Judgment on drunk moped driver: Court even imposes bicycle ban

The ruling of May 23, 2025 (case no. 1 A 176/23) is of nationwide importance, as it clarifies that strict standards can also apply to supposedly "low-threshold" means of transport if there is a potential risk.

The plaintiff had been caught driving while under the influence of alcohol several times in the past and had already lost his driver's license. In July 2019, he was caught again when he was driving a moped – a vehicle for which no license is required – with a blood alcohol level of 1.83 per mille and lost control. The driver's license authority then ordered him to undergo a medical-psychological examination (MPU). Because he failed to comply with this order, the authority also prohibited him from driving vehicles that do not require a license on public roads.

The man filed a lawsuit against this. He argued, among other things, that Section 3 of the Driving Licence Regulations (FeV), on which the measure is based, does not apply to bicycles or similar vehicles and is too vague. Furthermore, it is disproportionate to equate the requirements for cyclists with those for motor vehicle drivers.

The 1st Senate of the Saarlouis Higher Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit. The court found that Section 3 of the German Motor Vehicle Regulations (FeV) also applies to vehicles that do not require a license and provides a sufficient legal basis in this case. "Section 3 of the FeV represents a sufficiently precise and proportionate regulation," the court states. The court stated: "Because the plaintiff failed to undergo a medical examination, the driving license authority was entitled to conclude that he lacked the suitability to participate in road traffic with vehicles that do not require a license."

Even though such vehicles have "a lower mass and top speed" than motor vehicles, the danger posed by intoxicated drivers should not be underestimated. The Senate emphasizes: "The danger posed by unfit drivers of vehicles without a license is significant enough to justify ordering a medical-psychological examination."

It is particularly problematic that other road users would be "led to risky and serious evasive maneuvers" if they had to react to the behavior of a heavily intoxicated cyclist or moped rider.

While the court acknowledged that the ban constituted a "serious interference with the fundamental right to individual mobility," this interference was justified given the imminent dangers to the public. The court found no grounds for appeal. The plaintiff can appeal the decision to the Federal Administrative Court within one month.

The ruling reinforces the legal precedent that even driving vehicles without a driver's license is subject to personal suitability. The case makes it clear that driving under the influence of alcohol can not only result in the loss of a driver's license, but in repeated offenses, cycling in public spaces can also be prohibited – with a clear legal basis and a verifiable risk factor.

As "Der Spiegel" reports, the decision is an example of how alcohol in traffic poses an underestimated risk beyond motor vehicles. According to the Federal Statistical Office, by 2024, cyclists will have caused around 43 percent of all alcohol-related road traffic accidents—a record high among road users.