Can I Be Charged with Drunk Driving If I Was Riding a Bicycle?

In Ohio, yes.

One would think that the real danger in driving while under the influence is the fact that it places the intoxicated person behind the wheel of a vehicle weighing several tons and capable of reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour.  But not too many bicycles weigh that much, nor do they go that fast (unless dropped from a helicopter).  So when the Court considers whether or not it is illegal to ride a bicycle drunk, most people would assume that they know the answer and that it’s okay.  But I’ll let the Court speak for itself in the case of City of Logan v. Russell:[1]

Appellant argues that because division (A) of 4511.01 specifically defines a motorized bicycle, the definition of a “vehicle” excludes bicycles without motors. However, the only forms of transport specifically excluded from the definition of vehicle are “motorized wheelchairs, devices moved by power collected from overhead electric trolley wires, or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, and devices other than bicycles moved by human power.” More to the point, the definitions following the general description of “vehicles” at 4511.01(A) elaborate on different types of “vehicles,” including at (G), a definition of a bicycle:

“Bicycle” means every device, other than a tricycle designed solely for use as a play vehicle by a child, propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride having either two tandem wheels, or one wheel in the front and two wheels in the rear, any of which is more than fourteen inches in diameter.

The city charged the appellant with a violation of R.C. 4511.19. Appellant contends that since this statute is commonly known as “OMVI” or Operating a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated, he cannot be charged with operating a non-motorized vehicle while intoxicated. We disagree.

The statute, R.C. 4511.19(A), provides that “no person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state,” if that person is under the influence of alcohol. The statute does not refer to “motor vehicle” although that term is separately defined at R.C. 4501.01(B).  The statute specifically includes streetcars and trackless trolleys, although R.C. 4501.01(A) specifically excludes these conveyances from the overall definition of “vehicle.” Nowhere in the statute is there a reference to operating a “motor vehicle.”  While both of the commonly available published versions of the Revised Code caption this statute as “Driving Under the Influence,” such captions were not part of the original act that created the statute.  Hence, they are not part of the substantive law.

Operation of a bicycle while intoxicated can create as severe a hazard to the public as the operation of a motor vehicle. See the Fifth Appellate District case of  State v. Loudon, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3811 (July 1, 1996), Stark App. No. 1995 CA 00315, unreported, where a westbound, highly intoxicated bicyclist forced eastbound police officers to take evasive action to avoid a collision. “The clear intent of the statute is that if a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he or she should not be in a position of control of a vehicle–any vehicle, in any location.”   State v. Moran, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2465 (May 27, 1998), Wayne App. No. 97CA0044, unreported, referring to the operation of a snowmobile on private property.  The Supreme Court of Ohio found R.C. 4511.19 to be constitutional in  State v. Tanner (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 1, 472 N.E.2d 689, syllabus.

We once again conclude that R.C. 4511.01(A) and (G) clearly include a bicycle in the definition of “vehicle,” for the purposes of R.C. 4511.19(A), as we previously determined in  State v. Vest, supra.[2]

 So don’t get on your bicycle if you have been drinking, or you will face the very costly specter of drunken driving charges.