Workplace safety training materials, transport operator notices, and public agency safety announcements often need to summarize car drunk-driving rules in a table. It is easy to end up with a format that adds a bicycle column next to the car wording, or applies the car penalty information to bicycles unchanged. Article 44 of Korea's Road Traffic Act states that no one may drive a motor vehicle, etc., a tram, or a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. Because the three modes of transport appear together in one provision, a single shared table may seem sufficient.
However, drunk-driving guidance mixes in content of different kinds beyond the prohibited act, such as breath tests, retests, penalties, and administrative actions on driver's licenses. Here, "motor vehicle, etc." refers to what falls within the motor vehicle category defined by the Road Traffic Act, and it cannot be used to mean the same thing as a bicycle. If you do not separate what is stated in common in Article 44 from what must be checked against other provisions, you may attach the legal effects for cars to bicycles, or give the wrong impression that bicycles are not covered by the ban.
How far "listed in the same provision" goes
Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act bans driving a motor vehicle, etc., a tram, or a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. Paragraph 4 of the same Article defines the state of intoxication in which driving is banned under this Article as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.03 percent or higher. BAC is a figure showing the concentration of alcohol in the blood. So within the scope of this provision, you can state clearly that both cars and bicycles are covered by the ban.
However, this common ground does not mean the follow-on rules are the same. Which modes of transport a penalty provision covers, and which driving acts an administrative action on a driver's license is linked to, must be checked in the wording of each provision. An administrative action is a measure an administrative agency takes regarding a license and the like, separate from a criminal sentence in court. The list of covered vehicles in Article 44 alone does not settle all of these follow-on effects.
How to keep breath tests and sanctions out of the same row
Article 44(2) states that a police officer may test by breath test where it is deemed necessary for traffic safety and the prevention of danger, or where there is considerable reason to believe a person drove under the influence. A breath test is a procedure that measures whether someone has been drinking by having them blow into a device, and this paragraph mentions drivers of motor vehicles, etc., trams, and bicycles together. The same paragraph also states that the driver must comply with the test.
If the driver disputes the result, they may be tested again by a method such as a blood sample, with their consent. This is the retest procedure in Article 44(3). In a training table, "can a breath test be done?" must be kept separate from "what penalty or license effect follows the test?" The former can be confirmed in Article 44, but for the latter you must read separately who the relevant follow-on provision applies to.
Article 44(5) also bans, for the purpose of hindering a test, drinking more alcohol after driving or using specified items that can affect blood alcohol concentration. Read this content too within the scope of the vehicles listed in the provision, and for accuracy, do not add examples of evasive behavior or their consequences to training materials on your own.
What goes wrong when a car penalty table is copied into the bicycle column
As a hypothetical case, suppose a staff member at an organization creates a "drunk-driving standards" table and puts a car picture and a bicycle picture side by side. They write the penalty and license wording in the car column and copy the same wording into the bicycle column. Employees reading the material are likely to take it that the legal effects for both are identical.
What to observe first in this case is not the pictures in the table but the provision supporting each statement. "Ban on driving under the influence," "breath test possible," and "retest possible" can be grouped as content confirmed in common in Article 44. By contrast, to put penalty or license wording written for cars into the bicycle column as well, you must separately check whether the follow-on provision that supports it lists bicycles as covered.
A possible action is to split common rules and items needing further confirmation into separate rows. The completion criterion is a state in which reading each row alone tells you which mode of transport it describes, and no penalty or license effect that has not been checked remains as text copied from another column. Marking a cell "check against follow-on provisions" rather than filling the blank with a guess shows the legal scope of the material more accurately.
| Question for the table | What Article 44 confirms | How to write the training material |
|---|---|---|
| Ban on driving under the influence | Lists motor vehicles, etc., trams, and bicycles | Show as a common prohibition |
| Breath tests and retests | Sets out testing and the consent-based retest procedure | Write procedures and sanctions in separate rows |
| Penalties and license effects | Article 44 alone cannot settle who follow-on provisions cover | Enter only after checking the relevant provision |
| Organization's safety guidance | Operating wording distinct from the legal text | Do not present a particular mode of transport as an alternative |
Why cycling should not be offered as a way to get home
In a notice telling people not to drive, it is best to avoid presenting cycling as an alternative. Bicycles are also covered by the ban in Article 44(1), so telling people to ride a bicycle instead of driving a car does not fit the prohibition. It can also make it seem as though simply changing the mode of transport solves the problem of traveling while intoxicated.
Organizations and workplaces can consider ways to travel without driving yourself, or ways to stay somewhere safely. This is not guidance on avoiding sanctions, but an operating suggestion to keep driving under the influence from happening. Business cars, bicycles used within a workplace, and vehicles people use for their own commute are used in different settings, so it is best not to lump the scope of internal guidance into a single sentence.
The shorter the table, the more the subject and basis belong in the text
If a table is titled "Penalties for drunk driving in a car," the wording beneath it should not be reused for bicycles. Conversely, if the material includes bicycles, it is appropriate to make clear in the title and row names what is being explained and how far, for example "Prohibition and test procedures confirmed in common for motor vehicles, etc., trams, and bicycles." The key is not to put the common prohibition and follow-on effects that may differ by mode of transport in the same cell.
When reviewing, you can check whether each statement names the mode of transport specifically, and whether the prohibition and test procedures in Article 44 are kept separate from penalties and administrative actions. In particular, confirm that you have not listed every effect that applies to cars just because bicycles are covered by Article 44. Written this way, even when bicycles and cars are explained together, confirmed common rules and legal effects that need separate checking will not be confused.
※ This article is general information, not legal advice on any individual case. Please consult a lawyer or other professional about specific matters, and because laws can be amended, check the latest text at the Korea Law Information Center.
