even if he hadn't had alcohol or tested positive for marijuana, he shouldn't win this. Because if he did win, then it means living in a nanny state à la Singapore, police officers need to make sure that he doesn't break the rule, trees need to be cut because they're a danger to society and are too unpredictable (reminds me of the Guangzhou officials who cut 130,000 banyan trees). This is not a world I want to live in. I want to live in a world where you can decide to take risks but the consequences of those risks are yours alone. If he decided to ride a bird and didn't take any precaution or wear helmet, it's his fault. If however, he did this and caused an incident, it would also be his fault and peope impacted by the accident would be in their rights to sue him, since he is the one who took the risks.