General Cycling Discussion - Bike DUI?

Can you get a DUI for riding a bicycle drunk? What if you dont have a license?

I think that depends on the state. But for the most part I would say yes. in Iowa it's OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) and it covers ANY vehicle of ANY type. I've heard of people getting them on skateboards, bikes, scooters, and all that stuff. Generally from what I've learned you get a public intox charge instead. Depends on how you deal with it I think.

You certainly can in Cali.

So what if you dont have a valid drivers license? Do they take away your library card?

The BUI Blues (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10023.0.html)

BO, that's a pretty interesting article...
I have a friend who got thrown in the drunk tank for WALKING around drunk. Apparently the officer said "how do I know you aren't walking to your car?"
Where I live, you get a $50 ticket or something for riding your bike drunk, so I hear.

So what if you dont have a valid drivers license? Do they take away your library card?No, but they bend you over and **** you with fines anyway. I know a couple people that got busted for DUI on their bikes. DUI's a cash-cow in Cali, the state makes over $2000 per offence with court fines and mandatory classes (also state-owned and run).

Where I am, the cops really don't have anything to do other than break up drunken loud parties on weekends. So they stake out the clubs and pubs, but not the bars... They'll wait and watch and catch someone walking to their car and hopping in then busting them for DUI when they start the car. There are tonnes of random DUI checkpoints where everyone is inspected on the way to the freeway.

I've heard of people getting them on skateboards, bikes, scooters, and all that stuff.
Any of that stuff you heard about DUIs given to non motorized people come from anyone in Iowa with actual knowledge of the particulars? Public intoxication is a charge that is independent of mode of transport.

BO, that's a pretty interesting article...
I have a friend who got thrown in the drunk tank for WALKING around drunk. Apparently the officer said "how do I know you aren't walking to your car?"
Where I live, you get a $50 ticket or something for riding your bike drunk, so I hear.

Public intoxication is an offense different than operating a vehicle while intoxicated. I am no lawyer but i am pretty sure it is illegal. Seems pretty stupid that it is. Wouldn't the world be much better off if every drunk hopped on a bike instead of into a car, when they are drunk?

Yes, said the man of experience.

Wouldn't the world be much better off if every drunk hopped on a bike instead of into a car, when they are drunk?
Heh, those drunks certainly wouldn't be better off.
I biked drunk across town once a few years ago... The first time I got on the bike I drove it straight into the ground. Somehow I got back up and did it again and managed to stay on. Surprised I made it at all. It's pretty damn difficult and dangerous.

Heh, those drunks certainly wouldn't be better off.
Care to rethink that answer? Do you really believe people under the influence of acohol are better off driving an automobile rather than a bicycle?

The drunk could be safer. The rest of us...

There is a ride here in LA once a month, they go bar-hopping on bike.

So what if you dont have a valid drivers license? Do they take away your library card?

Here you would get $1000 fine, 2 days jail, a rehab program, and +6mo where you couldn't get a license if you wanted to.

In Florida DUI on a bicycle is the exact same as with a car, same penalty, same fines, same everything.

If you dont have a licence I dont think there will be a penalty for that except that they will definitly make it so that you cant GET one for a very long time, also they might hit you for not having a valid ID if you dont atleast have a photo ID on you.

In Washington, the state laws are rather interesting and probably a bit too lenient IMHO:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.790


(1) A law enforcement officer may offer to transport a bicycle rider who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug and who is walking or moving along or within the right of way of a public roadway, unless the bicycle rider is to be taken into protective custody under RCW 70.96A.120. The law enforcement officer offering to transport an intoxicated bicycle rider under this section shall:

(a) Transport the intoxicated bicycle rider to a safe place; or

(b) Release the intoxicated bicycle rider to a competent person.

(2) The law enforcement officer shall not provide the assistance offered if the bicycle rider refuses to accept it. No suit or action may be commenced or prosecuted against the law enforcement officer, law enforcement agency, the state of Washington, or any political subdivision of the state for any act resulting from the refusal of the bicycle rider to accept this assistance.

(3) The law enforcement officer may impound the bicycle operated by an intoxicated bicycle rider if the officer determines that impoundment is necessary to reduce a threat to public safety, and there are no reasonable alternatives to impoundment. The bicyclist will be given a written notice of when and where the impounded bicycle may be reclaimed. The bicycle may be reclaimed by the bicycle rider when the bicycle rider no longer appears to be intoxicated, or by an individual who can establish ownership of the bicycle. The bicycle must be returned without payment of a fee. If the bicycle is not reclaimed within thirty days, it will be subject to sale or disposal consistent with agency procedures.

This is basically the same treatment as for an intoxicated pedestrian, except for the part about being able to impound the bicycle. The officer has the option to put the person in detox whether they want to go or not, too.

In Virginia the vehicle has to be motorized. Moped yes, bike no. The public intoxication arrest is done for your safety. Basically once a cop sees you stumbling around and does not arrest you and you get hit by a car, the Cop gets sued by your family and wins. Civil Tort laws are out of control.

DUI laws are state criminal statutes, so they will vary from state to state. Under PA law, what is suspended is not one's license per se but one's driving privilege--a privilege that exists independent of whether or not you actually have a license. And, in PA too, bikes are vehicles for DUI purposes.

Here you would get $1000 fine, 2 days jail, a rehab program, and +6mo where you couldn't get a license if you wanted to.
Where is "here" and on what charge if the intoxicated offender is not in/on a motorized vehice? Public intoxication, DUI, something else? What BAC is required on a bicycle to get a $1000 fine and rehab program? Facts please.

The military will pick you up for DUI on a bicycle if you're riding it on base. It's not quite the same as a DUI out in town, as it doesn't affect your driving priviledges in general, but they can and will suspend your right to operate a motor vehicle on a base. (Mostly means that you can't get a base sticker for a vehicle that's registered to you, if you drive someone else's car, they won't know unless they actually stop you for something and run your ID)

On the other hand, the only person that I know of personally that this happened to fell over in the street in front of the MP's. TWICE.

Strangely enough, I can ride a perfecty straight line when I'm so pissed, I can't even walk!

I think that depends on the state. But for the most part I would say yes. in Iowa it's OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) and it covers ANY vehicle of ANY type. I've heard of people getting them on skateboards, bikes, scooters, and all that stuff. Generally from what I've learned you get a public intox charge instead. Depends on how you deal with it I think.

I guess the police turn their heads during RAGBRAI? :rolleyes:

As of today it is no longer illegal to ride a bicycle or a horse while under the influence in South Dakota.

In Iowa it's OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) and it covers ANY vehicle of ANY type. I've heard of people getting them on skateboards, bikes, scooters, and all that stuff. Generally from what I've learned you get a public intox charge instead. Depends on how you deal with it I think.


I guess the police turn their heads during RAGBRAI? :rolleyes:
I would guess the police haven't learned what Bizurke has learned. Or maybe they have a different code book than the one Bizurke has learned.

I would guess the police haven't learned what Bizurke has learned. Or maybe they have a different code book than the one Bizurke has learned.

I'm not saying it's always enforced. It really comes down to the town you're in and the cop you're dealing with. Most places in Iowa it's no problem and I wouldn't worry about it. Unfortunatly the town I live in the cop's seem to get their jolly's off arresting ANYONE who is outside of their home or a bar and is drunk. At least I don't live in Marion though, they arrest you for everything there.

As far as RAGBRAI I don't know. But I have seen multiple pictures and vidoes of troopers arresting drunk people on RAGBRAI. I wouldn't really know what goes on cause I've never been yet. I'll find out in a few weeks though :-)

I do believe in Iowa the BAC is 0.08 regardless of mode of transport. Used to be 0.10.

I-Like-To-Bike, instead of questioning & seemingly arguing about facts people post look them up. If they are wrong, post the correct info., if not then fine. It means the person posting got it right. Do you always have to be so damn argumentative about ****?

On RAGBRAI the alcohol enforcment team with the Iowa Highway Patrol does a pretty good job of keeping things under control when it comes to alcohol consumption & the abuse of it during. One of the alcohol enforcement officers, (I don't know if he is the person in charge or what his name is), is a mountain of a man. He's got to be at least 6' 6", I'd guess at least 325 pound of muscle. Someone you don't want to mess with. He speaks with a very soft voice though. I've met him, very nice guy actually & very soft spoken. I have also met members of the team he works with during RAGBRAI, all very good & proffesional officers.

A story the chairman of RIDE RIGHT tells us every year is he & his team will walk into a bar during RAGBRAI at one of the pass through towns. When the people see this some of them start filtering out to move on. The guy I am talking about with simply say it is time to get moving, a few more will leave, he will then raise his voice a little & repeat himself, again even more leave. Then he walks over to the bar, slams his hand on it & says alright let's clear out of here it is time to move on. At this point everyone leaves who is on RAGBRAI.

I have heard he has even closed or threatened to close bars & beer gardens during RAGBRAI because the organizers/owners are not complying with what the need to to keep the RAGBRAI participants moving so they can get into the next overnight town.

Some here will think they have no right to do so. Wrong. Bar owners & beer garden organizers are allowed the privilage to serve alcohol only because of the good graces of the state of Iowa by having their beer/alcohol liscense. They do anything to screw it up they lose it for a long time. Unelss they have something else to fall back on they lose their ability to operate as well.

For those of us here doing RAGBRAI this year please do not do anything stupid to get yourself in trouble with this team of IHP officers. If you want to drink that is fine I have no problem with it. But do so after you're done riding for the day. There will be plenty of beverage gardens & festivities in the overnight towns.

As one of the RIDE RIGHT Ambassadors if I see anyone riding recklessly or under the influence I will report it to the authorities. Not only are you jeopordizing your safety, but mine & everyone elses's as well. I don't care if you don't like that. But to me riding a bike under the influence while I am riding is as bad as if you were driving a car while drunk while I'm on the road with you. when I see people driving & drinking alcohol, & I have seen it during the day, I call the police & report it. I have absolute 0 tolerance for crap like that. Call me a nazi if you want, I really don't care.

Don't ride a bike drunk. Thats absolutely STUPID!!! ;)

In Florida DUI on a bicycle is the exact same as with a car, same penalty, same fines, same everything.

Yep, but in FL traffic offenses on your bike don't count against your DL or car insurance.

Like a lot of other things, I think actually getting a DUI on a bike depends on whether or not the cop's had a bad hair day and the mouthiness factor of the drunk in question.

It's kind of like the time a cop told me if you get pulled over in your car, the cop has already decided whether he's going to write a ticket, or not, before he gets out of his car. There's almost nothing you can say that will get you out of it, but there's a whole lot you could say that would dig you in deeper.

in portland, drinking and biking is a way of life for thousands of people.

I do believe in Iowa the BAC is 0.08 regardless of mode of transport. Used to be 0.10.

I-Like-To-Bike, instead of questioning & seemingly arguing about facts people post look them up. If they are wrong, post the correct info., if not then fine. It means the person posting got it right. Do you always have to be so damn argumentative about ****?
BS doesn't become a "fact" because the someone believes and posts it on the Internet. Argumentative? baloney. Just skeptical of BSers posting rumors, guesswork, and wishful thinking.

Don't take stabs at the truth and expect it to be accepted as such just because you believe it. And don't expect anyone else to validate your or anyone else's guesswork. Don't try to shift the burden of proof. Take a lesson in logic;you can start at:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Proving_a_Negative

I'm not saying it's always enforced. It really comes down to the town you're in and the cop you're dealing with. Most places in Iowa it's no problem and I wouldn't worry about it. Unfortunatly the town I live in the cop's seem to get their jolly's off arresting ANYONE who is outside of their home or a bar and is drunk. At least I don't live in Marion though, they arrest you for everything there.

I presume riding or not riding a bicycle is irrelevant to this issue of enforcement of a public drunkeness statue. And that DUI is not the charge if bicycling is involved.

BS doesn't become a "fact" because the someone believes and posts it on the Internet. Argumentative? baloney. Just skeptical of BSers posting rumors, guesswork, and wishful thinking.

Don't take stabs at the truth and expect it to be accepted as such just because you believe it. And don't expect anyone else to validate your or anyone else's guesswork. Don't try to shift the burden of proof. Take a lesson in logic;you can start at:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Proving_a_Negative

Well no **** sherlock. I know that just because someone posts something on the internet & believes it it may not be a fact. But you take just about everything certain people post here & ask for proof of it's existance. Why? Why not just take what people say here as truth & trust that the facts as presented are acurate with out having to post a link to proove to you it is true.

You are what I call a micro-manager. I hope you're not a supervisor on your job. if you were I'd hate to be on your team as a subordinate. I'd ask for a transfere to a differant team or quit if I didn't get one.

I can't stand people who micro-manage things. I was recently transfered to a new production team at work. I found out my new manager tends to try to mico-manage. The first time she tried it with me I made it clear to her I was trained to do my job & it is what I will do. I told her, you need to trust me to do my work & not keep coming over here to make sure I am performing the tasks I am required to do. Just because the style in which I use is differant then yours doesn't mean I am doing my job wrong. She backed off, then she tried it again, this pissed me off. I said if I have a problem I will come to you with a question or if it is clear I am making a mistake let me know so I can correct what I am doing wrong, otherwise let me do my job. She does not know this but if it happens again I will talk with the team leader, who is her supervisor & if I need to I'll get the union involved to see if they can help.

I can just imagine you needing a subordinate coming to you with a report of something. You read the report & then ask the person to rewrite it citing all of the sources of the information on the report. Let's say the report is about how to tune up a bike, from truing the wheels to adjusting the brakes. And the end user is a well experienced bike mechanic who has been doing the work for a long time, but needs the report nonetheless & it has to come across your desk first. The report really only has to be one maybe 2 pages long. But because you like to micro-manage so much & need proof for every ****ing thing in existance it ends up being 10 pages long. Boy do I feel sorry for your subordinate who has to write the report knowing what is required for who the end user of the report is for.

My wife works is a draftsman in an engineering dept. in her company. She has to deal with engineers every day. Some are micro-managers some are not. Those that are she has learned to be assertive when appropriate. But these particular engineers tends to whine when she is assertive with them, it doesn't do any good or move her to work on their project any faster then she told them she would because of higher priorities she has.

Tell me do you whine when your mico-managing doesn't pay off? If you do does it produce the results you want?

I think what I'm getting at is maybe you ought to take things on faith or have a little more faith that things may be true & people should not have to proove to you they are by citing the sources. If you want to know of they're true or not do your own research on the matter. Most of us don't have that kind of time.

I-Like-To-Bike, 0.08 is the BAC in Iowa. I am not going to cite the resource for you, you want to know find it yourself. This is not a stab at the truth, it is the truth for the BAC in Iowa. You don't want to research it yourself then you'll either have to trust my facts or take it on faith that it is true. As an Iowan who I am guessing is liscensed to drive in this state you should already know this. If you did not, now you do.

Tell me since I am not going to cite my resource for the facts & if you do not research it yourself do you believe this to be true, that the BAC in Iowa is 0.08?

I-Like-To-Bike, 0.08 is the BAC in Iowa. I am not going to cite the resource for you, you want to know find it yourself. This is not a stab at the truth, it is the truth for the BAC in Iowa. You don't want to research it yourself then you'll either have to trust my facts or take it on faith that it is true. As an Iowan who I am guessing is liscensed to drive in this state you should already know this. If you did not, now you do.

Tell me since I am not going to cite my resource for the facts & if you do not research it yourself do you believe this to be true, that the BAC in Iowa is 0.08?
Let me know when this has anything to do with bicycling.

Wait, so supposedley in CA, I don't have to consent to a BAC test when on a bike (unlike a car, probably for the same reason I have to have a license to drive a car, the liability involved in operating a few thousand pounds of steel), so unless I actually constent, I can't get tagged for a BUI, right? Anyone have anything concrete on this?


If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, you are deemed to have consented to a blood alcohol test. In contrast, there is no such consent if you are stopped for BUI. The statute does allow the cyclist to request a blood alcohol test, but the cyclist is not required to submit to a test.

Wait, so supposedley in CA, I don't have to consent to a BAC test when on a bike (unlike a car, probably for the same reason I have to have a license to drive a car, the liability involved in operating a few thousand pounds of steel), so unless I actually constent, I can't get tagged for a BUI, right? Anyone have anything concrete on this?
I don't know anything concrete about the CA statutes; but, according to some of the logically deprived legal kibbitzers on BF, if you take a guess, it becomes a true fact unless/until proven otherwise by some wiseguy/troll. The would-be legal scholars' definition of troll/wiseguy? - Anyone who has the audacity to be skeptical of BSers's fabricated/conjured facts.

Wait, so supposedley in CA, I don't have to consent to a BAC test when on a bike (unlike a car, probably for the same reason I have to have a license to drive a car, the liability involved in operating a few thousand pounds of steel), so unless I actually constent, I can't get tagged for a BUI, right? Anyone have anything concrete on this?

you could easily still be convicted by an officer's testimony that you were drunk. but in most areas you would literally have to be falling down to get a BUI (and even then, they'd probably give you a drunk-in-public or unsafe riding or something like that instead), most cops don't want to ruin your life over such a minor offense.

you could easily still be convicted by an officer's testimony that you were drunk. but in most areas you would literally have to be falling down to get a BUI (and even then, they'd probably give you a drunk-in-public or unsafe riding or something like that instead), most cops don't want to ruin your life over such a minor offense.
Sounds about right to me. I don't think a BAC test/reading is required for a drunk in public charge to stick (just my opinion, not legal scholarship). As Zach wrote, an officer's sworn testimoney about the pedestrian/bicyclist's overt disorderly behavior should be enough; the BAC is irrelevant.

If a pedestrian/bicyclist is drunk, but sober enough to still use his head, he should not waiver his right to refuse to take a BAC and volunteer incriminating evidence. No good will come of it. (Again my own legal guesswork.)

Note that the proud to be a squealing informer crowd doesn't need any BAC or overt behavior to cast aspersions about drunkeness. Just make enough anonymous accusations and sooner or later some guilty person might be caught in the informer's dragnet.

I presume riding or not riding a bicycle is irrelevant to this issue of enforcement of a public drunkeness statue. And that DUI is not the charge if bicycling is involved.

It is in Florida no doubt about it, I have ask 2 officers personaly and it was all over the radio about a month ago.

A bicycle is a vehicle, its the same charge...

We follow all the same rules and traffic laws as a car, and we are subject to all the same penalties.

Before sombody comes up with a valid point on how you cant hurt sombody on a bicycle like you can in a car, think about making a car swerve out of your way not to kill you and then goes head on into a semi.

Also think about the guy who doesnt sweve and kills you.

The officers have a duty not only to protect others from intoxicated drivers but the drunk people themselves and your at a signficant risk of self injury or death (acording to the law not me) if your drinking and cycling, and thats why the penalties are all the same.

I am not 100% sure if the insurance and license penalties apply, but seeing as how it is the exact same charge I do belive it to be true.

Hmmm... interesting. It might be nice to go bar hopping in LA or LB by bike. Thanks for the info! :D

Wait, so supposedley in CA, I don't have to consent to a BAC test when on a bike (unlike a car, probably for the same reason I have to have a license to drive a car, the liability involved in operating a few thousand pounds of steel), so unless I actually constent, I can't get tagged for a BUI, right? Anyone have anything concrete on this?21200.5. Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any
person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of
an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of
an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a
violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of
the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining
the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood pursuant to
Section 23612, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have
the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section
shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty
dollars ($250). Violations of this section are subject to Section
13202.5.


And compare with the DUI law:

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by
weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by
weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol
per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of
breath.
In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable
presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of
alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the
person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her
blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three
hours after the driving.....


13353. (a) If a person refuses the officer's request to submit to,
or fails to complete, a chemical test or tests pursuant to Section
23612, upon receipt of the officer's sworn statement that the officer
had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor
vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, and that the
person had refused to submit to, or did not complete, the test or
tests after being requested by the officer, the department shall do
one of the following:
(1) Suspend the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for
a period of one year.
(2) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of two years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of
either (A) a separate violation of Section 23103 as specified in
Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of Section
191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal
Code, that resulted in a conviction, or (B) a suspension or
revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle
pursuant to this section or Section 13353.2 for an offense that
occurred on a separate occasion.
(3) Revoke the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a
period of three years if the refusal occurred within 10 years of any
of the following:
(A) Two or more separate violations of Section 23103 as specified
in Section 23103.5, or of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or of
Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of
the Penal Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in
convictions.
(B) Two or more suspensions or revocations of the person's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to this section or
Section 13353.2 for offenses that occurred on separate occasions.
(C) Any combination of two or more of those convictions or
administrative suspensions or revocations.
The officer's sworn statement shall be submitted pursuant to
Section 13380 on a form furnished or approved by the department. The
suspension or revocation shall not become effective until 30 days
after the giving of written notice thereof, or until the end of any
stay of the suspension or revocation, as provided for in Section
13558.
(D) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of any offense
in any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Dominion of Canada that, if committed in this state, would be a
violation of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, or
Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of
that particular section of the Vehicle Code or Penal Code.
(b) If a person on more than one occasion in separate incidents
refuses the officer's request to submit to, or fails to complete, a
chemical test or tests pursuant to Section 23612 while driving a
motor vehicle, upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement that
the officer had reasonable cause to believe the person had been
driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or
23153, the department shall disqualify the person from operating a
commercial motor vehicle for the rest of his or her lifetime.
(c) The notice of the order of suspension or revocation under this
section shall be served on the person by a peace officer pursuant to
Section 23612. The notice of the order of suspension or revocation
shall be on a form provided by the department. If the notice of the
order of suspension or revocation has not been served by the peace
officer pursuant to Section 23612, the department immediately shall
notify the person in writing of the action taken. The peace officer
who serves the notice, or the department, if applicable, also shall
provide, if the officer or department, as the case may be, determines
that it is necessary to do so, the person with the appropriate
non-English notice developed pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
14100.
(d) Upon the receipt of the officer's sworn statement, the
department shall review the record. For purposes of this section, the
scope of the administrative review shall cover all of the following
issues:
(1) Whether the peace officer had reasonable cause to believe the
person had been driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section
23140, 23152, or 23153.
(2) Whether the person was placed under arrest.
(3) Whether the person refused to submit to, or did not complete,
the test or tests after being requested by a peace officer.
(4) Whether, except for a person described in subdivision (a) of
Section 23612 who is incapable of refusing, the person had been told
that his or her driving privilege would be suspended or revoked if he
or she refused to submit to, or did not complete, the test or tests.

(e) The person may request an administrative hearing pursuant to
Section 13558. Except as provided in subdivision (e) of Section
13558, the request for an administrative hearing does not stay the
order of suspension or revocation.
(f) The suspension or revocation imposed under this section shall
run concurrently with any restriction, suspension, or revocation
imposed under Section 13352, 13352.4, or 13352.5 that resulted from
the same arrest.
(g) This section shall become operative on September 20, 2005.


13384. (a) The department shall not issue or renew a driver's
license to any person unless the person consents in writing to submit
to a chemical test or tests of that person's blood, breath, or urine
pursuant to Section 23612, or a preliminary alcohol screening test
pursuant to Section 23136, when requested to do so by a peace
officer.
(b) All application forms for driver's licenses or driver's
license renewal notices shall include a requirement that the
applicant sign the following declaration as a condition of licensure:

"I agree to submit to a chemical test of my blood, breath, or
urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of
my blood when testing is requested by a peace officer acting in
accordance with Section 13388 or 23612 of the Vehicle Code."
(c) The department is not, incident to this section, required to
maintain, copy, or store any information other than that to be
incorporated into the standard application form.


Wait, so supposedley in CA, I don't have to consent to a BAC test when on a bike (unlike a car, probably for the same reason I have to have a license to drive a car, the liability involved in operating a few thousand pounds of steel), so unless I actually constent, I can't get tagged for a BUI, right? Anyone have anything concrete on this?You should probably seek legal advice before drawing conclusions about whether or not you can get tagged for BUI if you withold consent to a BAC test.

It is in Florida no doubt about it, I have ask 2 officers personaly and it was all over the radio about a month ago.

A bicycle is a vehicle, its the same charge...

We follow all the same rules and traffic laws as a car, and we are subject to all the same penalties.

Before sombody comes up with a valid point on how you cant hurt sombody on a bicycle like you can in a car, think about making a car swerve out of your way not to kill you and then goes head on into a semi.

Also think about the guy who doesnt sweve and kills you.

The officers have a duty not only to protect others from intoxicated drivers but the drunk people themselves and your at a signficant risk of self injury or death (acording to the law not me) if your drinking and cycling, and thats why the penalties are all the same.

I am not 100% sure if the insurance and license penalties apply, but seeing as how it is the exact same charge I do belive it to be true.

We have recently been through this in another thread but I just want to add.

1.) The tougher drunk driving laws passed in the last twenty years were largely justified to saving lives on the highway.

2.) Just because there are a few scenarios where a drunk bike cyclist can cause an accident, in general a bike is much less lethal to the public than a motorized vehicle. The swerving argument can also be applied to a drunk pedestrian.

3.) Bikes are not and have never been subject to the exact same laws and rights as cars have. In the last thread I listed several examples of this including bikes being banned from most controlled access highways and freeways.

4.) While I am not necessarily advocating 100% legalizing drunk biking, I do not think it is an offence that deserves the same heavy penalties that apply to motorized vehicles because it is not the same risk to the public, especially at .08 BAC.

The officers have a duty not only to protect others from intoxicated drivers but the drunk people themselves and your at a signficant risk of self injury or death (acording to the law not me) if your drinking and cycling, and thats why the penalties are all the same.


If it is the government's responsibility to protect us from our selves then there are lots of other activities that should be banned and regulated including what and how much you eat.

Strangely enough, I can ride a perfecty straight line when I'm so pissed, I can't even walk!

How would you know?

Done it a couple of times, witnesses told me later. I suspected they were too lazy to carry me, so the put me on a bike...

In MS there are a few interesting issues:

1) There is no such item as BUI, its DUI
2) Only operators of motor vehicles are subject to implied consent
3) You can't be convicted because of a high BAC (BAC requirements only apply to motor vehicles).
4) You can be convicted upon sworn statement of officer(s) about impaired driving -- but only if they either smell, or you admit to have consuming alcohol.

If convicted, you are subject to the full force of a DUI conviction assuming that you had consented. This means motor vehicle impoundment (in MS all motor vehicles are either impounded or have alcohol test ignitions), fines, jail time, license suspension, etc. It will count as a prior conviction if you are picked up in the future. I'm not sure if it goes on your DL for insurances purposes (we don't have a point system as such).

No, but they bend you over and **** you with fines anyway. I know a couple people that got busted for DUI on their bikes. DUI's a cash-cow in Cali, the state makes over $2000 per offence with court fines and mandatory classes (also state-owned and run).

Where I am, the cops really don't have anything to do other than break up drunken loud parties on weekends. So they stake out the clubs and pubs, but not the bars... They'll wait and watch and catch someone walking to their car and hopping in then busting them for DUI when they start the car. There are tonnes of random DUI checkpoints where everyone is inspected on the way to the freeway.

And this is a problem how/why? I see no problem with the police busting people who are attempting to drive while under the influence of alcohol. Get them of the roads before they drive drunk on them. Good idea with taking proactive action before a drunk kills someone.

I also have no problem with random checkpoints. I have been through a few myself. Of course I was not drinking so I was allowed to go through. But the guy ahead of me was being arrested for drunk driving. I felt a great relief the cops got him off of the road. He was on the road ahead of me. I could only imagine what would have happened had we ended up on the interstate together with him under the influence.

If I see anyone drinking alcohol & driving I'll call the police. I have seen it & called the police. I could not believe how brazen people are when it comes to something like that. Beer cans & bottles are really easy to identify. One vehicle I even followed to direct the dispatcher where to send the police car. When the cop showed up & pulled the guy over I pulled over behind the cop car & gave a statement as a witness. The guy tested at .20 B.A.C., way above the legal limit of 0.08. What I could not believe is the moron had the nerve to challenge it in court. I was called as a witness to testify against him for the prosecution. This was the guy's 3rd offense, he got a pretty lenghty prison term & will never be able to legally drive a car again. I was very glad to do my part to get this jackass off the roads. Call me a busy body who doesn't mind his own business if you want but my safety is at stake when I'm the road with an ******* drinking & driving. This is something I do not tolerate. And neither should anyone else.

They'll wait and watch and catch someone walking to their car and hopping in then busting them for DUI when they start the car.

Damn right they will, and more power to them! You'd rather they give the person a chance to prove they can drive drunk? Maybe only charge them after an accident?