Originally Posted by
dougmc
Right, but I was trying to cut off any argument about if you can get a DWI on a bike there -- as it varies from state to state.
IMHO, Texas has it right, where the DWI law specifically says motor vehicle. On your bike, you can get a public intoxication or reckless driving (if it's reckless, of course) but not a DWI -- but there's been some situations in other states where people have gotten full fledged DWIs on their bicycle. There's even the one case where
a guy got a DWI while *walking* his bike *in his front yard*.
In any event, the "driver responsibility program" was mostly meant to extract more money from people who were hit with serious offenses like DWIs (and driving without insurance), but also habitual offenders with lesser charges, but in Texas it seems to be aimed at cyclists too, even if the law (or more precisely, the guidelines that the law refers to) explicitly seems to exclude them.
Doug,
While I agree in this particular case that the defendant shouldn't have been charged with a DWI while walking his bicycle across his own front yard. Nor should he had been cited for not having had a headlight as long as he was on his own property.
As soon as he got on the bike and left the safety of his own property then yes, he should have been cited for the lack of a headlight as well as a DWI or DUI. As if we as cyclists want the same rights and protections as cars when we're on the road then we need to play by the same rules/laws.
And, yes, I understand that a drunk on a bike is less of a risk to the public then a drunk on a motorcycle or in a car. But a drunk on a bicycle does still present at least a minimal risk to the public. Such as we all have read articles about cyclists crashing into pedestrians and fatally injuring them. Also the drunk on a bicycle is probably even more likely to run red lights, stop signs and engage in reckless behavior.
So why shouldn't a person who is drunk in public on a bicycle be treated the same as a drunk either in a car or on a motorcycle?