Cycling and drinking, should we do it

[Fab Foodie]

Drinking and bicycles are my passions in life. I like to use one as an excuse for the other ....
i own a collection of pub-bikes.

 

[winjim]

I used to ride home from my pub job absolutely hammered. I mean properly stopping to vomit, falling off the bike paralytic. Trip was through the woods, along the path by the airfield, past the terrifying guard dog and then through the residential streets. No traffic at 1am in the town I grew up in so I was always OK.

That was the year of Hale-Bopp. Riding home through the woods on a clear night, all pissed up with a comet blazing through the sky. It was really something.

 

[glenn forger]

when I was young and stupid I'd ride after 4 or 5 pints and found I could fly home, but you get acid reflux.

 

[snorri]

I think this says it all,facts-figures/

......yes, it says it all in that accidents caused by cycling under the influence are so rare they don't warrant a mention in the linked article.

 

[Wolf616]

I realised I should not cycle after drinking anymore following a morning where I woke up, the only indication I had cycled home that night was I was still wearing my hi-vis jacket. Nothing else mind, just the jacket. On the plus side I was clearly thinking about cycle safety when I decided it was a good idea to cycle home, and I'm pretty sure I was wearing clothes at the time.

 

[Tin Pot]

As I discovered on Monday night ....

See here

I love* finding photos of last nights journey home.


*Dread.

 

[steve50]

......yes, it says it all in that accidents caused by cycling under the influence are so rare they don't warrant a mention in the linked article.

the point i was making is that a LOT of accidents / incidents involving cyclists don't even get reported to the police even if the injuries are bad enough to have the cyclist admitted to hospital (as per the article I linked to) so there are no records of a lot of incidents whether they involve alcohol or not.
I imagine what it boils down to is the old bill are not interested in logging incidents involving cyclists "probably" because we do not / are not required to have a license or mot etc to be on the road . lets also note in law there is no requirement for a cyclist to take a breath test or a blood test to determine the amount of alcohol in the cyclist system.
lets bear in mind i am simply making an assumption with the above statement apart from the facts regarding the breath test etc...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycling-influence4marv.pdf
http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/html/cycling_myths_busted.html#CA

 

[young Ed]

Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with as much right to be on the roads as anyone else. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?

indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
Cheers Ed

 

[steve50]

indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
Cheers Ed

Cheers, looking forward to reading more of your blog.

 

[young Ed]

Cheers, looking forward to reading more of your blog.

erm, errr
yeah, well i just haven't had much time reccently nor have i been doing much interesting :/
unless you want a post about this seasons hay making and a general update on the farming scene?
Cheers Ed

 

[Profpointy]

indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
Cheers Ed

sooo, given pedestrians have more rights than vehicles, should pedestrians have (even) stricter drunk-walking limits. Maybe they could be banned from walking and forced to drive if convicted...

Rules and restrictions proportionate.to doing harm

Thus - airline pilot - zero alcohol, loads of v strict rules, airworthyness certificates.for plane etc etc.

Truck / bus driver - fairly strict rules again, tacographs, speed limiters, harder to get driving licence

Car - test, insurance, fairly low alcohol limit. Age.limit etc

push bike - some rules, pretty slack alcohol limit (must be not "drunk in charge" ie proper drunk, not merely over 80mg or whatever). Ok to cycle as a small child.

pedestrian - virtually no rules - and anything less than paralytic is ok ("drunk and incapable" or "drunk and disorderly")

This is rather.how things ahould be in my view.

 

[steve50]

erm, errr
yeah, well i just haven't had much time reccently nor have i been doing much interesting :/
unless you want a post about this seasons hay making and a general update on the farming scene?
Cheers Ed

Ah, just noticed your blog was from September 2014, did you ever finish it?

 

[Racing roadkill]

Plod: "I believe you've been drinking and riding"

Pissed up rider: "bollox"

Plod: "okay then, seeing as I can't make you give any evidential samples, I guess you can go"

 

[Profpointy]

Plod: "I believe you've been drinking and riding"

Pissed up rider: "bollox"

Plod: "okay then, seeing as I can't make you give any evidential samples, I guess you can go"

the criterion is "drunk" rather than over so many mg per whatsit. Thus, evidence would be "wobblin about all over the place" etc

Merely "having had lots to drink" isn't sufficient.

An acquantance was (quite righlty) done for "drunk in charge of a carriage" and for twoc'ing same. He got away with a fine. He got away with twoc'ing rather than theft as when challenged "is that your bike" he replied "no, I was just having a go". The "drunk" bit was never in dispute.

 

[DaveReading]

He got away with twok'ing rather than theft as when challenged "is that your bike" he replied "no, I was just having a go".

I had to Google that to realise you mean Taking Without Konsent.