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

[Norm]

I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.

I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.

 

[campbellab]

I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.

I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.

To do that you'd have to license cycling otherwise you couldn't apply the same punishments...

 

[dawesome]

You'd also have to have bike registrations and we'd live in pretty much a police state.

 

[MacB]

I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.

I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.

Seriously Norm? you want to legislate just in case? correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that drink driving laws were a direct response to a serious threat to life and limb? Are you saying that drink cycling is posing the same sort of dangers or that you somehow foresee it becoming so?

 

[Norm]

To do that you'd have to license cycling otherwise you couldn't apply the same punishments...

Not quite, I said, there would be inconsistencies and I meant that the crime, not the punishment, should be considered the same, a point which I thought would be obvious but should have made explicitly.

 

[Chris H]

I guess a cyclist is in the same space as any member of the public and alcohol if they are drunk, is their not some general rules aroung being drunk in a public space ?

Anyway forget cyclists if you were going to raise the bar you would start with mobility scooters now they can and do cause incidents

 

[Norm]

Seriously Norm? you want to legislate just in case? correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that drink driving laws were a direct response to a serious threat to life and limb? Are you saying that drink cycling is posing the same sort of dangers or that you somehow foresee it becoming so?

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.

 

[Cyclopathic]

if you were sober would you have rode down the street the wrong way ??

At that age I was a bit of a dik head so I might well have done but I would not have simply swept around the corner at speed without bothering to look. I was a bit of a dik head but not completely without sense. Suffice to say that knowing what I do about myself I am 100% sure that it would not have happened whilst I was sober. I really was quite drunk at the time.

 

[Cyclopathic]

I had a very drunk cyclist in a&e who'd fallen from a bicycle and badly injured his face last week. Police came looking for him a couple of hours later. Turns out the bike he was on was one he'd just stolen. He fell off within a few metres of the owner who retrieved his bike and gave a full description to the cops. I was secretly stifling a laugh while trying to remain professional. He's going to cost the NHS a few thousand pounds now though! :-(

I don't think I's have bothered to stifle my laughter. I would certainly not be able to stifle my sarcasm. I would of course treat them with all professionalism but I'm not sure I'd be capable of extending that to my general demeanor.

 

[MacB]

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.

I'm not disputing an increased risk and all that, what I'm asking is why you're advocating this change? Is there a sudden increase in drink cycling, or the dangers therein, that requires a response? I follow cycling news stories,and advocacy, fairly closely and I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case. Assuming there ins't a sudden upswell that I'm unaware of then what exactly is your reasoning in supporting legislation?

The 'legislate just in case bit' merely meant, are you just basing this on a sort of 'stands to reason' thought line? We're traffic as well, we're vehicles, we want to be treated with respect, so should abide by all the same rules?

It strikes me as trying to bring in legislation for a problem that doesn't exist, or not to a meaningful level that requires action.

 

[Norm]

I'm not disputing an increased risk and all that, what I'm asking is why you're advocating this change? Is there a sudden increase in drink cycling, or the dangers therein, that requires a response? I follow cycling news stories,and advocacy, fairly closely and I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case. Assuming there ins't a sudden upswell that I'm unaware of then what exactly is your reasoning in supporting legislation?

I think you're reading a bit much into it! There's nothing more to it than "someone posted a thread asking a question". As a general principle, I'd like to see the default position when drawing up legislation being that cyclists are traffic. I think that would help cyclists assert themselves and stick one up the bottom of the neanderthal "you don't pay road tax" comments.

That's not the same as saying I think cyclists should have number plates.

The 'legislate just in case bit' merely meant, are you just basing this on a sort of 'stands to reason' thought line? We're traffic as well, we're vehicles, we want to be treated with respect, so should abide by all the same rules?

Well, not necessarily "stands to reason", because reason is in short supply and some incredibly stupid people try to stand up to it, but I think it would help if it was clear that we all stuck to the same rules.

There seem to be people who struggle to understand that RLJ in a bike, car, bus or moped is still an RLJ. There seem to be people who struggle to understand why a cyclist might be riding in the middle of the road. There is a perception amongst many that the place for a cyclist to pass slow moving traffic is always on the left.

It strikes me as trying to bring in legislation for a problem that doesn't exist, or not to a meaningful level that requires action.

I speak for no-one else but, in my case, I'm not proposing bringing in new legislation for it, just using it as a general default position for any new legislation which is brought in.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I'd like to see all non-pedestrian road users prohibited from travelling on the highway while under the influence of alcohol (even using the current drivers' limit for cyclists).

I'm a keen motorist, a keen cyclist and occasionally a keen drinker. I do not think cycling or driving on the highway mix well with the cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability that alcohol can combine with a nagging slur in reaction time and a mashing of perception.

I wouldn't want either to cycle or to drive on a road shared with inebriated drivers or cyclists.

As in all matters of opinion, I am right. Disagreeing with me just makes you wrong. If you were already wrong (and you probably were) then you are now even wronger. Wrongerer.

Thank you.

 

[nick.b]

the laws apply to anyone, there is no law that states it must be a car or lorry to get done by the police.

"drunk in change of a vehiecle is the offense, you can be done for being smashed and driving an electric wheelchair.

although all the laws apply, the police dont treat the offender in the same manor and the penalties are almost nonexsistant.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

What's the point? We can't enforce the laws on speeding, drunk driving, red light running, mobile phone use, seat belt wearing (the newest law to fail) etc etc..

 

[RWright]

Here in North Carolina you can be charged on a bicycle and riding lawnmower the same as in an automobile. I don't think horses are included.

Even if someone doesn't have auto insurance that rates will be raised on, the fines and court cost can be substantial.