Stupid stupid people.

2»

Comments

  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    spen666 wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

    ooooooops :oops: :oops:
    I think the legal limit is 2 sheets, 3 and you're going down :shock:

    There is no "limit" as such

    With car there are 2 offences

    1. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol

    2. Driving whilst proportion of alcohol in breath/blood/urine exceeds the prescribed limit [EXCESS ALCOHOL]

    2 is the usual charge- 1 is rarely charged- as with 2 you have clear evidence ie the breathalyser reading

    For cyclists there is only one offence - the cycling equivalent of number 1. There is no cycling equivalent of number 2

    Interesting....

    So you have to have basically fallen in a ditch or be swerving all over the road before the police will collar you fof cycling under the influence?
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Or hit someone and get arrested, presumably. It riles me a bit that cyclists conveniently forget that while a ton of metal at 40mph is one hell of a weapon, 10kg of metal (plus 70kg of person) at 20mph can do a hell of a lot of damage too.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Belv
    Belv Posts: 866
    spen666 wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

    ooooooops :oops: :oops:
    I think the legal limit is 2 sheets, 3 and you're going down :shock:

    There is no "limit" as such

    With car there are 2 offences

    1. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol

    2. Driving whilst proportion of alcohol in breath/blood/urine exceeds the prescribed limit [EXCESS ALCOHOL]

    2 is the usual charge- 1 is rarely charged- as with 2 you have clear evidence ie the breathalyser reading

    For cyclists there is only one offence - the cycling equivalent of number 1. There is no cycling equivalent of number 2
    Meaning that ANY quantity of alcohol while cycling could get you charged (in theory)?
  • ride_whenever
    ride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    do they even have to prove you've been drinking?

    what if you're just erratic?
    Neeermad
    Carbon 456
    456 lefty
    Pompino
    White Inbred
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    Belv wrote:
    spen666 wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

    ooooooops :oops: :oops:
    I think the legal limit is 2 sheets, 3 and you're going down :shock:

    There is no "limit" as such

    (it was just a little joke on my part)

    With car there are 2 offences

    1. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol

    2. Driving whilst proportion of alcohol in breath/blood/urine exceeds the prescribed limit [EXCESS ALCOHOL]

    2 is the usual charge- 1 is rarely charged- as with 2 you have clear evidence ie the breathalyser reading

    For cyclists there is only one offence - the cycling equivalent of number 1. There is no cycling equivalent of number 2
    Meaning that ANY quantity of alcohol while cycling could get you charged (in theory)?

    "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."

    So you can drink, unless you become unfit/incapable.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    I guess it might be slightly harder to prove, as there is no obligation to take a breath test and also no offence to refuse, so it would be down to PC's judgement I assume.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Yeah, that's what I'm shooting at. How would they actually go about policing this? Can the old bill pull you over on a bike on suspicion of being under the influence? Does this ever happen, I wonder?

    Obviously, if you're out of control of the bicycle then fair play, but I could be over the limit for driving after a few pints and still in control of my bicycle. TBH that's why I tend to cycle to the pub rather than driving, I prefer cycling home to walking home after I've had a few beers(within reason obviously).
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    Belv wrote:
    ...
    Meaning that ANY quantity of alcohol while cycling could get you charged (in theory)?

    Yes, in theory, a sip of the sherry would be enough- its how it affects you that matters.

    A motorist could blow say 30 on the breatalyser ( limit 35) and therefore not be guilty of 2, but still be guilty of 1 because that small quantity had adversely affected their driving.

    This would be very unusual though
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    alfablue wrote:
    I guess it might be slightly harder to prove, as there is no obligation to take a breath test and also no offence to refuse, so it would be down to PC's judgement I assume.

    In relation to a cyclist, the breath test is irrelevant it forms no part of the offence.

    You could blow 180 ( limit for motorists 35) and it still would not help prove the offence as its unfit / incapable that must be proven, not the reading
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    spen666 wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    I guess it might be slightly harder to prove, as there is no obligation to take a breath test and also no offence to refuse, so it would be down to PC's judgement I assume.

    In relation to a cyclist, the breath test is irrelevant it forms no part of the offence.

    You could blow 180 ( limit for motorists 35) and it still would not help prove the offence as its unfit / incapable that must be proven, not the reading
    well, its hypothetical, but I was thinking more in terms of proving the "having taken alcohol" bit, I guess that's down to a "sniff test" by the PC.
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    biondino wrote:
    Or hit someone and get arrested, presumably. It riles me a bit that cyclists conveniently forget that while a ton of metal at 40mph is one hell of a weapon, 10kg of metal (plus 70kg of person) at 20mph can do a hell of a lot of damage too.

    Yes, but lets do some very approximate maths here:

    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units

    Give or take (that's a heavy fast moving bike, compared to a light, slow moving vehicle) there is a difference of a factor of 20-30 or more in the amount of energy that a car can impart to anything it collides with.

    Or, alternatively, a car moving at about 6mph has about the same kinetic energy as you belting along as fast as your legs can carry you. What's more, when you collide with something, you are going to give way, whereas a car is a chunk of metal which will not significantly give way in collision with, for example, a person.

    Comparisons between the "danger" posed by cyclists and the danger posed by cars are absurdly disproportionate. Yes, cyclists can be an irritant and should be responsible, but "slightly" illegal behaviour by a car driver is far, far worse than "dreadful" cycling. There is a bloody good reason that the law appears to be "lax" with regard to cycling, when compared to the law for motor vehicles. Its only the drip drip drip of disapproval from other road users that persuades us otherwise.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    nevertheless, cyclists are still capable of killing

    http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/cyc ... 57946.html

    accepted, the risks are far less.
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    alfablue wrote:
    nevertheless, cyclists are still capable of killing

    http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/cyc ... 57946.html

    accepted, the risks are far less.

    There are a LOT of people in Britain. If you look hard enough, you will be able to find someone somewhere who has done something.

    There's about a person per year killed by cyclists on average, right? And about 5% of all journeys are on a bike. How many road deaths a year in the UK in total? About 3000.

    So, proportionally, for every roughtly 3000 deaths on the roads due to motor vehicles, there would be 20 due to cycling. So, give or take, you are about 100 times more likely to kill someone driving than cycling. Not far off my back of the envelope kinetic energy calculations above, really.

    Alternatively - cyclists kill about 1 person a year, whereas more than 100 cyclists are killed by other people a year. You know, cycling and cyclists are not perfect, but by these measures, we really CAN and should take some moral high ground. Next time someone criticises cyclists, tell them that they are 100 times more likely to kill someone than the cyclist, or that they are 100 times more likely to kill the cyclist than the cyclist is to kill them. The difference isn't "a lot" its absolutely huge, to the point where they are not really comparable.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    I agree with most of that. I would like to take the moral high ground on the basis that cyclists are entirely virtuous road users, unfortunately they are not. I will nevertheless fight the cyclists corner at any opportunity, unfortunately it is all too easy for others to cite the frequent flouting of traffic laws by cyclists (whilst ignoring the fact that these are of little consequence, safety wise).
  • chuckcork
    chuckcork Posts: 1,471
    Risks may be far less (agreed) but if you collide with someone old and frail, or significantly less mass, e.g. a young child, the consequences could be pretty damned serious injuries regardless of the comparison between car and cyclist.

    Imagine a Rugby forward running full pelt and forearm first into a 55kg 85 years old, or a 20kg child, the consquences wouldn't be much different. Saying that what about the comparison between cyclist and HGV, or even a child cyclist and HGV? That is even worse.

    Lets revise the very approximate maths here:

    HGV - 20000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 180000 arbitrary units
    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units
    Child - 20kg, speed 10mph, kinetic energy = 20 arbitrary units

    Any child on the roads hasn't got a chance, any wonder so many are driven to school to become little fatties?
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    chuckcork wrote:
    Risks may be far less (agreed) but if you collide with someone old and frail, or significantly less mass, e.g. a young child, the consequences could be pretty damned serious injuries regardless of the comparison between car and cyclist.

    Imagine a Rugby forward running full pelt and forearm first into a 55kg 85 years old, or a 20kg child, the consquences wouldn't be much different. Saying that what about the comparison between cyclist and HGV, or even a child cyclist and HGV? That is even worse.

    Lets revise the very approximate maths here:

    HGV - 20000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 180000 arbitrary units
    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units
    Child - 20kg, speed 10mph, kinetic energy = 20 arbitrary units

    Any child on the roads hasn't got a chance, any wonder so many are driven to school to become little fatties?
    From which we can surmise that cycling on the pavement is bad.

    Total energy of collision is the most important factor, though, because at the end of the day, all of that energy has got to be dissipated.

    The point of my previous post is that "responsibility" should be evaluated with regard to the magnitude of the potential consequence. Even on a cycling forum, it seems we have been sucked into unfavourably comparing cycling with other road use. A reminder of the stats can be helpful, since they very starkly point to us being mostly harmless, very vunerable road users. Not advocating cycling like there are NO consequences, mind you, but statistically, it seems to me that the main consequences of your cycling practice are to yourself.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Always Tyred wrote:
    chuckcork wrote:
    Risks may be far less (agreed) but if you collide with someone old and frail, or significantly less mass, e.g. a young child, the consequences could be pretty damned serious injuries regardless of the comparison between car and cyclist.

    Imagine a Rugby forward running full pelt and forearm first into a 55kg 85 years old, or a 20kg child, the consquences wouldn't be much different. Saying that what about the comparison between cyclist and HGV, or even a child cyclist and HGV? That is even worse.

    Lets revise the very approximate maths here:

    HGV - 20000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 180000 arbitrary units
    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units
    Child - 20kg, speed 10mph, kinetic energy = 20 arbitrary units

    Any child on the roads hasn't got a chance, any wonder so many are driven to school to become little fatties?
    From which we can surmise that cycling on the pavement is bad.

    Total energy of collision is the most important factor, though, because at the end of the day, all of that energy has got to be dissipated.

    The point of my previous post is that "responsibility" should be evaluated with regard to the magnitude of the potential consequence. Even on a cycling forum, it seems we have been sucked into unfavourably comparing cycling with other road use. A reminder of the stats can be helpful, since they very starkly point to us being mostly harmless, very vunerable road users. Not advocating cycling like there are NO consequences, mind you, but statistically, it seems to me that the main consequences of your cycling practice are to yourself.

    +1. Good point, well made!
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • The Chingford Skinhead
    The Chingford Skinhead Posts: 718
    chuckcork wrote:

    ...
    Lets revise the very approximate maths here:

    HGV - 20000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 180000 arbitrary units
    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units
    Child - 20kg, speed 10mph, kinetic energy = 20 arbitrary units

    Any child on the roads hasn't got a chance, any wonder so many are driven to school to become little fatties?

    Have to confess I've always struggled with that arms race logic. It essentially says my child is at risk from motor vehicles so I will use said vehicle to transport him/her to school thereby increasing the risk to other children. Indeed, I'll buy a bigger car, a 4x4 as that will give him/her more protection from being hit by another car - even though that choice almost ensures that should I hit a child said child will be dead.

    That response is the same as saying there was a stabbing at my school, so I've armed little Johnny with a gun to keep him safe. But as soon as someone gets shot I'll be upgrading to an anti-tank missile....
    Pain is only weakness leaving the body
  • chuckcork
    chuckcork Posts: 1,471
    The Chingford Skinhead wrote:
    chuckcork wrote:

    ...
    Lets revise the very approximate maths here:

    HGV - 20000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 180000 arbitrary units
    Car - 1000kg, speed 30mph, kinetic energy = 9000 arbitrary units
    Bike - 100kg, speed 20mph, kinetic energy = 400 arbitrary units
    Child - 20kg, speed 10mph, kinetic energy = 20 arbitrary units

    Any child on the roads hasn't got a chance, any wonder so many are driven to school to become little fatties?

    Have to confess I've always struggled with that arms race logic. It essentially says my child is at risk from motor vehicles so I will use said vehicle to transport him/her to school thereby increasing the risk to other children. Indeed, I'll buy a bigger car, a 4x4 as that will give him/her more protection from being hit by another car - even though that choice almost ensures that should I hit a child said child will be dead.

    That response is the same as saying there was a stabbing at my school, so I've armed little Johnny with a gun to keep him safe. But as soon as someone gets shot I'll be upgrading to an anti-tank missile....

    Surely stab vests come in Kids sizes these days?
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    If there's one thing computer games have taught me, it's that in a confined space like a school an anti-tank missile can be a positive disadvantage. A high powered handgun or some kind of Uzi type weapon is probably your best bet, though a shotgun deals the most death per shot.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    biondino wrote:
    If there's one thing computer games have taught me, it's that in a confined space like a school an anti-tank missile can be a positive disadvantage. A high powered handgun or some kind of Uzi type weapon is probably your best bet, though a shotgun deals the most death per shot.

    Reminds me of an eddie izzard thing where he says 'if someone's trying to kill you with a bazooka, don't run away, run towards them! Hug them! If they're taking you down make them go with you!'

    Made me smile... :D

    Oh and you'd have to get a sawn-of shotgun for close range death-dealing, so the shot spreads more quickly.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    biondino wrote:
    If there's one thing computer games have taught me, it's that in a confined space like a school an anti-tank missile can be a positive disadvantage. A high powered handgun or some kind of Uzi type weapon is probably your best bet, though a shotgun deals the most death per shot.

    Shotguns? You need a Minigun Biondino. Crank that baby up and lay waste to all and sundry in the gym, THEN get your RPG out and rocket jump away before the hall monitor comes.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Nah - I want a gun that enables me to run at pull pelt and is quick and accurate at short distances. Only a show-off amateur uses a minigun in such circumstances :)

    Though I admire your use of the RPG. Still think you're dealing with a slightly different scenario - I'm room-by-room personnel clearance, me.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Jen J
    Jen J Posts: 1,054
    Computer games with guns? How violent.

    I spent half of last night playing Mario Kart, football, bowling, tennis, golf and baseball on the Wii. No guns...;)
    Commuting: Giant Bowery 08
    Winter Hack: Triandrun Vento 3
    Madone

    It's all about me...
  • chuckcork
    chuckcork Posts: 1,471
    biondino wrote:
    Nah - I want a gun that enables me to run at pull pelt and is quick and accurate at short distances. Only a show-off amateur uses a minigun in such circumstances :)

    Though I admire your use of the RPG. Still think you're dealing with a slightly different scenario - I'm room-by-room personnel clearance, me.

    Grenades?
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • Stewie Griffin
    Stewie Griffin Posts: 4,330
    biondino wrote:
    Nah - I want a gun that enables me to run at pull pelt and is quick and accurate at short distances. Only a show-off amateur uses a minigun in such circumstances :)

    Though I admire your use of the RPG. Still think you're dealing with a slightly different scenario - I'm room-by-room personnel clearance, me.

    Helicopter Minigun, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, have to kill every single mofo in the room; accept no substitute. Grenades are cool BUT arent a patch on Duke Nukems remote bombs :twisted: .

    Jen J; My 13 yo niece and I played MarioKart on our DSeses last night. I wiped the floor with her, again :roll:

    I can still remember the cheats for DOOMII :oops:
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Jen J wrote:
    Computer games with guns? How violent.

    I spent half of last night playing Mario Kart, football, bowling, tennis, golf and baseball on the Wii. No guns...;)

    And still my invite to come over and play with you hasn't materialised...
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Jen J
    Jen J Posts: 1,054
    biondino wrote:
    Jen J wrote:
    Computer games with guns? How violent.

    I spent half of last night playing Mario Kart, football, bowling, tennis, golf and baseball on the Wii. No guns...;)

    And still my invite to come over and play with you hasn't materialised...

    I believe I said at the time that you were welcome :P

    But if you're going to get huffy about it, I'll retract the invitation.

    Actually, please do come over, as I need someone new to beat at bowling... :twisted:
    Commuting: Giant Bowery 08
    Winter Hack: Triandrun Vento 3
    Madone

    It's all about me...
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    A few years ago I nearly killed some bloke who was riding without lights and with a loaded carrier bag on each bar-end.

    He moved from being close to the gutter to go around a parked car. I saw him right at the last moment (mainly because the carrier on his offside was white and it showed up in the dark).

    I stopped and flipped at him, he then flashed a Police badge at me. He wasn't in either police or cycling clothes, just scruffy civvies - I thought he was 'impersonating' so I called the real police when I got home*

    During my conversation with him, he insisted lights weren't obligatory and basically suggested I was at fault (go figure).

    *Turns out he was a special (yes policeman, not 'needs') and the police got in touch with me to tell me. Thing is they didn't say they would have a word with him or anything, that was the end of it.......looking after their own maybe but let me tell you, he was inches from being seriously maimed or killed.

    I saw him several times afterwards, same MO - no reflective gear/lights etc - not seen him in a whle though.........
  • Surf-Matt
    Surf-Matt Posts: 5,952
    I go the other way - I cycle each morning from about 8am until about 8.45am - 10 miles (yes I know it's slow but it's on an MTB and VERY hilly!) - it's near enough 100% light by then but I stll use front and back lights and wear a hi viz. Some of it's on quite dark country lanes and I'd rather be over than under visible. I probably look a bit of a tit though.

Categories