Please comment ...
 

... Good or Bad?

Eh?

:confused: All I can say is I'm glad I live in Georgia.

Those yankees are nuts. :eek:

I don't necessarily agree with it, but if someone is stupid enough to ride a bike while drunk, what's to stop them from getting behind the wheel in the future?

Seems OK to me. It's like that in the UK, too, I believe.

He may not be a danger to himself but he is to others, especilly if he swerves causing others to have to take evasive action. The points on minors riding bikes: they shouldn't be drinking anyway.

If we want full use of the road, and to be afforded
all the rights of cars we should also expect to receive
the same treatment if we break the law.
I approve (of the charge not the drunken cyclist!).

Marty

The guy might not be a danger to himself (aside from smacking into a wall/parked car/some other inanimate object), but you have to think about the damage he could cause to others. What if he swerves into traffic, causing a driver to swerve into the other lane or off the road into a tree as a result? People swerve to avoid animals and pedestrians all the time and get into accidents, some of them very serious. This guy could get someone killed as a result. What if he's riding in the dark while drunk? I would tend to think that if he's drunk, he may not have remembered to turn on his headlight/tailight or wear reflective clothing. Someone might not see him until it's too late and he swerves into their lane. Then he's probably going to end up dead, and the driver has to live with the fact that they killed someone with their car, whether it was truly their fault or not. What's to say the guy won't run into a pedestrian on the sidewalk and kill/injure them. It could happen. A drunk cyclist certainly has the potential to kill/injure/ruin lives. Like Lotek said, if he expects the right to use the road as does a car, he should expect the penalties that come with his irresponsible actions. In the scheme of things, it might be better that he's drunk on a bike instead of behind the wheel, but the possibility to do harm is still there. I live in NH, and always understood the law to apply to bicycles. Driver's Ed. here even explains that to students, and warns that you could be prosecuted for it. This guy needs to face up and get help.

-Moab

I'm not sure as I've never had to concern myself with this, but here in FL, a bicycle is considered a motor vehicle and if you're riding while intoxicated you can be charged with DUI and have points assessed to your license.

I'm guessing it's one of those laws that are generally ignored and not enforced, but used when confronted with a beligerant drunkard resisting arrest or causing a disruption.

I read the California laws the other day, and they very specifically say that riding under the influence is illegal...

However, it would appear to treat it differently than driving a car under the influence. From reading that, i'd say that for an adult over 21 its a $250 fine and no points or loss of license.

take care,

Jester

the article also may not be giving the hole story, maybe the guy was being very beligerent, we dont know the circumstances of the arrest. could be more to it then the article explains.
and as far as being a danger. if i hit someone on a bike and hurt them, even if they were drunk and it was completly there fault, i'd feel pretty bad.

I guess I'm of of those anti-civilization types that don't think it's the same as driving a car drunk.

New Hampshire I always thought that was a laid back state.

Joe

didn't read the article yet...

but i agree with Joeprim --- that it is not good, should be illegal and punishable, but NOT the same as DUI --- and the California law seems pretty appropriate. but to put the same severe penalties on a drunk cyclist as a drunk motorist who is MUCH greater of a danger to others, just doesn't make sense. stealikng a stick of gun is not treated the same as armed bank robbery and so should drunk cycling alos not be treated like operating a deadly massive high-speep weapon (auto) when drunk.

Sorry guys you just can't have it both ways.
either we get full rights of the road with all the accompanying
laws and penaties or we get relegated to the sidewalks
and MUPs.

just my .02 worth

Marty

ditto to nathank.

You don't need a liscence for riding a bike, so bicycle related infractions should not be related to your liscence (DUI??? In all seriousness, RUI would be more appropriate).

Just curious,

are you advocating then that bicycles have the same registration, Insurance, and tax requirements as motor vehicles too? That bicycle riders be required to pass a vision test and renew a license every few years, and have to take a "riding" test befire initial issuance of said license.

If all motorized vehicle laws must apply equally to bicycles, you have a lot of unpopular lobbying ahead of you.

Short of that, perhaps california's answer is the best, seems good to me anyway.

take care,

Jester

I'm on the fence with this one, and I was just curious as to what other cyclists thought. My initial thought is that we are going down a slippery slope. However, I certainly realize the safety issue also. The problem is that we aren't very consistent when it comes to safety on the road. If you're 127 years old, and can't see, you can still drive a car in the States - in fact, you can even chat on the phone while doing so. However, if you ride your bike after a few drinks, you can face jail time, and more.

Here is the end of the article. It speaks of the slippery slope I referred to, and also addresses common sense.

We could have arrests for the erratic operation of scooters, wagons and tricycles. You could have a kid on Ritalin who gets a little frisky when he's pedaling the tricycle down the street standing up in court for his third "operating under" offense before he's 9 years old.

Somewhere, in an imaginary land of reason and common sense, you don't need legal opinions about this stuff. Everybody recognizes the obvious -- that if somebody is riding a bike while drunk, he should perhaps be charged with disorderly conduct or public drunkenness, but not with drunken driving.

Not in New Hampshire, where it is apparently much more fun to pretend that the ridiculous is reasonable.

Jester,

No, I'm not lobbying for license, registration taxes etc.
I just think that if we want to be treated the same as
motor vehicles, with full rights of the road, then we are should
be willing to take the consequences if we break those
laws that govern the use of all vehicles.

I do think California's statute is good, it does
provide for penalties albeit not the same those provided
for DUI in a car.

Marty

I would agree with the author here. It makes more sense (at least to me) to use "disorderly conduct" or "drunk in public" laws in this case. The DUI laws were designed for automobiles and I think it calls for a bit of stretch to use these for bicycles.

California at least makes it very clear what the legislators intended for bicycles. I think that at least some of the folks who put together New Hampshire's DUI laws would be suprised at their use in this case.

Dan

Exactly. Some of you better watch what you wish for ... it may come true.

It's not often I agree with Stor Mand (no offense, dude! I really like debating things with you, but we never seem to agree), however he's right on this one. If you want to use the roads you have to accept the laws that govern all vehicles using that road. This could all have been avoided had the guy simply either walked home or called a cab. He took the odds to riding drunk, he should have to face up to the consequences.