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

[Linford]

You have been trotting this stuff out for more than 24 hours and you don't actually know the detail?

Perhaps you can state it for the record and set us straight.
As far as I was concerned, there is little in the way of mitigation which gives the Judge/magistrate the ability to waive the statuatory penalty in an offence as serious as Drink or Drug driving.

You can learn something new every day

 

[Boris Bajic]

This thread has become the ugly bastard child of a drunken, sweaty and regretted union between Helmet Threads and Commuting.

If ever there was a case for hypothetically safe hypothetical sex, this might well be it.

As ever, I am right.

 

[Sore Thumb]

I started a similar thread on the CTC forum and got lynched. CTC members seem to be big drinkers.

 

[Linford]

No, you introduced it as an example of hard done by motorists. It's your thing, you research and back it up properly.

I don't have a problem with Drink Drivers being caught and prosecuted. My only issue is that all road users have to obey they same laws in relation to sobriety when mixing it up with others in a public space.

 

[wheres_my_beard]

Worry not, it is not the problem you imagine. Indeed if you read back you will see that we have established those laws don't apply to cyclists or pedestrians.

They don't but other ones do, but with some clauses.

A person who, when *riding* a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to *such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control* of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.

So with that wording, being under the influence is not an offence if you are able to remain capable of proper control of the cycle.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

To the OP's point; yes. When cyclists can travel at 60mph in built up areas on bicycles weighing a tonne.

 

[Boris Bajic]

So with that wording, being under the influence is not an offence if you are able to remain capable of proper control of the cycle.

Bugger! That means I'm breaking the law even when sober!

 

[Boris Bajic]

To the OP's point; yes. When cyclists can travel at 60mph in built up areas on bicycles weighing a tonne.

Eki could do that.... with ease. With an elephant in each pannier. No doubt about it.

So that's a 'yes' then!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Eki could do that.... with ease. With an elephant in each pannier. No doubt about it.

So that's a 'yes' then!

Not even an ortlieb on a tubus could support that sort of load. and the distribution is all wrong, you'd be popping wheelies and breaking spokes before you passed 30mph.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Not even an ortlieb on a tubus could support that sort of load. and the distribution is all wrong, you'd be popping wheelies and breaking spokes before you passed 30mph.

Sorry. It seemed so right when I typed it. I now accept that I was mistaken.

Bugger!

 

[Norm]

The existence of light machinery (for example, a pair of scissors, a small mechanical balance, a wrist watch) is sufficient to demonstrate that the word "heavy" is not in fact redundant. Unless you're suggesting that drunk people should be restricted to wearing timepieces that contain no moving parts

So, where does the bicycle fit in this continuum of mechanical devices and at what point in this continuum does being drunk become a bad thing? Because that's the only point to all this, isn't it. Some people think that it's ok to cycle after a few, and others don't.

I guess that, at the extremes, most would agree it's not good to be drunk when flying a 747 but you should be okay if you want to wear a watch and over-indulge, and the point where good becomes bad is different for different people. Vive la difference, and all that.

I will say that many supporters seem to be trying to justify their own habits in a way which sounds remarkably like "I drive better after a few drinks and I haven't had an accident yet..."

 

[subaqua]

Oh my god, that word makes me want to kill people.

so that wouldn't be a healing rhythmic synergy then

 

[Nigelnaturist]

c) Being drunk and disorderly IS an offence.

Not a criminal one like drink driving.

 

[subaqua]

So, where does the bicycle fit in this continuum of mechanical devices and at what point in this continuum does being drunk become a bad thing? Because that's the only point to all this, isn't it. Some people think that it's ok to cycle after a few, and others don't.

I guess that, at the extremes, most would agree it's not good to be drunk when flying a 747 but you should be okay if you want to wear a watch and over-indulge, and the point where good becomes bad is different for different people. Vive la difference, and all that.

I will say that many supporters seem to be trying to justify their own habits in a way which sounds remarkably like "I drive better after a few drinks and I haven't had an accident yet..."

the law needed a point where to start prosecutions.

being drunk is great when it doesn't involve wheels , driving or riding. and that includes roundabouts in childrens play areas. never ever ever a good idea to ride one of them (RAB) when intoxicated at any level. it invariably ends in loss of skin, stomach blood or sometimes all 3. not that i have ever done that- no not me

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Are you sure?

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