D.C. Court: Don't Drink and Bike

The D.C. Court of Appeals today upheld the conviction of a man charged with operating a vehicle under the influence — in this case, a bike.

In an eight-page opinion, Judge Vanessa Ruiz wrote that the case presented an issue of first impression in the District of Columbia: whether a bike is legally synonymous with a car and other types of vehicles for purposes of the DUI statute.

Baker N. Everton contended that the bicycle he was riding in Northwest Washington in 2007 was not a vehicle under the D.C. Traffic Act of 1925, which states that "no person shall operate or be in physical control of any vehicle in the District…[w]hile under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or combination thereof."

Ruiz disagreed, noting that the plain language of the statute is clear, that a vehicle is "any appliance moved over a highway on wheels or traction tread, including street cars, draft animals, and beasts of burden."

She also stated that a 1926 amendment to the act was "designed to remove any possible doubt about its all-encompassing character."

According to the opinion, Everton was pulled over by two officers of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department after he almost hit a small child at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Otis Place. N.W on Jan. 12, 2007.

Senior Judges John Ferren and Frank Schwelb joined Ruiz’s opinion.

Comments

[Andrew MacKie-Mason]

Seems reasonable. A drunk biker is almost more dangerous than a drunk driver. Less capacity to cause damage but more likely to cause at least some damage.

[CTD]

I'm actually glad to see this; it irks me more than a little bit that the defendant here would try to use the argument that the "Get on the sidewalk!" drivers use against cyclists. By confirming the realities here, this court has aided cyclists everywhere in the advocacy movement for equality on the roads. THANK YOU!