Bicyclist gets DUI, loses Pa. driver's license

[johnnymk]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-07192008-1565034.html

NORRISTOWN, Pa. - After a drunken driving charge several years ago, Jeff Burke took to riding a bike when he went out for beers.

He nonetheless was sentenced on a second DUI conviction this week , for riding his bicycle drunk. Burke was cited after he says another driver struck him as he waited on a center median to cross the street.

"I get rear-ended, I go to jail. Figure that one out," said Burke, who broke his tailbone in the July 2007 crash in suburban Philadelphia. "(The driver) was 100 percent in the wrong."

But a prosecutor says Burke's blood-alcohol level measured 0.155 , about twice the legal limit , and that he sported dark clothing on the rainy night.

Burke also missed his scheduled June sentencing, prompting the judge to issue a warrant for his arrest , and perhaps contributing to the 30-day jail sentence handed down Wednesday, the prosecutor said. Burke must also pay a $1,500 fine, surrender his license for up to 18 months and be evaluated for alcohol abuse.

"The statute is clear," said Anthony Gil, an assistant prosecutor in Montgomery County. "Someone on a bicycle is subject to the DUI statute and here Mr. Burke was pedaling his bicycle while under the influence on a roadway."

Absent a license, Burke has lost his job as a tow-truck driver, and instead toils in the front office. He's serving his jail stint over 15 weekends.

The driver who struck him received a careless driving ticket.

[mojo]

bicyclists typically forget that they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, simply because they aren't in cars. the person driving the car should have been driving slower because of the conditions, but burke had his share of infractions.

steep consequences, but he'll probably be back on the road soon after he proves his hardships sans license.

[VTGreg]

bicyclists typically forget that they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, simply because they aren't in cars. the person driving the car should have been driving slower because of the conditions, but burke had his share of infractions.

steep consequences, but he'll probably be back on the road soon after he proves his hardships sans license.

I don't disagree on the sentiment on bicyclists. While the majority are very observant of laws there are many that do not.

However, I'm not if riding a bicycle while intoxicated should hold the same DUI charges. Operating a motor vehicle is far more dangerous, especially to others, than riding a bicycle. Besides, he wasn't driving.

[Prngr44]

Maybe they call it a BUI.

I don't think you should lose your drivers license for riding a bike if you're drunk.

[ShawnLee]

Don't know how PA phrases it, but in California, the applicable statute says something along the lines that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. It's helpful when riding a bike, because that law allows you to get into the left turn lane to turn, but also makes you legally liable for the DUI.

[Thesifer]

I think it should be different. If it's your fault, for example- you ride drunkenly into another car, then that person that hits you would not be the least bit responsible since you are drunk, but if you are hit and it's not your fault at all, then it should be the other driver's fault with no consequence, except maybe public intox.

I would MUCH rather have someone riding a bicycle drunk then driving their car. If a bicycle "Plows" into the side of my car, I would expect him to pay for the damages, but at least the damages wouldn't be me lying dead.

So yeah, Stupid laws by stupid people.

[Maarchk]

This actually makes a logical kind of sense. If you were hit by someone and you had no license, you were drunk, or had some other major issue, you would still get in trouble.

You don't get off a ticket because someone hit you.

And yes a bike is equal to a car, because it was either going to have to follow the rules of a pedestrian or the rules of a motor vehicle. And since we don't want bikes riding up on curbs and bikes can actually go over the posted speed limits pretty easily, then it makes sense that they get treated like a car.

The only question I would ask is what happens if you are drunk biking and have no license. I guess a ticket for public intoxication.

As they said at my online traffic school, driving is a privilege and it comes with some responsibilities. i suppose not drunk biking is one of them.

[ShawnLee]

The only question I would ask is what happens if you are drunk biking and have no license. I guess a ticket for public intoxication.From what I remember, they treat it like they would treat an unlicensed driver getting caught. You're still responsible for the whatnot - and when such time as you do get a license, you already have a DUI on your record.

But I'm no lawyer - and I'm just repeating things I remember hearing - I could be wrong.

[mojo]

I think it should be different. If it's your fault, for example- you ride drunkenly into another car, then that person that hits you would not be the least bit responsible since you are drunk, but if you are hit and it's not your fault at all, then it should be the other driver's fault with no consequence, except maybe public intox.

I would MUCH rather have someone riding a bicycle drunk then driving their car. If a bicycle "Plows" into the side of my car, I would expect him to pay for the damages, but at least the damages wouldn't be me lying dead.

So yeah, Stupid laws by stupid people.
a drunk on a bike could cause a car to plow into you. if i have to swerve to avoid hitting the drunk on a bike and the choice is to hit a car or the unprotected person, i'd hit the car.

[cruelpupet]

a drunk on a bike could cause a car to plow into you. if i have to swerve to avoid hitting the drunk on a bike and the choice is to hit a car or the unprotected person, i'd hit the car.


Same goes for a person stumbling in the street, but would he get a WUI, and his "drivers" license revoked?

What I find stupid about this is a drivers license is a card that says you are responsible with a car. You dont need a license to ride a bike. He was being responsible with how he drove his car...they cannot stop him from drunk biking.

[VTGreg]

Same goes for a person stumbling in the street, but would he get a WUI, and his "drivers" license revoked?

What I find stupid about this is a drivers license is a card that says you are responsible with a car. You dont need a license to ride a bike. He was being responsible with how he drove his car...they cannot stop him from drunk biking.

:stupid:

Well said.

[gwilks98]

I wonder if you could challenge the conviction on this precedent:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2823786

1. The bike is not a licensed vehicle.
2. The bike can't carry passengers.
3. The bike is not legal on highways (I think.)

[Thesifer]

a drunk on a bike could cause a car to plow into you. if i have to swerve to avoid hitting the drunk on a bike and the choice is to hit a car or the unprotected person, i'd hit the car.


If someones kid runs out in the street, they can make someone swerve and hit you as well, yet that kid doesn't need a license to do his running.

I'm just saying, a Bike is not a motor vehicle. And a Driver's License is a License to operate a MOTOR VEHICLE.

[gwilks98]

honestly, I don't think this is a matter of logic, but a matter of revenue. a lot of places get their money from DUI penalties.

[VTGreg]

I wonder if you could challenge the conviction on this precedent:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2823786

1. The bike is not a licensed vehicle.
2. The bike can't carry passengers.
3. The bike is not legal on highways (I think.)

Bikes are not legal on highways. I'm not sure if that is due to minimum speed requirements or something else.

[mojo]

honestly, I don't think this is a matter of logic, but a matter of revenue. a lot of places get their money from DUI penalties.
i think this is pretty true. like i said before, just a little walk down to the court house with a story about how he can't work without a license and he'll have it back. with the revenue theory kicking in, it would be with fines.