If you are going to grade them then I would offer that driving after 3 pints carries the same risk as bike RLJ and car RLJ. I'm sure all perpetrators will say they've done it carefully, no one will get hurt etc etc.
What the perpetrators say is irrelevant. What are the actual consequences?
You would be wrong. Drink drivers and car RLJs kill and seriously injure many times more people than cyclist RLJs. A cyclist RLJ is very unlikely to KSI anyone, including themselves.
I'm not defending drink driving in any way I'm just saying that at 3 pints it's criminal as is entering the ASZ illegally (and I still maintain the ASZ is of no practical use and should be done away with) and RLJing. Your view of whether or not the law regarding ASZ is stupid and dangerous (I don't see how it is dangerous as you're not compelled to use the ASZ) is irrelevant. It's the law and as discussed we shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones we obey.
I would disagree, and say that if a law is more dangerous to comply with than to obey, we have every right to disregard it. You are not compelled to use the ASZ, but if you want to, and want to comply with the law, you are forced to cycle in a dangerous manner. Therefore the law is stupid and dangerous and we should ignore it.
I doubt that, but even if true, what has remorse got to do with anything? I am far more likely to be injured by a drink driver than a RLJing cyclist, so I really couldn't care less whether the former was more remorseful.Just to put the cat among the pigeons I would also offer that our justice system has a degree of how sorry the person is for the crime they've committed and I'd say most people who drive after 3 pints are more contrite than your average bike RLJer who will maintain he/she has a god given right to do so.