Is Bicycle considered on foot or in a vehicle?

[Hawk]

Originally Posted by MarcS

not going to bother reading the thread since this has been gone over in the past and the legal minds on this board came to the conclusion that it depends what the definition of "in" is.

In my personal opinion, you can not be "in" a bicycle, only on it. Open carry on a bicycle is therefore not prohibited. The reason you can not open carry in a vehicle is because it is effectively concealed.

What if I glue a holster to my drivers side window or hang it from the door handle. Is that open carry then?

Hawk,

[bmc]

Hi everyone, I am new here and I signed up just to respond to this issue as I am a bicyclist. I believe a bicycle is considered a vehicle under PA law.
Cyclists can be ticketed like motorists. I am a member of a cycling club in W. PA and one of our members was ticketed near Hartwood Acres in Fox Chapel for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign on his bicycle.
A cop saw him scoot through the stop sign and pulled him over!
He was asked for his drivers license and produced it, but asked the officer what would happen if he did not have his license on him. The cop wouldn't tell him what would/wouldn't happen if he had not had his DL.
Just thought I would add my cyclists perspective.
I too am thinking about getting my conceal permit as I often ride alone.

[Pa. Patriot]

A lot of god points, etc, in these replies.

I did some searching for case law related to this and came up empty.

I have to say that IMO Gunlawyers answer is the most accurate according to my experiences...

That said, there is no definition within the UFA of "vehicle". Lacking the statutory definition we must revert back to (what the court would consider) common definition. And indeed, I agree, that any means of transport, including piggy back could be considered a vehicle per the common dictionary def.

Now, I know of no case law on this but I imagine the trial would go something along the lines of the following. <just speculating> The prosecution would argue that a bicycle is a "vehicle". The defense would argue that regardless of the definition of vehicle the statute does say specifically "in" a vehicle. "In" would de facto preclude any vehicles that don't have a compartment that you can get "in".

How would it play out? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm not volunteering to be the test case though