Cycling after a few drinks

[glasgowcyclist]

And being over the limit for driving means you have drunk excessively and have a lack of control.

Being over the prescribed limit does not necessarily mean the driver is impaired or lacks control. There can be no signs of impaired driving but when stopped for a broken light you happen to blow over the limit. That’s why there are two distinct offences in the RTA.

 

[Ian H]

And being over the limit for driving means you have drunk excessively and have a lack of control.

I think we'll have to disagree on that one.

 

[markemark]

Roads were for everyone to do as they please. As and when new dangers arrive, restrictions and limits are brought in. You can walk drunk. You can roller skate drunk. You can pogo stick drunk. You can moonwalk drunk. You can cycle drunk. You used to be able to drive drunk. But as the deaths and injury increased rules and laws were brought in for motor vehicles. Should there becone a need to expand that if deaths and injuries occur then I dare say it will.

For the rest, judgement is required. I’ll exercise my own judgement.

 

[classic33]

https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/can-you-be-breathalysed-on-bike-road-traffic-law.html

 

[Punkawallah]

Complete rubbish.

A cyclist is potentially a lot more dangerous than a pedestrian. If a pedestrian walks into you or even runs into you then yes you could be injured but if a cyclist hits you at speed then that is far more serious.

Cyclist have yet to attack one another with machetes, despite the best efforts of our forebearers.

 

[Jameshow]

Well OK, but to use the PPE analogy, sensible people will wear appropriate PPE and be dead sober whilst operating a chainsaw but would be quite sanguine about making a sandwich after the pub without a chain mail glove.

Similarly the law puts a zero alcohol obligation on airline pilots, a specified alcohol restriction on operators of motor-vehicles, but
for cycling you have to be actually drunk for an offence to be committed. For merely walking being drunk is allowed providing you are not also disorderly or incapable. This seems reasonable to me and proportionate to the danger caused to others

I wouldn't think twice about having a pint with a lunch whilst on tour one of the little pleasures of life and "free" calories too?

 

[matticus]

You would if you were a pedestrian on the said path and you got hit by 100kg of bike and rider travelling at 20mph.

pffft.

That doesn't sound like a serious, life-threatening incident. (remember you could be hit by lightning on that same walk. Or trip and bash your head - oh of course you wear a walking helmet, being such a safety-conscious chap, so I'll retract that example).

How often have you been hospitalised by other road/path users? My count is twice; both were entirely sober drivers.

Forgive me if I don't rate your attitude to risk very highly. x

 

[Drago]

Complete rubbish.

A cyclist is potentially a lot more dangerous than a pedestrian. If a pedestrian walks into you or even runs into you then yes you could be injured but if a cyclist hits you at speed then that is far more serious.

Yet pedestrians kill far more cyclists through "stepping out HUA" than cyclists do pedestrians.

 

[Binky]

Yet pedestrians kill far more cyclists through "stepping out HUA" than cyclists do pedestrians.

Not sure what that is but basically I think I'd rather a pedestrian walked into me than a cyclist hit me. I'm thinking of same situation where I'm a pedestrian in both cases.

 

[Drago]

Head Up Arse.

Its not important which you'd rather. The fact remains that peds kill more cyclists than the other way around.

 

[Profpointy]

I didn't know that. Being a non drinker it's not something that I've needed to know. I just knew Finland was quite low and strict. I just looked it and in the grand scheme of things Finland and Scotland are not particularly low, and the UK is ludicrously high.

Source: https://etsc.eu/issues/drink-driving/blood-alcohol-content-bac-drink-driving-limits-across-europe/
Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia. 0 Zero tolerance.
Spain 0.5 but soon to be 0.1 according to @Drago
Estonia, Norway, Poland, Sweden 0.2
Lithuania 0.4
Everyone else (19 countries on the list including Scotland) 0.5
UK (excl Scotland). Out on its lonesome. 0.8 WTF?
Most countries have lower limits for commercial drivers, but not the UK. That's still 0.8.

That's probably not news to most of you who are better informed than me. But seriously, WTF?

Enforcement is another side of it. In Finland they can and do happily stop you and breathalyse you for no other reason than that you are driving a car. In the UK I think they have to have reasonable cause ( @Drago correct me there). In France you have to carry your own little breathalyser. In Ireland the Gardai can't be arsed to enforce it, or indeed do anything at all https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/roads-policing-in-ireland.304081

All off topic really as the OP is about drink cycling. Sue me.

Edit. It would appear that I've been living under a rock (what's new). This is a live topic of debate. (And as it affects road safety should be ok for CC even if it is technically a political matter). Here's an interesting article. https://www.ias.org.uk/2025/08/26/why-england-and-wales-need-a-lower-drink-drive-limit/

Genuine question as I don't know the answer, but is there a huge problem of drivers slightly over the lower limit of Scotland say, but still under the England and Wales limit? I totally accept that any alcohol impairs abilities, but, anecdotally admittedly, when you read of horrific accidents it does seem to coincide with people hugely over the limit who've drunk 9 pints or whatever

 

[Binky]

Head Up Arse.

Its not important which you'd rather. The fact remains that peds kill more cyclists than the other way around.

Erm it is to me and I'm the one I care about on this forum.
If you get hit by a pedestrian or a cyclist well it doesn't really affect me to be honest

However, if you'd rather someone cycle into you whilst you are walking rather than a pedestrian walking into you then carry on.

 

[Alex321]

And being over the limit for driving means you have drunk excessively and have a lack of control.

Not really. Even though the UK may have one of the higher limits in Europe, it is still at a level where your level of control is not noticeably affected.

"Drunk in charge" means you have to be visibly affected, noticeably driving/cycling eratically as a result.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Not really. Even though the UK may have one of the higher limits in Europe, it is still at a level where your level of control is not noticeably affected.

Not noticeable until suddenly it is very, very noticeable.

 

[Drago]

Not noticeable to the driver, perhaps - thats because ofnrhe impaired judgement. Very noticeable to weary traffic plod who've seen it all before.

Then idea someone can be at or close to the DD limit and suffer no adverse effect on their driving is hilarious.