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

for the life of me i don't understand the public policy rationale for this change. until December 1, DWI cannot be charged on a horse, lawnmower or bicycle. after 12/1, you can ride drunk only on horse. now what is more dangerous? a 600 pound horse or a 25 pound bike? i can't imagine the legislature's thinking.

are there any states where DWI can be charged on a bike other than North Carolina?

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

The BUI Blues Redux (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10502.0.html)

Either we're vehicles or we're not. You shouldn't be drunk on a bicycle, especially in traffic.

A drunk cyclist is going to be a bigger danger to others because there are a lot more of them than horseback riders, and they tend to be in or near traffic and pedestrians.

Though that said, you are probably a far bigger danger to yourself on a bike than you are to anyone else. Cars are designed to keep the person inside alive no matter how drunk they are. :)

well perhaps you're ok as long as the horse is sober.

well perhaps you're ok as long as the horse is sober.

That's probably true. Horses aren't stupid, the worst you could do is fall off. It's not like the horse is going to let you charge full speed into a bridge abutment or a parked car. :)

Horses have been killed in traffic, according to one news report I read, while being ridden by a drunk rider.

Heck, we have laws against suicide.

If you are the operator of a vehicle, DUI laws shouls apply. Down here in the swamp, a horse & rider is defined as a vehicle, so you can get a DUI there, as well.

I would find it hilarious if you and the horse got pulled over. Would they cuff the horse as well?

You could also do a lot of damage by walking around drunk -- defacing buildings with urine, falling into shrubbery, stepping into traffic, getting into fistfights. There are laws against "public intoxication" if you're really being obnoxious in that circumstance, but they don't affect your driving record and insurance rates. The same should definitely be true for drunk cycling. If you're making an azz of yourself and hurting others, you can get into trouble for public intoxication, but cycling while drunk shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. The level of havoc and damage you can do is not nearly comparable to that of an automobile.

Not old news in Ontario, always been this way (always being defined as a very long time ;p). .08% bac? better not ride a bike, or even walk one, you can be charged. You can also be charged for being in a car with its keys (ie: sleeping in back seat, playing tunes while waiting for the cab, etc) if you are the only key holder in the car.

no license is required to ride a bike. this is a DWI conviction under the law enacted with all the aggravators and conviction points and everything that apply to regular driving drunk. so, if you ride drunk twice and get caught, you can do up to 24 months in prison in NC and a mandatory split of 30 days at the minimum on 2nd conviction. 4 convictions in 10 years (and i know one would be drinking oneself to death before this happened) could result in a felony conviction of Habitual Impaired Driving with a permanent lifetime license suspension. this is insane. in NC bikes are vehicles but the worst one could do on a bike and suffer DRIVING consequences was get a reckless driving citation until now. is .08 really the per se standard of appreciable impairment in NC beyond which operation of a bike is illegal? yep.

this is going overboard. if they really wanted to do this and do it reasonably they could have spliced it in the section regarding underage consumption where you are punished like a DWI but you don't get the same conviction level with aggravating factors et al that can land your butt in prison for a long long time.

this law will encourage drunks whose licenses have been suspended for DWI to drive rather than ride, cos the punishment and consequences are the same. stupid imho.



You could also do a lot of damage by walking around drunk -- defacing buildings with urine, falling into shrubbery, stepping into traffic, getting into fistfights. There are laws against "public intoxication" if you're really being obnoxious in that circumstance, but they don't affect your driving record and insurance rates. The same should definitely be true for drunk cycling. If you're making an azz of yourself and hurting others, you can get into trouble for public intoxication, but cycling while drunk shouldn't be illegal in and of itself. The level of havoc and damage you can do is not nearly comparable to that of an automobile.

NC defines operation as either being under the wheel with the ignition on and stationary and/or moving with the engine off or comination thereof. so yeah, we have cases where guys are parked on the side of the road drunk but with the car idling for heat or entertainment purposes with no evidence of actual "driving" as one normally understands it.


Not old news in Ontario, always been this way (always being defined as a very long time ;p). .08% bac? better not ride a bike, or even walk one, you can be charged. You can also be charged for being in a car with its keys (ie: sleeping in back seat, playing tunes while waiting for the cab, etc) if you are the only key holder in the car.

no license is required to ride a bike. this is a DWI conviction under the law enacted with all the aggravators and conviction points and everything that apply to regular driving drunk. so, if you ride drunk twice and get caught, you can do up to 24 months in prison in NC and a mandatory split of 30 days at the minimum on 2nd conviction. 4 convictions in 10 years (and i know one would be drinking oneself to death before this happened) could result in a felony conviction of Habitual Impaired Driving with a permanent lifetime license suspension. this is insane. in NC bikes are vehicles but the worst one could do on a bike and suffer DRIVING consequences was get a reckless driving citation until now. is .08 really the per se standard of appreciable impairment in NC beyond which operation of a bike is illegal? yep.

this is going overboard. if they really wanted to do this and do it reasonably they could have spliced it in the section regarding underage consumption where you are punished like a DWI but you don't get the same conviction level with aggravating factors et al that can land your butt in prison for a long long time.

this law will encourage drunks whose licenses have been suspended for DWI to drive rather than ride, cos the punishment and consequences are the same. stupid imho.

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

NC defines operation as either being under the wheel with the ignition on and stationary and/or moving with the engine off or comination thereof. so yeah, we have cases where guys are parked on the side of the road drunk but with the car idling for heat or entertainment purposes with no evidence of actual "driving" as one normally understands it.

It would take a prosecuter about 10 seconds to prove intent to drive. This is how it is handled here. I do not know how it is handled where you live. Thing is, different places handle this problem in different ways. And, it works this way Canada wide since we have ONE criminal code for the whole country.

i guess children will not be able to ride bicycles (of as you say "vehicles") until they obtain government issued licenses to drive motor vehicles then. should we have government issued inspection stickers and documents stuck all over bicycles to show proper maintanance compliance and road worthiness? will we be required to obtain insurance policies on the bicycles we ride as most states require of drivers of automobiles? you want a bulky license tag hanging from the rear of your seat for which you must pay a fee to obtain annually to ride your bike in a public vehicular area? sheesh!


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

in NC there is no intent element of DWI it's a strict liability offense. if it happens and the elements of operation (as defined in my other post) and impairment are proven you are guilty. which is fine. i just think this is silly as applied to a bike, or unicycle, trike (recumbent 3-wheeler is DWI proof), rollerblades, skateboards etc -- all of which the new law is silent on but for the bicycle. btw, i'm a lawyer and know NC law inside out on this issue.


It would take a prosecuter about 10 seconds to prove intent to drive. This is how it is handled here. I do not know how it is handled where you live. Thing is, different places handle this problem in different ways. And, it works this way Canada wide since we have ONE criminal code for the whole country.

i guess children will not be able to ride bicycles (of as you say "vehicles") until they obtain government issued licenses to drive motor vehicles then. should we have government issued inspection stickers and documents stuck all over bicycles to show proper maintanance compliance and road worthiness? will we be required to obtain insurance policies on the bicycles we ride as most states require of drivers of automobiles?A bicycle is a vehicle, and no government issued license is required to operate a bicycle, regardless of age.

In my opinion, if the legislature determines that it wants to discourage drunken bicycling (a position I agree with), then it should do so without attaching the same penalties that apply to drunk driving. One can very easily legislate against drunk cycling (a bicycle is a vehicle, after all), without making it the same offense as drunk driving. I think the states that either make it a lesser offense, or retain some control over it, as in California, South Dakota or Washington, have the right approach. The States that make it the same offense as drunk driving, as in Oregon and North Carolina, have the wrong approach.

In my opinion.

thank you! this is my point. a bike is a vehicle but it is of a very different quality from a motor vehicle and the punishment should be different. in NC we have reckless driving and that was pretty serious in terms of license points and insurance penalties. i think it was enough. if the state needed more, they could have done as you say by distinguishing the crime from motor vehicle operation while impaired which is the evil DWI prosectutions seek to redress and most people fear -- certainly not riding a bike drunk.


A bicycle is a vehicle, and no government issued license is required to operate a bicycle, regardless of age.

In my opinion, if the legislature determines that it wants to discourage drunken bicycling (a position I agree with), then it should do so without attaching the same penalties that apply to drunk driving. One can very easily legislate against drunk cycling (a bicycle is a vehicle, after all), without making it the same offense as drunk driving. I think the states that either make it a lesser offense, or retain some control over it, as in California, South Dakota or Washington, have the right approach. The States that make it the same offense as drunk driving, as in Oregon and North Carolina, have the wrong approach.

In my opinion.

What is a total farce is that Public Intoxication laws exist on the books in most if not all states. Use them and quit wasting taxpayers money and time making up addtional laws that can't be kept up with. And FWIW I have seen reports in NC of a person riding a horse down the middle of a 6 lane road at 2am in the morning, drunk, and had a couple of gallons of untaxed liquor (moonshine). He was booked on several charges, the moonshine and the horse were impounded:D Yes riding while intoxicated should be a chargeable offense but I don't see why you couldn't use the PI laws. I really think a lot of times the lawmakers are just trying to justify their existence.

Aaron:)

It's probibly as a result of convicted DUI drivers using bikes after they lose there license.They do it all the time.

oh well, I enjoyed that loophole while it existed... :beer:

The "Either/or" people on the "vehicles" question really need a reality check. The world ain't so black and white. There are a million things that can be regarded as a "vehicle" and they are very different from eachother.

You can get a DUI on a bike here but it is very very rare that a cop will enforce it. On the last critical mass a guy got a ticket for an open container because he was being a dick to a cop. So he really got the ticket for being a dick to the cop but the beer in his hand was just the easiest thing to write up. Unfortunatly that caused a lot of neo-prohibitionists to come out of the woodwork on the CCM email list... I think the question is if the cops will enforce the law. Probably in some rinky-dink town where the cop is a hard ass looking for things to do this could be a problem. But if the cops are sensible it will be ignored.

oh well, I enjoyed that loophole while it existed... :beer:

Yep, so did I.

There have been a couple of bike riders killed in my area of NC riding home from bars intoxicated. Of course, they were riding after 2am and riding without lamps.

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

that's why semis and cars are governed by the same regulations? please.




anyway, this totally seems like the kind of thing N_C would do. i'm suprised he didn't change the law much earlier.

i expect "riding while (insert minority/ethnic group/class status)" will become a problem for some bicyclists and a pretext for some pretty weak prosecutions of known drunks/troublemakers in this small town.


The "Either/or" people on the "vehicles" question really need a reality check. The world ain't so black and white. There are a million things that can be regarded as a "vehicle" and they are very different from eachother.

You can get a DUI on a bike here but it is very very rare that a cop will enforce it. On the last critical mass a guy got a ticket for an open container because he was being a dick to a cop. So he really got the ticket for being a dick to the cop but the beer in his hand was just the easiest thing to write up. Unfortunatly that caused a lot of neo-prohibitionists to come out of the woodwork on the CCM email list... I think the question is if the cops will enforce the law. Probably in some rinky-dink town where the cop is a hard ass looking for things to do this could be a problem. But if the cops are sensible it will be ignored.

Honest Officer, he's driving! In FL BUI has been a law for a long time. The country singer George Jones once even got a DUI in my town while on his riding lawnmower. Hey, what can I say? It's our only claim to fame! :)

In PA, underage drinking will net you a DUI. Afriends 14 year old son was charged on two occasions, when he finally got his license, he already had two DUI's.

I would find it hilarious if you and the horse got pulled over. Would they cuff the horse as well?

Not too long ago I saw one of those COPS like shows on TV where they were pursuing a drunk man on horseback running down the the street. They took chase but didn't want to hurt the horse so they couldn't ram it like they would do with a car. For quite a while they just followed and tried to convince the guy to stop. Eventually, they tried macing the horse, but it had no effect. They maced the rider and he fell off.

I guess it would also depend on if you're riding on the road or not. I can see BUI if a cyclist is weaving down the road in a drunken stupor (ah, that takes me back!!) but if the cyclist is not on the road I think public intoxication would be in order. (hmm, that takes me back also! :) )

better not ride a bike, or even walk one, you can be charged. You can also be charged for being in a car with its keys (ie: sleeping in back seat, playing tunes while waiting for the cab, etc) if you are the only key holder in the car.

What? So if I decide I am too drunk to ride home, and I walk home with my bike, I can still get a ticket? Same thing with the car - I decide not to drive because I'm plastered, so I park somewhere and go to sleep I can get charged?

So if I'm going to get charged regardless, I might as well just ride/drive home as fast as possible to minimise my time on the road.

What? So if I decide I am too drunk to ride home, and I walk home with my bike, I can still get a ticket? Same thing with the car - I decide not to drive because I'm plastered, so I park somewhere and go to sleep I can get charged?

So if I'm going to get charged regardless, I might as well just ride/drive home as fast as possible to minimise my time on the road.

In FL you don't even have to be in the car. If you have the keys in your pocket, are drunk, and are standing near the car you can get a DUI.!

Apparently none of you know anyone who has innocently killed someone while driving their auto. DUI cyclists are truely a danger.

Apparently none of you know anyone who has innocently killed someone while driving their auto. DUI cyclists are truely a danger.

yes they are . . . to themselves. as support for this argument i cite the entire insurance industry. yes, insurance . . . the most paranoid risk adverse group known to man. insurance companies don't require bicyclists to obtain liability insurance before riding cos cyclists risk their own asses when stupid -- not others'.

Bull****. When you're on the road you're interacting with the rest of the road users.

Are you the sort of person who would -not- swerve to avoid a person on a bicycle? If you are you're safe from drunk bicyclists, you're dismissed.

As for the rest of US, if someone is drunk on the road they can easily cause an accident among motor vehicles trying to avoid an erratic (drunk) cyclist.

"they only hurt themselves" whine, whine - Bull****

yes they are . . . to themselves. as support for this argument i cite the entire insurance industry. yes, insurance . . . the most paranoid risk adverse group known to man. insurance companies don't require bicyclists to obtain liability insurance before riding cos cyclists risk their own asses when stupid -- not others'.

many events require riders to be insured due to risk. If the state required liability insurance for cyclists the industry would happily oblige. the insurance companies cannot make it a requirement because they do not govern

What? So if I decide I am too drunk to ride home, and I walk home with my bike, I can still get a ticket? Same thing with the car - I decide not to drive because I'm plastered, so I park somewhere and go to sleep I can get charged?

So if I'm going to get charged regardless, I might as well just ride/drive home as fast as possible to minimise my time on the road.


Stupid attitude.

I am too drunk, so i PARK!!! (??? wth where you doing driving in the first place? Will the cop believe you teleported there???)

As an fyi, a 150lb person, with 10 beers in them who starts drinking at 9 pm and stops at 1 am will be legally double the limit when they drive home the next morning and not be sober until about 6 pm the following evening. RIDE programs at the shopping malls Saturday mornings anyone?

^I don't think that 10 beers and 6pm the next day thing is remotely close to correct.



anyway, this totally seems like the kind of thing N_C would do. i'm suprised he didn't change the law much earlier.
:D
That's funny

^I don't think that 10 beers and 6pm the next day thing is remotely close to correct.



Your liver takes beer out at a rate of 15 mg an hour. If i remember correctly, you would be at about 180mg after about 10 beers (5.5%). Do the math:)

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm <--- online blood alcohol calculator

"Healthy people metabolize alcohol at a fairly consistent rate. As a rule of thumb, a person will eliminate one average drink or .5 oz (15 ml) of alcohol per hour. Several factors influence this rate. The rate of elimination tends to be higher when the blood alcohol concentration in the body is very high or very low. Also chronic alcoholics may (depending on liver health) metabolize alcohol at a significantly higher rate than average. Finally, the body's ability to metabolize alcohol quickly tend to diminish with age." http://www.intox.com/physiology.asp

So, my guess may have been out a bit, but the classes I taught this too usually picked more drinks than I did, and 6 pm was the average sobering time for women, and 4 pm for men weighing 150 lbs. The calculator I posted read 179mg for 8 canadian beers, so the 10 or so adds a few hours to the disipation rate of the alcohol.

Cheers, and dont think that sleeping over and leaving the next morning is safe or legal, especially if you were seriously drunk....

Now for fun, figure out how long a person downing a 24 on Saturday night takes to get sober...

If you are male and weigh 150 pounds and you have consumed 24 US beer(s) (USA beer is usually weaker than Canadian beer, so make the numbers bigger if you live in Canada) evenly over a period of 10 hour(s) then...

Your estimated blood/breath
alcohol concentration is
371 mg/100 ml of blood (calculation takes into account alcohol leaving system for the duration of the binge)

371/15 = 24 hours to sober up, so early in the am on Monday morning in all likelihood....

Well, starting at 9pm, and assuming that one beer is in the tank by 10pm, and 10 beers were drunk...
The normal liver will have metabalized all of the beer by 8am. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
I'm not doubting that you can wake up drunk, but it will take an earlier rise, or drinking more.
Even if this person woke up at 6am and drove home, they would have only 2 beers worth of alcohol in their system. That would probably be legally sober.
Maybe those canadian beers take twice as long, eh? :).

If you stop drinking at 1 am, started drinking at 9 pm, had 10 beers, you would be sober at about 1pm the next day... assuming a 5.5% beer.

Do keep in mind that none of this is particularly accurate, and is a best guess at best.

The point is, people tend to be drunker than they realise, and make stupid errors because of this.

what so many don't understand is that a DWI conviction revokes your license to drive and will increase your auto's insurance premiums 400% for bicycling while impaired -- at the .08 level -- which for many people is pretty damn far from full-on kneewalking drunk. neither the state nor the insurance industry require liability insurance for cycling nor does the state require licensure for cycling. i think there is a reason for this. perhaps you would require these things of cyclists.

all i'm saying is that to apply the DRIVING DWI statue to cycling is stupid with all of the same penalties and insurance consequences. i'm not arguing that anyone should cycle drunk, just that this law will encourage drunks to drive as they will suffer the same consequences for their conduct. bikes aren't as dangerous to others as cars. if you want to argue that they are equally dangerous be my guest but the laws of physics would tend to indicate that a 2500 lb car going 60mph is likely to do more damage in a crash than a 25 lb bike going 15mph.


Bull****. When you're on the road you're interacting with the rest of the road users.

Are you the sort of person who would -not- swerve to avoid a person on a bicycle? If you are you're safe from drunk bicyclists, you're dismissed.

As for the rest of US, if someone is drunk on the road they can easily cause an accident among motor vehicles trying to avoid an erratic (drunk) cyclist.

"they only hurt themselves" whine, whine - Bull****

Hey, BUIs are serious business. When my dad rides home from the bar he's a danger to trees everywhere.

Hey, BUIs are serious business. When my dad rides home from the bar he's a danger to trees everywhere.

You probably think that that is funny. I have a friend who was on one wrong end of a suicide. He was driving and the other guy got what he wanted. My friend won't be the same and this happened ~40 years ago. This is all about selfishness, and ME, and I'm the only one that counts.

no, and bicycling at a .08 BAC should not be deemed suicidal or homicidal. while what you describes must have been a terrible experience for your friend, in all seriousness, this is a silly and mistaken law. one would have to be seriously drunk before sufficiently impaired to cause the same degree of risk on a bike that one can driving a car at a .08 BAC. this is why i think the legislature would have been more reasonable to differentiate BUI from DUI in NC. we're going to end up putting some people away for serious time in this state who try to make safe decisions to ride rather than drive. under this law, we're all screwed -- motorists, cyclists, pedestrians. drunks will drive rather than ride.


You probably think that that is funny. I have a friend who was on one wrong end of a suicide. He was driving and the other guy got what he wanted. My friend won't be the same and this happened ~40 years ago. This is all about selfishness, and ME, and I'm the only one that counts.

Stupid attitude.

I am too drunk, so i PARK!!! (??? wth where you doing driving in the first place? Will the cop believe you teleported there???)

As an fyi, a 150lb person, with 10 beers in them who starts drinking at 9 pm and stops at 1 am will be legally double the limit when they drive home the next morning and not be sober until about 6 pm the following evening. RIDE programs at the shopping malls Saturday mornings anyone?

Ok, wrong term. I've parked and been drinking, then I decide I am too drunk and go to sleep in my car. Better?

Also I don't drink much - 3 beers and I would consider myself impaired. 10 beers and I would be puking and/or passed out. Anyway - 0.8% - 7 hours if your double limit and 6pm is right. So I sleep until 8am and then drive home.

if you want to argue that they are equally dangerous be my guest but the laws of physics would tend to indicate that a 2500 lb car going 60mph is likely to do more damage in a crash than a 25 lb bike going 15mph.

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.

As for the whine about punishment, it doesn't tweak my heart strings at all. The penalty recieved can't affect me as I don't act the fool while riding, and if an officer has just cause for pulling someone over & finds them drunk, they aren't a road user I want on the road no matter the vehicle so if the penalty knocks them out good riddance, one less car. If they can get home without causing a fuss they don't need to worry do they?

no, and bicycling at a .08 BAC should not be deemed suicidal or homicidal. while what you describes must have been a terrible experience for your friend, in all seriousness, this is a silly and mistaken law. one would have to be seriously drunk before sufficiently impaired to cause the same degree of risk on a bike that one can driving a car at a .08 BAC. this is why i think the legislature would have been more reasonable to differentiate BUI from DUI in NC. we're going to end up putting some people away for serious time in this state who try to make safe decisions to ride rather than drive. under this law, we're all screwed -- motorists, cyclists, pedestrians. drunks will drive rather than ride.

You're a road user or you're not on the road. How can the choice of vehicle make a difference to the person at .08 when it comes to spacing on a traffic signal? You find it less likely that a cyclist will have their judgement & reflexes affected at .08 than the driver of a car or motorcycle?

If it keeps drunks off the road then Im all for it.