Advocacy & Safety - Legal Lad podcast - DUIs and cyclists

Hi there

Not sure if this is ancient or well-known, but "Legal Lad" has done a podcast on the laws on DUI and cyclists in various states. Some interesting stuff that I thought might be of interest to peeps here.



Bicycle DUI
Episode 37: October 06, 2007

I've heard that I can be cited for DUI and lose my driver's license if I'm stopped by a police officer while riding a bicycle on a public street. Is this true?


http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/

Hi there

Not sure if this is ancient or well-known, but "Legal Lad" has done a podcast on the laws on DUI and cyclists in various states. Some interesting stuff that I thought might be of interest to peeps here.



http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/

I know in Washington State it's legal to cycle drunk, which I have to agree with. Whenever I rode a little drunk back in Seattle it was slowly and on the sidewalk. I was definitely safer to myself and society at large on my bike than if I was driving in a car. I'll have to see what the law is here in California.

Time to move back to Seattle.

California Vehicle Code VC 21200.5 - Riding Bicycle Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

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.

Notice the fine print in the bicycling under the influence "notwithstanding section 21200" which means the people of the state of California can also apply the normal DUI section to you, which has much harsher penalties.

Also, in California the sidewalk is part of the "highway"

555. "Sidewalk" is that portion of a highway, other than the
roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation
for pedestrian travel.

Illegal in CA.

Oops, too late with the post. Good luck with your move.

While it appears to only be a $250 fine, do you happen to know if this reflects on your driver's license in any way?

Notice the fine print in the bicycling under the influence "notwithstanding section 21200" which means the people of the state of California can also apply the normal DUI section to you, which has much harsher penalties.Actually, this section was created because the Attorney General issued a legal opinion in 1984 that the DUI statute applied to cyclists. The Legislature created this section in response to that legal opinion. The "notwithstanding" language means that "despite" the fact that cyclists are subject to the same traffic laws motorists are subject to, the penalty for DUI is different.


Also, in California the sidewalk is part of the "highway"

555. "Sidewalk" is that portion of a highway, other than the
roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation
for pedestrian travel.Good point.

While it appears to only be a $250 fine, do you happen to know if this reflects on your driver's license in any way?

I would think that it would not as you are not operating a motor vehicle. As I don't believe a jaywalking ticket would go on your motor vehicle record either. Though I wouldn't want to take that chance. Here in Los Angeles I imagine that most Police see drunk cyclists as a minor and self correcting problem. To draw some parallel between drunk drivers and drunk cyclists is disengenuous and ignores simple physics. An intoxicated cyclist is really only a danger to himself while drunk motorists continue to kill on a daily basis.

Illegal in CA.

Oops, too late with the post. Good luck with your move.

Oh no, I plan on staying here and changing things from the inside. :D

I would think that it would not as you are not operating a motor vehicle. As I don't believe a jaywalking ticket would go on your motor vehicle record either. Though I wouldn't want to take that chance. Here in Los Angeles I imagine that most Police see drunk cyclists as a minor and self correcting problem. To draw some parallel between drunk drivers and drunk cyclists is disengenuous and ignores simple physics. An intoxicated cyclist is really only a danger to himself while drunk motorists continue to kill on a daily basis.

Well on that we certainly agree.

An intoxicated cyclist is really only a danger to himself while drunk motorists continue to kill on a daily basis.That would only be true if cyclists never killed or injured pedestrians, other cyclists, and motorists.

That would only be true if cyclists never killed or injured pedestrians, other cyclists, and motorists.

Do you have any true stories of this happening or just speculation?

Do you have any true stories of this happening or just speculation?Actual events.

Dying man left for dead by cyclists ( http://www.woj.com.au/2006/08/30/melb-dying-man-left-for-dead-by-cyclists/ )

Man dies after bike-on-bike collision (http://bikeportland.org/2007/08/29/man-dies-after-bike-on-bike-collision/)

Cyclist charged with homicide after car crash ( http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041307/geo_9214445.shtml)

That would only be true if cyclists never killed or injured pedestrians, other cyclists, and motorists.

Compare the number of deaths caused by cyclists to the number of deaths caused by drunk motorists (not even all motorists, just the drunk ones) and I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Pete does have a good point though about the "deer through the windshield."

But overall... I don't believe DWB is nearly the problem that CA law seems to give it.

Compare the number of deaths caused by cyclists to the number of deaths caused by drunk motorists (not even all motorists, just the drunk ones) and I think the numbers speak for themselves.In what way does that prove that cyclists are incapable of killing or harming anyone other than themselves?

In what way does that prove that cyclists are incapable of killing or harming anyone other than themselves?

It doesn't. All it does show is that the weight of the law against drunk cyclists should perhaps be kept at an equivalent level to the potential harm they can generally cause.

Sure a cyclist could kill under the right (or wrong) circumstances... just as I could kill with a bic pen... but we hardly call a bic pen a dangerous weapon, now do we?

Just saying, let's keep it in perspective.

It doesn't. All it does show is that the weight of the law against drunk cyclists should perhaps be kept at an equivalent level to the potential harm they can generally cause. I would argue that in California, that is exactly the case. It's a $250 fine, as opposed to the massive fines, jail sentences, and loss of driving privileges that come with DUI in an automobile.


Sure a cyclist could kill under the right (or wrong) circumstances... just as I could kill with a bic pen... but we hardly call a bic pen a dangerous weapon, now do we?

Just saying, let's keep it in perspective.The problem is, whenever cyclists want to justify breaking the law, they always trot out this completely false argument that cyclists are incapable of harming anybody other than themselves. Case law is full of incidents that contradict that argument. The question then becomes: do cyclists object to deaths and injuries at the hands of negligent motorists because they generally object to negligence that leads to death and injury, or do cyclists generally not object to death and injury caused by negligence, but object only to the number of deaths and injuries caused by negligent motorists?

Or maybe cyclists only object to death or injury caused by motorist negligence?

Actual events.

Dying man left for dead by cyclists ( http://www.woj.com.au/2006/08/30/melb-dying-man-left-for-dead-by-cyclists/ )

Man dies after bike-on-bike collision (http://bikeportland.org/2007/08/29/man-dies-after-bike-on-bike-collision/)

Cyclist charged with homicide after car crash ( http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041307/geo_9214445.shtml)


Not a single one of those incidents involved a drunk cyclist, so your point is purely hypothetical.

The first story is more about crowd control at an event than cycling deaths, if someone walked onto a downhill course during a race you wouldn't talk about killer skiers.

You're digging for a non existent problem when a real and much more damaging one goes on killing scores of people. Why don't you google Drunk Driving deaths if you're so concerned with saving lives.

I would argue that in California, that is exactly the case. It's a $250 fine, as opposed to the massive fines, jail sentences, and loss of driving privileges that come with DUI in an automobile.

The problem is, whenever cyclists want to justify breaking the law, they always trot out this completely false argument that cyclists are incapable of harming anybody other than themselves. Case law is full of incidents that contradict that argument. The question then becomes: do cyclists object to deaths and injuries at the hands of negligent motorists because they generally object to negligence that leads to death and injury, or do cyclists generally not object to death and injury caused by negligence, but object only to the number of deaths and injuries caused by negligent motorists?

Or maybe cyclists only object to death or injury caused by motorist negligence?

What case law are you referring to? You came up with nothing involving an intoxicated cyclist after what I'm sure was quite a bit of searching, Heck, you even had to dig up one from Australia.
It's illegal to ride and drink in California, and there is a similar non moving violation law in Washington State too. I don't know what you are complaining about.

Or do you think the punishment for drunk riding and drunk driving should be the same? You just haven't proved your assertion that intoxicated cyclists cause injury and death, maybe I just didn't search enough as all I kept coming across when I searched for "drunk cyclist" was stories of drunk motorists killing cyclists. Not a single one was the other way around.

What case law are you referring to? You came up with nothing involving an intoxicated cyclist after what I'm sure was quite a bit of searching,There are numerous cases involving cyclists injuring somebody after colliding with them. If you read what I posted, that's exactly what I claimed-- I did not claim that there was case law regarding drunken cycling-- although there may be. However, since you claimed that cyclists can't injure anybody other than themselves, it's irrelevant whether those cases involve drunken cycling.

By the way, the search took less than five minutes.


Heck, you even had to dig up one from Australia.There's a dead pedestrian in Oregon, and one in Washington that I can find rather quickly. Will that be necessary?


It's illegal to ride and drink in California, and there is a similar non moving violation law in Washington State too. I don't know what you are complaining about.I wasn't complaining-- you were.


Or do you think the punishment for drunk riding and drunk driving should be the same?Where would you find support for that proposition in what I've already posted?

For what it's worth, I think California has got the law exactly right. Oregon has it completely wrong, because they punish cyclists the same as they punish motorists.


You just haven't proved your assertion that intoxicated cyclists cause injury and death,Sorry, but you have everything bass ackwards. You asserted-- falsely-- that cyclists are incapable of harming anybody other than themselves. I proved that assertion false.


maybe I just didn't search enough as all I kept coming across when I searched for "drunk cyclist" was stories of drunk motorists killing cyclists. Not a single one was the other way around.Irrelevant to your assertion that cyclists can't harm somebody.

Not a single one of those incidents involved a drunk cyclist, so your point is purely hypothetical.You claimed-- erringly-- that cyclists are incapable of harming anyody other than themselves. Those incidents prove your assertion wrong.


The first story is more about crowd control at an event than cycling deaths, if someone walked onto a downhill course during a race you wouldn't talk about killer skiers.Wrong again. The "event" is an unpermitted race down city streets, and the man who was killed was legally within the crosswalk, crossing the street, when he was killed by a cyclist blowing through the red light.

Of course, all those other upstanding human beings raced right around him as he lay dying in the street.


You're digging for a non existent problem when a real and much more damaging one goes on killing scores of people. Why don't you google Drunk Driving deaths if you're so concerned with saving lives.Stop making nonsensical claims and I will stop proving them wrong.

Here is some food for thought. In a lot of cities it is illegal to be drunk in public at all. Even if you are just sitting there in a park or something. I guess they could give you a ticket for public intoxication whether or not you were on a bicycle.

OK, rather than continue to point fingers at rare incidents... lets face facts.

The likelihood of a drunk cyclist causing a death other than their own is pretty low, but the likelihood of a drunk motorist causing death to others is relatively high.

Therefore the punishment of biking while drunk should not be equal to the punishment of driving while drunk.

It appears that in CA it is only a fine of $250 for BWD. In Oregon this is not the case.

Here is some food for thought. In a lot of cities it is illegal to be drunk in public at all. Even if you are just sitting there in a park or something. I guess they could give you a ticket for public intoxication whether or not you were on a bicycle.That's what South Dakota has done. They amended the DUI law to exclude BUI and HUI (intoxicated while riding a horse-- I made up HUI, but not the facts. :D ), but you can still be arrested for public drunkenness.

OK, rather than continue to point fingers at rare incidents... lets face facts.

The likelihood of a drunk cyclist causing a death other than their own is pretty low, but the likelihood of a drunk motorist causing death to others is relatively high.

Therefore the punishment of biking while drunk should not be equal to the punishment of driving while drunk.

It appears that in CA it is only a fine of $250 for BWD. In Oregon this is not the case.I agree that they should not be subject to the same penalties. I think California is right, and Oregon is wrong.

I am in favor of adding "DWD"-(Driving while distracted) to the books. Its a bit of a slippery slope, but such things as reading while in slow traffic, animated phone calls while driving are examples of relatively easily enforcable violations. If a cop sees you driving with the phone in your ear, he can site you for driving while destracted. Not everyone will like this suggestion, but I, for one have had too many tailgaters speeding inches from my rear bumper with one hand on the steering wheel and one on the cell phone in the ear.

When will be begin to err on the side of safety?

When will be begin to err on the side of safety?

Great question... thus far things seem to going the side of "looking the other way..."

There was a US case one/two years ago of a woman rider, drunk and under the influence of drugs who wandered across the road and caused a driver to have a fatal crash while trying to avoid hitting her.

In such a case, the penalty should be the same as for a driver doing the same while DUI

I am in favor of adding "DWD"-(Driving while distracted) to the books. Its a bit of a slippery slope, but such things as reading while in slow traffic, animated phone calls while driving are examples of relatively easily enforcable violations. If a cop sees you driving with the phone in your ear, he can site you for driving while destracted. Not everyone will like this suggestion, but I, for one have had too many tailgaters speeding inches from my rear bumper with one hand on the steering wheel and one on the cell phone in the ear.

When will be begin to err on the side of safety?

Tailgating is the problem you illustrated - something which can fetch a citation for any driver - cell phone or no cell phone. It's variously referred to as unsafe or reckless driving. The actual infraction may vary from one jurisdiction to another. I'm wondering when we will get back to erring on the side of personal freedom.

I don't think we need separate laws for every possible activity that might occur in a car that might also be distracting to the driver. I am a very safe driver, have never been at fault in an accident, and I talk on my cell phone quite often when driving. If I'm on a long drive, I would find it quite inconvenient (and also somewhat dangerous) to pull over every time the phone rang or each time I wanted to make a call. I say, cite those who commit driving infractions, whatever the cause, and be done with it.

So far, we have not outlawed using the radio or a GPS or other gizmo's in a car. Eating a sandwich or drinking a soda or cup of coffee is also not against the law. All of those things can be distracting, and I am certain that many an accident has occurred while drivers were engaging in those activities. Yet, there is no concerted move to outlaw those activities while driving.

Banning phone use is just the cause of the day. I heard on the news that somewhere, it's illegal to smoke when you have small kids (yours, most likely) in the car. I think that's totally over the top. Where will it end?

Kids are a product of their environment, and if, as a parent, I deem that it's ok for them to be subjected to second hand smoke, then, that becomes a part of my parenting environment (BTW, I do not nor have I ever smoked).

Sorry to rant, but I don't feel it's up to the government or society to legislate personal morals.

Caruso

There was a US case one/two years ago of a woman rider, drunk and under the influence of drugs who wandered across the road and caused a driver to have a fatal crash while trying to avoid hitting her.

In such a case, the penalty should be the same as for a driver doing the same while DUI

What about a pedestrian wandering all over the road?

Sorry, but this sounds just like those cases of cyclists who are not drunk "causing" motorists to cross the double yellow line and crash into a car going the other way.

Is it possible that some motorists are driving beyond their controllable speed and forget to use the brakes?

Sorry, but if a motorist cannot avoid a hazard in the road by simple controllable efforts at the wheel (and brakes) they are overdriving for the conditions. (...and since so many motorists typically speed... I feel quite comfortable in making the overdriving assumption.)

What about a pedestrian wandering all over the road?

Sorry, but this sounds just like those cases of cyclists who are not drunk "causing" motorists to cross the double yellow line and crash into a car going the other way.

Is it possible that some motorists are driving beyond their controllable speed and forget to use the brakes?

Sorry, but if a motorist cannot avoid a hazard in the road by simple controllable efforts at the wheel (and brakes) they are overdriving for the conditions. (...and since so many motorists typically speed... I feel quite comfortable in making the overdriving assumption.)Sounds like the same argument the cops are making in the case of the cyclist who was killed when a 17 year old driver turned into his path.

I don't buy it.

I'm afraid I must have completely missed the point as to why you'd get drunk then get on a bicycle in the first place.

BTW, does anybody know if motorcycles get fined less on parking tickets because they take up less parking space than cars do?

I'm afraid I must have completely missed the point as to why you'd get drunk then get on a bicycle in the first place.


Somtimes, the pub is just too far to walk.