Drinking and cycling. Is there a problem?

[classic33]

You could end up having a very sobering experience doing that !!!

I think he has had!

 

[theclaud]

But that's exactly what I was saying. I'm not saying that as a rule, everyone on a bicycle is lethal or going to cause an accident, just that they can be and that if you have a few drinks, you're probably more dangerous than if you didn't. The question posed was " Drinking and cycling. Is there a problem?" and I honestly believe that drinking and cycling, as opposed to not drinking and cycling, is a problem. Will a car cause more damage than a cyclist? Probably. But that wasn't the question.

Ask the person who choked on it.

Riiiiiiiiiight. So it pretty much comes down to everything is dangerous and therefore one should remain sober at all times in readiness for the omnipresent danger of everyday activities?

 

[Tin Pot]

Riiiiiiiiiight. So it pretty much comes down to everything is dangerous and therefore one should remain sober at all times in readiness for the omnipresent danger of everyday activities?

If being drunk is an everyday activity!

Only kidding. But you know as well as I do that people create rules to deal with issues, not accurately reflect the objective risk. The rules against speedy driving apply on an empty road in an unpopulated area, why? Because a simple rule is easier to communicate and enforce over a wide population than one that allows for the circumstance. People here who are against drinking and cycling are again making the rule simple to avoid the risk entirely.

Everything is dangerous, which is why people use simple rules for the majority of activity and only engage with thinking when there is some benefit seen to be had.

 

[theclaud]

If being drunk is an everyday activity!

Only kidding. But you know as well as I do that people create rules to deal with issues, not accurately reflect the objective risk. The rules against speedy driving apply on an empty road in an unpopulated area, why? Because a simple rule is easier to communicate and enforce over a wide population than one that allows for the circumstance. People here who are against drinking and cycling are again making the rule simple to avoid the risk entirely.

Everything is dangerous, which is why people use simple rules for the majority of activity and only engage with thinking when there is some benefit seen to be had.

No - because risk is a matter of severity as well as likelihood, because risk increases exponentially with driving speeds, and because posing a risk to others is morally different to taking a risk on one's own behalf. And I needn't add that in the case you mention, the rule is neither reliably enforced nor successfully communicated. And I reckon the reason people are against drinking and cycling is generally either that they just disapprove of drinking and the cycling bit is an excuse, or that they identify with drivers who resent their freedoms being restricted, and wish to punish non-drivers by making them subject to the same (entirely inappropriate and unnecessary) restrictions.

 

[raleighnut]

+1 to the jealousy and resentment bit.....................Same goes for ex-smokers.

 

[Tin Pot]

No - because risk is a matter of severity as well as likelihood, because risk increases exponentially with driving speeds, and because posing a risk to others is morally different to taking a risk on one's own behalf. And I needn't add that in the case you mention, the rule is neither reliably enforced nor successfully communicated.
And I reckon the reason people are against drinking and cycling is generally either that they just disapprove of drinking and the cycling bit is an excuse, or that they identify with drivers who resent their freedoms being restricted, and wish to punish non-drivers by making them subject to the same (entirely inappropriate and unnecessary) restrictions.

You're first and second points aren't counters to my position - you do realise that I'm supporting your position?

As italicised, there is an element of truth in some cases, but it would be hard to make the case for all to be exercising a prejudice - I'd suggest it's more reflective of the general way in which people think(or choose not to).

 

[spen666]

Road Traffic Act 1988 s.4(2)
Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs.

(1)A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(2)Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
(4)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.
(6) constable may arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that that person is or has been committing an offence under this section.
(7)For the purpose of arresting a person under the power conferred by subsection (6) above, a constable may enter (if need be by force) any place where that person is or where the constable, with reasonable cause, suspects him to be.

For the purpose of the Act a bicycle is not a mechanically propelled vehicle.
However you can be arrested for other offences, including being a smartarse

No idea why you have quoted this, it is irrelevant

Try S12 Licencing Act 1872 which does make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a carriage and for the purposes of the legislation a carriage includes a bicycle, so in short you are committing an offence when in charge of a bike (not just riding it) on the highway or any other public place

 

[theclaud]

You're first and second points aren't counters to my position - you do realise that I'm supporting your position?

As italicised, there is an element of truth in some cases, but it would be hard to make the case for all to be exercising a prejudice - I'd suggest it's more reflective of the general way in which people think(or choose not to).

Yup I was just disagreeing with the notion that vehicle speed limits work purely on a blunt-instrument basis, and the apparent implication that they are overkill in less populated areas. And of course the way in which people think (or don't) has a lot to do with how they identify...

 

[Profpointy]

Perhaps we should have variable legal levels of alcohol limits for different sized vehicles then.

Maybe a vehicle mass related sliding scale that starts at 1mg for whopping great big multi-axled truck drivers going all the way up to however many mg you like for sanctimonious cyclists.

I think we do have that already. Flying a plane you have to be completely sober - a zero limit essentially, driving a motor vehicle, however mg per whatever limit, whilst riding a bike you have to be "drunk in charge of a carriage" - ie properly drunk, whilst as a pedestrian, you have to be "drunk & disorderly", or the lesser offence of "drunk and incablable" - which means very drunk indeed. This seems fair to me, as it reflect the likelihood of alcohol consumption causing harm to others for each scenario

 

[ufkacbln]

IIRC it was "Max Power" Magazine that did a poll in conjunction with the IAM

Something like 85% of the respondents assessed their driving skills as above average or excellent. When passengers were asked the same question only about 20% of drivers were above average or excellent


Drivers are NOT the best people to assess speed limits or driving skills

 

[machew]

No idea why you have quoted this, it is irrelevant

Try S12 Licencing Act 1872 which does make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a carriage and for the purposes of the legislation a carriage includes a bicycle, so in short you are committing an offence when in charge of a bike (not just riding it) on the highway or any other public place

And that Act was repealed by The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitory Provision) Order 2005

 

[spen666]

And that Act was repealed by The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitory Provision) Order 2005

I think you have misunderstood that provision, look carefully at the SOCPA Act, Schedule 17 part 2 which deals with what is repealed. S12 is still in force.

What was repealed in relation to S12 of the Licencing Act 1872 was the words "may be apprehended, and".

S12 of the Licencing Act 1872 is still in force, despite what you may mistakenly believe


[Oh and on a pedantic point of constitutional law, the Order you refer to does not repeal any legislation, it is a commencement order, the SOCPA is what repeals earlier legislation. The Order is not primary legislation and therefore cannot repeal primary legislation like the Licencng Act 1872]

 

[theclaud]

I think we do have that already. Flying a plane you have to be completely sober - a zero limit essentially, driving a motor vehicle, however mg per whatever limit, whilst riding a bike you have to be "drunk in charge of a carriage" - ie properly drunk, whilst as a pedestrian, you have to be "drunk & disorderly", or the lesser offence of "drunk and incablable" - which means very drunk indeed. This seems fair to me, as it reflect the likelihood of alcohol consumption causing harm to others for each scenario

TMN to @Dan B!

 

[Turbo Rider]

Riiiiiiiiiight. So it pretty much comes down to everything is dangerous and therefore one should remain sober at all times in readiness for the omnipresent danger of everyday activities?

Yep, everything beyond breathing is dangerous and if you have anything ranging fron asthma to COPD and / or live in an area of very high pollution and /or air contamination then even that can be (ask a silly question...).

It's your decision whether you remain sober at all times. All I did was answer a question...and yes there can be a problem, which is there by your own admission and you can try all the ridiculous wordplay you like with that, but it wont change the fact that anyone doing anything after a couple of drinks just wont do it the same when their sober...it's just a fact, is all.

Now, as for the suppositions you've tried to plant on me...I don't disagree with drinking in the slightest and I don't sympathise with drivers who feel they should be able to drink and drive. Should also be noted that at no point have I said that restrictions should be in place for anyone with regard to their lifestyle choices.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Alcohol turns normal people into dolts, and dolts into bigger dolts. That's the whole point of alcohol.
.
This is one case where common sense won't let you down. Riding a bicycle on public roads while your motor function and decision making ability are impaired by alcohol presents an increased risk to you and to others, as compared to riding unimpaired.

You can argue endlessly about the baseline level from which the risk is increased, and the degree of increase, and the relative increase in risk for similarly impaired pedestrians and drivers of various other types of vehicle, and the relative increase in risk to self as compared to others for these different groups. It won't be terribly interesting.

However, I'd reject the idea that cycling culture has an embedded problem with alcohol, because I'd reject the idea that cycling culture exists.