An end to Bar Cars?

[dragonfly Jafe]

1 ) Believe it or not, bicyclists are under the same rules of the road as anyone else.

2) I <i><b>don't want</i></b> to leave Babylon and come to the Playa just to get plastered by a drunken bar car (or any-car) driver.

Agreed. No one here has condoned driving under the influence, and I think most (if not all) would support rules that prevent this. BRC is already chaotic enough, the last thing needed is to through drunken drivers into the mix.

What concerns me is a possible interpretation that the driver is guilty if any of his passengers has an open container. And according to the preliminary wording, the new BLM rules would not cover human powered vehicles (such as bikes). True, you cannot DRIVE a bicycle while under the influence, but apparently you can be a passenger with an open container (at least under the proposed BLM rules). regards, Jafe

[Ranger Genius]

The 'passenger' clause only applies to passengers of a 'vehicle,' which does not include HPV's. It specifically states that the 'vehicle' must be self-propelled. Furthermore, the proposed rules state that the passengers themselves are responsible for their 'posession' of an open container (so you can't be busted if someone gets on your art car with a flask--only they can), but the driver is responsible for 'storage' of an open container. Serving drinks while parked would be permissible under these rules, so long as the bottles were locked up once you started moving. I haven't read the Nevada statutes (which the proposed rules suggest BLM authorities use as a guideline for enforcement), but 'for hire' does not necessarily mean that you're getting paid, much less specifically that you're getting paid in CURRENCY, or AT THE TIME OF SERVICE RENDERED. What if I were to hire a bar car operator for the entire week to drive my fellow citizens around? Even if the law requires an exchange of currency, I'd gladly PayPal someone a dollar the week before the event in order to satisfy that statute. I don't know what NV law says about requiring a Chauffeur's liscense. I know that UT DOES require one, but it's a Catch-22 here because the state doesn't ISSUE them..thus it remains unenforced....so far. Just a few thoughts.

[theCryptofishist]

Okay, it's partly in the way I framed it. I'm not sure what the focus/intent of the rule change is. I.e. are they going after drug use on BLM land--or illicit growing there? (A long time problem in Californina.) Does the "harmonization" of federal and state laws mean that it will be easier to prosecute under state law even if the offence took place on federal lands and the arrest was by a BLM ranger? It must have been in the part I cut, but could Nevada Highway Patrol now make arrests on the playa?

It would be interesting to hear what DMV staffers and LEALs have to say. They may have had some idea that this was in the works and may have some notion on how this might play out on the playa.

[dragonfly Jafe]

[quote="Ranger Genius"]Furthermore, the proposed rules state that the passengers themselves are responsible for their 'posession' of an open container (so you can't be busted if someone gets on your art car with a flask--only they can), but the driver is responsible for 'storage' of an open container. Serving drinks while parked would be permissible under these rules, so long as the bottles were locked up once you started moving.

Aahh - this is what I was missing. Thanks for the clarafication.

So what if I lock up any bottles and make people finish their drinks before I start moving, but then later someone opens a flask? Will I be liable if;

1) Car is one big space, no barrier between passengers and driver

2) Car has barrier between passengers and driver but it can be opened (a door or a blanket)

3) Car has permament barrier between passengers and driver

4) Car has no alcohol - trailers pulled behind car do, but there is no connection between the car and the trailer

basically, what precautions does one have to take to be in compliance with the new proposed regulation? (I know the BLM is the best place to ask this, and I will, I'm just throwing it out here 'cause I can....)

Anyone ever find out if non-Nevada residents can give comments that are listened to?

regards, Jafe

regards, Jafe

[Ranger Genius]

As I understand the proposed rules (which is probably quite well..I've got a pretty good legalspeke mutant power), You don't even necessarily have to make people finish their drinks; just make them understand that if they are holding a drink or an open container, THEY will be busted for an open container, not YOU (the driver). You will, however, be responsible to ensure that bottles are locked up (unless you can get in under the chauffeur-type exception, in which case this is all moot. Also, putting the booze in a trailer does not help get around the restriction if passengers are riding on the trailer. Keeping the driver separate from the drinking area doesn't help either, since it says it must be in a compartment not accessible to the driver OR the passengers. Basically in order to be compliant you must:

1. Have a blood alcohol level beneath .08 or the standard established by the state of NV, whichever is more stringent.

2. Serve alcohol to passengers only while the vehicle is parked.

3. Lock the bottles in an inaccessible compartment while the vehicle is in motion (glove box does not qualify).
For your passengers' protection, you may want to have them finish their drinks before recommencing movement, but you will not be liable if they don't. As the driver, you're only responsible for alcohol being STORED in the vehicle.

Since the request for comments come from a federal agency (the BLM/DofI) I can't imagine that status as a NV citizen should make any difference at all. These rules are, after all, governing Federal Land; any concerned citizen of the country should have equal weight in considering them. Can't hurt to contact the, er, contact person either way.

[Simply Joel]

Levitation is the answer.... i suggest we all levitate across the playa.

[dragonfly Jafe]

Levitation is the answer.... i suggest we all levitate across the playa.

I think that may be what they are trying to prevent! They want all art vehicles to be well grounded in reality, so-to-speak. Besides, unless you have a telepathic ability it would probably require mechanical and/or electrical stuff to make it work. But I like the way you think.

I also assume the federal rules for open containers on flying vehicles are already more stringent than they are for ground vehicles (at least I hope so!)

So what other loopholes exist? Wind powered is out because of the DMV rules. Animal powered is out due to the no animals rule. Any non- mechanical, non-electric propulsion methods out there besides people- power?

Of course, we always could just not serve alcohol, but what fun would that be?

regards, Jafe

[stuart]

No one here has condoned driving under the influence

then let me be the first!

also, you can go to vegas and rent a 'party van'. Basically a pass van with a driver who carts you around to various spots while you and your pals all get hammered. No separation between the driver and the drinking other than proximity. There are several businesses that do this so I highly doubt that it is illegal. Think green tortiose.

[dragonfly Jafe]

No one here has condoned driving under the influence

then let me be the first!

also, you can go to vegas and rent a 'party van'. Basically a pass van with a driver who carts you around to various spots while you and your pals all get hammered. No separation between the driver and the drinking other than proximity. There are several businesses that do this so I highly doubt that it is illegal. Think green tortiose.

As was mentioned earlier, Nevada state law exempts RV's or vehicles that are "transport for hire" from the open container law. The proposed BLM regulation apparently has no such exemption, although the wording could be better.

This also could very well be aimed at 4-wheelers and ATV'ers instead of BM art vehicles. Those accidents almost certainly exceed BM by a factor of at least 10!

regards, Jafe

[theCryptofishist]

This also could very well be aimed at 4-wheelers and ATV'ers instead of BM art vehicles.

They very well could be. Although, I think that once they started writing regulations for BLM land, they would have talked to the Winnemucca field office and that issues with the festival would have been incorporated.

[Simply Joel]

Did anyone think of making BRC smaller, thereby making the art car issue moot?

Art first, safety always...

just a thought or two.

[theCryptofishist]

National Environmental Policy Act

BLM has determined the supplementary rules are categorically
excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual
(DM) Chapter 2, Appendix 1. In addition, the supplemental rules do not
meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusions
listed in 516 DM, Chapter 2 and Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental
policies and procedures of the Department of Interior, the term
``categorical exclusion'' means a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and that have been found to have no such effect in
procedures adopted by a Federal Agency, and for which neither an
environmental assessment nor environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13211, Action Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

These proposed supplementary rules do not comprise a significant
energy action. The rules would not have an adverse effect on energy
supplies, production or consumption. They only address use of alcoholic
beverages and drugs on public lands, and have no conceivable connection
with energy policy.

Author

The principal author of these supplementary rules is State Staff
Ranger Erika Schumacher of the Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior.
Under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 U.S.C. 1733a, the Nevada
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, issues supplementary rules
for public lands in Nevada.

I read this to mean that there will not be and Environmental Impact Statement or even an Environmental Assessment, but based on other things (like the request for comments) said that there is still room for comments from the public. And this would be all citizens of the United States, not just Nevadans--as it is a Federal Action. (Hey we can all comment on the design of the Twin Towers memorial too, if the comment period isn't closed yet.) And if you're interested in commenting, better to comment and have it not be applicable, than not comment and then find out you could have. (At least up to a personal determination on the amount of work involved. . .)

[theCryptofishist]

Did anyone think of making BRC smaller, thereby making the art car issue moot?

Based on the train of thought and reading I went through while the "Art Cars are Stupid" thread was active, I concluded that the grand sweeping vistas across the inner playa are considered important to the event organizers.

I also wonder if parts of the law could be aimed at all distribution of alchohal without a licence. Which might make it more difficult for stationary bars. I'd certainly be more carefull about carding if I ran a playa bar until it was clear what was going on.

[Simply Joel]

Did anyone think of making BRC smaller, thereby making the art car issue moot?

Based on the train of thought and reading I went through while the "Art Cars are Stupid" thread was active, I concluded that the grand sweeping vistas across the inner playa are considered important to the event organizers.

I also wonder if parts of the law could be aimed at all distribution of alchohal without a licence. Which might make it more difficult for stationary bars. I'd certainly be more carefull about carding if I ran a playa bar until it was clear what was going on.

I just see the increase of restrictions at Burning Man as part of the aging/growing/maturing process... the longer the event goes on, the more restrictions will occur... and opponents of Burning Man will use all the rules that apply.

Maybe camping at First Camp is the answer so everyone comes and visits me, instead of me visiting them?

[Bob]

<buick>

Just a thought --

When you send the federal gov't your comments, make sure you clearly identify Burning Man as the event to which you want to attract special attention to bar car / law enforcement issues.

Put it in your letterhead, even.

</buick>

[theCryptofishist]

I just see the increase of restrictions at Burning Man as part of the aging/growing/maturing process... the longer the event goes on, the more restrictions will occur... and opponents of Burning Man will use all the rules that apply.

Maybe camping at First Camp is the answer so everyone comes and visits me, instead of me visiting them?

I would certainly see BM as changing over time, and not nessesarily for the worse. I.e. the creation of roads after the first causalty, a motorcycle into tent accident. And my personal guess is that I would find a lot of the changes for the better on a personal (emotional) comfort level--accounts of the early trips sound like there was an uncomfortable macho vibe to it. (2 time burner, working off guesses and intuition.) I'm the one who's always supporting the right of persons with serious illnesses to attend, but I think that to a certain extent those opportunities opened up after the first few playa burns.




If spending a week at First Camp is an answer--what's the question?

[theCryptofishist]

On the other hand, it's always been apparent to me that one of the sources of energy behind Burning Man is the relaxation of the cultural rules that govern our behavior on so many levels. And in that spirit, I can certainly understand how long-time burners might feel that as certain rules tighten up, the "spirit of Burning Man" is "lost."

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Then there could be the exception of having this rule applied to permitees that exempts all vehicles from as long as 1- it occurs within in an event that is enclosed off to the general public. 2- attendees are notified that they the loss of life of limb may occur from attending the event and that "there's a killer on the road (playa)" and he may be driving the vehicle you are now in!

Since the main justification is the protection of natural resources and the general public and the resultant lawsuit of an accident.

"The BLM needs supplementary rules to protect natural resources and the health and safety of public land users"

The only natural resource is dust and that isn't a concern and BM is forced to buy insurance that is supposed to cover all litigations. And attendees are already notified on each and every ticket with warnings of possible death or dismemberment.

This law is unnecessary and redundant of BLM and state laws already on the books.

Hey we could even post a sign "Alcohol Free Art Car!" or "Alcohol Free Driver!" for those MEADD types- Mad Eplayans Against Drunken Drivers.

A II Z

[DVD Burner]

You know AZ may be on to something there. Sounds like there may be a need for an "Alcohol Free Art Car!" or "Alcohol Free Driver!" camp.

everyone that's sober at the time can take a turn at driving for a few hours.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I'm more against having just another law or a law on the book that could be used against approving the event's permit then having safe cars.

Camps can self-regulate their vehicles for the time being. It's not flagrant problem but there have been times when I too saw my life flashing by at times on an art car. But that was only once is four attendances and multiple uses of art car bars. There was more danger in hitting unmarked structure in the dark then any other life threating event.

OK where my $.50?

A II Z

[Alpha]

When you send the federal gov't your comments...

Yeah, I considered that when I wrote my email. In the end I concluded that anyone writing rules for use of BLM land in Nevada not only already has Burning Man on their radar, it's the big fat blip right in the middle. So I decided against being evasive in favor of making a direct point about whether or not we should expect rangers busting us for bar cars.

[stuart]

exchange heard on speeding art car (not bar)

passenger 'slow down, you're going to get us all killed'

operators 'read your ticket'

[Apollonaris Zeus]

The Sign sez: Limit 5 MPH

But it should say "Make No Dust!" as the rule

The bigger the vehicle the greater air turbulance.

I've sucked in so much dust I am the Black Rock Desert!



A II Z

[Force]

It's really very simple- just have two bowls with pennies in them. One bowl says "Take a penny!"

The other says; "Taxi rides just 1 penny!"

Viola! Your barcar has been magically transformed into a "transport for hire" vehicle! (bows)

That's nice, but it's also commerce.

Well, get creative then- make it performance art, showing how stupid the outside world is.

Extra bonus points for the person that can come up with something the legal world will consider payment that doesn't constitute commerce within BM.

[Ivy]

payment that doesn't constitute commerce

That's pretty oxymoronic, IMO.

I understand where you're coming from, and I think your intentions are good, but really, no matter what you do, you're making commerce happen, be it monetary or barter. It's still commerce. And that's what I go to BM to avoid. Persoanlly I'd rather art cars were done away with before seeing comerce brought in to keep them around.

[Captain Goddammit]

It's about whether we keep booze on them. I'll shut down my bar aboard.
I already don't drink & drive the boat. I operate heavy equipment and trucks for a living, I have everything to lose.
Sucks, though, almost everyone likes a nice icy margarita on the playa.

[Bob]

This has actually turned into an email campaign?

Is that what you people do?

It's all fucking over... come Labor Day, I'm going fishing.

[Alpha]

Unbunch your panties, Bob, nobody said anything about an email campaign.

[Force]

I understand your stance, but you'd rather shut down all bar cars and potentially all art cars rather than move a penny (or a piece of paper, or something else with some technical legal value, could be a piece of paper with a zen koan or some bit of wisdom you've learned in your life) from one bowl to the other?

That seems kind of drastic in a cut your own nose off to spite your face kind of way.

[Captain Goddammit]

And now for a little parade-shitting-on; The take-a-penny, charge-a-penny idea is brilliant, BUUUT...
I wouldn't count on it to legally cover your ass. A vehicle for hire has to have a business license, the driver needs a special driver's license endorsement, insurance, etc.
If you were gonna claim to be for hire to use a legal loophole to avoid prosecution, you'd probably have to be totally legit.