Should cyclists be subject to the same drink laws as drivers when on the roads?

[Cyclopathic]

It's been raised on the smidsy thread here so thought i'd just open this particular issue up a bit. At the moment I am thinking that we probably should be under the same restrictions as drivers when it comes to riding whilst drunk and subject to be brethalised under the same rules.
It is still possible for a drunk cyclist to cause accident and injury to other road users (even if they damage themselves in the process). Even if the accident doesn't injur a third party there is still the cost of emergency services etc.
As I say at the moment I think we should but there are undoubtably points that I haven't considered.

 

[subaqua]

there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.

if the law makers thought it was an issue they would have especifically included the word Bicycle in the legislation , or changed the law . I beleive there have been several amendments to the law in the past 30 or so years- plenty of time to drop it in if it was neccesary

 

[Markymark]

I believe just as its not against the law to load a CD into a car, it is illegal if it is deemed to cuase you to drive dangerously, a cyclist who appears to be cycling dangerously should be stopped, as should it be against the law to cycle dangerously.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Why stop there? What about pedestrians?

Because I was more thinking about people in charge of vehicles but it's a fair point and I am already a little bit less convinced than I was about the matter. As I said I'm far from sure on this but on the face of it, it sounded like a sensible idea.

 

[theclaud]

No. Of course not. And I don't say this just because I'm a pisshead on a bicycle.

 

[slowmotion]

How many pissed-up cyclists cause accidents? I'm curious.

 

[oldfatfool]

What would the punishment be? I know motorists get a fine but imo the greatest detterant is the ban and the fact their insurance will be mahoosive for 5 years.

 

[Cyclopathic]

there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.

if the law makers thought it was an issue they would have especifically included the word Bicycle in the legislation , or changed the law . I beleive there have been several amendments to the law in the past 30 or so years- plenty of time to drop it in if it was neccesary

I'm not buying the 25kg of metal argument because I think it isn't just about the damage a cyclist will do directly. It could cause a car to swerve and hit someone else. A cyclist whilst drunk could get themselves injured or killed by a driver who was not at fault but will have to live with it on their mind, which some people are better at dealing with than others.
Also just because it hasn't been made into a law doesn't mean necessarily that it shouldn't be. If that was the case we'd have perfect laws for everything.

 

[theclaud]

I'm not buying the 25kg of metal argument because I think it isn't just about the damage a cyclist will do directly. It could cause a car to swerve and hit someone else. A cyclist whilst drunk could get themselves injured or killed by a driver who was not at fault but will have to live with it on their mind, which some people are better at dealing with than others.
Also just because it hasn't been made into a law doesn't mean necessarily that it shouldn't be. If that was the case we'd have perfect laws for everything.

No they couldn't. You don't get yourself run over - it's something some else does to you.

 

[Stonepark]

Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, provides the offence of cycling on a road or public place whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. It states:
30(1) A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.

NOTES

(i) The evidence of the extent to which a person is affected must be measured by means other than the provision of a specimen of breath, blood or urine, as there is no power to require such a specimen in these circumstances. However, if such a specimen was offered, it is probable that the evidence obtained by analysis of the specimen would be admissible.
(ii) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence.
(iii) In England and Wales a constable may only arrest without warrant in accordance with the powers of arrest set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In such an instance, that power might be exercised where a satisfactory address has not been furnished, or the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent such a person causing physical injury to himself or any other person (see also other conditions in s24 of PACE).
(iv) The absence of a specific power of arrest in England and Wales affects the ability of the police to present any form of medical evidence of the accused's condition.
(v) There is no offence of 'being in charge' of a cycle under the Road Traffic Acts, but such conduct may well be an offence of drunk in charge of a carriage under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. A bicycle or tricycle is a carriage for the purpose of that section.

 

[Cyclopathic]

How many pissed-up cyclists cause accidents? I'm curious.

I caused one about 20 years ago. I went belting around a corner into a one way street the wrong way and colided head on with a car. No one else was injured (I bruised my entire groinal area after I collided with and bent the alloy handlebar stem.) I think I got away with it only because the poor driver was in shock and absolutely ashen faced and didn't think to call the police. I picked up my bike after taking his insurance details and buggered off as quickly as i could hobble.
I think it is entirely possible if nit likely that I wouldn't have done this had I known that the law about drinking and driving would apply to me equally. Up until that point I'd thought that riding after a few beers was just a perk of bike riding. This incident changed my mind and I still feel bad about it.
All that said doesn't necessarily make my case but I think it would have prevented that particular accident.

 

[Cyclopathic]

No they couldn't. You don't get yourself run over - it's something some else does to you.

In the vast majority of cases you are right. I can only refer yo to my post at #12 to illustrate that it is not the case 100% of the time.

 

[marinyork]

No.

I regard it as fairly unworkable.

If you wanted such a thing, you could conduct rigorous scientific tests as to the point where you'd start to lose control of a bicycle would spiral wildly out of control. The problem in this approach is that the momentum (which includes velocity) and likely outcomes between a standard car and a bicycle (probably at lower speeds on a pub run than even normal cycling) are two very different things. I'd guess that the point for which it deemed an unacceptable risk with cycling would be deemed higher than the limit for driving a motor vehicle. Drink driving causes a quantifiable number of serious accidents and deaths every year. It's right that resources are targetted on that.

I've had a friend who borrowed my bike and cycled back the many miles (mostly on a quiet cycle path) from a brewery and collapsed when he came through the door. Not very sensible behaviour, but comparing it with a motor vehicle is silly. He'd have probably crashed into the first wall, person or vehicle he came across.

When I lived in York the police there were really big on drunk cycling (and very tame in general on motoring offences).

There were two cases that stuck out in my mind. First was a bloke who crashed at low speed and got mugged very badly and the police were more concerned with finding those people. The second a very drunk cyclist in town who got taken away but who should have probably got bundled in the van, taken home and told to go to bed. On the other hand I heard of a number of people who went out for a night out and ended up in the river or hospital or occasionally falling into the river and dead.

 

[Drago]

I see where the question comes from, but simple fact is cyclists don't rely on licences to ride their machines the way car drivers do, so not sure what sort of punushment would be meaningful?

 

[growingvegetables]

Hmmm
A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.

Something tells me being caught doing anything (vaguely?) silly could trigger an assessment that the cyclist "is unfit", "incapable of having proper control". That could cover a multitude of tiny errors . Without the luxury of being allowed so 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood?