Tapioca, I think you misread what Gorsnak was saying. The penalty for DUI is, as he suspected, not “a fine of not more than $250”. Given that the maximum penalties for drunk biking are less than the minimum penalties for drunk driving, it stands to reason that, even if both are offenses, they’re two separate offenses.
But saying that state and local laws are the only thing against drunk biking is somewhat silly, since state and local laws are also the only thing to stop you from driving drunk.
I apologise. I was wrong. DUI penalties are indeed different for motorists and cyclists in California.
I’m not so sure of that. The penalties under the California penal code you cited only apply to offenders under the age of 21, and fall under the category of underage drinking, not under “biking under the influence.” According to your cite, there is no state penalty for biking over the influence if you happen to be over 21. Re-read subdivision (a) of 13202.5.
I am not sure that there are penalties elsewhere in the state penal code that affect drivers’ licenses for adults convicted of operating a non-motor vehicle under the influence. But they’re not under 13202.5.
Uh, and what Chronos said, too. Contrary to your earlier assertion, the penalties for DUI and operating a non-motor vehicle under the influence are clearly not the same, as evidenced by other subsections of Penal Code 13202.
I took up bicycling after I got a DUI in 1992 in Washington state. I didn’t stop drinking at that point, so my dad, a Washington State Patrolman, pointed out that I can indeed get a DUI on a bicycle. I pointed out that it is of course a simple matter to push my bike home if need be 
Eventually stopped drinking, nine years ago, so it’s no longer an issue.
In my city, it’s illegal to bike, skate, or skateboard on sidewalks. Which is why I wasn’t expecting those two 13-year-olds on bicycle and skateboard to come flying around the corner and almost knock me down while I was walking to work a couple years ago. At 4 o’clock in the morning…
Monty, I’m not there’s any ‘misinformation’ of mine that you’re referring to. I did do some research before I posted; the only detail that would be wrong is that only the ‘central traffic district’ of Davis has explicit restrictions on bicycling on sidewalks.
You didn’t attribute this directly to me, but if you were, you’ll notice that I was quoting the Illinois law (quoted more fully by Tapioca Dextrin) per the OP’s location.
And they aren’t any of the general public’s. Those with vendor permits, the buses, and a few other vehicles (I’ve driven on center of campus before in a Fleet Services vehicle) are the only ones allowed. And tractors on Picnic Day. I don’t think I needed to make all of that clear to make my point, which was that bicycles are a very common (I said ‘normal’) method of transportation.
Which I did - the relevant city ordinance is
It’s apparent that the emphasized portion of your quote (from the Bike safety map, which I also read) refers only to the University; I was referring to the city. I’ll agree that their line can be misleading, but I didn’t say it, they did. I do, however, think I should have said ‘central district’ when stating the prohibition on sidewalk bicycling to be more clear.
I’ll thank you for allowing clarification of the issues and correction of any error I made, but if you’re going to correct someone, be absolutely sure you’ve paid attention to what was written.
The bike safety map does not refer only to the university. I did pay attention. Too bad you didn’t–especially with your last posting.
What in the world are you trying to say? Did you read the quoted portion of the Davis Municipal Code? You can even read the full code at the link I provided. Here it is again
There is nothing in there about special provisions for certain roadways; only the police in the performance of their duty may use the sidewalks. Please read the ordinance, or explain why I’m wrong about this.
Just to put this to rest, here’s a link to the TAPS (Transportation And Parking Services) Parking Code, which is incidentally a better source of information on motor vehicles in the campus core than the Campus Police Dept. (which can authorize motor vehicle traffic in the center of campus but does not directly control it - TAPS does). (Sec. 5.02-5.03 for the supremely interesed or the supremely bored.)
Anyway, Section 8.0.5 :
From this portion (especially part b) you can see the bike map is nearly directly quoting both codes without confusing them. It’s an awkward sentence, yes, but difficult to word otherwise.
I’ll once again state that I should have mentioned ‘core traffic district’ or ‘downtown’ when speaking of the city prohibition on bicycling on the sidewalk.
What I’m trying to tell you and what you are studiously refusing to even trying to understand is that:
clearly refers to TWO areas in which biking on the sidewalk is permitted.
Those areas being on the University only. I’ve already shown that - or at least hoped it was understand when I quoted the applicable codes. I also mentioned that I was not talking about the University, since I specifically said ‘the city’. At this point, I’ll make it perfectly clear (for anyone else bothering to hang around) that the city and the University are two separate entities and the laws of one do not apply to the other.
My error was in neglecting to mention that the city law applies only in the ‘central traffic district’, which is rather a small part of the whole city.
It’s possible you’re still not seeing the ambiguity inherent in the section from the bike map you quoted. Referring to the two ordinances (one for the city, one for the University) which I quoted, it can be seen that the sentence you’ve quoted ought to be rewritten as :
“It is prohibited by ordinance in the downtown Davis central traffic district**.** It is also prohibited on the University except in those few areas where no parallel roadway or bike path exists.”
The first sentence applies to the city; the second to the University. Hopefully you can see how it works now. If not, please reread the codes I quoted, as they’re much more reliable than a poorly worded bicycle safety map.
I see you rewriting stuff. G’bye.
Monty, my suggestion was only aimed at clarifying what I see as an ambiguous statement. And I hope you stick around, simply because I wouldn’t want you attempting to illegally ride your bike on a sidewalk downtown.
Hopefully you can at least see that the map quote can be read one way or another. The ‘and’ may divide the sentence as I’m reading it (meaning the first and second part are separate), or as you’re reading it (so that the part after ‘except’ applies to both city and University).
Given the possibility, one should rely on the ordinances, which after all ought to be the place of first resort, shouldn’t they?
And the Davis Municipal Code, once again, has only one exception : “…except a person may ride a bicycle or skateboard across a sidewalk only as may be necessary to enter or leave property adjacent to that sidewalk.”
Absolutely nothing about “areas where no parallel roadway or bike path exists” in there.
Yet that language does exist, and only exist, in the University traffic code : “No person shall operate a bicycle … b) On any sidewalk where there is an adjacent, parallel roadway or bicycle path…”
Given that the only exception in the city code has nothing to do with lack of alternate routes, but the exceptions in the University code do, doesn’t it make more sense to read the sentence from the map the way I am, since there’s no support for your reading?
And if we can for a moment regard the bike safety map as a mountain of lies and unfunny cartoons, can’t you at least agree that the city ordinance absolutely prohibits riding on any downtown sidewalk except to enter or leave adjacent property?