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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

nick.b

Well-Known Member
Location
st neots
[QUOTE 2010378, member: 9609"]Wrong - the law is "It is an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with excess alcohol"
A bicycle is not a motor vehicle!
I believe you can be charged with riding a bike while drunk - however the police would have to prove you were drunk, sobriety test or something![/quote]

wrong? ok, to be picky, its a carrage

CYCLING WHILE DRUNK
Cycling is intoxicating, it gives a natural high but it's also a very sociable activity and those who partake in the weekend 'pub run' will attest that cycling is easier after the odd drink or two.
A social tipple, imbibed in moderation - the proverbial swift half - will not lead to a massive impairment in your ability to ride home but, despite alcohol's pain reducing effect, it impairs athletic performance so too much booze is bad for biking.
The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness - even in a pub - so is clearly never enforced.
In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same rules as motorists, including 'drink drive' rules.
Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.
In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.
'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.
And here's the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling 'dangerously' can be fined by up to £2500.
You can not get endorsements on your UK driving licence for a 'drink cycling' offence. Some US States have such a law so be careful when searching on this topic via Google.
The UK Highway Code - a useful but not a definitive source for UK legislation on motoring and cycling offences - says the penalty point system is "intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices...The accumulation of penalty points acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed."
Note the word 'drivers.'
In law, cyclists propel vehicles on the highway and so have to adhere to most of the same rules as motorists. However, the fines and penalties for offences are different. Cyclists DO NOT qualify for three penalty points for failing to comply with a red light. Offending cyclists, when caught, are given a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket for £30. There are no offences that carry penalty points for cyclists.
CYCLING FURIOUSLY?
It's an in-joke in cycling that cyclists can't be booked for speeding (see below) but can be fined for "pedalling furiously." Many cyclists list being cited for "cycling furiously" as one of their life ambitions. Professor David S. Wall, Head of the University of Leeds Law School, a one-time professor of criminal justice, once listed his hobby as: Cycling (Furiously)
However, these legal eagles say they have been unable to find a reference to such a cycling offence in Blackstone's Criminal Practice or in Halsbury's Laws of England.​
Which is odd, as Christopher McKenzie, an Australian barrister, pointed BikeHub to these cases: Taylor v. Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228, a case where the Queen's Bench Division held, on appeal, that a cyclist was appropriately convicted by a magistrate for furious riding of a bicycle. The dicta of Justice Melor in the case has been cited and followed in a number of cases since: see, for example, Smith v. Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788 (cyclist not liable to pay bridge toll) and Corkery v. Carpenter [1951] I KB 102 (cyclist liable for offence where cycling drunk).​
4534027583_2c5a7199c7.jpg
There’s no specific offence of “furious cycling”, but as reported by Cambridge Cycling Campaign in 2007, fast-moving cyclists can sometimes be nabbed for “riding furiously”, an offence under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act. This mentions (under section 28) it is an offence for “Every person who rides or drives furiously any horse or carriage, or drives furiously any cattle.”​
So, don’t go herding cows on your bike as you’ll be committing an offence twice over…​
Cyclists – and not just Victorian ones – can also be convicted for “wanton and furious driving”.​
The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows:​
“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”​
 
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.
So a sliding scale then?

Moped riders cause less damage than a full on sports bike, a small Fiat Uno causes less damage than a full blown Jeep Cherokee

The logic leads to a higher alcohol limit for the former than the latter in each example
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
So a sliding scale then?

Moped riders cause less damage than a full on sports bike, a small Fiat Uno causes less damage than a full blown Jeep Cherokee

The logic leads to a higher alcohol limit for the former than the latter in each example

we already have a sliding scale. cyclists don't get prosecuted drivers of MOTORISED vehicles do. you mniss the point that a car or moped , or motorcycle weigh significantly more than a cycle does and can go significantly faster with little effort required from the operator ( OK mopeds maybe not)
 
Location
Pontefract
mobile phone use

Saw a cyclist doing this last night along with a cyclist riding hands free over a humped back bridge, and a roadie in twilight without lights, and you can be charged for drunk in charge of a bicycle, and as far as I am aware its illegal to undertake in any form, because of the inherent dangers as is riding on pavements (though supervised toddlers I suppose can be overlooked).
I once got a ticking off for no lights when I was about 15.
 
we already have a sliding scale. cyclists don't get prosecuted drivers of MOTORISED vehicles do. you mniss the point that a car or moped , or motorcycle weigh significantly more than a cycle does and can go significantly faster with little effort required from the operator ( OK mopeds maybe not)

No-one missed anything.

It is simply the logical conclusion of comparing the damage to the weight of the vehicle, and usingthis as a measure of how intoxicated you can be.


As for motorised and non-motorised:as a distinction:

What is the difference between these two:

P5220015.jpg
 

400bhp

Guru
Does it need to be the same drink drive laws? Ideally, the existing laws just need to be used an interpreted properly don't they?

It's a bit like the mobile phone use "law"-there wasn't really a need for one as my understanding is that motorists could be prosecuted under the existing legislation (driving without due care). My reasoning was that the specific law was introduced because the existing law was too inefficient to get fines/points onto licenses, and there was an increasing need for something to be done because every other motorists seemed to be flouting the law.

Based on the above, then i would leave the law as it is because there is not a plethora of drink cycling.
 
What is the difference between these two...
One is motor assisted the other is just pedal propelled?
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
No-one missed anything.

It is simply the logical conclusion of comparing the damage to the weight of the vehicle, and usingthis as a measure of how intoxicated you can be.


As for motorised and non-motorised:as a distinction:

What is the difference between these two:

P5220015.jpg
KW rating that can be sustained maybe. I dunno i don't make the laws. am sure the big grey thing behind thenm would do more damage than both of them combined.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
... 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.

Driving in the early hours having drunk alcohol are big and well known risk factors, especially in the youngest age groups. Some of the most horrific smashes you'll ever read about are in this category. It is for this precise reason that people have suggested that for new drivers and/or drivers under a certain age there should be restrictions on carrying passengers, early morning driving unsupervised and a different lower drink driver limit.
 

Bodhbh

Guru
Punishing and policing drink cycling the same as drink driving would get the drinkers off their bikes and put them back in their cars. Which would you prefer?
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
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.

I'll take that chance. Why are you running together cyclists and drivers as if they are the same? "Non-pedestrian road users"! This might well be the weaselliest phrase CycleChat has ever seen. Anyway, it falls to me, as ever, to put you straight. The cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability and enjoyable perception-mashing actually mix tremendously well with the pleasure of riding a bicycle on the highway. Wobbling home from a happy evening's drinking with friends and singing songs about the moonlight whilst narrowly avoiding sudden ambush by hedges is one of the things that bicycles are for. You do know cycling is supposed to be fun, right?
 

MissTillyFlop

Evil communist dictator, lover of gerbils & Pope.
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.

Yes, I agree. If you're using the road, you should follow the same rules as everyone else using the road. Whilst you may be lighter and smaller than a car, you are still capable of causing serious injury to you and other around you.

When will people get that one person's fun / convenience isn't at all important in the grand scheme of things?

And for those protesting about pedestrians not having the same rules applied:

a) They are not in charge of a vehicle
b) They are mostly not in the road
c) Being drunk and disorderly IS an offence.

The limits applied to cars though area load of rubbish anyway as it really depends on your tolerence to alchohol. Some people can be steaming drunk and still under the legal limit.
 
Top Bottom