sggoodri

South Dakota HB1190 is on its way to the state senate. It will remove bicycles from the definition of vehicle under state law, and will leave cyclists' legal rights and duties on public highways unclear, possibly treating them as pedestrians or taking away their right to the roadway.

The bill:
https://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/20...ls/HB1190p.htm

A bicyclist-oriented news resource about the bill: https://spoke-n-sport.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=201

Recent media article:
https://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...601310334/1001

slagjumper

That seems wierd on the heels of this:
https://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45584

01/28/2006
Drunk Horse Bill
A proposed bill would allow South Dakotans to take their horse or bike home after a night at the bar, even if they've had a bit too much to drink.

The House Transportation Committee voted 10-to-1 for the bill last week, which would cancel out the long-standing state law. It would exempt horses and bikes from the definition of vehicles. But a sergeant with Minnehaha County says the bill won't change things in the Sioux Falls area.

“I don't think we'll see much of a change around here. We don't have a lot of incidents where people are riding a horse drunk or riding a bicycle drunk,” he says.

The bill would also exclude people on horses and bikes from having to obey stop signs.

Cyclist0094

I never rode a drunk horse before and here in NY they don't allow horses in bars, the jackasses would get mad.

noisebeam

Unfortunately I can't see the bill as the URL doesn't work. Is that all it does, remove from definition, or does it also have additional language such as giving bicycles (operators) all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles, even if not defined as one?

What is the motivation and from who?

Al

Brian Ratliff

It looks like the bill's originator has good intentions and might change some of the wording to clarify the bill's effect on cyclists.

As I have noted before, it is not the bill's language by itself which goes forward for interpretation. If the legislator is on record during the bill's debate in saying that the bill is in no way to affect the rights and responsibilities of cyclists, this is how the courts will interpret it, regardless of what the wording does not say.

The motivation is to reduce drunken driving by removing the criminality of riding a bike or horse while drunk. It's the theory that you have to give drunken drivers a way to make it home without using their car. Otherwise, they will simply take their car and get someone else killed.

There is no motivation, from the three souces given, that the bill is intended to change the rights and responsibilities of cyclists in general. That the legislator is willing to consider some wording changes indicates that this is true.

Helmet Head

How the courts will interpret it is one thing. How motorists, law enforcement, and, most importantly, cyclists, will interpret it is another.

Maybe he has good intentions, but is it a good idea to legally enable bicycle driving while drunk?

Errant cyclist behavior is already the main cause of car-bike collisions. Is adding whiskey to the mix what we should be advocating?

ObscureRefMan

Or, taken another way, "if I'm not a vehicle, I don't need to obey the laws".

sggoodri

Reply from the bill's sponsor to my email regarding its effects on cyclists:

noisebeam

Is it really believed that this change will encourage people to bicycle to bars instead of motoring to them? Once one has motored to the bar and gets loaded its too late to decide to take the bike home instead.

Or does it mean that folks who choose to cycle now have another excuse to have one more before leaving?

Al

Brad M

this bill rocks.

slagjumper

So it looks like you can be drunk on your bike with no issues in SD, yet bicycles are still considered motor vehicles? I can't find a copy of the current wording of HB1190. Might have to wait for the website to update.

https://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=0,45669

02/01/2006
SD Senate Approves Horse/Bicycle DUI Measure
South Dakota lawmakers think it's better to have drunks on horses and bikes instead of behind the wheel.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill today that will remove horses and bikes from drunken driving laws, meaning intoxicated people who either pedal or spur their way home cannot be arrested for drunken driving.

Bicyclists worried that the measure would prevent them from riding on roads because it would remove bikes from the legal definition of vehicles.

Legislators changed that today after being flooded with messages from bike riders.

The bill now goes to the state Senate floor.

ken cummings

Long ago and far away I pedaled home drunk from a party. I had no trouble staying upright down the middle of the road between the TWO white lines. Yes, I was so intoxicated I could not get my eyes to focus. It was also about 2:00 AM with no lights so I couldn't see the lane/shoulder point clearly. I had a rear-view mirror and kept watch for vehicles. Should I have stayed at the party? Maybe. Should I have gotten a DUI?
In a car, certainly. A friend, as drunk as I had been, beat a drunk cycling charge because the judge didn't think a legally drunk cyclist would be able to ride. The ticketing officer could have had him for speeding. He had been pulled over for doing 37 MPH downhill in a 25 MPH school zone when the cop smelled the booze.

Bruce Rosar

Sweet. Thanks Steve!

N_C

This is a bad idea that will affect cyclists in the ares I live, Sioux City. The Siouxland Cyclists ride in South Dakota all the time on our club rides. I think we may need to the the LAB involved to put a top to this. I'll give them a call & inform my club president of this problem.

dobber

Please provide an explanation as to the detrimental effects of this bill.

JohnBrooking

I don't get the sense of making it legal to ride a bicycle drunk. Seems just as likely another driver could be endangered trying to avoid a weaving cyclist as a weaving car. Maybe the consequences would not be as great to the other driver, albeit greater for the drunk.

I also don't see this encouraging people to bike to the bar, as noisebeam noted. It might work better if the bars were encouraged, or helped, to provide bikes on the premises for people to borrow as needed. Maybe a program could be set up with with local police departments to recycle confiscated and abandoned bikes to the bars for this purpose. But then the bar would be administering what amounts to a bike-borrowing program, which would be a pain, and onorous to a small business owner. You could at least require people to bring the bike back in order to get their vehicle (and keys?) back. But if a drunk tries to bike home in Februrary when it's below zero, passes out in a field and freezes to death, could the bar be sued for not letting him drive?

In a rural states like South Dakota, how many people live within a distance to the bar that they would consider biking home anyway? (Although they may be more persuadable when drunk!)

noisebeam

I think it would be far easier and perhaps even lower cost (considering bike upkeep, bike loss, storage, liability) to pay for taxi rides home.
Al

SoonerBent

Only the final text of a bill becomes law. Courts can only legally rule on the law. If the courts follow the law the debate of a bill cannot be considered in their decision as it is not the actual law. If the courts had to look at the debate of a bill then both sides would have to be considered as everything that occurs in open session is of record. That would be a major mess.

SS

flipped4bikes

Jeez, what happened to designated drivers and cabs in SD? Anyways, I read up on this and apparently reworded the bill, and bicycles are still considered vehicles. No worries...

DCCommuter

That's not quite true. If the law is clear, it has to be interpreted as enacted. If a law is ambiguous, unclear, or silent on an important issue, it is the role of the executive branch to fill those gaps through rule-making and enforcement, and the role of the judiciary to clarify the law through rulings. In the latter case, both the executive and the judiciary will rely extensively on the legislative record to determine the original intent of the legislation.

This case actually sounds like a pretty good example of the system working the way it's supposed to.

Brian Ratliff

You beat me to it. This is exactly my response. I should add that this is exactly why there exists a legislative record, and why judges have legal aids in their offices.

N_C

First my geographical location is where Iowa, South Dakota & Nebraska come together. So it is very easy to ride in all 3 states on the same day. The bike club & several other cyclists love to ride in south eastern South Dakota. In fact there is a Thursday night club ride that starts & ends in Dakota Dunes South Dakota with the half way point being in Jefferson, about 10 miles away. The entire ride is on county & state highways.

If bicycles are no longer considered legal vehicles of the road it opens the door for laws to be passed banning them totally. Also once motorists that already have a bad attitude about cyclists find out about this their attitudes could go from bad to worse, they may see it as more of a reason to harass cyclists & even cause them harm & know they can get away with it with out facing any kind of responsibility for their actions.

It could end up that cyclists may not have any laws protecting them in case of an assault from a motorist. By that I mean if this passes & cyclitsts are not considered legal vehicles & a cyclist is run off the road by motorist, even accidentally, the cyclist will may not have any legal recourse with which the motorist would have to face the consequinces of their actions. Law enforcement could look at such an accident as you are not a legal vehicle of the road, but you decided to ride on the road anyway, & even though you were hit by this motorists we can/will not charge him or her because they have a legal right to be on the road & you don't.

This is something that neither myself nor other cyclists in this area will accept. So action will be taken to try & prevent this.

noisebeam

In addition to whats said, it also its just stupid:
1. Why are cyclists being associated with drunk transportational equestrians? Why is riding a bike being associated with riding a horse?
2. If a loaded cyclist is cycling so bad or breaking a law that actually gets them police notice they should get DUI in addition. As it is now I imagine it is much easier to not get caught DUI on a bike vs. car (its still to easy in a car), just as it is easier to get away with other traffic violations on a bike vs. car. If one wants to cycle UI today one can very likely get away with it by not running red lights and not riding the wrong way, etc.. If one is so drunk they do this anyway, well...
3. Increased perception that those on bikes are drunks.
4. There is an unproven and unsupported reasoning that this will reduce drunk driving.

Al

Little Darwin

I think it was already in their latest email newsletter.

EDIT: I just double checked, and a brief sentence is in their January 30th email newsletter... they are on top of it.

BTW - I would be curious about the context of the sections modified, even though I don't have time to look it up. Does anyone know if the bill removes bicycle from the definition of vehicle in a section related exclusively to drunk driving, or to the definition for vehicle in all of the legal code?

SoonerBent

I would agree that what you state is the way things are. However, Contsitutionally, the judiciary is supposed to rule on existing law. Not change, clarify or define law. They can find a law unconstitutional, overturn it, and kick it back to the legislative branch and even that power didn't begin until Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (the first time the US Supreme Court found a law to be unconstitutional). Now, many courts seem to think that their job is to make law (the 9th Circuit and a few state supreme courts being prime examples) and that is a growing problem that needs to be addressed.

SS