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

[hoski]

All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else.

This is precisely the point.

And for the miniscule number of dangerous drunk cyclists, I doubt the law would act as a deterrent anyway. I have been under the impression that the reduction in drink-driving has a lot more to do with the cultural shift and increased awareness of its dangers rather than the law acting as a deterrent.

Plus I like combining my love of drinking with my love of cycling. They have a lovely symbiotic relationship for me.

 

[slowmotion]

A splendid synergy?

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

The point is the arbitrary distinction between motorised and non motorised

One would according the distinction need regulation, and the other wouldn't.

 

[subaqua]

The point is the arbitrary distinction between motorised and non motorised

One would according the distinction need regulation, and the other wouldn't.

unless the motorised one is over a certain Kw rating , no it still classes as a bicycle. construction and use regulations i beleive.

 

[Trickedem]

[QUOTE 2011559, member: 9609"]Eloquently demonstrated in this little compilation - all appeared to have passed the threshold where cycling becomes impossible
[/quote]
several clips having been filmed in British seaside towns on a Saturday afternoon around the time of the full moon.

 

[ufkacbln]

unless the motorised one is over a certain Kw rating , no it still classes as a bicycle. construction and use regulations i beleive.

The higher option for the Gekko (350w) does not qualify and needs a full license, insurance ... and according to these criteria would have to comply with drink driving regulations, whilst the other wouldn't?

 

[subaqua]

The higher option for the Gekko (350w) does not qualify and needs a full license, insurance ... and according to these criteria would have to comply with drink driving regulations, whilst the other wouldn't?

yes , as it becomes a motor vehicle. if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck then generally its a duck.

lifes crap like that sometimes, a bit like 65% in an exam will get you into college but 64% will be a "sorry you didn't make it". there is always a small overlap where you think , thats not fair. finishing 0.01 of a second slower than the qualifying time, theres hundreds of examples.

 

[mangaman]

Well I got back from a smallish ride to meet Dell. No doubt we
were slightly over the driving limit - but we had a lovely evening and I certainly didn't kill anyone on the way
home. The whole thing couldn't have happened without bikes. Jogger drove as doesn't drink, but Dell amd I wetting the baby's head was nice.

As TC said, one cycles to enjoy oneself. I did tonight and I hope DZ did too.

Simple

 

[Boris Bajic]

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?

I apologise for the weaseliness. I don't know what came over me. I am normally the second or third least weaselly person in my select social circle.

As to the 'fun' thing, I'm not sure how serious you're being. How is it meant to be fun? Not only do I hate every minute I spend on a bicycle, I've rashly encouraged my three children to do the same. Sometimes we have so little fun we have to measure it backwards.

I will look into the matter of enjoying cycling, but I think a little research will show this to be the myth I take it for. I hate it and with every new bicycle I build or buy, I hate it more. Fun? Schmun!

That inability to gain any fun may be because I'm not in favour of riding while under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol, too, is something that I will not and cannot associate with fun or enjoyment. Ghastly stuff. The most ghastly (and my least favourite) is Armagnac on a terrace after a big meal, or maybe a slightly peppery Roija with a rare steak. Every time I try either, I hate it more. I also hate Normandy ciders with a big, fat gallette. Yuck!

In that regard, alcohol is like sex, cake and cycling. Hateful things all.

Thank you.

 

[Theseus]

I also hate Normandy ciders with a big, fat gallette.

Try Pommeau, ghastly stuff. We stayed with some Normandy farmers one year and they forced me to drink it before every meal. It makes you forget what you are eating.

 

[Norm]

Well I got back from a smallish ride to meet Dell. No doubt we were slightly over the driving limit - but we had a lovely evening and I certainly didn't kill anyone on the way home. The whole thing couldn't have happened without bikes. Jogger drove as doesn't drink, but Dell amd I wetting the baby's head was nice.

As TC said, one cycles to enjoy oneself. I did tonight and I hope DZ did too.

Simple

The issue, if there is one, with this sort of anecdata is that exactly the same thing could have been written a million times over by drivers in the 1960s and 1970s, before drink-driving became the act of a social pariah as it is now. Slightly over the limit, lovely evening, didn't have an accident (this time), couldn't have happened without cars... That script could summarise vast swathes of my early years.

The response should be that I know no-one who has had an accident whilst drink-driving (something which was very prevalent in my youth) but I know at least two who have hospitalised themselves cycling when drunk.

 

[Linford]

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

A driver doesn't have to have the car in motion to be convicted and banned.
Sit behind the wheel of a car, or sit on a motorcycle whilst over the limit, and you run the risk of getting arrested and charged. No risk to anyone else is there in this action but the punishment is still the same.

 

[Norm]

A driver doesn't have to have the car in motion to be convicted and banned.

indeed and, as I pointed out, drink-drive legislation does not discriminate between someone who is caught at 3am without another vehicle on the road, and someone caught at 3pm in a busy town centre.

The level of danger one poses to others simply doesn't feature.

 

[Norm]

Speeding is illegal because it is potentially dangerous to self and others. Most instances of prosecution or fine and points acceptance have not translated that potential danger into actual damage. It's just part of the responsibility associated with operating heavy machinery in public.

Remove the redundant word "heavy" and that covers bikes as well, so you have my thanks for your support.

 

[400bhp]

indeed and, as I pointed out, drink-drive legislation does not discriminate between someone who is caught at 3am without another vehicle on the road, and someone caught at 3pm in a busy town centre.

The level of danger one poses to others simply doesn't feature.

In reality does it though? I would have thought the level of fine/sentence/ban will depend on all the factors at play, not just the binary effect of being over the limit or not. Indeed, doesn't the amount one is over the limit come into it too?

I know these things aren't black and white and there will be inconsistencies with individual cases, but in general that's how it works isn't it?