At the present time in Maryland, it is against the law to drive a car with an open container of alcohol in the vehicle.
Just introduced into the 2006 legislative session is HB 280, which can be read in its entirety, at
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0280f.pdf
The bill permits someone who buys a meal and a bottle of wine with the meal to remove the unconsumed portion of the bottle to the vehicle, IF the cork is reinserted to the level of the bottle, but only if the bottle is then transported in the locked glove compartment or trunk.
Morons.
(No mention of twist offs)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: irwin,

quote:

Originally posted by irwin:
Morons

Not a bad law, right up to the part where the wine has to go in a locked glove compartment or trunk. Most modern glove compartments barely fit a pair of gloves, much less a 750ml wine bottle.

Also, getting that cork flush with the bottle neck takes a good bit of work.

Politicians......

PH

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Also, getting that cork flush with the bottle neck takes a good bit of work.

Not if the bottle's half empty. In fact, that's probably a flaw in the proposed law. I realize people here aren'tr going to be drinking wine out of the bottle while driving, but if we assume some nut will, he or she could easily press the cork all the way in pretty easily.

Thanks for the tip Board-O. I've never actually tried this with a half full bottle. Only done it with full bottles which were returned to the bottle for transport after decanting, or 375's for long term storage.

I like the idea of laws which encourage diners to stop drinking when they have had enough rather than feel they have to finish an expensive bottle to keep it from going to waste. Any law that includes cumbersome or impractical components doesn't help with this intent.

PH

quote:

Originally posted by irwin:
At the present time in Maryland, it is against the law to drive a car with an open container of alcohol in the vehicle.
Just introduced into the 2006 legislative session is HB 280, which can be read in its entirety, at
http://mlis.state.md.us/2006rs/bills/sb/sb0280f.pdf
The bill permits someone who buys a meal and a bottle of wine with the meal to remove the unconsumed portion of the bottle to the vehicle, IF the cork is reinserted to the level of the bottle, but only if the bottle is then transported in the locked glove compartment or trunk.
Morons.
(No mention of twist offs)

Why Morons? That's the law in California and I've got no complaints. It's a very good idea - much smarter than forcing someone to finish the bottle or leave it behind. Not sure about the "reinserted to the level of the bottle" phrase, but I'd be happy to challenge any officer or judge to get the cork in any further. Maybe some entrepreneur will market a corker to restaurants. Also "transported in the locked trunk" is a bit daft given that I drive a hatchback, so it has no trunk.

The only problem I have with the law is that the cork has to be pulled at all. I was in a restaurant in SF and discovered that they comped the corkage with purchase off the list. The waiter told me I could get a $25 half bottle to go and they'd comp the corkage - effectively giving me free wine - but that legally he had to open it.

quote:

Why Morons?

The glovebox/trunk stipulation is the problem, Dave. Most bottles won't fit in a glove box. Locking the glovebox doesn't have any effect on access, in any event. A glovebox key off the keyring gives immediate access while driving. Putting a bottle of fine wine in a trunk for an 45 minute drive home from a summertime lunch in Barstow (OK, OK.... I'm using Barstow for effect here ) to say, Victorville when it's 120 outside doesn't work either. Otherwise, it's a good law.

PH

Well, the locked glove box and the trunk are two options. You can actually put it in any part of the vehicle that is not a passenger compartment, so you could also put it under the hood and wedge it between the transmission and the oil pump, or, if you had a pick up truck, let it rattle around in the back.
The intent of the law is swell. It's just totally impractical to legislate. (The legislation is sponsored by a 77 year old liberal democratic woman from Purple Haze's neck of the woods).

Hey, hey counselor!! Who is the sponsor? I'll pay her a visit and give her an education! Or as we say in my "neck of the woods," I'll give her a "come to Jesus meetin'"

PH

Okay, so an hour in the trunk at 120 heat is bad.
I've spent a summer in DC, I know what you mean.
Under those circumstances, if you were caught and
explained it, any sane judge ought to let you go.

But I seriously think that's the best law you're
going to get. I believe that restaurants in France
have a special seal that they put over the cork.
Of course restaurants aren't going to be keen on that.

quote:

any sane judge

Dave Tong:
There is the rub.

I've been giving this some thought, and a "seal" of some sort is the solution. Picture a "single bottle" sized brown paper bag that's a little extra long on top. The restaurant puts the bottle in the bag, folds the top of the bag over and places a piece of paper over the fold with a "sealed for transport by......" designation or something like this. One staple to seal. Simple. Effective. Easy to check by a "sane" patrolman. Restaurants could play up their safe carryout procedures. Win-win.

PH

PH,

It is Ida Ruben, and I also see Paula Hollinger is a co-sponsor. Good luck!

Considering the inconvenience of time spent in traffic court, attorney's fees (sorry Irwin), not to mention the "dice roll" involved in any court proceeding, it just isn't worth it. If this one makes it through the General Assembly, I'll make sure to bring along an insulated wine bag just in case and stow the juice in the trunk.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
I've been giving this some thought, and a "seal" of some sort is the solution. Picture a "single bottle" sized brown paper bag that's a little extra long on top. The restaurant puts the bottle in the bag, folds the top of the bag over and places a piece of paper over the fold with a "sealed for transport by......" designation or something like this. One staple to seal. Simple. Effective. Easy to check by a "sane" patrolman. Restaurants could play up their safe carryout procedures. Win-win.

PH

This is the hitch in the recently enacted law in Florida, which is better than not allowing wine to go at all. We just push the cork in as flush as possible (very easy with 1/2 a bottle or less), put it in an oversize press and seal envelope, staple the meal receipt to it and off they go. The rest is up to the customer and they are supposed to keep it in a glove box or trunk as well, but I'm sure nobody does, and I'm sure that they wouldn't get 'busted' for not doing so, so long as they aren't driving with a high blood/alcohol ratio.

You guys are making too bigga deal of this. If the bottle is not accessible(out of reach) of the driver(OR covered by anything), the police can't pull you over because he THINKS you have an open container. He has no Probable Cause. That's why even the floor of the back seat or hatchback or Coleman cooler in the back of a van is acceptable in Calif. If you're weaving all over the road, an open container is the least of your worries.

quote:

You guys are making too bigga deal of this. If the bottle is not accessible(out of reach) of the driver(OR covered by anything), the police can't pull you over because he THINKS you have an open container.

Uh........wrong. The law stipulates that the container cannot be accessable to the driver or passengers, period. If a gendarme were to see a bottle in any area of the passenger compartment and be able to see a cork, he'd have probable cause to suspect an "open container." He could proceed with a search at that point.

If you were pulled over for a defective taillight and the officer were to notice the bottle as a course of issuing a citation for that offence, again..... busted!

The law needs to be tweaked to serve the purpose for which it was intended. Won't take too much.

PH

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:

quote:

You guys are making too bigga deal of this. If the bottle is not accessible(out of reach) of the driver(OR covered by anything), the police can't pull you over because he THINKS you have an open container.

Uh........wrong. The law stipulates that the container cannot be accessable to the driver or passengers, period. If a gendarme were to see a bottle in any area of the passenger compartment and be able to see a cork, he'd have probable cause to suspect an "open container." He could proceed with a search at that point.

If you were pulled over for a defective taillight and the officer were to notice the bottle as a course of issuing a citation for that offence, again..... busted!
PH

I understand your point, but reread my post. I addressed these points. Forget the What Ifs. If the couple in the back seat are drinking it out of the bottle as a cop drives by....If the bottle is not accessible in an UNlocked glove compartment, but the driver is weaving because he's getting a BJ...If the driver just committed an armed robbery....If you get busted for a DUI, GOOD NEWS-The 7/8-empty bottle is locked in the trunk, so you don't additionally get cited for an open container. Whoopee!

The idea behind the change in the law is to keep responsible drinkers OUT of trouble. The idea is "You don't have to finish the last half of the bottle because you can't take it with you".

If you're stupid enough to keep a half-full bottle of Vodka in plain sight, on the front seat, getting a BJ, after you robbed a bank..."But your Honor, I wasn't drinking...", you deserve what you get.

quote:

Forget the What Ifs.

It's "what if's" that can make a good law into a bad or impractical one. Both of my hypothetical scenarios are quite realistic, and would result in an "open container" fine in the state of Maryland. Where's the justice in that?

PH

For grins, I contacted Sen. Ruben's office regarding the screwcap and glovebox/trunk storage issues. Much to my surprise, I received a personal e-mail from the Senator, and a follow up e-mail requesting a phone call form one of her legislative aides.

I spoke with this gentleman yesterday, and he seemed interested in incorporating some additional components to the law. Hmmmmm... Any Marylander, or other interested party can follow the progress of the legislation by following this link.

My understanding is that the first hearing regarding this legislature will be tomorrow, 2-17-06.

PH

"... additional components?" Please, do tell!

Gf,

Just the "missing" wording related to screwcaps, and perhaps some more creative solutions regarding storage of the wine. The aide seemed to "get" the problems with glovebox and trunk storage, and was interested in exmining either a bag type seal or other method of securing the wine without requiring it to be removed from the passenger compartment. Time will tell..... I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response at all.

PH

I am pleased as well, of course, this is the time of year for "constituent service" (even one from out of district!)

I don't understand all the fuss about trunk transport. Don't you people have refrigerated units in your trunks, with shock absorbing to eliminate travel shock?

Nah, the dang hot tub takes up all the room.