In answer to your last question,
So it’s the public drunkenness problem there. Another part of that section mentions that bicycles can be prohibited from certain sidewalks, and I suspect in many places bicycling on the sidewalk is ipso facto illegal (in CA it’s up to the local government; Davis for example prohibits bicycling on sidewalks).
Looks like you’re on safer ground here, at least legally. Unless you’re doing something like swerving around crashing into lamposts. If you are obviously drunk, then you could be arrested for public intoxication, just like a pedeastrian.
Of course, cycling on a sidewalk is itself illegal in many places, it varies from city to city.
That’s the legal situtation. Now for something you’re not expecting. Cycling on the sidewalk is way more dangerous than the highway.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html
Take a look at any of the statistics on the page. When you come to an intersection, you’re too drunk to see the oncoming truck. Driver of truck is not expecting a bike to pop out from a sidewalk. Result: his paintwork is scratched and you are dead. And it would be entirely your own fault.
ps I cycle over 200 miles a week and don’t own a car, so it’s not like I’m from the pro-car lobby.
Conlusion: catch a cab home, or stick to tomato juice.
Conlusion :putz Conclusion
:smack: :smack:
Rather than linking to just a bibliography, [bb]Tapioca**, this appears to be the particular paper mentioned on that page most relevant to the sidewalk/road safety question.
I will note, though, that the only aspect of bicyclist behavior they appear to control for is whether the bicyclist was riding with or against traffic. It seems to me that whether the bicyclist stops at intersections, for instance, would also be relevant. I have a hard time seeing how biking on the sidewalk could be dangerous if the biker always stops at the intersection and confirms that the road is clear before crossing.
That’s the killer Chronos. If the cyclist stops at every single intersection (maybe every 100 yds in a city, not counting driveways). Looks around, waits for the traffic behind to turn right without signalling etc., then there wouldn’t be a problem. There of plenty of numb-nut cyclists out there (as dim as their own non-existent lights) that don’t realise that motorists cannot see them on the sidewalk and just breeze out from the sidewalk and under a bus.
Bicycles are less visible than busses, but “hiding” on the sidewalk won’t help at all. Line of sight, for both you and the motorist, at an intersection if you cycle a foot awaay from a brick wall.
As for cycling against the flow of traffic? That’s beyond stupid, but I see it every day without fail. Stupid expletives deleted :mad:
FTR I don’t drink and ride (at all), I ride on the rode just like any a regular road user, I ride fast and I’m lit up like a Xmas tree at night.
And from a different part of the same web site
.
Who remembers the story of the drunken man who was on horseback, and was sited for DUI? He took it to court and proved that the horse was super familiar with the path they were on, and that the horse would have followed that path to the mans home, even without a rider. The horse wasen’t drunk, ruled the judge, and the man beat the charge. 
hoboonmoto, bitchslap, whoever you are, this argument makes no sense. As has been pointed out, not signing this “contract” doesn’t excuse you from driving a Ferrari at 150mph, so why would it excuse you from any other rule of the road?
Instead of going by panama jack’s misinformation, feel free to go to University of California-Davis and do a search on that site for biking. The search will give you plenty of valid information about biking in the City of Davis as well as at University of California-Davis.
As to the problem with biking under the influence being public drunkeness, ignore that misinformation and hie ye to California Bicycle Laws & Safety and scroll down to:
The bolding, underlining, and italicizing in that quote are mine. The problem is not public drunkeness–it is, by law, DUI.
As to the center of campus not allowing motor vehicles: Feel free to check with the Campus Police Department (a real police force) and they’ll let you know which motor vehicles besides emergency vehicles are allowed beyond the barrier gates.
As to the City of Davis not allowing bicycling on the sidewalks: feel free to check the city government’s very own information:
The bolding, underlining, and italicizing in that quote are mine.
As for the penalties: The California Vehicle Code (cited above) considers biking under the influence to be DUI; therefore, you’re in the same creek if you get caught doing it.
It took me less than fifteen minutes to get this information from all four sites–and that includes the time it took for the pdf to download so I wouldn’t freeze my computer. Do some research.
bitchslap:
Here’s the rest of the applicable section:
Now that I’ve posted the actual law of California regarding biking and DUI, do you want to retract your earlier assertion or do you prefer to reiterate again that bs?
Oh, and if you wish to put your theory to the test (which I, of course, do not recommend), let me know how you fare with the judge.
Oh, if you’re interested in what 13202.5 says, here it is.
Actually, Monty, I think you’ve just confirmed what bitchslap was saying: namely, that riding under the influence will be governed by whatever state or local ordinances might exist pertaining to it, and not by standard DUI legislation. Unless I’m very badly mistaken, I shouldn’t think that the penalty for DUI in Cali is a fine of not more than $250.
In North Carolina, I knew a judge who had in fact given “DUI” charges out to drunk bike riders. BTW, in theory you could also rack up points on your license for… say, running stop signs, and thus be ineligible for a driver’s license once you hit 16, at least untill those points dropped off of your license.
Then you didn’t read the entire thing correctly, Gorsnak. bitchslap is asserting that one is governed by local ordinances. I proved that one’s governed by state statute here.
p.s. bitchslap is also asserting that one must have signed some mythical contract before one can be subject to the law relating to DUI whilst on a bicycle. I have also disproven that.
Lastly, please read the link in my posting just above yours.
I read the link, and I don’t get it. Section 13202.5 subdivision (d) pertains to penalties for minors aged between 13-21 for use of controlled substances or alcohol, whether or not a vehicle was involved. Many states have similar provisions for underage drinking: PA, for example, suspends the license of any minor arrested for underage drinking whether or not one was in charge of a motor vehicle or not.
Indeed, taking a look at Sections 13202.4 and 13202.6, we find similar penalties for minors charged with firearm offenses and other crimes. Yes, the California state penal code deals with this kind of offense, but this link doesn’t show it.
Then you’ve noticed that bitchslap’s assertions, which were posted as though they are fact, are in error.
You are very, very badly mistaken. It took me two minutes to find the real figures from both the CHP and an attorney’s website.
Minimum penalties for a first offnse are: $390 plus 48 hours in jail plus license suspended for six months plus you need to attend a treatment program.
If anyone is interested in the legal defintion of a highway, this is how [url="http://www.wvml.org/members/Ordinances/Traffic%20Code/article%20301.htm#301.44"West Virginia does it