Source: https://azbikelaw.org/bui-bicycling-under-the-influence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:08:02+00:00

Document:
PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND — email me or leave a comment as to your interest in the subject… I am not a lawyer, I am not soliciting business, just wondering why all the interest in this subject???
§28-1381 DUI: a person must not “drive… a vehicle” under the influence, so includes bicyclists.
§28-1385 : Administrative (before conviction) license suspension: violation must have been committed in a motor vehicle. So, this can not result in a bicyclist’s motor vehicle license being suspended. There are still long post conviction suspensions, however.
§28-1321 Implied consent: “A person who operates a motor vehicle in this state gives consent”, so does not apply to bicyclists.
2) By its nature, DUI doesn’t apply to bicyclists — the escape hatch in §28-812. Both PA and OR, like AZ, has this escape hatch, but it doesn’t seem to prevent vehicle DUI charges from being upheld there.
And I would point out that Chapter 4of Title 28 is entitled “Driving Under the Influence”, thus I conclude that there is clear legislative intent that Arizona’s bicyclists be bound by DUI laws.
Illinois case: People v. Schaefer , 274 Ill. App. 3d 450, 654 N.E.2d 267, 1995 Ill. App. LEXIS 623, 210 Ill. Dec. 968 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1995).
The Illinois case is likely to be considered a smoking gun among drunk-cycling-is-not-illegal-in-Arizona proponents because the relevant laws between AZ and IL are virtually identical with one exception. AZ has the specific reference to “Chapter 4” (DUI) in AZ’s applicability statute. IL simply makes “The Code” applicable to cyclists.
In his May 15, 2003 column Mionske addressed the “are bicyclists subject to DUI?” by comparing Florida and Illinois laws and case law. Here is the Illinois Vehicle Code: 625 ILCS 5.
Columbus v. Brown, 2005 Ohio 6102 – Ohio: Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate Dist. 2005 via Google Scholar.
That all being said, Ohio explicitly changed their DUI laws not long before Brown , they used to specifically apply to motor vehicle operators, and now apply to any vehicle. Bicycles in OH are included in the definition of vehicles; ORC Section 4511.01(A).
I will also mention here another due process / unconstitutionally vague challenge, coincidentally involving the City of Columbus, involving a pedestrian crosswalk law which requires peds to use the right half of a crosswalk City of Columbus v. Truax, 7 Ohio App. 3d 49 – Ohio: Court of Appeals 1983 via Google Scholar.
In PA (bikelaw summary), there is case law concerning bicycles and DUI, and the definition of vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Brown, 423 Pa. Super. 264, 620 A.2d 1213 (1993). The situation in PA is that statutorily bicycles aren’t mentioned in the definition of a vehicle: “[e]very device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks”. This case held that bicycles are vehicles, and thus the defendant could be charged with DUI. Bicyclists in PA have the usual “rights and duties” as vehicle drivers, as well as the “except… by their nature can have no application” escape-clause in their applicability statute a la ARS 28-812.
DUI law applies to cyclists.
DUI law (but not the penalties) applies to cyclists.
BUI is treated as a separate offense.
DUI law does not apply to cyclists.
In elaborating on 1) , he uses Oregon (bikelaw summary) as an example. Mionske writes “…cyclists are subject to the provisions of Oregon’s DUI statue, and cyclists can and will be prosecuted for DUI in Oregon”.
In Oregon bicyclists have the rights and duties of a driver of any other vehicle, similar to ARS 28-812. Oregon, like Arizona, does have the “except…by their very nature can have no application” escape-clause in their applicability statute. However unlike Arizona, in Oregon bikes are explicitly considered vehicles: “A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code”.
Random net searches, Kansas, others? cases?
An April 2003 blog entry from mobikefed.org led me to this Kansas Supreme Court case… The case is more on the point of whether or not a city can have a DUI law. In the case a cyclist was charged under a City of Wichita ordinance. His conviction was affirmed. What would have been more interesting would be exactly why the state’s DUI law doesn’t apply to cyclists — this wasn’t discussed at all, it was taken as a foregone conclusion by both sides in the case.Here is a recent (Oct 6, 2007) legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/legal-bicycle-DUI.aspx (I removed the link because their site became infected at some point) from the “Legal lad”. He refers, nonspecifically, to a whole bunch of states where there is case law. I need to find his reference to Hawaii.
Hawaii: Their dui statute is pretty standard, applies to operating a vehicle §291-3.1 , like Arizona. Vehicle definition is virtually same as in AZ, that is it excludes human powered device (§286-2). So if there is case law out of Hawaii it may be persuasive in Arizona.
New Hampshire: March(?) 2007. New Hampshire Bicyclist’s DWI Case Ends in Agreement. “At issue in (Timothy) Bradley’s case were a pair of apparently conflicting statutes in the state’s motor vehicle code one saying the ‘rules of the road’ that apply to motor vehicles also apply to bicycles, another defining the word ‘drive’ as operating a motor vehicle. Legal experts have said the case is a perfect example of what state Supreme Court justices are paid to sort out. At the same time, a local legislator, angered over the arrest, has already proposed a bill that would specifically remove bicycles from the state’s DWI laws”. In any event, because of the plea deal, there was never any resolution as to whether or not as a matter of law bicyclists in NH are subject to DWI laws there.
California case: Clingenpeel v. Antelope108 Cal. App. 3d 394. Affirmed that DUI did not apply to bicyclists. Review by supreme court was denied. “…To summarize: in order validly to subject cyclists to criminal punishment, section 21200 (CA’s bicyclist applicability statute, like 28-812) must explicitly inform cyclists that their driving of a bicycle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor will render them liable to such punishment, and it must do so in terms sufficiently clear that men of common intelligence would not differ as to its application. Judged by this test, section 21200 of the Vehicle Code fails to meet due process standards”.
Subsequently, in 1982, CA’s applicability statue was amended to specifically proscribe BUI.
Note that Arizona’s equivalent statute, 28-812, does explicitly inform cyclists that Chapter 4 (DUI) does apply.
NJ case: DUI specifically applies to motor vehicles. So the superior court threw out the cyclist’s conviction in State v. Johnson203 N.J. Super. 436. Curiously, another county’s Superior Court previously (State v. Tehan) held that cyclists were somehow motor vehicles and subject to NJ’s DUI law.
…there is no DUI law in Tempe for non-motorized vehicles. This means that biking, skateboarding and even rollerblading while drunk are all ways to avoid the needle and the jail time that now comes with driving drunk.
The reference to Tempe city law is a red herring. I don’t know about skateboarding or rollerblading, but Arizona state law makes bicycling on the road while under the influence equally illegal as driving a motor vehicle under the influence. This is because under Arizona law, cyclists have all the “duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle” (ARS §28-812).
Note statement in Arizona Driver License Manual: “Do not bicycle under the influence of drugs or alcohol — it is illegal” (http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/documents/CustomerServiceGuide_99-0117.pdf, p. 46).
My son, 23, was just stopped on his bicycle in Portland, Oregon. His license suspended, has to go to court and may lose that license. I am in disbelieve that this can actually happen. A bike is not DRIVING, you are riding. It is not a motor vehicle, do not need a license, so how can you lose it. What next, skateboards, roller skates, maybe walking too fast. Ridiculous.
This has always been unclear to me and has seemingly been intentionally kept that way by interpreters of the law. People are not licensed to use the roadway; they are licensed to operate a motor vehicle. What kind of charges would be made if the above-mentioned son actually did not have a driver’s license? I’ve heard of DUI being made to those sitting in a parked car, motor off and keys out. A city or county prosecutor stated at a meeting recently that there is no BUI in Tucson….taking the meaning to be that they would not prosecute it.
azbikelaw adds: Interesting you mention the sitting in a parked car thing — there is a very recent AZ Supreme Court ruling that supposedly clarifies the whole “being in actual physical control” phrase which has been causing confusion (this is as far as i can see, unrelated to bicycles).
They have never charged anyone in Tucson with DUI that was on an bicycle. They also said that your driver’s license is a license to operate motorized vehicles and has nothing to do with operating a bike. So while yes you have to obey street laws, the penalty is a ticket and not points added to your drivers license.
Hi Dmitry — Thanks for the legwork. First off; you make a good point about “pseudo lawyers”, and I don’t know if it is a jab at me or not but let me say you are absolutely correct, and that I am not a lawyer and standard disclaimers apply to everything I say.
Hmmm. well, this is in direct contradiction to what an MVD spokesperson said ON THE RECORD. See here. And MVD is the organization that keeps track of all points in Arizona. It may well be true that the city court in Tucson doesn’t transmit bicyclist’s points data to MVD, but that’s not really saying the same thing, is it?
The problem is that each court and jurisdiction has enormous leeway… getting a straight answer out of any one of them is difficult, magnify this by 100 or so for the State of Arizona (cities, towns, counties; who all have independent law enforcement). So I am told first hand (by the Court) that Scottsdale will ticket & convict for “BUI”, and Tempe (like what you found in the city of Tucson) will not. It’s more a matter of policy.
So, I ride (not drunk, thankyou very much!) regularly in the Cities of Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, and the County of Maricopa; less regularly in Scottsdale, Gilbert.
Another example: I can’t get a straight answer out of the city of Tempe on how they handle motorized bicycles — two city officials say two different things.
nope, not a jab at you. was more thinking of the people that have chimed in on a list that I posted the idea of a bike pub crawl on.
What if you are BUI on the sidewalk, and your city does not outlaw this – can you not get around the law? You’re not “on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway”.
Or – if you city does outlaw biking on the sidewalk, wouldn’t it be much better to be cited for this than a DUI?
greetings. I was arrested in Key West FL for BUI, boating under the influence, while riding my bike on a city street. later changed to DUI. am going to trial soon. FL has 2 totally different definitions for a vehicle, one which explicitly excludes a bicycle. but ponder this. suppose a person was TOTALLY WASTED and knowing this, decides to walk the bike home on sidewalks. at some point the wastee has to cross a road, and does so still pushing the bike. at that point he/she is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a road and may be charged w/ DUI. how stupid would that be?
…When a bicyclist is cited for an infraction, the offense can end up on a driver’s license, said Jan Mendoza, a DMV spokeswoman.
Now, David, if the cited bicyclist didn’t have a driver’s license, like you talked about, an “X number” would be created; the record would be retained. The information would flow onto any new driver’s license.
Tully Lehman – a spokesman for the Insurance Information Network of California said that your auto rates might go up with a drunk-while-bicycling citation.
If Arizona would follow suite, it would remove this legal difficulty.
In Florida, the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle. Bicyclists using a public roadway are considered operators of motor vehicles and are responsible for observing traffic laws. Bicyclists may generally operate legally on sidewalks (except by local ordinance). They may operate in either direction, though riding against the flow of traffic on the adjacent roadway places them where motorists are not expecting traffic. Generally, sidewalk bicycling is not recommended, due to the usual increase in conflicts with bicycles and motor vehicles at driveways and intersections.
Slow down, look for and yield to any bicyclists in the bike lane. Signal your turn prior to crossing through the bike lane at the dashed striping. Yield to any bicyclist. Complete the turn from the designated right turn lane. If there is no right turn lane, after first checking to make sure that no bicyclists are present, you may merge into the bike lane at approaches to the intersection or driveway.
• Allow a minimum of three feet of clearance when passing a cyclist and reduce your speed. On a two lane road, time your pass to not be next to the bicyclist at the same time as oncoming traffic is at the same location.
• At night, avoid using high beam headlights when a cyclist is approaching. The cyclist could be temporarily blinded.
As I mentioned Arizona’s manual is silent in this area.
Tabby — thanks for you comment. I do like what you have in the FL manual, it is direct and strong. But i must contradict you, the Arizona Manual is not entirely silent, e.g.
I was glad to see this website and it provides very good information.
Personally, I would like to see Bicycling While Impaired legalized.
Additionally, my opinion is that driving Low-Speed Electric Vehicles while impaired would be a great transportation alternative for an impaired individual, if made legal.
The focus on traffic safety has primarily been targetted at operating while impaired (drunk driving). That only accounts for 1/3rd of traffic fatalities. How about the other 2/3rds of the traffic fatalities?
Seems to me that the size of the vehicles, and the speed at which we drive them, are the real threats to traffic safety.
Thus, Low-Speed Electric Vehicles are a great alternative. They increase all traffic safety, provide a legal transporation alternative for an impaired invididual, reduce dependence on oil, and provides a jumpstart for a new market.
1) Bicycling While Impaired is subject to the same penalties as Driving While Impaired.
2) A Motorized Bicycle may still be classified as a Bicycle providing it is not gas-powered, does not exceed 25 mph, and is pedal-assisted.
I have spoken with several officers here in az confirming a DUI on a bicycle is not possible. Even college times quotes tempe police statng its not illegal.
The enabling statute 28-812 specifically includes chapter 4: “DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE”, which gives me every reason to believe that the DUI laws are intended to be applicable to bicyclists. Whether the police arrest or cities prosecute cyclists as a matter of policy or priority of other things is a separate issue.
No, no, no. Just no.
In order to be found guilty of a DUI beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must prove all elements of the offense. Arizona defines a regular DUI as “a person to driv[ing] or be[ing] in actual physical control of a vehicle in . . .while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.” A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1). A DUI on a bike is not possible in Arizona because the “drive” and “vehicle” elements are not met. A person can’t “drive” a bike because a bike is not a “self-propelled vehicle.” See § 28-101(17), (33). In fact, a bike is excluded from the definition of “vehicle” because it is a “device moved by human power.” See § 28-101(6), (57). Therefore, it is legally impossible to be convicted of DUI on a bike in Arizona.
If a cop cited a person for a DUI, when s/he rode a bike, no literate prosecutor would pursue that case. There would be no reasonable likelihood of conviction, and it’s a stupid waste of time. Even if a prosecutor did go forward on such a bogus charge, any competent defense attorney would get that thrown out. Judges know DUI law backwards and forwards, and no jury would convict someone for DUI while on a bike.
I don’t know what the civil violations are that would apply to bikes, but the point is that it is not a CRIMINAL offense to bike under the influence. You’re not going to go the jail or incur any other criminal sanctions for it.
28-101(17): “Drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle.
28-101(33): “Motor vehicle”: (a) Means either: (i) A self-propelled vehicle.
28-101(57): “Vehicle” means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
28-101(6): “Bicycle” means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either: (a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter. (b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter.
but you have to dig a little deeper.
The enabling applicability statute, 28-812, does two important things 1) it makes riding a bicycle the legal equivalent of driving a vehicle, and 2) it specifically makes chapter 4, (which is entitled “Driving under the influence”) applicable to bicyclists.
OK. some of you are right in both senses. Az statute 28-812 does give the rights and responsibilities to a bicyclist same as a driver. However, 28-1381 and 28-1382 refer to “motor” vehicles [ed note: this is incorrect, the statues refer to ‘vehicle’, NOT ‘motor vehicle’] and “driving”. You can’t drive a bike and it is not a motor vehicle. So they do not applly. Also, 28-812 states further in the code about applied exceptions and exemptions from the law. Bicycles, because they are clearly defined in the definition section of the 28 codes falls under these exceptions in 28-812. You can cleary see these two laws kind of contradict eachother.
But, the biggest issue is the “admin per se” or what you might know as implied consent law. This states that when you “drive” a “motor” vehicle in Az. you imply consent that you will complete and successfully pass tests chosen by law enforcement if stopped to show you are not impaired. Since there is no license to ride a bike or no test needing to be passed and no implied consent when riding a bike…the state can’t require you prove you not drunk or cite you otherwise. You can be given civil violations that are not exempted under the 28-812 law but not dui. As the laws are written now it is impossible to prosecute for dui on a bike, not saying an officer not knowing better might try it , but it will never make it to court….I should know…14 year veteran of the Phoenix PD with over 200 dui’s under my belt…ride safe.
I’m having a fascinating discussion with another attorney about DUI charges against bicycle riders. Since the early 1947 appeals decision, it has been the law that you can get a DUI while riding a bicycle. Even A.R.S. 28-812 invoked compliance with chapter 4 of the transportation code (which is the DUI section).
However, my colleague pointed out that 812 uses the word “duty” which has a civil not criminal connotation. In Arizona, civil law revolves around legal duties that are owed to another. Criminal law is purely a creature of statute … and … every element of the statute must be proven in order to demonstrate that the statute was completely violated. Of course, a prosecutor cannot prove that a bicycle is a vehicle (under A.R.S. 28-101, it is not). The DUI statutes use the word Vehicle.
So while I can see a police officer issuing a DUI to a bike rider based on 812, I can also see a dismissal in court for failure to prove that the rider was in a vehicle – which is a requirement of the DUI laws.
My colleague said he was not aware of any DUI’s for bike riders in Arizona. I seem to recall that there have been a few. Are you aware of any riders getting a DUI? And if so, were any convicted of the crime?
focused on NYC and their relatively new bikeshare (citibike) program. The reporter seems a little dissappointed there haven’t been a noticeable number of bike crashes since the program got up and running in May with approx 6,000 bikes.
A. No Test Given – This attribute should only be checked if the suspect driver/pedestrian/pedalcyclist is suspected of violating ARS 28-1381 AND is unavailable for chemical analysis, i.e. runs away from scene and is not apprehended or the investigating officer cannot prove suspect is driver of motor vehicle. The circumstance should be explained in the narrative.
Note that the “Chapter 4” (dealing with DUI) was NOT in 28-812 as of SB1218 in 1986 — i.e. it was added at some point later… hmmm.
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway OR UPON A SHOULDER ADJOINING A ROADWAY IS granted all the rights and IS subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article, and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature have no application.
The specific inclusion of “chapter 4” and other changes to ARS 28-812 since 1986 were all made by 42nd legislature in SB 1076; ch. 81, sec. 4, which rewrote entire chapters of the transportation code.
A person riding an animal or driving an animal drawn vehicle on a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except the provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their very nature can have no application.
Which also, curiously, means that mopeds are not motor vehicles for the purposes of dui/chapter 4.
2019 Update — be sure to see news item referring to an escooter-DUI case in city of Tempe in which Cantor raises doubts about the validity of a DUI charge there.
I note that MVD has changed the wording in the on-line Drivers Licenens Manual from “Do not bicycle under the influence of drugs or alcohol — it is illegal” to “Do not bicycle under the influence of drugs or alcohol — it is unsafe” – http://azdot.gov/docs/default-source/mvd-forms-pubs/99-0117.pdf?sfvrsn=0, p. 41.
The legality of biking UI is obviously not clear, but the safety is. I find the Ohio case statement about bicyclists rarely, if ever, causing harm to others to be untrue, if expanding harm to more than physical harm. If some drunk bicyclist makes a poor decision and a motor vehiclist hits that biker, the vehicle driver is in for time spent dealing with the situation, possible court/lawyer time, possible dealing with insurance, possible “mental anguish” – I’m sure that scene would replay in my head for years. These are all harm.

References: §28

§28

§28
 §28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28