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

[theclaud]

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.

It's not about "one person's fun" - it's about all of us being able to go about our business and enjoy public space. Motor vehicles present an extraordinary danger to others - drunks on bicycles do not. That's really all there is to it.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

It's not about "one person's fun" - it's about all of us being able to go about our business and enjoy public space. Motor vehicles present an extraordinary danger to others - drunks on bicycles do not. That's really all there is to it.

I disagree - if you hit someone on a bike then you are still going to hurt them and why should they pay the price because we decided to have a drink? It's not going about your business when it impacts someone else.

 

[Trickedem]

[QUOTE 2010388, member: 9609"]In Germany, laws pivot around the word "Transport" as opposed to "motor vehicle" here in the UK, And as such cyclists can get points on their driving licence (obviously only if they have one) for offences committed on a bicycle, such as mobile phone use and excess alcohol whilst cycling - I do believe the alcohol thresholds are about 4x greater whilst on a bicycle.[/quote]
I am quite proud of the fact that I got a fine and points on my licence for speeding on my bike, when I was in Germany with the Army. I used to commute in to work and whenever I saw someone on a moped, we would chase them down and overtake them as their speed was limited.

On a related note, relations with the local populace became rather strained because squaddies would regularly steal bikes to get back to the barracks after a night of drinking, however, rather than just dumping them, they would throw them in the river, which ran near the camp entrance. As I recall the punishments dished out for this particular offence were made rather harsh and probably involved being jailed.

 

[theclaud]

I disagree - if you hit someone on a bike then you are still going to hurt them and why should they pay the price because we decided to have a drink? It's not going about your business when it impacts someone else.

There are already laws that cover this stuff. The list of behaviours and activities that might occasionally result in harm to someone else is endless - presumably you are not in favour of blood alcohol limits for all of them?

 

[theclaud]

I am quite proud of the fact that I got a fine and points on my licence for speeding on my bike, when I was in Germany with the Army. I used to commute in to work and whenever I saw someone on a moped, we would chase them down and overtake them as their speed was limited.

Chapeau!

 

[MissTillyFlop]

There are already laws that cover this stuff. The list of behaviours and activities that might occasionally result in harm to someone else is endless - presumably you are not in favour of blood alcohol limits for all of them?

I think that the blood alchohol system is flawed as different people are affected in different ways and some people who are legally under the limit are in no fit state to be in charge of wiping their own behind, never mind a car or a bike.

I think that if you are seen behaving in an unfit manner either in a motorised vehicle, on a bike or on foot and you have any alchohol in your sytem then you should have the book thrown at you. (War & Peace, preferably)

 

[mickle]

I wrote off my pride and joy 1937 Curly Hetchins whilst pissed (rode into a Covent Garden bollard) and that was the very least of the very many stupid things I've done under the influence of alchohol. What I also know for certain is that cycling at night, wearing an all black outfit, on a black recumbent, with no lights whilst 'under the influence' (if that's the term) of a couple of tabs of Blue Pyramid brand LSD is also not a good idea.

 

[theclaud]

I think that the blood alchohol system is flawed as different people are affected in different ways and some people who are legally under the limit are in no fit state to be in charge of wiping their own behind, never mind a car or a bike.

I think that if you are seen behaving in an unfit manner either in a motorised vehicle, on a bike or on foot and you have any alchohol in your sytem then you should have the book thrown at you. (War & Peace, preferably)

Why (with obvious exception for the motor vehicle bit)? What do you mean by "in an unfit manner"? It just sounds like legislation based on disapproval rather than on harm. The drink driving limit is there to protect people from something extraordinarily dangerous where minor operator errors have serious consequences for others, in a culture where the people doing the harm have long felt entitled to subject others to great risk. Nothing people do routinely on bicycles, pissed or otherwise, is comparable.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Why (with obvious exception for the motor vehicle bit)? What do you mean by "in an unfit manner"? It just sounds like legislation based on disapproval rather than on harm. The drink driving limit is there to protect people from something extraordinarily dangerous where minor operator errors have serious consequences for others, in a culture where the people doing the harm have long felt entitled to subject others to great risk. Nothing people do routinely on bicycles, pissed or otherwise, is comparable.

By unfit, I mean in a way that is likely to cause harm to the perpatrator or others. Of course cycling whilst drunk is not AS dangerous, but just because it's not as bad doesn't make it fine.

I mean shooting someone in the face is much more likely to harm someone than punching them in the face, but they can both cause some degree of harm and are both illegal, thankfully.

 

[theclaud]

By unfit, I mean in a way that is likely to cause harm to the perpatrator or others. Of course cycling whilst drunk is not AS dangerous, but just because it's not as bad doesn't make it fine.

I mean shooting someone in the face is much more likely to harm someone than punching them in the face, but they can both cause some degree of harm and are both illegal, thankfully.

I quite agree, but neither of them has anything to do with cycling into lamp-posts and wobbling into ditches, which are not acts of violence against another. "Perpetrator" is an odd choice of word for someone who is mainly fumbling with their keys, talking bollocks to themselves, and looking a bit of a tit. As I said, if (in the course of being drunk and riding a bicycle) you cause harm to others either deliberately or negligently, there are already laws in place - the being drunk on a bicycle bit is an irrelevance.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I quite agree, but neither of them has anything to do with cycling into lamp-posts and wobbling into ditches, which are not acts of violence against another. "Perpetrator" is an odd choice of word for someone who is mainly fumbling with their keys, talking bollocks to themselves, and looking a bit of a tit. As I said, if (in the course of being drunk and riding a bicycle) you cause harm to others either deliberately or negligently, there are already laws in place - the being drunk on a bicycle bit is an irrelevance.

I think we may be saying the same thing in a different way - (although if someone is unable to control their steering in such a way that they're veering off the road, I might be inclined to say that they should at least have their bike confiscated until they're sober enough to steer - it's all very well if you're in the countryside with no-one else around, but if you're veering onto the pavement uncontrollably in a densly populated area, then you're much more likely to cause harm to someone).

I don't mean punishing someone because they have had a drink, I am talking about someone who is unable to control their bike to a standard where you can be confident that they're not going to cause harm to themselves or others.

Regardless of anything else, we have a responsibility to not harm others, deliberately or otherwise and if we fail in this responsibility then we must accept the consequences.

 

[nick.b]

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.

what you really need is some deathrace 2000 style blades on the wheels of those things, that would rock

 

[theclaud]

I think we may be saying the same thing in a different way - (although if someone is unable to control their steering in such a way that they're veering off the road, I might be inclined to say that they should at least have their bike confiscated until they're sober enough to steer - it's all very well if you're in the countryside with no-one else around, but if you're veering onto the pavement uncontrollably in a densly populated area, then you're much more likely to cause harm to someone).

I don't mean punishing someone because they have had a drink, I am talking about someone who is unable to control their bike to a standard where you can be confident that they're not going to cause harm to themselves or others.

Regardless of anything else, we have a responsibility to not harm others, deliberately or otherwise and if we fail in this responsibility then we must accept the consequences.

The nice thing about bicycles is that they are sort of self-regulating when it comes to drunkenness, because of the balance requirement. If you are feeling lively after a couple of pints you might put on an uncharacteristic turn of speed or drop off something bigger than you'd have risked otherwise, but beyond that booze generally makes for more ponderous two-wheeled progress. I simply don't accept the notion that being drunk on a bike presents a danger to others. If you're veering around a lot it won't be long before you veer off into a hedge or simply fall over. If you are the kind of cyclist that stops to make way for pedestrians when sober, then you'll do the same when drunk, but possibly keel over in the process. Booze does not turn otherwise considerate cyclists into hooligans who tear along crowded pavements, and people who terrorize pedestrians are not made less obnoxious by being sober. I've turned a familiar mile-long journey into a sort of marathon mystery obstacle course simply by having too much beer. I have lost Whitstable station entirely at least half a dozen times (it turned out not to have gone very far). All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else. Reiver's example above strikes me as good policing. This and a bit of goodwill is all that's needed. It's important that we don't load people's everyday bimbling about with restrictions, regulations and prohibitions - especially when we all presumably agree (Linford excepted) that cycling is a good thing - a benign, convivial, liberating, useful thing.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

The nice thing about bicycles is that they are sort of self-regulating when it comes to drunkenness, because of the balance requirement. If you are feeling lively after a couple of pints you might put on an uncharacteristic turn of speed or drop off something bigger than you'd have risked otherwise, but beyond that booze generally makes for more ponderous two-wheeled progress. I simply don't accept the notion that being drunk on a bike presents a danger to others. If you're veering around a lot it won't be long before you veer off into a hedge or simply fall over. If you are the kind of cyclist that stops to make way for pedestrians when sober, then you'll do the same when drunk, but possibly keel over in the process. Booze does not turn otherwise considerate cyclists into hooligans who tear along crowded pavements, and people who terrorize pedestrians are not made less obnoxious by being sober. I've turned a familiar mile-long journey into a sort of marathon mystery obstacle course simply by having too much beer. I have lost Whitstable station entirely at least half a dozen times (it turned out not to have gone very far). All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else. Reiver's example above strikes me as good policing. This and a bit of goodwill is all that's needed. It's important that we don't load people's everyday bimbling about with restrictions, regulations and prohibitions - especially when we all presumably agree (Linford excepted) that cycling is a good thing - a benign, convivial, liberating, useful thing.

Your drunken cycle sounds tremendous fun. Yes, I think common sense is a good way of dealing with any situation, as mentioned in Reiver's post.

 

[Maz]

Although I don't drink (I'm Muslim), I do go on social rides with regular pub stops. As the evening progresses, some people do start to wobble a bit when riding, but it's nothing really. They're more a danger to themselves than anyone else!