Bicycles and booze don’t mix, the District’s appellate court has ruled.
In a precedent-setting ruling, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a person can be convicted of drunken driving even if he or she is riding a bicycle.
“The traffic act defines ‘vehicle’ as ‘any appliance moved over a highway on wheels or traction tread, including street cars, draft animals and beasts of burden,” Associate Judge Vanessa Ruiz wrote for her fellows. “Furthermore, a comprehensive interpretation of the term ‘vehicle’ is consistent with the intent of the traffic act to regulate traffic for the protection of public safety.”
The case stems from the Jan. 12, 2007, arrest of Baker Everton, who was riding his bicycle on Georgia Avenue near Otis Place in Northwest. Police said he was “yelling and screaming,” that he “wobbled” as he moved and stank of alcohol.
Officers said they warned him not to ride on his bike but Everton kept on.
“As he crossed Otis Place, [Everton] almost hit a small child who was in the crosswalk,” Ruiz wrote in her eight-page decision. Everton “then lost control of the bicycle and fell on the ground.”
Everton was charged with driving under the influence and convicted. He appealed, arguing that the 1925 traffic act, which defines drunken driving, doesn’t cover cyclists. He contended that trying cyclists for drunken driving “would lead to an absurd result,” where, for instance, a drunken pedestrian could be convicted merely for holding onto a bicycle.
“We conclude otherwise,” Ruiz wrote. “Everton was not a pedestrian as he was neither walking next to his bicycle nor holding on to it, … Therefore, he has no standing to challenge the statute based on a hypothetical application to a different situation.”
AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend said he saw the sense of the panel’s decision.
“Whether you’re walking, or riding a bike, or riding a skateboard, if you’ve been drinking, it’s probably better to catch a cab or take Metro,” he said. “You better have a designated bicyclist.”
