[dspillett]

> Heck, you can't even ride your bike while drunk in Japan.

That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.

In the UK (my location) this is covered by section 30 or the Road Traffic Act (1988): "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs".

You can't be breathalysed (well, you can but you can't be forced to, if they ask you can decline unlike when in a car or other such vehicle) or be made to give other samples (though as with breath, if they ask and you volunteer the sample can be used as evidence), but other tests can be demanded (i.e. the standard finger-to-nose, straight-line, and alphabet physical & mental coordination tests). It'll not affect your driving license if you have one but there are potentially significant fines.

[Unklejoe]

[That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.]

This is kind of off topic, but there are some places in the USA where you can get a DUI for riding a dirt bike in your own back yard (while drunk).

Since DUI laws often even extend down to roller skates, one could extrapolate that you could technically get a DUI for roller skating drunk around your kitchen.

Of course, no sensible judge would let that fly (I hope).

The problem in this case is that many of the DUI laws don't distinguish between private and public property.

[squeaky-clean]

> This is kind of off topic, but there are some places in the USA where you can get a DUI for riding a dirt bike in your own back yard (while drunk).

In what situation could this happen though? I feel like other laws would prohibit this from happening. A police officer can't enter your property without a warrant or probable cause. So unless you're visible in your backyard, and very noticeably intoxicated, how could they tell you're not just clumsy and practicing?

But if you end up driving through your neighbor's fence, or run over a guest/family member in your own backyard, I don't think a DUI is unreasonable. Or if you drive into your own home, tree, whatever, and try to contact insurance for damages, it also makes sense to consider that you were intoxicated.

[gozur88]

I suspect people also tend to get busted for this sort of thing when the cops get called for some other (possibly related) reason, e.g. you're doing drunken donuts on your property and the neighbor calls the police because you're disturbing her with loud music.

In most places the cops would probably tell you yes, indeed, you can get a DUI for driving drunk on your own property, so turn off the radio, go inside, and we'll call it even.

When you're dumb enough to start mouthing off at that point, that's when you get the DUI.

[monknomo]

I think there are different types of "enter your property." A police officer could certainly walk into your yard without a warrant, and if they saw "suspicious biking" in your backyard, I bet they wouldn't need a warrant to go in the backyard.

You're on much safer ground drunkenly roller skating in your kitchen.

I knew a guy who got a DUI pulling a fellow out of ditch. Mr. DUI was driving in his yard and yard travelled perhaps 15 feet. I don't think he touched the public road, or even intended to, but it doesn't matter, at least in my state

[derekp7]

This would also apply to larger properties and businesses, such as farms. It is probably a good thing to have regulations against intoxicated driving around a farm when there are other people that could get hurt there.

[Unklejoe]

> [In what situation could this happen though? A police officer can't enter your property without a warrant or probable cause.]

While this may seem like an extremely unlikely scenario for many people, it's actually not that hard to think of a situation where this could happen, particularly in more rural areas of the country.

Where I live (South Jersey), there aren't many places where you can legally ride dirt bikes and ATV's, but many people have a decent amount of land, so they ride around in their back yards.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

A group of friends riding around on dirt bikes in their back yard, drinking some Budweiser, when suddenly, a neighbor calls the cops for the noise. The cops arrive and notice the beer bottles on the ground.

Now, most rational cops would probably just tell the people to knock it off, but you're essentially at their mercy at this point.

Each person could end up getting a DUI charge for doing something that was not endangering anyone other than themselves.

> [But if you end up driving through your neighbor's fence, or run over a guest/family member in your own backyard, I don't think a DUI is unreasonable.]

There's one key detail here: You're referring to cases where an accident has actually (possibly) occured as a result of being drunk. In these cases, I agree, being drunk should definitely result in a more severe punishment. However, I'm talking about a DUI being used proactively as a method of preventing risky behavior that could have potentially harmed others, but has not actually resulted in any accidents.

My argument is that, unlike driving a car drunk on public roads (where a DUI is certainly justified), the risk of harming innocent bystanders in this scenario is exceedingly small, and therefore does not warrant a potentially life-ruining charge when no harm has actually occured.

If not here, then where do we draw the line?

Should a group of people playing baseball in their back yard while drunk be arrested and charged with a crime because they could have potentially hit the ball just right and killed someone?

There are tons of examples of crazy accident scenarios that could have been avoided by better judgement.

I think that situations like these should be addressed on a per-incident basis. It doesn't make sense to proactively punish people for things that are of such a low risk of harming others. These scenarios are rare and unique enough that a general law really doesn't work well.

> [Or if you drive into your own home, tree, whatever, and try to contact insurance for damages, it also makes sense to consider that you were intoxicated.]

I'm 80% sure that insurance would still have to pay out in this case. They pay out for house fires caused by cigarettes, so I assume this is no different, but I really have no confirmation of this.

[jlebar]

> The problem in this case is that many of the DUI laws don't distinguish between private and public property.

Neither do injuries caused by drunk drivers.

[mynameisvlad]

I mean, fundamentally, on your own private property you are far less likely to cause injury to someone else or someone else's property, for the sheer fact that people would be trespassing on your private property to be there for the accident to happen. There's a material difference between private and public property, one having more chances for injury of others than the other.

[tamana]

I don't know about DUI specifically, but this is why crimes have many degrees of misdemeanor and felony for the same core behavior.

[hysan]

> That is true in many places officially, though a blind eye is often turned.

And it happens where I live too (in Japan). But I have seen police officers stop people who were obviously drunk from riding their bike too. It's very situational, but at least in Japan, it's a real enough thing that people actively think about it here.

[sbov]

About 15 years ago, a friend almost got a DUI for riding his bike while drunk in the SF bay area - the cop was going to cite him if he couldn't get a friend to come pick him up.