Yes, cycling while drunk really is a crime

[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.