How A Good Samaritan Was Arrested For Driving Drunks Home

[amigocabal]

Link

Jonathon Schoenakase of Quincy, Illinois was arrested last Saturday outside a local bar. His crime? Operating "Courtesy Rides" — a service offering free rides to bar-goers to prevent drunk driving. The reason? Taxi companies lobbied to make it illegal.

Schoenakase began operating Courtesy Rides on January 31, 2008 following a decision to do something about drunk driving after one of his friends was killed by a drunk driver. The service offers free rides to anyone who's been out drinking and needs a ride home, donations are accepted, but it's free to all. It was such a success Jonathan added a second car to the effort in 2009, then a bus, and that's when Diamond Cab service took notice.

They complained to the city that Schoenakase was operating a de facto taxi service without a proper license, but in reality they were mad he was cutting into their profits by offering for free what the Diamond was charging for. Amusingly, he was probably hitting a different demographic, cheapskates who don't want to pay for taxis but want to get home so they drink and drive, but that's beside the point. The cab company complained loud enough that the Quincy City Council changed its taxi and limousine ordinance to remove the words "for hire" from its definitions and thus eliminate the loophole Schoenakase was operating under. Following the change, Jonathan applied for a license and the Chief of Police was supposedly about to approve it, but withdrew and said Schoenakase needed to clear up some legal issues.

Since then Schoenakase has continued operating Courtesy Rides and has been arrested twice now during sting operations, once in February and then again just last Saturday.

Let me repeat that again.

The cab company complained loud enough that the Quincy City Council changed its taxi and limousine ordinance to remove the words "for hire" from its definitions and thus eliminate the loophole Schoenakase was operating under.

It speaks for itself.

[Grumman]

What a bunch of scumbags.

[Serafina]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

[Eulogy]

Boycott the taxi companies!

On a more serious note, I wonder if the taxpayers feel grateful that the police is protecting them from guys who drive for drunks. Especially since I doubt those undercover officers don't have better things to do than to act as hired muscle for greedy cunts.

It would be hilariously ironic if the taxi owners ended up becoming street pizza because of drunk drivers, hm? The same drunk driver who could have been safely driven home?

[Zaune]

Much as I dislike the cab company's attitude, and would very much like to know more about these supposed legal issues they've got to straighten out, I can understand the local council wanting Courtesy Rides to meet the same insurance and safety standards as the private-hire companies.

[Lost Soal]

So what would be the difference in ringing this guy (who doesn't charge) for a lift home and ringing a friend for a lift home. Going by the write up, both could be arrested for the same charge. Right?

[amigocabal]

Much as I dislike the cab company's attitude, and would very much like to know more about these supposed legal issues they've got to straighten out, I can understand the local council wanting Courtesy Rides to meet the same insurance and safety standards as the private-hire companies.

The state of Illinois already requires people to have auto insurance to drive on public roads. (I am not sure if Illinois law requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions though.)

According to the article, what Schoenakase was doing was originally legal. The Council changed the law to make it illegal.

[Phantasee]

He's running a taxi or bus service. There are regulations about that. If he's not properly registered he shouldn't be doing it. There's training, procedures, maintenance requirements, a whole host of things you need to consider before transporting gravel, never mind people. Just because it was legal and for a good cause doesn't mean it was a good way of doing it. This is a pretty one-sided story. What are the legal issues he needs to clear up before he can get the appropriate licensing? Why did he continue to operate despite it being against the law? The taxi companies had to compete against a guy who not only didn't charge a fare, he didn't have to meet any of the same regulations they did. How is that fare to the taxi company?

[madd0ct0r]

How is that fare to the taxi company?

now that's an ironic typo.

he's clearly driven by his friend's death, although I think I agree he should be covered by the usual laws, insurance, background checks that cabbies get - this guy is carting around drunk women on a regular basis. It'd be good to know he hasn't got history.

[TheFeniX]

So what would be the difference in ringing this guy (who doesn't charge) for a lift home and ringing a friend for a lift home. Going by the write up, both could be arrested for the same charge. Right?

That's what I was thinking. Texas has "good samaritan" laws that apply to many different aspects of life. It basically boils down to, as long as you weren't doing something lethally stupid, you can't be held legally and civilly liable for any damage you cause while helping out someone in a bind.

Ex. You offer to tow someone out of the sand/mud/ditch for free and accidentally bend their bumper because you have nowhere else to attach a tow-rope to. If you actually charge money for this, you're basically running a tow-service with no insurance and can also be held liable (sued in civil court). If tow-truck drivers worked for a law banning good Samaritans, you could be arrested for just helping some poor soul stuck in a ditch (something I used to do a lot of).

While the whole thing is stupid, it's even more idiotic they made it an arrestable offense when a monetary fine would accomplish the same task. Except then they wouldn't get to impound his vehicles and make his life miserable for trying to help out a bad situation.

[Grumman]

The taxi companies had to compete against a guy who not only didn't charge a fare, he didn't have to meet any of the same regulations they did. How is that fare to the taxi company?

The only reason the Taxi companies faced these regulations and he did not is because they were already offering an inferior service, by charging instead of doing it for free. They weren't trying to compete.

[Gunhead]

This sounds retarded. Here the line is clear. You can drive anyone anywhere on your dime and time. You however cannot legally accept money for transporting them, not in any shape or form. Police enforce this rule by keeping an eye out for illegal taxis poaching customers on taxi stops. The only thing I take exception to is the guy is financing his past time by donations, which is distorting competition. If he's blowing his own money and time to haul drunks around, well a big fucking boohoo to the taxi companies. As to all the licensing and regulations, he has the required licenses to drive vehicles around registered to certain amount of people and insurance too if it's mandatory. The only big difference is he's not liable for keeping time tables or getting lost. The passenger can't get compensated for those as the guy is basically just driving around giving rides.
This might or might not apply, but here you can't just drop a guy off in the middle of nowhere once you have him as passenger. This can be seen as neglect. This applies to all road users however, professional or otherwise. By law you are obliged to help other road users if you spot the need.

The big difference being in a paid ride vs. someone hauling you around for free, is this: When you pay for a ride, you are entitled to the service you paid for. If you are hitching a ride, you aren't entitled to anything really. I don't know about taxi licensing in Illinois, but it seems it's about the same as it is everywhere. You take x amount of classes, you pass a test which proves you can find places without nav aids in your local area and what sort of service you are supposed to provide to your customers. It's not like you get another drivers license that gives you magic people transporting powers outside your regular license.

-Gunhead

[Tanasinn]

I imagine this is going to have a serious backlash against local politicians, particularly with the increasing sentiment that poltiicians don't represent their constituents, but rather the people who purchase them.

Why did he continue to operate despite it being against the law?

Some folks don't compromise their ethics because rich folks lobbied city council. Maybe this is one such case. I'm sure we'll hear more of it.

[Sea Skimmer]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

This is true. I have a friend who has done actuall jail time for public intox (or as he puts it, "drunkwalking"). Granted, that was his third or fourth offense, but that's a damned stupid law in any case.

[Phantasee]

I imagine this is going to have a serious backlash against local politicians, particularly with the increasing sentiment that poltiicians don't represent their constituents, but rather the people who purchase them.

Why did he continue to operate despite it being against the law?

Some folks don't compromise their ethics because rich folks lobbied city council. Maybe this is one such case. I'm sure we'll hear more of it.

Taxi drivers aren't constituents? People trying to make a honest living, and this guy does it for free, with a bus? You don't see it as a problem? The taxi company's standing up for its employees. The people that came to them for work to earn their living.

Not every Good Samaritan is a fucking saint.

[TheFeniX]

Taxi drivers aren't constituents? People trying to make a honest living, and this guy does it for free, with a bus? You don't see it as a problem? The taxi company's standing up for its employees. The people that came to them for work to earn their living.

Back when I off-roaded down at San-Luis Pass, I used to troll the beach looking for the odd lost soul who tried to take his family car into the loose spots trying to avoid the crowded areas (which were crowded because of the packed sand making vehicle access very easy). Over the course of 4 years, I must have towed 50+ people out of the sand for free. I caught one guy in a Mercedes SLK on the phone with a tow-company out of Galveston that wanted like $300 just to get out there. I cost that driver money directly because I was there and was a nice guy. Under some stupid law like this, I could have gone to jail.

Even stated in the article, it's unlikely he's even targeting a demographics that would call for a taxi. They would more likely try to walk home illegally (public intoxication) or try and drive (thus causing a hazard on the road and breaking the law). It's not a perfect solution, but like giving clean needles to junkies, it's the lesser of two evils.

We're not talking about a competing business opening up and charging low-rates due to lack of insurance or underpaying his workers. We're talking about a guy who is taking advantage of good Samaritan laws to help out people (and those they might kill driving drunk) and we want to spank him for it? I could almost understand fines, but jail-time? I honestly couldn't bring myself to put a guy like that in hand-cuffs if I was a cop.

I find laws like this as morally bankrupt as if road-side clean-up companies started lobbying against the boyscouts or other socially conscious groups that "adopt" road-side clean-up routes on highways. Hell, I used to do a bit of charity work for libraries in my area during my downtime, even though my job was what introduced me to the librarians. I was directly costing my company money (even though it's unlikely said libraries had the money to pay for the work I did anyway).

[Tanasinn]

I imagine this is going to have a serious backlash against local politicians, particularly with the increasing sentiment that poltiicians don't represent their constituents, but rather the people who purchase them.

Why did he continue to operate despite it being against the law?

Some folks don't compromise their ethics because rich folks lobbied city council. Maybe this is one such case. I'm sure we'll hear more of it.

Taxi drivers aren't constituents? People trying to make a honest living, and this guy does it for free, with a bus? You don't see it as a problem? The taxi company's standing up for its employees. The people that came to them for work to earn their living.

Not every Good Samaritan is a fucking saint.

You don't have some sort of right to make money just because you conceive of a business model and decide to charge for a service. It's ridiculous to penalize someone for providing a cost-free neighborhood service because you'd rather make money off of it.

And please, "taxi companies standing up for their drivers?" Don't make me laugh.

[General Zod]

So how do I know the guy offering free rides isn't going to just take me to a stretch of highway, mug me and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Ignoring the whining about taxis making money, safety is the biggest issue I'd have with this.

[amigocabal]

So how do I know the guy offering free rides isn't going to just take me to a stretch of highway, mug me and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Ignoring the whining about taxis making money, safety is the biggest issue I'd have with this.

Mugging is already against the law.

Are there any regulations that would reduce the chances of being mugged?

[General Zod]

So how do I know the guy offering free rides isn't going to just take me to a stretch of highway, mug me and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Ignoring the whining about taxis making money, safety is the biggest issue I'd have with this.

Mugging is already against the law.

Are there any regulations that would reduce the chances of being mugged?

I could answer this question. Or you could realize how incredibly stupid it is to ask why someone should trust a licensed company over some random jackoff on the street.

[Grumman]

So how do I know the guy offering free rides isn't going to just take me to a stretch of highway, mug me and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Ignoring the whining about taxis making money, safety is the biggest issue I'd have with this.

If you don't trust him, then don't use his help. Making it illegal to be a designated driver is fucking stupid.

[amigocabal]

Even stated in the article, it's unlikely he's even targeting a demographics that would call for a taxi. They would more likely try to walk home illegally (public intoxication) or try and drive (thus causing a hazard on the road and breaking the law). It's not a perfect solution, but like giving clean needles to junkies, it's the lesser of two evils.

Ironically, public intoxication laws create an incentive to drive drunk, as they figure they would be less likely to get caught.

I can imagine that, plus unavailability of buses after 10 P.M., acting synergetically to aggravate drunk driving.

We're not talking about a competing business opening up and charging low-rates due to lack of insurance or underpaying his workers. We're talking about a guy who is taking advantage of good Samaritan laws to help out people (and those they might kill driving drunk) and we want to spank him for it? I could almost understand fines, but jail-time? I honestly couldn't bring myself to put a guy like that in hand-cuffs if I was a cop.

I find laws like this as morally bankrupt as if road-side clean-up companies started lobbying against the boyscouts or other socially conscious groups that "adopt" road-side clean-up routes on highways. Hell, I used to do a bit of charity work for libraries in my area during my downtime, even though my job was what introduced me to the librarians. I was directly costing my company money (even though it's unlikely said libraries had the money to pay for the work I did anyway).

Or private businesses seeking legislation to stop the Salvation Army and other charities from providing disaster assistance.

People of faith, such as Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. should take note of what happened in Quincy. Regardless of the merits of the governments providing charity, few would argue that the government should erect barriers against charity merely to benefit business.

[madd0ct0r]

That problem could also be solved by having decent public transportation.

Actually no it would not be, because using public transportation while intoxicated is public drunkenness in the vast majority of the US. In other words you cannot even walk home drunk.

that's quite amazingly stupid.
astonishingly so.

Maybe americans drink less then brits? but jesus. it's illegal to walk home drunk? how fucking stupid can a system get?

[Simon_Jester]

It may even be because once upon a time, Americans drank more. Drinking of hard liquor was a big problem in parts of the US in the 1800s. Even if it was a bad idea, Prohibition didn't appear out of nowhere just because Americans are crazy.

So a lot of draconian public drunkenness statutes may have been put in place to deter large numbers of very drunk people from wandering home and making trouble for everyone else on the street. There's at least a partial tradition of being light on punishment for this, with the idea of letting drunks 'sleep it off-' possibly in a jail cell but that may be more protective custody than arrest. Then again, society has cracked down on all kinds of drugs and intoxicants in the past few decades, and alcohol is no exception.