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

[Cyclopathic]

[QUOTE 2015913, member: 1314"]I don't cycle better after a few drinks. For me it's about enjoyment - of drinking, of cycling, of drinking and cycling. For me it's like drinking and sex. You can have one without the other but I find the combination of both better.

The parallel ends though as I was always able to cycle without drink. Whereas in, ahem, the day, I would never have had sex had it not been for drink on both sides![/quote]
Have you managed to combine cycling with sex though? No way I'm googling that.

 

[Cyclopathic]

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

Whilst technically true I still think that it may be the case that a person may lessen the chance of being victim to a road accident if they are not drunk.

I once got very very drunk and rode my bike quite quickly around a corner right into an on coming car. It was a one way street (against me) so I really can not blame anyone else for my crash and injuries. If anything I was going faster than the car so I definitely ran into him. I am utterly convinced that this would not have happened if I'd been sober. As far as behaviour goes I am pretty disgusted with my much younger self and have rarely heard of worse by a cyclist. It was more luck than judgement that nobody else was hurt and I can still remember the ashen look on the face of the driver who was, looking back on it, in a state of shock. So much so that he didn't even shout at me or call me any names for being such an idiot. (which I think I'd have deserved.)

I hope it's clear that I am not proud of what I did and I only mention it to show that we are sometimes the authors of our own poor fate.

I will certainly concede that riding a bike whilst drunk is nowhere near as dangerous as driving a car whilst drunk, I am convinced that it does raise the possibilities of accidents and mistakes which may not be without consequence. For this reason I think there should at least be debate about the issue. Perhaps penalties could be less for bike riding whilst drunk to reflect the lesser impact it has overall on public safety.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

The risk of an accident is greater for cyclists, IMO, because of the vehicle's inherent instability, the risk might be to the rider rather than others but drink driving laws as they currently stand don't discriminate between a driver who has an accident at 3am on a country lane and one who gets caught at 3pm in the middle of town. I don't get 'legislate just in case', though.

A bicycle is not a vehicle, it is a carriage in the same way as a pram or horse drawn carriage. Therefore any points made about a bikes instability is moot.

 

[martint235]

Yea been done for both, 30 years apart. Its more like a speeding offence, in that you dont get a criminal record for it.

Are you sure you didn't just get a caution?

It won't surprise some that in my teens I was pulled quite a few times for D&D and you do get a court appearance (unless you plead guilty) and you do get a criminal record for it albeit one that is wiped within about 4 years iirc.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.

 

[theclaud]

Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.

Nonsense.

 

[Glow worm]

There are few pleasures in life more liberating than the joyous feeling of a 'refreshed' ride home from the boozer.

 

[machew]

The only problem I have with drinking and cycling, is for every pint that goes in one end, a pint needs to come out the other. And having to stop for a piss every 15 mins does make the cycle home slow

 

[Brandane]

Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.

Cycling while DRUNK is already an offence. Cycling while over the limit set for drivers, which is completely different from being drunk, is quite rightly IMHO not an offence.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

It's not nonsense. Being drunk in charge of a bicycle is a potential risk to rider, other road users and pedestrians, and to my mind irresponsible.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

ok...what level of alcohol would be an acceptable 'limit' in a cyclists bloodstream then?

 

[Brandane]

ok...what level of alcohol would be an acceptable 'limit' in a cyclists bloodstream then?

There shouldn't be any set level. Some people will be "drunk" after 1 pint, but still below the legal limit for driving. Conversely, some people will still be sober after 6 pints, yet well over the driving limit.
That is why the 2 offences are different for drivers. They had to widen the net to stop people driving when they were drunk, yet still under the limit.
As long as a cyclist is in reasonable control of their bike, that should be good enough. We don't weigh much, and don't go very fast, so there is less risk of us causing carnage. As previously posted, it is already an offence to cycle while "drunk".

 

[snorri]

It's not nonsense. Being drunk in charge of a bicycle is a potential risk to rider, other road users and pedestrians, and to my mind irresponsible.

What's brought this on BoaB? What do you mean by being "drunk"?
There are many greater "potential risks" on our roads than the odd cyclist who may have had one too many.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I will certainly concede that riding a bike whilst drunk is nowhere near as dangerous as driving a car whilst drunk, I am convinced that it does raise the possibilities of accidents and mistakes which may not be without consequence. For this reason I think there should at least be debate about the issue. Perhaps penalties could be less for bike riding whilst drunk to reflect the lesser impact it has overall on public safety.

The breathalyser law came in in 1967. In that year there were around 6000 deaths on our roads. That's just deaths, there were many more life changing injuries. Drink was a factor in (random but roughly plausible figure) 40% of those collisions.

Where's the evidence of drunk cyclists causing that sort of mayhem?

I'm not saying it's impossible for the odd drunk cyclist to cause a problem but the problem is some orders of magnitude below that requiring the sort of intervention you propose.

 

[Profpointy]

What's brought this on BoaB? What do you mean by being "drunk"?
There are many greater "potential risks" on our roads than the odd cyclist who may have had one too many.

There's sensibly enough a sliding scale on how drunk is too drunk for various activities. For example, i understand the level for airline pilots is zero, car drivers not zero - though perhaps should be closer to zero than it is, whilst for cyclists and and people in charge of other carriages you do have to be pretty drunk to be booked (an acquaitance of mine was done, quite rightly, for "drunk in charge of a carriage" having TWOK'd a bike) - if you're a pedestrian, you have to be drunk AND (incapable or disorderly) this all seems fair enough as the level of drunkeness to be busted is broadly proportionate to the risk of harming or being a nuisance to others.