I found a place to live!

J

Jonny_B

Erect Member
Oct 14, 2004
9,162
26
41
Marklar
₥76
Well after all the renting vs buying anguish I've decided that with the market appearing to be flat for the next couple years, and with me not necessarily planning to stay in one place longer than a year or two, I'm going to rent. I signed a lease on part of a triplex last night. Going to be living in the medical district/southside/hood of Fort Worth. It's 1.4 miles from my office, crawling distance from at least two bars and about the same from half a dozen good resturants. I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and try the "urban living" thing. With any luck I'll only have to drive on the weekends.

Anyone know if you can get a DUI on a bike?
 
To answer your last question, yes. Also on a horse. Though if the horse is drunk it is not DUI.
 
Jonny_B said:
none yet. the landlord is still finishing remodelling it. it'll be a couple weeks before I can move in.

i just don't understand that. i thought the reason they made it illegal was because of the danger to people around you.
Click to expand...

It's more rare, but it happens on bikes and such. A drunk guy on a bike near here killed two infants by crashing into their stroller. A drunk skateboarder attempted some kind of trick he could usually do and cracked his skull open, went to the ER, had permanent brain damage.

Part of the reason is also like how they ninja in seatbelt laws. You can frame it as being for the good of society, because if you hurt yourself less then you take less ambulance rides and thus free up the resources of the system for people with "unavoidable" (sometimes legit, other times not) medical needs.
 
Jonny_B said:
i just don't understand that. i thought the reason they made it illegal was because of the danger to people around you.
Click to expand...



A drunk guy on a bicycle in the middle of the road isn't a danger to people around him? :thrawn:
 
mikey said:
A drunk guy on a bicycle in the middle of the road isn't a danger to people around him? :thrawn:
Click to expand...

Possibly.

But alot of people will have the thinking then, that if they get a DUI, they might as well be driving a car. Otherwise I think more drunks would opt for the bike route.
 
I have a friend who had a suspended license so he was riding his bike and got hit riding it through a crosswalk. He got the ticket and it counted against his driver's license. That I don't understand (I understand the ticket, not it counting against his license), what do they do when that person doesn't have a license?
 
kiwi said:
I have a friend who had a suspended license so he was riding his bike and got hit riding it through a crosswalk. He got the ticket and it counted against his driver's license. That I don't understand (I understand the ticket, not it counting against his license), what do they do when that person doesn't have a license?
Click to expand...

I think I would take that to court if I were him. You don't have to have a license to ride a bike.

You can only get "moving violation" tickets for a licensed offense. So how would you legally get a ticket against your license for a non-moving violation. He's a dumbass if he pays that or allows it to stay on his driving record. He shouldn't have gotten a ticket for going through a crosswalk (unless it had the do not cross signal up for pedestrians) then all it would be was a jay walking ticket (also applies to bikes). Unless there was a sign that specifically limited the sidewalk to walking pedestrians only, no bikes allowed.

A parking ticket doesn't even go against your license.

A bike is no more than a faster moving pedestrian. You can't take one on the interstate, or so says the sign. It shows a person walking and a person on a bike).

I would be fuming if I were that person.
 
Last edited:
SRC said:
I think I would take that to court if I were him. You don't have to have a license to ride a bike.

You can only get "moving violation" tickets for a licensed offense. So how would you legally get a ticket against your license for a non-moving violation. He's a dumbass if he pays that or allows it to stay on his driving record. He shouldn't have gotten a ticket for going through a crosswalk (unless it had the do not cross signal up for pedestrians) then all it would be was a jay walking ticket (also applies to bikes). Unless there was a sign that specifically limited the sidewalk to walking pedestrians only, no bikes allowed.

A parking ticket doesn't even go against your license.

A bike is no more than a faster moving pedestrian. You can't take one on the interstate, or so says the sign. It shows a person walking and a person on a bike).

I would be fuming if I were that person.
Click to expand...

It all happened many years ago, it's all completely over with now.

Edit: It may not have counted against his license and I just misunderstood, but I'm fairly certain it did.
 
apparently the reason why DUI/DWI laws apply to bicycles has to do with the definition of "vehicle". For the purposes of road riding, a bicycle shares all the rights and priveleges of a car, motorcycle or other motor vehicle licensed for road use. That's why you can take up a lane, but also why you can't blow through stop signs. (That's also why you're NOT SUPPOSED TO RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK, which all the bike cops do around here and it pisses me off)

So, I think they've defined bicycles as vehicles, which means they are then caught up in the DUI/DWI dragnet. Apparently California is the only state to pass a law that specifically exempts bicycles from DUI/DWI laws.
 
Jonny_B said:
So, I think they've defined bicycles as vehicles, which means they are then caught up in the DUI/DWI dragnet. Apparently California is the only state to pass a law that specifically exempts bicycles from DUI/DWI laws.
Click to expand...

I would also fight that as well. You might could get a public intox on a bicycle .. but I would fight a DUI. It is not a "moving violation" under the driving laws. As a bicycle is not listed as a "motor vehicle", like a car, truck, or motorcycle.

They are not required to have a tag, do not require a test, do not require insurance, do not require licensing, and do not have an age limit. All of the things required by motor vehicles. Only restrictions on bikes are usually that you are required to wear a helmet on public property (to help buffer businesses and cities from being libel for any injuries you could sustain).
 
ok, I looked it up. The DWI law as it applies in Texas states in § 49.01 of the Penal Code that
(3) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by
Section 32.34(a).
Click to expand...
§ 32.34, which has to do with the Fraudulent Transfer of a Motor Vehicle defines it as follows:
(2) "Motor vehicle" means a device in, on, or by which
a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway,
except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
Click to expand...
Which basically covers everything, motorized or not, that can travel on a roadway.

Other sections of the code define a motor vehicle differently, specifically the transportation sections. Unfortunately that doesn't mean jack shit because they specifically referenced the most vague definition of motor vehicle I've ever encountered. The only chance you'd have to get off would be a friendly jury.

In other news I discovered that a first DWI is only a Class B Misdemeanor, not a felony as I had thought.
 
Last edited:
In other news... It's illegal to burn a US or Texas flag in Texas.

§ 42.11. DESTRUCTION OF FLAG. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces,
mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of
Texas.
(b) In this section, "flag" means an emblem, banner, or
other standard or a copy of an emblem, standard, or banner that is
an official or commonly recognized depiction of the flag of the
United States or of this state and is capable of being flown from a
staff of any character or size. The term does not include a
representation of a flag on a written or printed document, a
periodical, stationery, a painting or photograph, or an article of
clothing or jewelry.
(c) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the act that would otherwise constitute an offense is done in
conformity with statutes of the United States or of this state
relating to the proper disposal of damaged flags.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
I thought flag burning could only be banned by constitutional amendment. Is this law unconstitutional?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back