Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Page 1
No Driver’s License Suspension for Man Who Rode Electric Bicycle While Intoxicated—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The driver’s license of a man was improperly suspended for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and refusing to take a chemical test for his blood alcohol level where they conveyance in question was an electric bicycle, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has held.
Thursday’s opinion by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Frederick S. Chung, sitting on assignment, reverses the denial of a petition for a writ of mandate ordering the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) to reinstate the license of David Keith Beale.
At issue is the scope of Vehicle Code §13353 which says that “[i]f a person refuses the officer’s request to submit to, or fails to complete, a chemical test or tests” for blood alcohol content where a law enforcement officer “had reasonable cause to believe the person had been driving a motor vehicle” while under the influence, the DMV may “[s]uspend the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of one year.”
Also coming into play in the case is Vehicle Code § 23612, the “implied consent law,” which says:
“A person who drives a motor vehicle is deemed to have given his or her consent to chemical testing of his or her blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood….”
Trial Court Decision
Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Mary E. Arand denied the writ petition, saying:
“Whether an electric bicycle is a motor vehicle is wholly irrelevant to the resolution of this case. Instead, the Court only needs to confirm that Beale is a bicyclist—regardless of the bicycle type he uses. If so, he is subject to the same rules as a driver of a vehicle.”
She said she would “focus on the use of the word ‘vehicle’ in Vehicle Code section 13353, rather than the more restrictive term ‘motor vehicle,’ and hold that an electric bicycle is a vehicle within the meaning of the statute.”
Chung Cites Statute
In his opinion reversing the judgment, Chung pointed out that Vehicle Code §24016 spells out, with italics added by him:
“A person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to the provisions of this code relating to financial responsibility, driver’s licenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle.” He wrote: “Though it is not clear from its opposition, the DMV appears to be arguing that an electric bicycle ‘is not a motor vehicle’ only in the context of insurance, licensing, and registration requirements—it still may be a ‘motor vehicle’ in other contexts—but there is nothing in the plain language of the statute to support this reading. Indeed, as Beale points out, the word ‘and’ suggests that this phrase was intended to be an independent clause. The DMV’s interpretation would make the clause superfluous.”
He added that Vehicle Code §231 provides that “[a]n electric bicycle is a bicycle,” commenting:
“Read together with section 24016, it would be difficult to conceive of a clearer statement regarding the classification of an electric bicycle as a ‘bicycle,’ rather than as a ‘motor vehicle.’ ”
The DMV argued in its reply brief that it “makes sense” for the implied consent law and the administrative suspension system (“APS”) to be applied to bicyclists, explaining:
“The implied consent law was intended to reduce drunk driving and the accompanying dangerous consequences….The APS system was intended to create a prompt and efficient means to remove drunk drivers from the roads to achieve the same purpose.…While bicyclists are not required to have a driver’s license to ride a bicycle, any bicyclist with a driver’s license could easily transition from a bicycle to a car. Removing this option by suspending a bicyclist’s driver’s license serves the same public safety purpose to keep the roads safe. A suspension under these circumstances prevents reckless people from engaging in the same reckless conduct while driving any form of motor vehicle.”
Chung responded:
“We are not persuaded by this policy argument, as it is untethered to the statutory language.”
The case is Beale v. Department of Motor Vehicles, H052612.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company