I want to preface my answer to this question by stating, clearly and unequivocally, that biking while drunk is incredibly dangerous. DO NOT DO IT!

Ok, now that that’s out of the way, here’s the story:

Many states have enacted specific legislation that makes it illegal to ride a bike under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

For example, in California (where the above illustration was first used), section 21200.5 of the vehicle code states that “it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug.”

A number of other states have chosen not to make drunk biking specifically illegal, and instead apply their existing impaired driving laws to cyclists.

Section 813.010 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, for example, states that it is unlawful if “a person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person: (a) Has .08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood… (b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an inhalant; or (c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an inhalant and a controlled substance.” [emphasis mine]

Although it doesn’t specifically mention riding a bicycle while drunk, this statute can be applied to cyclists through section 814.400, which says, in part, that “when the term ‘vehicle’ is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.”

Massachusetts follows neither approach. Under MA law, drunk biking is neither a distinct offense, nor a crime punishable under our drunk driving statute.

While our laws do give bikes all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles, as I explained in this post, our drunk driving law is worded differently than Oregon’s, and, as is often the case with statutes, the wording makes all the difference.

Under Chapter 90 § 24 of the Massachusetts General Laws, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Section one of that chapter defines “motor vehicle” as “all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power.”  It goes on to say that the definition does not include motorized bicycles.

So there you have it. If you ride your bike drunk in Massachusetts, you cannot be arrested for drunk driving, even if you’ve outfitted your bicycle with a motor. You can still be taken into protective custody, but you won’t be charged with any crime.

In case you were wondering, I don’t think that drunk biking needs to be made illegal in MA. As I mentioned before, riding a bike while drunk is a terrible idea — however, if you’re foolish enough to do it, you’re really only risking your own life. Unlike drunk drivers, your potential risk to society is quite low.

Also, enforcing such a law would be incredibly problematic. Apart from the obvious question of how the police would determine who they should stop (“I only swerved to avoid that pothole, officer, I swear!”), a drunk biking law would provide a ready means for officers to detain pretty much anyone they see riding a bike.

In poorer communities, where people of color are already subjected to increased scrutiny and harassment by police, “biking while intoxicated” would become one more pretext for an otherwise unlawful seizure.

To me, the trivial benefit of such a law is far outweighed by its potential for abuse.

Yours,
Josh

There is currently no law against it, but, as I noted in this post, it’s not a very good idea to compromise your hearing on the road.  States like California do have laws that prohibit riding with headphones over both ears.  However, most anti-headphone laws (including California’s)permit cyclists to listen to music while they ride, as long as it’s only in one ear.

Oof, that sucks, sorry to hear it. Unfortunately, there isn’t really anything you can do about that sort of thing. I mean, you could report him to the police for making criminal threats, but that would probably not go anywhere. Since you weren’t injured and he was only yelling at you (rather than chasing you/swinging at you/throwing things), there’s not much more the police could go after him for.

However, if this had taken place in Los Angeles, CA, it would be a whole different story. That’s because the LA City Council just passed an ordinance that makes it a crime for motorists to harass bikers. The law would allow you to sue for three times your actual damages in civil court, as well as attorney’s fees and court costs. If the harassment was especially bad, the court can also award punitive damages (money beyond what your damages are worth, intended as a punishment to the defendant). Wes High, LA resident and the winner of my One Good Earbud giveaway, may be seeking relief under this ordinance after a similar incident.

While I think it’s great that bikers in LA are now protected by this new law, I’m actually glad that we don’t have that sort of thing here. Unlike in Boston, the drivers in LA really aren’t used to sharing the roads with bikes. Most don’t know that bikers have the right to the full lane, or that they have to yield to cyclists as they would for other cars. Take a look at Wes’s helmet cam videos, you’ll see what I mean. LA drivers just aren’t used to dealing with bikes in traffic when they drive. The bikers out there needed some sort of deterrent on their side to level the playing field a bit, and this is what they came up with.

As impressive a step as that is, I’m kinda proud that despite the less than stellar reputation of our drivers, Boston has yet to deem such legislation necessary. Drivers here may not always check before turning right or opening their door, but at least they probably know that they should.

Yours,
Josh

Hey dailydesignbits,

Great question! It is completely legal to ride outside of the bike lane.

According to MGL ch. 85 § 11B, bikers have the right to ride anywhere that a car could legally drive (except on state highways where signs are posted). This applies whether there’s a bike lane or not.

This section further states that cyclists must follow all of the traffic laws that cars do. However, the statute grants us the following three exceptions: 1) bikers can pass on the right, 2) bikers must use hand signals, unless it’s too dangerous to do so, and 3) bikers can ride on the sidewalks if necessary for safety, as long as it’s outside of the town’s “business districts,” and there is no local ordinance prohibiting it.

Now, the next important question: can cars be in the bike lane?

Answer: NO!

MGL ch. 90E § 1 defines a “bike lane” as being restricted to bicycles (defined as “a two-wheel nonmotor-powered vehicle”).

So there you have it: bikes can go (almost) anywhere cars can go, as well as in the bike lanes where they cannot.

Riding on the edge of the bike lane is definitely a good idea, especially during rush hour. I bike to work at the same time, and I always avoid the “door zone” at all costs. Sometimes it’s safest to leave the bike lane altogether, so feel free to “take the lane,” so to speak.

Hope that answered your question!

Yours,
Josh

NOTE: I responded to an earlier question about mopeds based on my understanding of this law, and later revised it after being contacted by someone regarding “mopeds.” The RMV’s website says that they can use the bike lanes, but after looking at it again, I do not believe that this is accurate. It’s probably based on the pre-2009 laws regarding bicycling. Despite being under 50cc’s, a moped is still not a “nonmotor-powered vehicle” under Massachusetts law. That post has been changed, and I regret the error.

Nope, they’re not. Bikes only.

EDIT: Motorcycles; no. “Mopeds” (engines of 49cc or less, 30mph top speed); yes — although it’s certainly not a good idea.

2nd EDIT: See my correction and explanation in this later question.