Yes, cycling while drunk really is a crime

[ny biker]

I'm glad the DC Court of Appeals upheld this conviction. I don't want to think about the mess it would cause if a court ruled that bicycle is not a vehicle. Not to mention, this guy needs to be punished.

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0410/728882.html

[Eden]

Actually that totally depends on where you are - here in Seattle cycling while drunk is specifically not a DUI - you can have your bike confiscated for your own safety (you get it back - no fine, no fee) though you can receive a drunk and disorderly (or other appropriate ticket/s) if you otherwise make a nuisance of yourself, but the simple act of riding a bike at over .08 is *not* a crime here.

And its not that WA doesn't consider bicycles to be vehicles - that is clearly stated in our traffic laws - its that there are certain things that are recognized to only apply to automobiles. Like bicycles obviously are not required to have safety belts.....

[OakLeaf]

Eden, are you sure of that? I'm not seeing it in a cursory reading of the statutes. I do see the local option statute, that would allow Seattle to choose to charge bicyclists under their lesser ordinance, but it wouldn't exempt them from liability under state law if a prosecutor wanted to get serious.

There may be differences in the penalty - like, off the top of my head I think there are some states where your driver's license wouldn't be suspended for a CUI (not sure about it, and I don't really agree with it).

Equipment standards are a whole 'nother category from moving violations. Trucks and motorcycles obviously have equipment standards that differ from the ones applicable to passenger cars, but there's zero difference in rules of the road.

[Eden]

Absolutely sure of it - give me a little bit and I'll find the actual text.
(actually this is a state law - not just the city of Seattle)

working on it...

Here's our DUI
Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug, or under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders the driver incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle, for the period prescribed in RCW 46.61.5055;

note that it says "motor vehicle" - other vehicular laws in our state only say "vehicle" if they apply to all vehicular traffic including bicycles. There is specific bicycle text - I'm working on that.

RCW 46.61.790
Intoxicated bicyclists.


(1) A law enforcement officer may offer to transport a bicycle rider who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or any drug and who is walking or moving along or within the right-of-way of a public roadway, unless the bicycle rider is to be taken into protective custody under RCW 70.96A.120. The law enforcement officer offering to transport an intoxicated bicycle rider under this section shall:

(a) Transport the intoxicated bicycle rider to a safe place; or

(b) Release the intoxicated bicycle rider to a competent person.

(2) The law enforcement officer shall not provide the assistance offered if the bicycle rider refuses to accept it. No suit or action may be commenced or prosecuted against the law enforcement officer, law enforcement agency, the state of Washington, or any political subdivision of the state for any act resulting from the refusal of the bicycle rider to accept this assistance.

(3) The law enforcement officer may impound the bicycle operated by an intoxicated bicycle rider if the officer determines that impoundment is necessary to reduce a threat to public safety, and there are no reasonable alternatives to impoundment. The bicyclist will be given a written notice of when and where the impounded bicycle may be reclaimed. The bicycle may be reclaimed by the bicycle rider when the bicycle rider no longer appears to be intoxicated, or by an individual who can establish ownership of the bicycle. The bicycle must be returned without payment of a fee. If the bicycle is not reclaimed within thirty days, it will be subject to sale or disposal consistent with agency procedures.

[Eden]

Our RCW's really do call out some things as being very specific to bicycles or very specific to motor vehicles.

general rules read thus

(3) A vehicle passing around a rotary traffic island shall be driven only to the right of such island.

The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions and special rules hereinafter stated:

rules that have been determined to only apply to motor vehicles (bicycles are not the only non-motorized transport recognized as a vehicle here) read thus

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law:

[OakLeaf]

weird... because the Washington State Legislature page links to the following:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502

which is not limited to "motor vehicles."



Edit: OIC, it appears you were citing the driver's license revocation statute: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.20.285 which says - just as I guessed in my earlier post - that your driver's license can only be revoked for operating a MOTOR vehicle under the influence. All the other penalties still apply.

[Eden]

Seems like they might not be entirely consistent..... at the bottom of the page it once again spells out "motor vehicle" in one of the clarifications.

I do wonder if they left it a little more ambiguous as to cover other things that aren't technically motor vehicles, but could be dangerous - there are other "vehicles" other than bicycles that aren't technically "motor vehicles". - then they wrote a very specific intoxicated bicyclist law to exclude cyclists? Though looking through the definitions of "vehicle", "motor vehicle" "EMPAD" etc, really hasn't clarified anything for me.

It does seem to spell out that if a cyclist is intoxicated, but not a danger to anyone that the officer should leave them alone.... If they are endangering themselves or others the officer can do something about it - take them into protective custody or impound the bicycle, but otherwise it seems relatively clear that DUI isn't one of the options??

Also the laws surrounding BAC testing specifically call out motor vehicles - it is only if you are operating a motor vehicle that you can be required to take a breath test or a blood test. As far as I can tell you can refuse without any penalty if you are riding a bicycle. Without evidence then where are you at with a DUI??

Honestly I think our legislators were thinking here... there are plenty of "invisible cyclists" who are out there because they've lost their license to drive because of a DUI. Rather than push them off of an alternative and less destructive mode of transportation and back behind the wheel of a car that they shouldn't be driving, protect them from themselves if they'll accept it, otherwise let them be....

We have a column in the local paper called "Getting There" where you can ask traffic related questions. This question has come up and was first said to be true by a State Patrol officer - that you cannot get a DUI on a bike (and I would guess that is how they are trained at least), but then later pointed out that the DUI statute does state "vehicle" and not "motor vehicle" - so even there it is not entirely clear. I find this interesting, and I think the way our RCW's are at the moment, it is a bit ambiguous, so I've written and asked if they can look into it a bit more.

[Tuckervill]

Don't you have laws against public drunkenness? Here we do. If they can't get you for drunk cycling, they can get you for being drunk in public. I assume they only arrest those who are making a ruckus, though.

Karen

[Eden]

You know - I thought we did.... but searching around I can't find anything that says you can be cited *only* for being drunk. You can be arrested for disorderly conduct, but that actually has no mention of drunkenness (and why should it....you can be stone cold sober and still be disorderly...). Search as I might I can find no specific crime for just being obviously falling over drunk in a public place. As long as you are not being a public nuisance or violating a law of some other sort the only thing an officer can do is offer to take you home, unless you are actively trying to, or threatening to harm yourself - then they can put you into protective custody.

Having an open container however is a crime - so if you are walking down the street drinking you can be arrested - drunk or not.

[Resi]

In Europe you can loose your drivers license if they catch you riding a bike drunk... same rules as for driving a car.

[XMcShiftersonX]

I agree that the rules should apply to bicycles too. You can cause harm on a bicycle just like anything else. I mean obviously this guy almost did. And of course all of us cyclists in the NW know of the lady that just died after being struck by a cyclist, who was not impaired. I imagine the problem would be a lot worse if people were allowed to ride impaired. Not to mention, if a cyclist who was drunk was riding out in traffic and caused a car accident or something if they were being reckless. Just another reason to not drink in the first place!! :)

[Biciclista]

Eden's right, we've had this discussion before at my house. there are plenty of other laws a drunk cyclist can be cited for, but the bicycle is not a motor vehicle.

[moderncyclista]

I don't think we have a law for that here either. We can be cited for other offenses "Drunk and Disorderly," "Public Intoxication," etc -- but the bicycle isn't treated like a car. Interesting.

[Eden]

I think it makes sense.... the reason the car is treated as it is, licensed with lots of special rules is because it really is a deadly item. While there are times, as we recently found out, that an accident can occur where someone else beside the rider is killed in a bike accident, it really is pretty rare.

But automobiles..... around 5,9000 pedestrians are killed and another 85,000 are injured by motor vehicles every year. About every 13 seconds someone dies in an automobile crash and about 1/2 of those crashes involve alcohol. Motor vehicles are deadly on a large scale and often it is not only the driver that dies or is injured. Most cycling accidents involve injuries to or death of only the cyclist. I don't think that it shouldn't be unexpected or outrageous that motor vehicles are more heavily regulated than bicycles.

To put the numbers in some perspective.... automobile accidents are the #1 killer and maimer of children and young adults in the US- more than any other type of accident, more than any illness - in fact more than all childhood illnesses put together! (where's the telethon for that?) Automobile accidents are not far down the list for older adults too.... if I recall correctly its only 4th or 5th down on the list...