Should drunken cyclists be treated like drunken motorists?

sarajoy

I think it would be fine to be stopped and breathalysed on a bike if you've been cycling erratically. You are being a hazard, after all. But maybe the limit should be higher.

As said by patchy, a wobbling drunk is different from someone who's had a couple after work and is heading home in a straight line.

I mean, after a beer or two, in a car - the minutest reaction-time delay can arguably mean a dead child as opposed to a bruised one, esp in cases of "she came out of nowhere!".

After a beer or two on a bike, if your reactions are a split-second slower, you might suffer yourself a graze - stopping distances are longer anyway on a bike to keep you from throwing yourself off, and as a cyclist you are always a few seconds ahead scanning for things that may make you want to stop - so a little delay won't add much...

cee

don't get me wrong....what patchy and sara are saying makes perfect sense to me....

its just that i can almost hear a car driver saying 'I am fine after 3 drinks'...which if I am correct most folks here disagree with.

rhext

I always think that legislation (and the expensive enforcement which goes along with it) needs to consider potential for harm. I find it revealing that the one 'real' case used to illustrate how dangerous cycling under the influence is to other people actually seems to use the example of a drunken pedestrian. As far as I'm aware intoxicated cyclists are not a major menace on our roads. So while I concede that cycling under the influence is a bad thing, I'd be surprised if there weren't already legislation available to punish anyone who actually did any damage (in fact, I'd be fairly surprised if there weren't legislation which could be used against anyone cycling while incapacitated through drink). So the question then is whether it's worth investing the cash in new legislation and, most importantly, the enforcement of it. Change the question:

Should some of the tax money we currently spend dealing with drunk and disorderly behaviour in our town centres, reducing the number of motorists drunk in charge of a tonne of metal at 40 MPH, driving down knife crime etc etc be diverted to new legislation to stamp out the problem of intoxicated cyclists? My vote would be 'no'.

nwallace

Drunk in Charge (or what ever it is called) probably needs reviewed, it covers non-motorised users of the highway and dates back to driving cattle and horse and cart. The legislation that brought in the fixed limit, blood tests and breathalysers probably should have been for everyone, including peds.

As a mate discovered when a bouncer shut his hand in a door, if you've been injured due to someone else actions, phone the police and ask them for the ambulance. The employers of the bouncer phoned for an ambulance

Dropzone-dog__

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is very much a question of I don't honestly practice what I preach.

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 " unlike " RLJing, wearing or not wearing a helmet and choosing not to wear hi-viz it's my risk to take.

+1 for that DDD WITH MY LITTLE FIX.

In order for the offence to be proven you have to be unable to control your bicycle.
Being drunk on a bike is not an offence, being drunk while not in control of it is.
A very subtle difference there methinks.

Even if you do get stopped very few coppers would actually no what to do with a p**shead on a bike going by these two topics.

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/ind ... opic=24997

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/ind ... opic=38503

GarethPJ

As I've stated before the argument that the cyclist can't injure others is a load of male chicken. However it's also irrelevant in law. According to the road traffic act the word "dangerous" in "dangerous cycling" is defined as having the potential to cause injury or damage property, it does not state that the injuries or damage have to be to another party.

Before you jump on me an point out that this differs from being drunk bear in mind that PC plod must have a reason to stop you in the first place and if you are cycling sensibly and safely he is unlikely to stop you. The most likely reason for stopping you would be if you were cycling dangerously. Which is in the view of the road traffic act is riding which falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist and that it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

Obviously anybody with an ounce of sense here will point something out about that law: If the police orifice concerned is not a competent and careful cyclist, or at the very least a cyclist, is s/he qualified to make that judgement? I'm sure we've all been accused of doing something dangerous by a non-cyclist when our actions were in fact safe and reasonable and in line with traffic laws.

I know this doesn't answer the original question, but there you go.

Something else to consider is not whether the drunken cyclist can wipe out a bus queue, but the potential financial and emotional cost of their cycling. The argument that a drunken cyclist is only liable to hurt themselves ignores the emotional impact on their friends and family should they be killed or seriously injured. It ignores the cost of cleaning them off the road and the emotional impact on the people who have to do it. It also ignores the cost to the tax payer of their extended stay in hospital. And so on and so forth. And yes I know the same applies to all sorts of other behaviours from smoking to extreme sports, but we're not talking about those are we?

Dropzone-dog__

Nope we are talking about the same standards beimg applied to all road users.

It therefore would follow that all peds who failed the tufty club rules should be carted off to jail forthwith as a competent walker would decide that failing to stop,look & listen would constitute the potential to cause injury or damage to property.

Unfortunately jaywalking is not a crime nor is riding your bike while pissed assuming you have full control over it.

Do we bring bikes into the speed limit equation?

Do we think poor lorry drivers & those towing trailers are hard done by so we should increase the speed limit for them or, slow everybody else down instead?

So many variables to consider & so few answers.

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

Nope we are talking about the same standards beimg applied to all road users.

It therefore would follow that all peds who failed the tufty club rules should be carted off to jail forthwith

If we are talking about the same rules being applied to all road users then we are not talking about jail being a common penalty for peds or cyclists. In general drivers only get jail sentences when the actually cause a fatality through their actions. So by the same standard we would only be talking about jail for cyclists or peds who actually cause somebody to die.

As far as cyclists are concerned this is already the case. I'm sure I can recall two cases this century where a cyclist has been jailed for causing a death, in both cases hitting a ped.

nobbysnuts

I regularly use my bike to get to a mates house when I want to have a few drinks.
In fact, it is a regular occurrance to fill the water bottle up with a bottle of wine as refreshments for the journey on the way, drink plenty there and then ride back.

The difference being I dont ride on the road. I ride on a designated cycle route which runs along the seafront. Do the same rules apply there as the road?

teamcrane

Following this one I realised that I do not know if a cyclist can be breathalysed. What is the law? A friend of mine while driving his car knocked over and killed a cyclist who had swerved in front of him. The autopsy showed the cyclist was drunk and many times over the limit and my friend was cleared of all charges. This event however so preyed on my friends mind that he committed suicide leaving behind a wife and family.

alfablue

Oh dear, tragic.

A cyclist can be determined as drunk on the judgement of a PC ("incapable through drink"). Breathalysing isn't necessary (and I don't think it can be insisted on, and is not an offence to refuse, as it would be for a driver).

biondino

nobbysnuts wrote:

I regularly use my bike to get to a mates house when I want to have a few drinks.
In fact, it is a regular occurrance to fill the water bottle up with a bottle of wine as refreshments for the journey on the way, drink plenty there and then ride back.

The difference being I dont ride on the road. I ride on a designated cycle route which runs along the seafront. Do the same rules apply there as the road?

I suspect they do, yes. If you drove a car drunk along a cycle path they certainly would! However, it is likely that you are in a safer environment on the cycle route, which makes a difference to both your likelihood of an accident and the law's attitude to you cycling after drinking.

This subject is very tricky, and although I'm the kind of person who usually finds he has a strong opinion on any given topic, on this one I'm not sure. Certainly, if my daughter were killed by a drunken cyclist I would be no less distraught than if it had been by a car - indeed, perhaps more so, as there are no clear laws (cf the alcohol limit) to prevent this kind of thing happening. And cyclists can kill and maim, of that there's no question.

And I think DDD's got a point. If I never cycled after beers, would I find it easier to condemn drink-cycling, which I suspect is my instinctive position? Yes, I probably would.

We all accept that drink driving is a crime per se; we all accept that if a cyclist injures someone because they were driving while inebriated, that's a crime too. The grey area is whether cyclists should be banned from getting to that point - and how to enforce it if so. And at this point I don't have any answers.

GarethPJ

Interesting question, but they should as you can still endanger others (and yourself) where ever you ride.

Christophe3967

I think this is really difficult too. Last night I cycled home when I wouldn't have considered getting in a car, and did so having read this thread. I then spent much of that ride thinking about the very valid points raised by people such as Gareth with strong views and those with direct experience of the consequences of things going wrong. I think these are very sad cases and I feel very sorry for those poor people.

There are lots of factors to weigh up but ultimately if we wish to live in a tolerant society with all the freedom that entails, then that means that you're allowed to take a boat out to sea, climb a mountain, drive a car even when in your dotage, ride a powerful motorbike, scuba dive, ski off piste, hang-glide, have a couple of drinks and ride a bike, eat burgers everyday, smoke, drink, the list goes on.

Sometimes people make mistakes or do stupid things and we as a society clear up the mess. I don't wish to have that freedom curtailed, and I accept that accidents will happen, and sometimes innocent people will be caught up unwittingly, which is terribly sad. But once you dial those freedoms out you have a Health & Safety world that is even more controlled and regulated than it already is, and where would the line be drawn? Mobility scooters can be a menace. Should we ban them? Stop people driving at 60 in case their reactions have slowed down? Ban motorbikes over 150 cc? What sanctions for example would you impose on the family in the yacht that loses its mast in the middle of the Southern Ocean? Or the family caught on Snowdon without any proper clothing? More red tape? No thanks. We just need a sense of perspective and common sense. We're already half way to a nanny state.

Dropzone-dog__

Christophe3967 wrote:

I think this is really difficult too. Last night I cycled home when I wouldn't have considered getting in a car, and did so having read this thread. I then spent much of that ride thinking about the very valid points raised by people such as Gareth with strong views and those with direct experience of the consequences of things going wrong. I think these are very sad cases and I feel very sorry for those poor people.

There are lots of factors to weigh up but ultimately if we wish to live in a tolerant society with all the freedom that entails, then that means that you're allowed to take a boat out to sea, climb a mountain, drive a car even when in your dotage, ride a powerful motorbike, scuba dive, ski off piste, hang-glide, have a couple of drinks and ride a bike, eat burgers everyday, smoke, drink, the list goes on.

Sometimes people make mistakes or do stupid things and we as a society clear up the mess. I don't wish to have that freedom curtailed, and I accept that accidents will happen, and sometimes innocent people will be caught up unwittingly, which is terribly sad. But once you dial those freedoms out you have a Health & Safety world that is even more controlled and regulated than it already is, and where would the line be drawn? Mobility scooters can be a menace. Should we ban them? Stop people driving at 60 in case their reactions have slowed down? Ban motorbikes over 150 cc? What sanctions for example would you impose on the family in the yacht that loses its mast in the middle of the Southern Ocean? Or the family caught on Snowdon without any proper clothing? More red tape? No thanks. We just need a sense of perspective and common sense. We're already half way to a nanny state.

+1 for a very well composed post

As DDD has already stated he makes the effort to be more careful when he has had a drink & rides his bike. Thereby decreasing the risk factor.

Could this statement,

" Interesting question, but they should as you can still endanger others (and yourself) where ever you ride. "
imply that cycling could be construed as an activity that could cause harm to others depending on the relative skill level of the rider?
Irrespective of any alcohol consumed then, you would have to accept that peoples skill levels vary wildly together with subsequent control of their steed.

First step to a nanny state make all cyclists take a CBT & then make them ride with L plates.
A very slippery slope when you start to go down that route.
Cans of worms would need to be opened & they may taste bitter to all.

Jetlag

teamcrane wrote:

Following this one I realised that I do not know if a cyclist can be breathalysed. What is the law? A friend of mine while driving his car knocked over and killed a cyclist who had swerved in front of him. The autopsy showed the cyclist was drunk and many times over the limit and my friend was cleared of all charges. This event however so preyed on my friends mind that he committed suicide leaving behind a wife and family.

My ex sister-in-law was arrested for drunk in charge of a bicycle, so yes, you can be breathalysed.

DonDaddyD

Things I want to clear up. Alcohol directly affects balance and does so a lot earlier than most people realise. Once you've drunk alcohol (lets say 2 pints) I'm of the thought that you can't make a judgement call on your ability to ride a bike. There are many times I've been drunk and thought I'm walking in striaight line but in actual fact am swerving up and down the pavement.

Bikes can be the cause of significant damage, but no where near as much damage as a car. The probabity of a drunk driver having a serious accident and potential for accidents is a lot higher than a drunk cyclist. Example (but not limited to): A car is likely to be driven further than a bike and that increase range as well as its increased speed can increase the probablity of having an accident and subsequently increases the risk of drink driving over drink riding.

biondino wrote:

We all accept that drink driving is a crime per se; we all accept that if a cyclist injures someone because they were driving while inebriated, that's a crime too. The grey area is whether cyclists should be banned from getting to that point - and how to enforce it if so. And at this point I don't have any answers.

The truth of it I think is this. Many people, myself included, wouldn't drink and cycle if there was an enforcable law.

However, I don't choose not to drink when I drive not because of the law but because of the damage I could cause behind a wheel... I see myself as less of a risk to myself and others on a bike and so I'm willing to drink (but drink responsibly).

Dropzone-dog__

Jetlag wrote:

teamcrane wrote:

Following this one I realised that I do not know if a cyclist can be breathalysed. What is the law? A friend of mine while driving his car knocked over and killed a cyclist who had swerved in front of him. The autopsy showed the cyclist was drunk and many times over the limit and my friend was cleared of all charges. This event however so preyed on my friends mind that he committed suicide leaving behind a wife and family.

My ex sister-in-law was arrested for drunk in charge of a bicycle, so yes, you can be breathalysed.

The point is though there is no legal requirement to provide one or, legal penalty for refusing one.

Would you automatically provide a DNA sample if somebody knocked on your door demanding one?

I wouldn't. Not that I have anything to hide but, I don't live in a police state.

alfablue

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"

The judgement as to whether one is unfit is made by a PC - no breath test.

This differs from the motoring offence which is about driving whilst over the legal limit for alcohol, hence breath or blood tests.

chuckcork

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

Would you automatically provide a DNA sample if somebody knocked on your door demanding one?

I wouldn't. Not that I have anything to hide but, I don't live in a police state.

Unless of course you'e Lance....

Dropzone-dog__

DonDaddyD wrote:

Things I want to clear up. Alcohol directly affects balance and does so a lot earlier than most people realise. Once you've drunk alcohol (lets say 2 pints) I'm of the thought that you can't make a judgement call on your ability to ride a bike. There are many times I've been drunk and thought I'm walking in striaight line but in actual fact am swerving up and down the pavement.

If I am walking & swerve all over the pavement then I consider that to be a good night out.
I also made the decision to get into that state ( right time right place etc. )

Would I be in anyway close to that state of intoxication & even consider riding oh hell no.

Stone Glider

It is now widely recognized that fatigue provides similar levels of impairment to faculties as alcohol or drugs. Tiredness Kills.
My question is, should we be lauding the efforts of those at the end of Sportives (held over open roads) as they push themselves to the utmost for a pb, or a target for charity?
Are cyclists being reckless with regard to embracing a form of impairment which could put other road users at risk?

Dropzone-dog__

chuckcork wrote:

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

Would you automatically provide a DNA sample if somebody knocked on your door demanding one?

I wouldn't. Not that I have anything to hide but, I don't live in a police state.

Unless of course you'e Lance....

I wish.

My best ever effort was 70 miles on a knobbly 28 lb mountain bike with a 20 lb rucksack.
Time was 2hrs 50 mins.
There was a good tail wind that day.

Dropzone-dog__

Stone Glider wrote:

It is now widely recognized that fatigue provides similar levels of impairment to faculties as alcohol or drugs. Tiredness Kills.
My question is, should we be lauding the efforts of those at the end of Sportives (held over open roads) as they push themselves to the utmost for a pb, or a target for charity?
Are cyclists being reckless with regard to embracing a form of impairment which could put other road users at risk?

We could also start issuing a FPN for those who drive or ride with the dreaded man flu. :shock:

nwallace

hm,

PC: "'Sucse me sir, I have reason to believe you are drunk, Can you blow into this bag please"
You: "No I won't you can't make me"
PC: "Well sir, since I believe your drunk, and just wanted to use a measured system to check, I can do you anyway because I believe your drunk"
You: Whimper
PC: "You sit in the back here why my colleague deals with your vehicle"

Dropzone-dog__

nwallace wrote:

hm,

PC: "'Sucse me sir, I have reason to believe you are drunk, Can you blow into this bag please"
You: "No I won't you can't make me"
PC: "Well sir, since I believe your drunk, and just wanted to use a measured system to check, I can do you anyway because I believe your drunk"
You: Whimper
PC: "You sit in the back here why my colleague deals with your vehicle"

Cue timed cctv showing me stopping at redlights & pootling along the highway in the manner of a competent, mythical, arbitrary cyclist.
The defence rests your worships.
If the cctv shows me riding like a tw@t then guilty as charged your worships.

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

As DDD has already stated he makes the effort to be more careful when he has had a drink & rides his bike. Thereby decreasing the risk factor.

Could this statement,

" Interesting question, but they should as you can still endanger others (and yourself) where ever you ride. "
imply that cycling could be construed as an activity that could cause harm to others depending on the relative skill level of the rider?
Irrespective of any alcohol consumed then, you would have to accept that peoples skill levels vary wildly together with subsequent control of their steed.

First step to a nanny state make all cyclists take a CBT & then make them ride with L plates.
A very slippery slope when you start to go down that route.
Cans of worms would need to be opened & they may taste bitter to all.

All of which are arguments which have been used to defend drunk driving.

Dropzone-dog__

" All of which are arguments which have been used to defend drunk driving. "

Indeed they have.

If you think a bike is generally a lethal weapon whilst the rider is under the influence, then you must also acknowledge that an unskilled rider is allowed to take one out onto the roads without any training whatsoever.

How far down the slope do you wish to go?

Ban those under 10 years of age from learning to ride one as they have not reached the age of criminal responsibility & hence accountability for their actions?

Fine people for first time clipless moments as they are obviously not in control?

You supply the ammunition & somebody will supply the weapon & I can say somebody somewhere will be only to willing to pull the trigger.

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

" All of which are arguments which have been used to defend drunk driving. "

Indeed they have.

If you think a bike is generally a lethal weapon whilst the rider is under the influence, then you must also acknowledge that an unskilled rider is allowed to take one out onto the roads without any training whatsoever.

How far down the slope do you wish to go?

Ban those under 10 years of age from learning to ride one as they have not reached the age of criminal responsibility & hence accountability for their actions?

Fine people for first time clipless moments as they are obviously not in control?

You supply the ammunition & somebody will supply the weapon & I can say somebody somewhere will be only to willing to pull the trigger.

In general the public roads are far too dangerous a place for an inexperienced child to cycle, it wasn't always so but I think we are reaching the point where some sort of training should be mandatory. When I was at school the school had a rule that kids could only cycle to school if they had passed the cycling proficiency test. I think that this is a very good idea.

The school holidays have brought a lot of kids out of the woodwork on their bikes. In Wakefield there is a new skate park which attracts a lot more BMX riders that it does skaters. A damn good thing it is too as it gives the kids somewhere to go and something to do. What I noticed when I was in Wakefield on tuesday was that as a result you get a lot of kids in the town centre on their bikes and their riding can be incredibly dangerous at times. It's not, I think, that they are deliberately taking risks, they can do that at the park, it's just that their ability to asses risk is not as good as that of an experienced and competent cyclist. In only fifteen minutes I saw almost a dozen scary near misses. Their carelessness was probably increased by the fact that they were generally out with friends, having fun and therefore distracted from the risks they were taking. So yes I do think kids need proper training before they are let out on the roads.

However the risks those kids were taking paled into insignificance next to the bloke on the trendy retro track lookalike bike turning right into Westgate Station. Presumably he was experienced, competent he was not.

Comments similar to those about the kids can be made about the affect that alcohol has on your judgement of risk. After all it can make a short blokes pick a fight with the entire pack of the local rugby team.

People defending the practice of drink driving will often concentrate on increased reaction times as being the only effect of alcohol and go on to cite other (legal*) things which also increase reaction times as being reasons why drink driving is not such a bad thing. However increased reaction times and a lack of hand eye coordination are only part of the story, alcohol leads to impared judgement (of speed, distance, danger, attractiveness...) and it is this more than anything else that makes driving, cycling or doing many other things whilst under the influence of alcohol such potentially dangerous pastimes.

I'm sure we've all done something stupid and potentially dangerous when drunk, even when our friends were telling us not to be so stupid. We've all bumped into something or spilled a drink after a few because our judgement of distance is messed up. And I'm sure most of us have, when drunk, done something inappropriate with somebody we would, but for the drink, find somewhat less than attractive. If you've done any of those things how can you be so sure that when you've had a few your judgement that it's perfectly safe to ride home is actually correct? What does it take to make you reasess that judgement?

* It is an offence not to be in full control of your vehicle, so it is not strictly legal to drive when, for example, you have flu, even though there is no specific law prohibing driving whilst under the influence of a virus.

GarethPJ

Just came across this in the RTA 1988:

"30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs

(1) 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.

(2) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section.

(3) In this section “road” includes a bridleway."

Hopefully that will answer a few questions on here.