Cycling and drinking, should we do it

[Markymark]

yeah cheers, I have to agree with you on the point of zero tolerance, I also think the law should be changed when it comes to cyclists and drinking. I bet the stats would soon change if plod started breathalysing wobbly cyclists on the way home from the pub or cyclists involved in rta's. The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.

There are no stats for pedestrians injured and when drunk they often hurt themselves and others. We must breathalyse them too as I can conjure all sorts of different scenarios with a pedestrian injuring someone drunk.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

I have no issue with variable speed limits. In fact they're quite common on motorways. They are regularly adjusted to the conditions, typically between 40 and 70 mph. It seems a very sensible approach to me.

I know that but that wasn't my point, as you well know.

 

[steve50]

Ok. I hear you.

Slightly OT but sort of on principle. How would those who are in favour of a proportional limit on alcohol/drug levels vis-à-vis scale of the potential consequences feel if I were to say that eg motorway speed limits should be variable too? As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago, I was driving up to Carlisle on the M6 north of J36 and saw not one vehicle for over 20 minutes. So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?

I guess you mean 2am, yes you could have "nipped" up the motorway at a greater speed had you chosen to do so but the law states the speed limit on the mway is 70mph and it would be your own fault had you been caught speeding much the same as a driver or a cyclist could be well over the dd limit the difference being the dd driver or cyclist potentially run a greater risk of being involved in an rta and possibly killing themselves or some poor sod who happens to be on the road at the time.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Note to Messrs Forger/Smeggers - careful, or you will have TMN of the Silly Police on your case.

 

[mjr]

As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago

2am, I guess you meant.

So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?

You would probably have put users of nearby roads, inhabitants of any neighbouring properties at risk because the motorway barriers and run-off areas have been built to deal with a 70mph off (or should have been) and not a 120mph one. If they're strengthened suitably, I've no problem with motorway speed limits that can be varied upwards, subject to the driver's eyesight being certified good enough to see the stopping distance (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE="mjray, post: (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)[/QUOTE]

On your last point bear the eyesight test is reading a numberplate rather than seeing a great big car on an empty motorway. That said the eyesight test os a pretty low standard

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Oh ok - you clearly have a closer relationship with the Head of the Silly Police than me.

2am, I guess you meant.


You would probably have put users of nearby roads, inhabitants of any neighbouring properties at risk because the motorway barriers and run-off areas have been built to deal with a 70mph off (or should have been) and not a 120mph one. If they're strengthened suitably, I've no problem with motorway speed limits that can be varied upwards, subject to the driver's eyesight being certified good enough to see the stopping distance (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)

Yes 2am - apologies for error; was retrieving broken down friend coming down from Scotland on M74. Nightmare night!

 

[mjr]

There are no stats for pedestrians injured and when drunk they often hurt themselves and others.

There are stats for that! As well as Hospital Episode Statistics, there are also private studies, such as "126 injuries to people on foot in Glasgow who had been drinking" reported in http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/glasgow-third-worst-for-drunk-pedestrian-injuries-1-3631790

The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.

What discussion are you reading? I thought the main argument was that it hurts no-one besides themselves and it doesn't seem to hurt enough drunk cyclists to merit reporting. There are statistics, as I mentioned a few posts ago and again above.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

QUOTE]

She knows me well enough by now

Oh to be part of the hallowed circle.

 

[mjr]

On your last point bear the eyesight test is reading a numberplate rather than seeing a great big car on an empty motorway. That said the eyesight test os a pretty low standard

And a low standard often not met, plus what's necessarily illuminated on the back of a car? Only the number plate and a couple of smaller red lights. The rest of the "great big car" will probably be in darkness when the motorway is empty. I'm not saying we should be able to read number plates at ten times the distance, but we need to be able to see it.

Actually, it's worse than that: we'd need to be able to see an unlit obstruction in the lane 180m ahead.

 

[Profpointy]

And a low standard often not met, plus what's necessarily illuminated on the back of a car? Only the number plate and a couple of smaller red lights. The rest of the "great big car" will probably be in darkness when the motorway is empty.

My point was that it's onky necessary to see there's an object, rather than read the text. But agree, if you can't read a numberplate you aren't far off Mr Magoo

 

[surfdude]

i woke up with 2 teeth missing and a cut that needed 4 stitches in my lip . drink and cycling home was not a good idea

 

[Glow worm]

I think some research is needed. I'll be cycling the 10 or so miles home from the pub after work tonight, and will report back. Honestly the things I do for you lot

 

[young Ed]

@SpokeyDokey
yes you could have put your foot down and depending on what truck you were in could have easily done 150+ MPH but i wouldn't recommend it. seeing as you aren't trained or experienced (i'm guessing) to do 150 MPH you won't be used to the increased braking and stopping distances and how the vehicle handles when you're doing such a speed
so more the sake sake of your own safety then any one elses, no i would not recommend it
Cheers Ed

 

[Dan B]

I cycled while drunk and using a chainsaw. Four people died.

Were they wearing headphones?