Should drunken cyclists be treated like drunken motorists?
JeremyintheCzechRepublic
Posts: 25
I saw this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7994857.stm on the BBC website. 2000 cyclists in prison! Personally I AM in favour of drunken cyclists being treated in the same way as drunken motorists. Our ability to cause an accident is definitely greater when intoxicated. How do other people feel about it? Can you justify cyclists getting special treatment?
Jeremy
http://www.jeremytaylor.eu
Jeremy
http://www.jeremytaylor.eu
0
Posts
I personally dont feel the risks are the same, as Beeblebrox said. Much better to fine, and if caught a number of times seize the bike.
+1
How many cyclist have killed or caused injury to others where them being drunk was a contributory factor? Also how many drunk pedestrians?
Road : Aravis (byercycles) Shimano 105 triple
Hybrid: Trek 7.2 FX, unused / unloved
Comparing the damage a 1000+kg lump of metal travelling at 50+ mph with its power controlled by a mere foot pressure to that of maybe 80kg of wobbly cyclist travelling at most 20mph is laughable.
I also decided it would be "fun" to take the route home that involved more hills.........
Both of these trips where after about 2 or 3 pints of cider so not seriously drunk, when I did attend the xmas drinks I got the train back to about 2 miles from the house and then rode back on mainly residential back roads to get home!
Twitter, Videos & Blog
Player of THE GAME
Giant SCR 3.0 - FCN 5
Having said that I would have fewer qualms about getting on a bike after a pint or two that getting in a car (NB I would not drive after two pints - anyone who has seen me after two pints will understand why. In fact I am more likely to be alseep under a table than getting in / on any mode of transport)
However, surely if we want people to take us seriously as road users we have to abide by the laws of the road (see multiple RLJ threads).
Cycle paths, now that's a different matter.
Let's get a kebab and go to a disco."
FCN = 3 - 5
Colnago World Cup 2
+1 to that, if we want to have an equal footing as road users then we have to abide by the rules, not pick and choose.
I do agree that a drunken cyclist poses a minimal threat though, so the punishment should be correspondingly lower
Revised FCN - 2
Firstly, when I drive I simply won't drink. Not even a taste of wine. Not up for discussion. I simply won't do it.
On a bike however I have had a drink and ridden home. Riding back after having a drink I don't ride my bike as fast as I do in the day and I don't RLJ at junctions - I crawl to a halt approaching ordinary crossings and if the lights red and the crossing devoid of all life I will go across but I never speed across.
Is any of the above enough to justify drinking and riding? No. Would I reccommend it? No. Is it stupid? Probably. But like RLJing, wearing or not wearing a helmet and choosing not to wear hi-viz it's my risk to take.
However, on trips to the Mopeth I'm going to switch to soft drinks a lot sooner than my previous never....
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
The cyclist fell into the road and gave himself a knock on the head, I picked him out of the road and looked after him while we waited for an ambulance. He stank of beer. When the police and ambulance turned up I was breathalised! The ambulance crew insisted on taking the cyclist straight to hospital. By the time the police turned up to breathalise him he had already discharged himself and given a false name and address. Nice, he'd come close to killing me and my wife and caused a massive amount of damage to my car and he thought nothing of legging it.
Don't give me the line about drunken cyclist being a danger only to themselves. Somebody I knew was killed when a drunk stepped into the street in front of the car in which they were a passenger.
I have absolutely no tolerance of anybody who takes to the roads when under the influence.
here, here!
:twisted:
I agree....it is not true to say that drunken cyclists are only a danger to themselves. As illustrated by GarethPJ's post, this is clearly not the case.
H.G. Wells.
Look - there are grades of road users, all the way from cyclists right the way up to 32 ton juggernauts. Why don't we all offer to pay £2000 PA in VED so that we can really claim to own the chuffing roads? It's nuts, this whole 'please send me to prison so that I can be seen as an equal'. We're not equals and that's just a simple statement of fact. We go slower, we invariably get in the way at pinch-points, we're quasi-peds in my book not reduced-motorists, and the number of motorists who might change their spots because cyclists get dragged up into ever-more draconian laws and Sun-reader arguments of 'lets send everyone to jail' will be absolutely minimal, and probably fewer than that - i.e. zero.
To GarethPJ, your experience was bad, but there are already enough laws around to punish the miscreants who do what he nearly did to you - manslaughter, drunk & disorderly etc, I don't know what else - get that lawyer fellow in to fill this bit in if you like. The standard Govt response to any problem these days is to introduce a law, even where current statute perfectly covers the 'new' problem. You saying we need another raft of legislation to catch us out, to allow us to be fined or punished more severely? Not for me thanks... But regardless of all that he did a runner anyway which pretty much renders any law ineffective. And this is all so metropolitan. What about the generations of my family who have successfully walked, cycled and not so long ago driven the tractor to the village pub and had a few too many? Are you seriously claiming that me riding quite correctly back to the top of our lane after a pleasant evening in The Cross Keys should be subject to the same laws as the bloke who sets off after me and drives home? Cyclists per se don't have anything like the same potential for death & mayhem that a car driver does. GarethPJ's example could just as easily be used for insisting that all drunken peds be jailed. It's a load of old horse-poo. Jail drunks & villains for what they do, not for some imagined potential for harm. You might as well lock me up for being a potential rapist - I've got the kit, ready to go...
So there should be no drink-driving laws? You have THE most warped attitude to the law of anyone on this site, Chris
Blog (incl. bikes)
You know what I mean. The potential damage by a cyclist is nothing to that for a car doing 40 through the village, or even that there Lunnon town I expect.
There are many many many many people (Biondino) who I've seen drinking and then ride their bikes home. There are even more old town hacks chained to the rails outside the pub doesn't make it OK I'm just pointing that out....
Obviously drinking and riding or drinking and driving are bad and shouldn't be done. But personally I'd rather see people leaving the pub after 'a drink' on a bike rather than behind the wheel of a car...
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
Now that's the biggest load of censored I've read on this forum. By that argument it's perfectly legal to drive a 40 tonner under the influence as long as you don't have an accident. Hell, in your bizarre world carrying a loaded sidearm would be legal as long as you didn't shoot anybody.
I don't drive at all, but i know that some people will have a drink, and make the decision that they are alright to drive, and will be under the limit.
Why not let yourself apply the same logic to cycling. If I think I can cycle home safely then i will, if i've been stumbling round the pub and i can't see straight then I usually can't get my leg over (the bike....) or clip in so i walk home using the bike as a support aid.
Carbon 456
456 lefty
Pompino
White Inbred
It used to be quite normal for us to carry weaponry around for the purposes of shooting vermin etc. That's actually quite a valid suggestion, that carrying a gun round the farm is ok as long we don't shoot the kids or fire it across the motorway... It used to be ok to carry a gun, but entirely different crimes resulted in guns being a big no-no full stop. Progress...? Yes, for you in London, except that you all stab each other every weekend instead of shooting each other now acc to the papers. What's that? An exaggeration? Like the problem with drunk cyclists I suspect.
Good to see that my throwaway line at the end of my piece is the only bit that's being picked apart. Ok - so it was a bit glib, but the gist of it is that a drunk cyclist is nowhere near the problem that a drunken driver is, and therefore threatening a piddly cyclist with jail for doing nothing other than pootling home across the village to a deserted lane past the dried-up pond down to the ranch is a ridiculous suggestion. In that situation, jail is a steam-driven pile-driver cracking a monkey nut. Overkill. And adequate laws exist to deal with this non-existent problem.
The view that we are equal so we should ask for the same punishment as car drivers just so that they respect us a bit more is barking to me though. We're not equal. In any collision between two vehicles, the outcome is questionable. In any collision between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, the outcome will most likely be the same as one between a ped and a vehicle. That's why we're not and never will be equal to motor traffic.
Anyway. Back to work...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... deaths/?hp
Did you really need to out me? You're right, and it's something I would admit if I thought it was interesting or helpful, but, you know...
For what it's worth, I have had two incidents happen when riding over the limit which have made me seriously reconsider - one where I almost came off through clattering against the kerb, and another when I almost got fatally right hooked by some scum u-turning without notice. The latter wasn't my fault, and no harm was done, but not only was I boiling with rage but if I had been on the very edge of safety in such a situation, I would rather be sober enough to deal with it knowing my faculties were intact.
Blog (incl. bikes)
Almost everyone who goes to the Morpeth cycles home over the driving limit, apart from the occasional teetotaller. Certainly not just Biondino.
It's discretion really, if you're barely standing it ain't a good plan to cycle home, but if you've just had a few beers and you don't think you're a danger to anyone then why not... far better than driving, although I take the point about errant swerving cyclists you're far less likely to cause an accident or injury to anyone but yourself on a bike.
Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
OK, my intention, though has clearly come across that way, was not to single Blondie out.
I was mostly reacting to this post:
I didn't understand considering you've, like most of us, have chosen to break those laws.
Maybe its the percieved reduced risk but many would prefer to be drunk and incharge of a bike than a car, not because a bike is easier to control but the risk and potential damage caused is thought to be far less.
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
If I take the car or bike, then I nver drink any more than a bottle of beer (not stella)
I have ridden home once after too many and it was horrible. never again.
H.G. Wells.
I dunno, I'm happy cycling after a couple of beers, but i wouldn't cycle home after four. I suppose it's about knowing your limits, and knowing the point when you become a danger to yourself and other people.