Nope, the Corkery v Carpenter 1951 ruling applied to the use of the word "carriage" this was changed in the Road Traffic Act 1984 to be "motor vehicle" along with a definition of what constitutes a motor vehicle. Also I didn't say that you cant be drunk in charge of a bicycle only that the standard by which this is judged is not the legal alchohol limit but your ability to safely operate it.
Really?
You know the term "carriage" was applied in case law to a bicycle as early as 1879, Taylor Vs. Goodwin under the licensing act 1872.
The main consideration of Corkery Vs. Carpenter 1951 is not infact the use of the word carriage, although it is a rather fitting case for this discussion, but rather that application of the "mischief rule" under the rules of interpretation.
S.30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says it is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road whilst unfit to ride under the influence of drink or drugs.
It may be argued that one could maintain control of a bicycle whilst under the influence of a drink or drug, however, one could also maintain control of a car whilst under those influences also.
To suggest that only those who are affected to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of their chosen vehicle is not applicable.
The intent of the statute is to prevent, via a limit of intoxication, one from being in charge of a vehicle on a road or public place and therfore, by applying the rules of interpretation to the law, as set in the case of Corkery Vs Carpenter 1951, a judge can interpret statute to maintain it's original intent.
