Yes, but for the system to work everyone has the right to go thru life without having to go to the hospital because a drunk hit them, whether it was with a car or a bike. Why should there be any delineation in level of remorse ? I shouldn't be any less sorry if I hit someone with my bike vs tapping them at a crosswalk in the car. I should be concerned over their safety and any pain that was inflicted by my actions. Even more so, I should be financially responsible too, whether insured thru a 3rd party or self-insured.

BUI? No problem...
Just ride on the sidewalk without lights and the cops won't notice you weaving in the shadows.

Par for the course really. Here in CA BUI = DUI with all that that entails. While the (lack of a) light contributed to the stop the fact remains that the OP blew well over the limit. .2 is pretty damn twisted....

Well, there is a clear delineation of potential property damages that might occur from two completely different, yet similar, actions. One being the potential risks of drunken cycling. Two being the potential damage of drunken driving.

Look at it this way, we have felonies and misdemeanors for different crimes.

Granted, when the penalties for DUI meet a certain criteria---thanks to organizations such as MADD---the penalties are cut and dry. The OP, casually cycling down his neighborhood gets the same penalty as the drunken bar hopper going 98 mph in his BMW. Well, the guy in the BMW also gets a speeding citation.

This is really insane. I'd get an attorney and fight it for the sake of fighting it.

...not to mention the loss of the driving license for a bicycle offense. I'm no Oregon attorney, but that seems like a non-sequitur.

Oregon folks, do you get points on your license if you blow a stop sign on your bike...or speed?

In Vancouver, you'll get a $167 ticket for not stopping at a stop sign.

Maybe in Canada (don't know the details of their DUI statutes), but fortunately not in California. Here in California there is a separate part of the vehicle code specifically dealing with BUI:

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.

Note that the fine specified is much lower than for DUI and there is no provision for jail time,
loss of driver's license, or other penalties.
The reference to Section 13202.5 is for juveniles between the ages of 13 and 21 who do not yet have a driver's license.
In that case the court can delay their eligibility to get a driver's license if they are guilty of BUI.

Seems more rational than the situation in the OP's case and other locations where there is no distinction between BUI and DUI.

Some times, I think that's the whole point, law enforcement and the judicial system is there to bend you over. And if you need a lawyer, they do too. And all you're supposed to get out of it is nothing worth having. A long while back, I gave up drinking ahead of the game. No DUI's that is, anyway, I figured I'd go to apply to work for a local beer distributorship in their accounting department. They didn't want to know me and that made me think, in their eyes, not good enough to be an employee but good enough to be a customer for all they could soak me for. And looking at the rest of the game, at every point there was someone else making a buck along the way too that had no job either. So I adopted my motto:

"Not good enough to be an employee, not good enough to be a customer."

Can't have it all their way ?

Someone want to explain how refusing the breath test would have helped?

I believe it has to do with hard evidence. A positive breath or blood test is admissible in court. Basically, you're screwed.

Refusal of the test, you will still be detained, scratch that...arrested, for suspicion of DUI. But the prosecution has a more difficult time proving guilt without the test proving you blew a .2 BAC when the case goes to trial.

But the cops testimony will probably trump the lack of evidence anyway.

Jury trial---guilty by your peers with the stigma of DUI.
Judge trial---cops are never wrong...this guy in front of me is guilty.

Also have to figure they videotape you doing everything else too, possibly a field sobriety test, in the cell to observe and record your every behavior throughout the ordeal.

Take this to the bank. 2tru!

some links:

https://www.californiaduihelp.com/bui...cling_dui.html
https://safeparty.ucdavis.edu/laws/dui-bui.html

Wow, CA has a W&R (Wet & Reckless) for .04 ? What a bunch of BS ? And if you ever get a DUI within a time frame afterwards, the W&R turns into a DUI. What kind of stupidity is that ? Separate and unrelated incidents ? I know they can do it, but would anyone actually get nailed for dual DUI's and penalties for both after the fact for the W&R ? Or would they figure the W&R was a downpayment on one of the DUI's ?

This country is getting a little too uptight.

Drinking is bad =people who drink are bad = punish those bad, naughty people.

The fact that once can actually get a BUI is wrong.

Drinking =/= drinking while driving/biking

Your logic is broked.

So this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion but I think most of what has been written here is idiotic. Drunk driving is a really serious problem in this country to this day and is seriously underpunished. At least in MN I feel that it needs to be punished much more harshly than it is. Last year a drunk driver hit a guy, happened to be a cyclist, standing at a bus stop talking to a friend. The guy was in a coma and died days later. She got a total of 4 months in a workhouse, and four months in a halfway house which she regularly volunteered at before the incident. It wasn't a case of her being a white woman, 12 out of 13 other similar recent cases in MN got the same sentence.

The average person drives drunk 87 times before getting caught. I assume that you had BUI a similar number of times before this happened. While I agree about riding under the influence being less dangerous than driving under the influence it's still ****ing dangerous, and not just to you. You could very easily make a mistake while riding in traffic and cause an accident because someone is trying to compensate for a stupid move you made because you were drunk. More than that, of my friends in the cycling scene, many have been in pretty bad accidents, broken collarbones, smashed up faces, or worse, at some point over the years. Almost all were drunk at the time.

And BTW, a private attorney probably could have gotten you a lighter sentence. Typically public defenders and prosecutors have more or less of a quid pro quo system set up, often with the defender getting the short end of the stick. The are overworked and underpaid and so will convince their clients to make deals more frequently to lighten their load. Prosecutors know this and will often get the results that they push for because of this. The prosecutor gets another check in the win column and the defender gets a smaller workload.

While your punishment may have been too harsh what you did was stupid. Don't blame what happened on bad luck or the fact that you didn't have lights. You got a charge of biking while drunk because you were.... wait for it.... biking while drunk. You may think that the punishment is too harsh, but I'm guessing that next time you get drunk you may think about walking the bike home.

Actually he got charged with *Driving* while drunk because he was... wait for it... *biking* while drunk.
I take issue with the fact that most states make insufficient distinction between the two.

Biking while drunk is about as dangerous as running while drunk.

If cyclist expect to be taken seriously while riding in traffic (I.e. have drivers show respect for you as another vehicle rather that cutting you off just because you're on a bike) then that means you have to follow the rules of the road. Drivers are not going to respect cyclist as vehicles when they constantly see people riding through lights and ****. The same goes for riding drunk, if you want to be treated as a vehicle when in traffic then that means you have to adhere to the same rules as every other vehicle.

Same rules, different penalties.

For example: the regulations and penalties for operating a commercial vehicle under the influence are stricter and more severe than a "civilian" motorist.
A sliding scale already exists, and it is written into the law (not just left to the discretion of the judge).

Why shouldn't the scale slide further for cyclists, as it already has in a few states?

Which interestingly enough is more dangerous for the individual than driving while drunk. I don't buy that tho. I usually cruise at around at about 17-18mph on my bike. Going as fast as I can I usually will run maybe 4-7 mph. The difference in speed alone makes it more dangerous. The only thing that I will say is that you are more likely to only kill yourself when riding a bike drunk as opposed to driving drunk. Granted that the name of the offense was driving while drunk, he was charged because he was operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

I'm glad that they are lax around here (not penalty-wise, but in terms of stopping you). As long as you aren't causing problems, they don't seem to care. My friends have been pulled over for light violations (dead battery or busted light going home) and told to just ride slowly on the sidewalk.

You're a quick biker and a slow runner.

A fast runner and a slow biker? 10-12 mph?

What's the difference?

In FL, you can get a DUI on a skateboard, possibly rollerblades. Worthy of the same penalties as driving a 3,500 pound SUV completely sloshed at highway speeds?

Niether one is legal. If you are sprinting around it's called public intoxication. Besides, you are making the argument right now that bikes shouldn't be considered vehicles. Regardless if you choose to ride or drive at 10-12 mph you are making the choice to do so, the capacity for the vehicle to go much faster is there. Most of the time a pedestrian is going to be much slower than someone on a bike. I do agree, as I mentioned, that the penalty was likely too harsh in this instance. I also agree, at least in theory, that the penalties for riding while drunk should be less than for driving while drunk. All the same, I have no problem with a law being on the books which makes it illegal. It's stupid and dangerous and should be avoided. Take a pedicab home or make other arrangements. It's not that hard.