Note “public” can mean open or accessible to the public, even if it’s on private property.
For example, several states have speed limit laws that apply to shopping center parking lots. And even if the state doesn’t, the city or county might, and state law often defaults to the city/county for speed limits within city/county limits.
Ohio’s law only appears to apply to a person driving a “motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar.” Part of the definition of “motor vehicle” is that it’s “drawn by power other than muscular power,” so unless there’s something somewhere else, neither bicyclists nor pedestrians can be guilty of speeding.
Not even the best sprinters in the world can maintain their top speed very long. As they approach the finish line in the 100 meter dash, they are all slowing down due to fatigue.
Bolt may reach 25 mph during the race, but only for a short time.
School zones around here are only 20 mph, so Bolt could exceed that limit for the full 100 m.
The 400 meter record is 43.03, an average of 20.79 mph.
I noted they had practice for the Indy500 car race yesterday and Tony Kanaan had a problem with his car’s engine leaking oil. So while the other drivers recorded laps with an average speed ranging between 218 MPH and 227 MPH, poor old Tony was recorded as only managing 20.794 MPH.
Obviously Bolt couldn’t manage a whole lap but over 100m he is faster than an (as in Tony Kanaan’s) IndyCar!
TCMF-2L
I think you will find that is not the case in most states. Most state laws have traffic laws that only cover motor vehicles. As in the vehicle has to have a motor. I know there are a few exceptions but they are exceptions. In my state you most certainly cannot be ticketed for DUI on the horse or a bicycle, or for speeding.
^ All states have traffic laws that only cover motor vehicles (such as wearing a seat belt). But if you mean that most states’ traffic laws only include motorized vehicles in its traffic laws, that’s not true. Even here in NJ “Title 39 - MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION” includes bicycles, roller skates, etc.
There are about 22 states where it is at least possible to get a DUI while riding a bike.
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/a-state-by-state-guide-to-biking-under-the-influence
One of those is our pork roll eatin’ neighbor, PA:
The treatment of bicycles in traffic law is a fascinating patchwork state-by-state, and I’m not sure I’d say any blanket statement is true for “most” states.
In NJ, I think the DUI law is expressly ‘motor vehicles’ so doesn’t apply to bicyclists, but I’m not so sure about speeding. I don’t know my way around NJ statutes, but New Jersey Statutes Title 39:4-98 (“Rates of speed”) refers to ‘vehicles’ not ‘motor vehicles’. So I think a cyclist could be ticketed for speeding. [I eagerly await correction if I’m mistaken]
For other examples, according to State Bike Laws | League of American Bicyclists (and I’ve checked it with primary sources for at least one state and it’s accurate):
Connecticut includes bicycles in its definition of ‘motor vehicle’, so a bicyclist certainly could be cited for DUI. In Rhode Island, bicycles are ‘vehicles’, so bicycle riders also are covered by DUI and other traffic laws (I assume DUI laws cover ‘vehicles’ generally, and are not restricted to ‘motor vehicles’). In Massachusetts, bicycles are not ‘vehicles’ but are by law expressly subject to traffic laws, however some traffic laws, including DUI, are written to apply to “motor vehicles” which bicycles are not, so no DUI possible for bike riders.
My brother was recently planning to visit a local pub for a night of irresponsible drinking. He planned to ride a bike. He first confirmed with one of his cop buddies that in MO you can ride a bicycle as drunk as you like.
In New Jersey there is a separate area in Title 39 that has definitions. It’s not as simple as just reading the one statue.
‘“Vehicle" means every device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks or motorized bicycles.’
Anybody else remember being told, “Back and walk,” in elementary school, for daring to run through the halls?
I can sprint faster than a sign. You don’t have to run very fast. 
So what about a horse? Is a horse a “device”?
ETA: And if it is, since a human must speak or kick it to move, does it move under “human power”?
I recall a guy getting DUI in his wheelchair. He’d ride the parking lanes on his way home after bar time. Swerved into the driving lane and forced a car to take the other lane. LEO saw it.
I had a similar case with the opposite conclusion. Guy had an electric wheelchair and was kind of a jackass who tended to do this kind of thing on purpose when drunk. After repeated such incidents the prosecutors I worked with (in MI) discussed whether they could charge him with DUI based on the wheelchair being a motorized vehicle. The reluctant consensus was probably not since it was really more his means of locomotion rather rhan transport. However, they could charge him with being drunk and disorderly or a public nuisance or some such.
In the 90s Indiana removed the “motor” part of the OWI statute so it simply referred to “vehicles”. This would include horses and was done intentionally. They had a large Amish population in some areas. There was an incident where a drunken Amish person taking the horse and buggy home passed out at the reins. The horse kept going just fine…but came to an intersection with cars and with no one giving the horse instructions, there was car/horse carnage. The law at the time did not allow the horse driver to be charged with OWI as it referred only to motor vehicles.
I’m sure horse riding isn’t allowed on highways in NJ, except maybe on the shoulder on certain types of highways, but not in a lane, so no.
Horses, of course, move under their own power, just like cars do, even though we press the gas pedal. An example of human power is pedaling a bicycle.
I have seen speculation that a horse fits the definition of vehicle but not of a motor vehicle. So that means you can’t be cited for DWI but you could be cited for speeding. I don’t know of any caselaw that supports that. There is one statute that specifically mentions horses and speed.
Since the legislature deemed it necessary to specify horses separate from vehicles in the statute I would find it reasonable that if horses aren’t mentioned in the main speed statute then it doesn’t apply.
DWI on a horse was actually a law before cars existed. As far as I can tell it was repealed in the early 70s when there was a big re-organization of the statutes and titles.