Could have been worse...

I want one of those trikes.

This is an adult tricycle

Approves

Seems to me that the man could have refused to take any of the tests. The implied consent law seems to only apply when you are operating a motor vehicle that requires the license. A bike does not require a license. Therefore, he should have just told the officer to fark off.

My little sister had one of those adult trikes. She really had no sense of balance and was never able to ride a bicycle unless she was stoker on a tandem.

The trike had a basket between the two rear wheels so I could swipe it and take it to buy groceries. People in town thought it was cool, too.

It was AWESOME!!!

I assumed correctly that this happened in Oregon.

But I'm surprised it didn't happen in SE Portland.

halB: Seems to me that the man could have refused to take any of the tests. The implied consent law seems to only apply when you are operating a motor vehicle that requires the license. A bike does not require a license. Therefore, he should have just told the officer to fark off.

This. You have no legal obligation to consent to sobriety tests if you are not operating a motor vehicle. Just refuse.

Pro tip: drunk cycling doesn't constitute DUI in Illinois. Of course, they could just nail you for public drunkenness and/or the classic catch-all, "disorderly conduct."

Those zany, wacky Shriners...

"Adult tricycle" for some reason made me think of:

Hell yeah!

Coos County is represented! Woot!

-We're not all dumb- just the majority is.

Why do cops even feel the need to nail drunk people on bikes? It's not like they're much of a danger to anyone but themselves. Certainly it shouldn't be an equivalent crime to DUI in a car; at most it should be something like a drunk and disorderly charge. As far as threat posed to others, drunk on a bike is light years away from drunk in a motorized multi-thousand-pound piece of steel.

As long as they continue to allow girls to drink and dyke.

I am waiting for all the rabid MADD disciples to show up. Proclaiming that they and their entire family were killed by a drunken tri-cyclist.

halB: Seems to me that the man could have refused to take any of the tests. The implied consent law seems to only apply when you are operating a motor vehicle that requires the license. A bike does not require a license. Therefore, he should have just told the officer to fark off.

My thoughts exactly.

This is getting out of hand. We have laws against public drunkenness, and I think a citation for that would serve the purpose.

/still waiting for a ticket for dui on a skateboard or rollerblades

/Approves

ChadManMn: /still waiting for a ticket for dui on a skateboard or rollerblades

I don't think rollerblades, at least, qualify as vehicles. Bicycles specifically do, and in many places have to follow roughly the same rules of the road as cars do. In theory they even have the same privileges and can get the right of way and take a lane, but in reality cars just walk all over them right-wise and all this means is that you can get traffic tickets and DUIs.

Mnemia: Why do cops even feel the need to nail drunk people on bikes? It's not like they're much of a danger to anyone but themselves. Certainly it shouldn't be an equivalent crime to DUI in a car; at most it should be something like a drunk and disorderly charge. As far as threat posed to others, drunk on a bike is light years away from drunk in a motorized multi-thousand-pound piece of steel.

The "rational", as rabid TFers have told me, is that they may pose a threat to people in cars since they might fall off the bike. Somehow, this is more dangerous to the general public than a drunk stumbling down the street.

Mitrovarr: ChadManMn: /still waiting for a ticket for dui on a skateboard or rollerblades

I don't think rollerblades, at least, qualify as vehicles. Bicycles specifically do, and in many places have to follow roughly the same rules of the road as cars do. In theory they even have the same privileges and can get the right of way and take a lane, but in reality cars just walk all over them right-wise and all this means is that you can get traffic tickets and DUIs.

I can see where you're coming from, but if I were cited for that, I would refuse the test. Of course I would still get a dui if the law permits, since the cop would be viewed as an expert witness, but I'd still give it a try.

Same goes for boating. I sail, at 8mph TOPS, and if I was pulled over I would refuse the test because I don't have a "license" to boat.

Mitrovarr: I don't think rollerblades, at least, qualify as vehicles. Bicycles specifically do, and in many places have to follow roughly the same rules of the road as cars do. In theory they even have the same privileges and can get the right of way and take a lane, but in reality cars just walk all over them right-wise and all this means is that you can get traffic tickets and DUIs.

But even if they do qualify as "vehicles", they don't require a license to operate. So there is nothing they can hold over you if you refuse a sobriety test. That is, unless they are taking away people licenses to drive CARS over refusing a sobriety test on a BIKE.

ChadManMn: I can see where you're coming from, but if I were cited for that, I would refuse the test. Of course I would still get a dui if the law permits, since the cop would be viewed as an expert witness, but I'd still give it a try.

Same goes for boating. I sail, at 8mph TOPS, and if I was pulled over I would refuse the test because I don't have a "license" to boat.

They might still be able to take your license if you have one. I'm not sure exactly how that works and I think it differs from state to state.

I'm also not sure if you can refuse a breath test if the cop has probably cause, which I'm guessing was the case in this example. I doubt the cop was out looking for tricycles, the guy was probably swerving all over and making an ass out of himself generally. Not that that excuses it - I think it's ridiculous you can get a DUI on a bicycle.

ChadManMn: The "rational", as rabid TFers have told me, is that they may pose a threat to people in cars since they might fall off the bike. Somehow, this is more dangerous to the general public than a drunk stumbling down the street.

That seems like a minimal risk at best, and probably a lot less of a safety risk to drivers than thousands of other hazards that people encounter during driving. Life has risk; we shouldn't outlaw all kinds of nearly harmless activities just because of some hypothetical distant risk.

Mitrovarr: Not that that excuses it - I think it's ridiculous you can get a DUI on a bicycle.

It's completely idiotic, even if you concede the argument that drunk biking poses a risk to to others (and I really don't). At most, it should be a much lesser crime if it's going to be a crime at all, since simple physics dictates that it's a far less safety risk. For similar reasons, it should be a much greater crime to be caught driving a semi drunk (and I imagine it is).

Refusing the test while boating won't help, ChadManMn. Are you familiar with the term 'manifestly unsafe'? Boating cops, and of course the Coasties, have far more powers than their land-based colleagues.

In some states, BUI could cause you to lose your driving license. In CT, where a 'safe boating certificate' (license) is required, I think the worst you're going to get is a fine and loss of boating license, but I could be wrong.

You didn't mention whether your boat has an engine. That could affect the licensing situation.

It's completely idiotic, even if you concede the argument that drunk biking poses a risk to to others (and I really don't). At most, it should be a much lesser crime if it's going to be a crime at all, since simple physics dictates that it's a far less safety risk. For similar reasons, it should be a much greater crime to be caught driving a semi drunk (and I imagine it is).

A trucker with a DUI is pretty much going to have to find a new career. Getting the CDL back will be difficult. Getting insurance will be harder. Finding an employer will essentially be impossible.

As far as a drunken bicyclist being dangerous, I do think they pose some threat. A bicyclist swerving all over the road, in the shoulder, almost certainly at night and probably without proper lights... it's just a bad situation (although at least a tricycle can't fall over.) While especially dangerous for him, it's also a little dangerous to everyone else - people do swerve to avoid things, and those swerves can cause accidents. I tend to agree with the people up the thread that if the tricyclist was actually a problem, he should have been arrested for a lesser crime - I tend to think public intox, drunk and disorderly, or something along those lines would have been appropriate.

JesterGirl: Approves


I was thinking the same thing.

Revenge of the Nerds - Tricycle Race (LGT YouTube)

Mnemia:
But even if they do qualify as "vehicles", they don't require a license to operate. So there is nothing they can hold over you if you refuse a sobriety test. That is, unless they are taking away people licenses to drive CARS over refusing a sobriety test on a BIKE.

They probably do exactly that. Here in New Jersey, the list of things they can take your driver's license for is long, long, long -- and the majority of the things on that list have nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle.

Mitrovarr: As far as a drunken bicyclist being dangerous, I do think they pose some threat. A bicyclist swerving all over the road, in the shoulder, almost certainly at night and probably without proper lights... it's just a bad situation (although at least a tricycle can't fall over.) While especially dangerous for him, it's also a little dangerous to everyone else - people do swerve to avoid things, and those swerves can cause accidents. I tend to agree with the people up the thread that if the tricyclist was actually a problem, he should have been arrested for a lesser crime - I tend to think public intox, drunk and disorderly, or something along those lines would have been appropriate.

I would agree. My main point is just that I don't think biking under the influence is always dangerous to others. Depending on what they are doing, it might be...but then again, a bicyclist who is swerving all over the road, etc should be cited for dangerous operation regardless of whether he's drunk. In other words, I think that the question of alcoholic intoxication is irrelevant to the question of dangerous operation of a bike. The only reason it's not irrelevant in a car, too, is because of what a huge public safety problem drunk driving became. Drunk bicyclists are not a huge public safety problem; therefore, they should be pulled over if they are operating dangerously but not just because they're drunk, in my opinion. There is no need for additional penalties associated with alcohol unless the cops can prove that drunk bicyclists are a huge problem for the safety of others (and I doubt they can).

shoegaze99: They probably do exactly that. Here in New Jersey, the list of things they can take your driver's license for is long, long, long -- and the majority of the things on that list have nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle.

Someone should challenge the constitutionality of that type of law on the grounds that there is no reasonable basis for them if the activity is not related to driving a car.

Tillmaster: Refusing the test while boating won't help, ChadManMn. Are you familiar with the term 'manifestly unsafe'? Boating cops, and of course the Coasties, have far more powers than their land-based colleagues.

In some states, BUI could cause you to lose your driving license. In CT, where a 'safe boating certificate' (license) is required, I think the worst you're going to get is a fine and loss of boating license, but I could be wrong.

You didn't mention whether your boat has an engine. That could affect the licensing situation.

My boat has an outboard. I'm rarely drinking much while sailing, but I could imagine a situation where I could be pulled over and have had one too many (and I mean one). I'd gladly accept a ticket for "unsafe due to drinking", but taking my drivers license for that is completely unacceptable and illogical. It's akin to pulling a kid's drivers license because they dropped out of school.

Mnemia: I would agree. My main point is just that I don't think biking under the influence is always dangerous to others. Depending on what they are doing, it might be...but then again, a bicyclist who is swerving all over the road, etc should be cited for dangerous operation regardless of whether he's drunk. In other words, I think that the question of alcoholic intoxication is irrelevant to the question of dangerous operation of a bike. The only reason it's not irrelevant in a car, too, is because of what a huge public safety problem drunk driving became. Drunk bicyclists are not a huge public safety problem; therefore, they should be pulled over if they are operating dangerously but not just because they're drunk, in my opinion. There is no need for additional penalties associated with alcohol unless the cops can prove that drunk bicyclists are a huge problem for the safety of others (and I doubt they can).

Sounds good to me. I definitely think that the penalties for drunken cycling should be both much less than drunk driving and only applied in the case that the operator actually causes problems. This way, drunks will be encouraged to ride bicycles instead of drive cars. Bicycles are not a very desirable option anyway for drunken transportation anyway (since you usually have to ride at night, you can't ride if you're too drunk, they get you messy, locking them up securely is impossible, etc.) so it's pretty safe to assume that a drunk riding one didn't have a better option available in the first place.

Nanny state.

Mnemia: My main point is just that I don't think biking under the influence is always dangerous to others. Depending on what they are doing, it might be...but then again, a bicyclist who is swerving all over the road, etc should be cited for dangerous operation regardless of whether he's drunk.

That also my argument for not banning cell phone use or smoking while driving. There are plenty of existing laws that can already be applied.

In all fairness, a drunk person on a bike/trike, especially one riding against traffic, DOES present a danger to other drivers as a driver MIGHT choose to avoid hitting a swerving cyclist by crashing into a tree or other vehicle that is more likely to survive the impact. An "at fault" accident on your insurance that only causes property damage is far less of a concern than risking killing someone and dealing with a potential manslaughter charge. Sure, you'd probably win, but it'd still be a legal nightmare, and expensive.

So.. yeah... keep the drunk people off the road.

I own an adult trike. It kicks ass and I don't give a shiat what other people think about it.

Damn, I saw this on Flashalert.net much earlier, I coulda had me another greenlight!

Tr0mBoNe: I want one of those trikes.

They are awesome! Here is mine:

With daughter Una

Sipping on a 40 while I roll!



/gots nuthin