DUI on a Bicycle?

Written by Gregory Monte.

While I was doing research for yesterday’s blog post about whether bicyclists could legally roll through stop signs, I came across an interesting statute in Utah – Title 41, Chapter 6a, Part 11, Section 1102 – that got me thinking about the question posed in today’s post. 

Here is what it says:

“A person operating a nonmotorized bicycle or a vehicle or device propelled by human power is not subject to the penalties related to operator licenses under alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses.”

Do you see the part that indicates an intoxicated biker is “not subject to the penalties?”  When I first read this, I thought that it meant there was no DUI for bike riders in Utah.  Upon further research, however, I realized that this only meant that there was no penalty applied to an individual’s driver’s license (“operator licenses”) because of a bicycle DUI (like there would be for a motor vehicle DUI).  The bottom line is that you certainly can be charged for biking under the influence of alcohol in Utah.

In any case, this inspired me to check into the DUI laws for bicycles across the US.  It turns out that there are many differences among the states.  For example, in California there is a separate category for bicycles (Section 21200) and for motor vehicles (Section 23152).  The same is true for Kentucky – Chapter 189A for motor vehicles and Chapter 189A, Section 52 for non-motor vehicles.

If you want to know how your particular state treats this issue, check out the following AVO website article: A state-by-state guide to biking under the influence.

Or just don’t drink and bike no matter where you live …

One thought on “DUI on a Bicycle?

  1. That was, exactly, where I went, when I read it – there is no license to suspend.

    On that topic, consider how much “trusted officials” have bastardized our laws:

    In every state of the union of states, and D.C., you have a protected right “not to be compelled to give evidence against yourself.” It’s right up there with the presumption of innocence. However, with license shenangry came things like “IMPLIED consent.”

    The words implied consent are tied to the issuance of licenses, whether it be a business, driving or other license.

    Under this implied consent concept, it is presumed you waived your rights otherwise protected by state and federal constitutions. In WAshington, that would be, for example, articles seven and nine. If you lived in D.C. it would be the fourth and fifth amendments of the federal constitution (when rights under a state and federal constitution appear the same, look to your state liberty right, since it’s a higher protection).

    Under this implied consent concept, it’s implied you agreed to give up your right to travel by way of car, truck and what have you, unless you give evidence that can be used against you.

    The liberal courts have ruled this is just hunkey dorey, even as they, in fits of irony or paradoxes, jump to other rights and assert they may used to hold government agents at bay, with regard to warrantless searches (e.g., rifling through your trunk or locked glove box). Of course, they do make allowances for securing the safety of the officer.

    Remember, all these things are brought to you by the same people who profit HUGELY from infractions, after conning the public into believing giving up the presumption of innocence and right to have to be proven guilty,

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s