Advocacy & Safety - NC changed DWI law so that you can be charged on a BIKE!

Bikes are a vehicle, and subject to the same rights and laws, or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.


I know I'll take alot of flak for this, but I agree 100%...You really can't expect to share the road, and have consideration of motorists unless you're willing to accept the same laws. I think it is black and white. If states were to enact special "priveledge" laws for cyclists, do you think that would make us more, or less, safe after regular motorists find out?

YEars ago in the UK a cop pulled me over for speeding I was doing 41 in a 30, before anyone asks it was a downhill stretch, the cars usally did 50 and they where cracking down on it.

First thing the cop asks me for is my license, I replied for what!!!

He had to contact his supervisor for gudiance who lauged and said "tell him to slow down and bugger off unless he is drunk, if he is it is usually a £25 fine"

So I asked the copper if he had ever arrested anyone for drunk cycling and he said no and thought that his supervisor was joking.

YEars ago in the UK a cop pulled me over for speeding I was doing 41 in a 30, before anyone asks it was a downhill stretch, the cars usally did 50 and they where cracking down on it.

First thing the cop asks me for is my license, I replied for what!!!

He had to contact his supervisor for gudiance who lauged and said "tell him to slow down and bugger off unless he is drunk, if he is it is usually a £25 fine"

So I asked the copper if he had ever arrested anyone for drunk cycling and he said no and thought that his supervisor was joking.

now this is a reasonable response from law enforcement to the certain traffic problem presented -- warn and move on. while there should be a penalty for drunk cycling, it shouldn't be = to drunk motoring and i'll even concede that perhaps it should be substantially stiffer than a L25 fine. still there has to be some recognition that a bike is different from an 25,000 pound 18-wheel transfer truck. some here don't see it. i hope these folks get stopped at license/inspection/id checks next time on recreational ride, make bond and reconsider.




YEars ago in the UK a cop pulled me over for speeding I was doing 41 in a 30, before anyone asks it was a downhill stretch, the cars usally did 50 and they where cracking down on it.

First thing the cop asks me for is my license, I replied for what!!!

He had to contact his supervisor for gudiance who lauged and said "tell him to slow down and bugger off unless he is drunk, if he is it is usually a £25 fine"

So I asked the copper if he had ever arrested anyone for drunk cycling and he said no and thought that his supervisor was joking.

To be honest I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Bikes have been covered over here in the UK by road traffic laws since the road traffic act came into play.

1.) Drunk and in charge of a bicycle.
2.) Inconsiderate Cycling
3.) Reckless cycling

Heck over here we even get done for going over the speed limit.

I've ridden a bike after drinking 2 pints over a 2hr period and eating a full pub lunch inbetween them, frightened the hell out of me, I was fine on quiet local roads, but the moment I hit one of the main roads in the area, I headed straight to the pavement and dismounted, No way in hell was I in a state suitable for riding a bike, my balance was off, judgement was impaired and I was actually scared.

Anyone who advocates riding a bike whilst drunk is a fool in my opinion.

As for "drunk in charge of a horse" im pretty sure you can get done for that in the UK, but have you ever tried mounting a horse after a liquid lunch, its bloody hilarious, you'll end up on your arse faster than you think.

YEars ago in the UK a cop pulled me over for speeding I was doing 41 in a 30, before anyone asks it was a downhill stretch, the cars usally did 50 and they where cracking down on it.

First thing the cop asks me for is my license, I replied for what!!!

He had to contact his supervisor for gudiance who lauged and said "tell him to slow down and bugger off unless he is drunk, if he is it is usually a £25 fine"

So I asked the copper if he had ever arrested anyone for drunk cycling and he said no and thought that his supervisor was joking.

Im calling BS on that mate.

Either the Cop was an idiot, or your making things up.

What a cop can ask you for in the case of cycling recklessly (which is the charge you'll be done under with regards to speeding), is Proof of date of birth, and proof of name and address.

And in response to "but bikes arent cars!!" Erm... Cars arent Vans or lorries either, but I think you'll find that the penalties are the same. "But bikes cant do 70mph!!" yeah, the highest percentage of drunk drivers are found on urban streets, and its not normally speeding that gets them caught. "But bikes dont kill" I think you'll find that a bicycle going at 20mph plowing into a pedestrian, can leave them wounded, Justification for riding when drunk because bikes dont kill is a rather silly justification to make, does this then mean that wounding people and hospitalising pedestrians and possibly other road users (I'd imagine a car would swerve to avoid a drunk cyclist weaving along the road) is a perfectly okay practice to participate in because your drunk?! I doubt I've ever heard such tsh in my entire life.

To be honest I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Bikes have been covered over here in the UK by road traffic laws since the road traffic act came into play.

1.) Drunk and in charge of a bicycle.
2.) Inconsiderate Cycling
3.) Reckless cycling

Heck over here we even get done for going over the speed limit.


do cyclists face identical penalties to drivers of motor vehicles for violating any of these laws, i.e. loss of driver's license (or "licence"), four-figure fines, etc.?


that's what a lot of folks here think is ridiculous. i'm fine with drinking and biking, but also have no problem with it being illegal - it should just be worth a small fine, though, not a serious run through the criminal justice system like it currently is in most US jurisdicitons...

Im calling BS on that mate.

Either the Cop was an idiot, or your making things up.



With Northern Constablary I thought being an idiot was part of the job, the same bunch of coppers would ignore the cyclists at night with no lights as long as they rode on the road, if they rode on the pavement(sidewalk to americans), they would tell them to get off an walk.

They should have been doing that to the idiots without lights as well.

do cyclists face identical penalties to drivers of motor vehicles for violating any of these laws, i.e. loss of driver's license (or "licence"), four-figure fines, etc.?


that's what a lot of folks here think is ridiculous. i'm fine with drinking and biking, but also have no problem with it being illegal - it should just be worth a small fine, though, not a serious run through the criminal justice system like it currently is in most US jurisdicitons...

A cyclist in telford has just been prosecuted for "inconsiderate cycling" and quite rightly theres outrage in cycling circles in the UK, mainly around the circumstances for the charge, and as far as im aware it was dealt with in Crown court (serious offences), as opposed to Majistrates court (typical for speeding fines and similar).

He's been fined £300 for riding inconsiderately (doing 30mph on a 40mph, and pulling into the primary lane position for going around a roundabout, apparantly this held up traffic). As for punishments that'd be under the road traffic offenders act, havent read that one just yet :), I would assume similar penalties apply, 4 figure fines and so on.

My .02 If we want to have the same rights as vehicles then whats the problem with being held responsible for the rules of the road?

My .02 If we want to have the same rights as vehicles then whats the problem with being held responsible for the rules of the road?


Thank you.

He's been fined £300 for riding inconsiderately (doing 30mph on a 40mph, and pulling into the primary lane position for going around a roundabout, apparantly this held up traffic). As for punishments that'd be under the road traffic offenders act, havent read that one just yet :), I would assume similar penalties apply, 4 figure fines and so on.

you are not going to be very popular around here if you see this as bad cyclist behavior...

When I see the stupid DUI laws.. I want to choke a baby seal and baby child infront of hillary clinton infront of Jesus. Govt and everyone else make all these stupid laws, but do nothing to "help drunks get home" they only put them in jail and ruin their lives. You give up your 4000lb cage which can seriously kill someone for a bike, where you can only hurt yourself.... you take that away install public transit whcih only runs from 6:30am to 7pm.... Install the bum laws where you cant sleep in public..... Dont tell anyone about these laws ..... And now we have ulta playing it safe person in jail for violating a victimless crime.

vote libertarian lp.org

When I see the stupid DUI laws.. I want to choke a baby seal and baby child infront of hillary clinton infront of Jesus. Govt and everyone else make all these stupid laws, but do nothing to "help drunks get home" they only put them in jail and ruin their lives. You give up your 4000lb cage which can seriously kill someone for a bike, where you can only hurt yourself.... you take that away install public transit whcih only runs from 6:30am to 7pm.... Install the bum laws where you cant sleep in public..... Dont tell anyone about these laws ..... And now we have ulta playing it safe person in jail for violating a victimless crime.

vote libertarian lp.org


First, dui laws are put in place to help ****** the plofieration of "accidents" arising from impaired drivers, which include bicyclists, skateboarders, roller-skaters, etc. Second, "Govt and everybody else" are not here to help people get home. You drink, you assume resposibility for the outcome. third, I don't believe, just by the sheer wording of it, that there is a "victimless" crime.

youre driving drunk you get pulled over who is the victim? or do you believe in the coulda shoulda BS? i believe in personal autonomy and the right for me to ride a bike. i understand the risk factor when i engage in that activity and if im okay with it, why do you care? that sort of argument makes one liable to say that skateboarding should be banned because i can fall and hurt myself or that driving should be illegal because of the POTENTIAL for accidents

When I see the stupid DUI laws.. I want to choke a baby seal and baby child infront of hillary clinton infront of Jesus. Govt and everyone else make all these stupid laws, but do nothing to "help drunks get home" they only put them in jail and ruin their lives. You give up your 4000lb cage which can seriously kill someone for a bike, where you can only hurt yourself.... you take that away install public transit whcih only runs from 6:30am to 7pm.... Install the bum laws where you cant sleep in public..... Dont tell anyone about these laws ..... And now we have ulta playing it safe person in jail for violating a victimless crime.

vote libertarian lp.org
I'll stir the pot a little more . I've been a police officer for 26 years we use to drive drunks home or take there keys and and let them sleep it off in there car. The lawyers got into it and after a drunk got killed when another drunk smashed into his car that the police "recklessly" prevented the deseased from continuing on his way or the hidden key that the police failed to find and the "nice guy" left after 10 minutes and getting into a crash with injury's ( not his) .Or maybe the drunk that you drive home because "he's not such a bad guy" and as soon as you pull away they stagger out of there house into the street and get hit by a car .T:eek: These are examples that I've seen.Who wants a multi million dollar lawsuit that attaches your wages forever?:eek: :eek:

Any dui that results in a death, should be treated as murder!!!!

I still call BS on anyone that claims riding drunk on the street puts only the rider at risk.

I still call BS on anyone that claims riding drunk on the street puts only the rider at risk.

Do you believe that riding drunk on the street puts the general public as much (or even close to as much) as driving drunk on the street does?


The issue isn't risk, it's proportionality. Does riding drunk on the street have enough potential for general harm that multi-thousand dollar fines and license suspensions are a fair punishment?

Regardless, the reality is that most police officers (at least around here) do NOT believe that riding drunk deserves the same consequences as driving drunk - which is why they make exceedingly few arrests for it. And I would be shocked if you believed that we should rely on the judgement of police officers as a substitute for proper legislation.

Do you believe that riding drunk on the street puts the general public as much (or even close to as much) as driving drunk on the street does?


The issue isn't risk, it's proportionality. Does riding drunk on the street have enough potential for general harm that multi-thousand dollar fines and license suspensions are a fair punishment?

Regardless, the reality is that most police officers (at least around here) do NOT believe that riding drunk deserves the same consequences as driving drunk - which is why they make exceedingly few arrests for it. And I would be shocked if you believed that we should rely on the judgement of police officers as a substitute for proper legislation.

No, the reality is exceedingly few arrests probably correlate more to the frequency of the offense rather than the severity or potential danger of the offense when there is a charge. There are far and away more drunk motorists than drunk cyclists.

It does have the potential for general harm on an equal level in accidents where the actions of the impaired operator cause an accident among vehicles that don't include their own. A drunk cyclist can cause a 2500 pound vehicle to lose control, even though the bike they are on weighs just 25lbs. I know I'd opt for a parked car, street light pole, unoccupied storefront, whatever before I'd strike a cyclist that came out of nowhere without leaving me braking room, I'd crash anything but oncoming traffic before a person, oncoming traffic is a person after all.
Anyplace the rider can create an obstacle (his/herself) for other road users in an unpredictable manner, without notice or intent has the potential for equal harm.

We already rely on the judgement of police officers in many instances, it's called common law. Most officers have discretionary powers that allow them to to make the decision to use their powers of arrest for a particular offense based on the circumstances. Police officers are required to arrest drunk drivers, perhaps they should be allowed discretion for drunk cyclists, but if there were an accident, I'd want the appropriate charge laid to help ensure there wasn't a repeat offense for want of something the state could have done.

As for how it would work on the street, if a drunk cyclist calls so much attention to themselves that police attention is drawn to them to the point of stopping them, it could be in the publics best interest to take them off the street. It isn't a playground.

Also, unless they hit their head on a signpole and die, or otherwise injure themselves in a single vehicle accident, I think that making it illegal operate a vehicle while impaired, and making it a hard and fast rule by giving the offense a harsh penalty, protects in more ways than you think.

If you, or say, your little sister, were to mow down a drunk cyclist & the incident were entirely the cyclists fault, well, I guess that is some comfort to the person that squashed the life out of another human being, don't you? I'd feel okay about it, maybe laugh it off, wouldn't you? Stupid drunks, haha, it's all in fun.

Fact is, all drunk driving laws for cars or bikes are stupid/selfish people laws, stupid/selfish people laws don't affect me.

edit- except for what I gain by them, the possibility of safer streets

Of course, riding a bike while drunk impairs your ability and can endanger others. But c'mon, it's really not the same thing as driving a car.

What if a cyclist was charged with DUI and told the judge, "I didn't want to be driving in that condition." I think it should make a significant difference in the severity of the sentence. There's really no comparison.

A drunk weaving down the road on a bicycle is endangering more than just himself. A sudden swerve in front of a motorist can set up a dangerous sequence of events. To me riding a bicycle on the road while drunk is just as stupid as driving while drunk. I have no problem with the punishments being equal. Don't want the consequences? Don't drive or ride while drunk.

+1

Sam, you did not answer two of my questions:

1. Do you believe that riding drunk on the street puts the general public as much (or even close to as much) as driving drunk on the street does?

2. Does riding drunk on the street have enough potential for general harm that multi-thousand dollar fines and license suspensions are a fair punishment?


I do not think that riding drunk should be legal - it is potentially harmful behavior, and should be discouraged. I believe that the current legal situation in most states, where the only available penalty is a full DUI, is not a good way to discourage it.

It does have the potential for general harm on an equal level in accidents where the actions of the impaired operator cause an accident among vehicles that don't include their own. A drunk cyclist can cause a 2500 pound vehicle to lose control, even though the bike they are on weighs just 25lbs. I know I'd opt for a parked car, street light pole, unoccupied storefront, whatever before I'd strike a cyclist that came out of nowhere without leaving me braking room, I'd crash anything but oncoming traffic before a person, oncoming traffic is a person after all.
Anyplace the rider can create an obstacle (his/herself) for other road users in an unpredictable manner, without notice or intent has the potential for equal harm.

Dumbd enough to get caught DUI = License suspension? Absolutely, no mater the vehicle. Using the road is a privilige, anyone out there operating impaired should lose. They'd still be able to ride, right? One less car.

Sam, you did not answer two of my questions:

1. Do you believe that riding drunk on the street puts the general public as much (or even close to as much) as driving drunk on the street does?

2. Does riding drunk on the street have enough potential for general harm that multi-thousand dollar fines and license suspensions are a fair punishment?


I do not think that riding drunk should be legal - it is potentially harmful behavior, and should be discouraged. I believe that the current legal situation in most states, where the only available penalty is a full DUI, is not a good way to discourage it.


I disagree...if you are drunk on a bike, and you get caught, you should pay the same penalties as if you were in a car, or truck, or van, or any other vehicle...you cannot have two different laws. If you want to have the same rights as "regular motorists" then you have to assume the same responsibilities as a motorist, and that means abiding by the law. You want to taken seriously? earn that respect.

Dumbd enough to get caught DUI = License suspension? Absolutely, no mater the vehicle. Using the road is a privilige, anyone out there operating impaired should lose. They'd still be able to ride, right? One less car.


you would think...........but here in FL if you get a dui they will suspend your license for a year or more depending on your bac.......On a bike, also. There's no differential between a bike or a car. If you get a dui in a car, and then get another while riding a bike, it's the same as if you were driving. You assume the same rights an responsibilities as any motorist. if you don't think so, then go challenge an suv.

you are not going to be very popular around here if you see this as bad cyclist behavior...

Roflmao. I didnt say it was bad cyclist behaviour, I simply stated that he was being charged with riding inconsiderately. Less reading between the lines, and more "just" reading for you matey.

Riding whilst cycling is dangerous not only to the idiot riding drunk.

What does a car do when presented with a drunk cyclist weaving around the road.

BANG! oh no.. the car just swerved to avoid the idiot cyclist, and ended up plowing straight into the lamppost, would you look at that... killed 3 people.

If a cyclist thinks he can get away with using the roads irresponsibly then yes perhaps its justice that his right to drive vehicle on the roads (other than a bike) should be taken away from him.

What does a car do when presented with a drunk cyclist weaving around the road.

BANG! oh no.. the car just swerved to avoid the idiot cyclist, and ended up plowing straight into the lamppost, would you look at that... killed 3 people.

If a cyclist thinks he can get away with using the roads irresponsibly then yes perhaps its justice that his right to drive vehicle on the roads (other than a bike) should be taken away from him.
Why be so conservative when fabricating over-the-top imaginary scenarios? Why not have the car become a van full of brain surgeons swerving into a busload of children? Happens every day in straw man argument land.

Why be so conservative when fabricating over-the-top imaginary scenarios? Why not have the car become a van full of brain surgeons swerving into a busload of children? Happens every day in straw man argument land.


Damn right, doesn't matter who/what/where/how if they're operating a vehicle while impaired they are too stupid to drive the same roads as the rest of us. Brain surgeons at least we know may be able to afford cab fare, or a chauffered ride if they lose their license.

I disagree...if you are drunk on a bike, and you get caught, you should pay the same penalties as if you were in a car, or truck, or van, or any other vehicle...you cannot have two different laws. If you want to have the same rights as "regular motorists" then you have to assume the same responsibilities as a motorist, and that means abiding by the law. You want to taken seriously? earn that respect.


Thre are like 10 different kinds of vehicles on the road, all that have different laws that apply to them in different ways. People still take them 'seriously'.

Why be so conservative when fabricating over-the-top imaginary scenarios? Why not have the car become a van full of brain surgeons swerving into a busload of children? Happens every day in straw man argument land.

ILTB, what do you bet that most of these folks are teetotalers who can't stand the idea of other people having fun?

ILTB, what do you bet that most of these folks are teetotalers who can't stand the idea of other people having fun?
IMO, most likely self righteous puritans, pompous know-it-alls, and/or up-tight morality nannies.

Teetotolers? Probably. Joyless Jackasses? Most likely.

of course... if ones argument fails in the eyes of reason, resort to insults. Akin to saying "YOU HATE AMERICA!" to someone who's in favour of gay rights of marriage.

Straw man argument it may be, but makes more sense than anything you and zach have mentioned, which basically surmounts to, drink driving on a bicycle is okay cause your smaller than a car.

of course... if ones argument fails in the eyes of reason, resort to insults. Akin to saying "YOU HATE AMERICA!" to someone who's in favour of gay rights of marriage.
More straw man arguments. Don't you have anything else to report on this issue other than you disapprove of those who aren't as righteous as yourself.

Straw man argument it may be, but makes more sense than anything you and zach have mentioned, which basically surmounts to, drink driving on a bicycle is okay cause your smaller than a car.
Straw man argument it is, not may be. Sounds like you/ve got the basic gist about physics. But no one said riding a bicycle inebriated is OK. The argument is that it is not drunk driving and there is no rational reason to treat it as such with draconian penalties because some puritanical jacks who claim to be bicycling advocates dream up incredible what-if- scenarios to pester those who don't fit their holy roller profile.

OK, so call it drunk cycling. it surmounts to the same thing, because most places have laws that say it is punishable as a dui.

of course... if ones argument fails in the eyes of reason, resort to insults. Akin to saying "YOU HATE AMERICA!" to someone who's in favour of gay rights of marriage.

Straw man argument it may be, but makes more sense than anything you and zach have mentioned, which basically surmounts to, drink driving on a bicycle is okay cause your smaller than a car.

NO, he doesn't. read back through his posts. no he doesn't say riding drunk is ok -- he says the punishment should be different. you and your cohorts say that bikes are the same as cars and see no difference in penalty for driving a motor vehicle drunk and riding drunk. please, hypocrite, put a license plate on your "vehicle" and purchase automobile insurance for your bicycle before you contribute to this thread again.

Sounds like when you wrote this, you probably had a few. I hope you didn't ride.

Yes, and a drunk move on a bicycle can put a responsible, sober persons CAR into an accident while trying to avoid the obstacle. You don't understand that is my point? Erratic behaviour on the road affects all road users in its vicinity and may cause a driver to take an extraodinary measure which can & does cause crashes.

If some drunk jackass weaves in front of my car and I run them down, I am not at fault. Otoh, if I'm weaving around them and clock a ped on the sidewalk or a car in another lane, I am at fault. That's why we have to get a license to drive a car, it's a legal contract and ID, once we get in the car we are responsible for tons of metal and plastic, which can easily hurt others. The fact that it's quite hard to hurt others on a bicycle is why it doesn't require a license.