Should drunken cyclists be treated like drunken motorists?

Dropzone-dog__

" 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."

You are of course medically qualified to the extent of being an expert witness to make that statement?

Simple question.

If a cycle is such a lethal weapon should a licence system be implemented?

This way anybody failing to meet the standards should be banned from cycling.
Ride in conditions other than in accordance with the conditions of a licence & you could be subject to 3-6 months imprisonment according to current motor vehicle law.

Is that the path you wish to be implemented?

Dropzone-dog__

GarethPJ wrote:

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.

If you care to read the entire thread then, Those of us in the know had already brought up the issue of proper control. :roll:

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

" 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."

You are of course medically qualified to the extent of being an expert witness to make that statement?

The point I was making was that IF (as has been stated on this thread) illness such as flu does affect your ability to control a vehicle then it would be an offence to drive in that condition, because it is an offence to drive when you are not in full control of your vehicle.

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

Simple question.

If a cycle is such a lethal weapon should a licence system be implemented?

No but I believe there should be some sort of compulsory training as part of the national curriculum.

Dropzone-dog__

Let me understand you correctley then.
You believe in the fact that cyclists should have some sort of basic training before they are let loose on public roads.
You further wish they should show no aptitude to be allowed to continue riding but,
They should be banned from riding if they have a head cold.
Have I understood you correctley?

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

If you care to read the entire thread then, Those of us in the know had already brought up the issue of proper control. :roll:

"Those of us in the know"? FFS get off your high horse.

Firstly I have read the entire thread and have contributed from a fairly early stage. I have previously mentioned the matter of proper control.

Secondly I was merely posting the relevant section of the road traffic act since nobody had done so previously and it is obviously very relevant to the thread.

There is also the offence of dangerous cycling introduced in the RTA of 1991 to replace the previous offence of reckless cycling. That there is a seperate offence of cycling under the influence of drink or drugs is significant is as much as it clarifies the fact that you do not need to be cycling dangerously to be commiting the offence of cycling while under the influence of drink.

However as I have already stated, probably the most likely reason for PC Plod to stop you would be if he considered your cycling to be dangerous. If you just looked a little tipsy I doubt the average copper could be bothered with the potential paperwork caused by pulling you over.

doog442

you seem to be quoting direct from blackstones....are you a police officer.. be honest now

GarethPJ

doog442 wrote:

you seem to be quoting direct from blackstones....are you a police officer.. be honest now

Most definitely not. I'm an assistant to a superhero. Have you seen my avatar?

Things like the RTA are easilly available on the 'net if you know where to look.

Dropzone-dog__

I aint on my high horse Fact.

I have merely brought up the issue that if cyclists wish to be treated in the same way as motorists then a whole load of worms is going to be unearthed.

Have the self control to debate things in the correct manner Ta very much.

doog442

GarethPJ wrote:

doog442 wrote:

you seem to be quoting direct from blackstones....are you a police officer.. be honest now

Most definitely not. I'm an assistant to a superhero. Have you seen my avatar?

Things like the RTA are easilly available on the 'net if you know where to look.

Well it appears you can look at the Road traffic act, copy and paste it and draw a conclusion on a section within several minutes....

personally find that hard to believe

GarethPJ

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

I aint on my high horse Fact.

So where do you get off with phrases like "those of us in the know"? Care to share with us exactly what puts you more "in the know" than the rest of us?

Your post was not in any way debating the issue in the correct manner. It was high handed and elitist, without even giving a clue what elite you claim to be a member of.

Dropzone-dog__

Quite frankly I do not feel required to let the entire internet know who I am or who I claim to be.

I do not recall having to copy & paste sections of the RTA in order to attempt to win my arguement.

Ball is back in your court. :roll:

Paulie W

I personally think that cycling while drunk should be a clear-cut offence, i.e. if you are over a certain limit then you are breaking the law and liable to prosecution regardless of whether you are cycling dangerously.

I dont buy the 'slippery slope' argument being touted here: the key point for me is that drinking reduces your ability to make sound judgements - I cant help laughing at those who suggest that they cycle more carefully when they've had a few, just like those drunk-drivers who crawl along at 15 mph right? - and that makes this a very different issue to whether we should be stopping poor cyclists from riding or those with flu!

Clever Pun

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

Having cycled home from London a couple of times after the Morpeth meet ups I can say that I think the only danger I posed was to myself! The roads where a bit quieter then during the rush hour with the exception that cars could use the bus lane!! A bit of a shock when your in that "happy" state :-D

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!

3 pints?? that means your blood is 50/50 surely?

gtvlusso

It is a tricky one - to socialise or not to socialise, that is the question. Ultimately, you are stupid if you drink any alcohol and utilise the road....I prescribe to being stupid (but honest!)

I would drink the same amount cycling as I would driving.....a pint's worth at most.

I am afraid that I used to subscribe to the "Keith Moon" school of thought, only driving when completely plastered.....Many years ago when I was a kid, young, too much money and so, so stupid.....I apologies to all the hedges and tree's I wrecked on my way home in a Land Rover.

Clever Pun

if I'm cycling home I will tend to limit the amount of beers I have... if I go a little further than I feel comfortable with I'll take the train most of the way

either way I don't wear a helmet

alfablue

Clever Pun wrote:

3 pints?? that means your blood is 50/50 surely?

The beer doesn't flow directly into your blood stream

bluesacs

isn't it fairly self regulating; if you're too drunk to get your leg over your bike then you're too drunk to ride

alfablue

I have to admit I was once a drunken cyclist - got my handlebars caught up in my girlfriends bars on the canal path after the pub, we went down hard, just missing the canal, grazes all round! The next time I tried it I got my leg over the bike and fell right off the other side - sitting in the road! Worst thing was this was just after a nice goodnight snog with a lovely young lady, she thought it was hilarious :oops: I am more sensible now :oops:

Eau Rouge

Paulie W wrote:

I personally think that cycling while drunk should be a clear-cut offence, i.e. if you are over a certain limit then you are breaking the law and liable to prosecution regardless of whether you are cycling dangerously.

I dont buy the 'slippery slope' argument being touted here: the key point for me is that drinking reduces your ability to make sound judgements - I cant help laughing at those who suggest that they cycle more carefully when they've had a few, just like those drunk-drivers who crawl along at 15 mph right? - and that makes this a very different issue to whether we should be stopping poor cyclists from riding or those with flu!

Why the clear cut limit? You don't seriously think that riding a bike after taking some amount of alcohol that isn't enough for you to be visibly drunk is in any way near as dangerous to others as driving a car in that state do you?
Riding a bike while too drunk to drive might be stupid, but alcohol limits are not about stopping people doing something stupid, they are about the very large danger posed by motor vehicles due to their mass and speed. While bikes too can cause injury, the problem with drunk car drivers is many times larger, and hence requires many times more draconian action, ala strictly enforced blood/alcohol limits.

Paulie W

Eau Rouge wrote:

Why the clear cut limit? You don't seriously think that riding a bike after taking some amount of alcohol that isn't enough for you to be visibly drunk is in any way near as dangerous to others as driving a car in that state do you?
Riding a bike while too drunk to drive might be stupid, but alcohol limits are not about stopping people doing something stupid, they are about the very large danger posed by motor vehicles due to their mass and speed. While bikes too can cause injury, the problem with drunk car drivers is many times larger, and hence requires many times more draconian action, ala strictly enforced blood/alcohol limits.

I accept that riding a bike after having a few drinks is likely to be less dangerous to others than driving a car in the same state. I also accept that driving a car while drunk is likely to be less dangerous to others than driving a HGV whilst drunk. I wouldnt accordingly set a different limit for different forms of transport but I would allow that the punishment could vary dependent on whether I was cycling, driving a car, driving a bus, lorry, etc.

Eau Rouge

Paulie W wrote:

[I also accept that driving a car while drunk is likely to be less dangerous to others than driving a HGV whilst drunk.

I don't, not significantly anyway.

I don't see any justification for lumping cyclists, who pose a massivly smaller risk, in with high risk vehicles.

Beeblebrox

bluesacs wrote:

isn't it fairly self regulating; if you're too drunk to get your leg over your bike then you're too drunk to ride

I think we have our answer!

patchy

ok - here's a REAL LIFE example.

last night, i went to a gig in Camden. I live in Crouch End, so is about a 3 mile ride. I intended to have a couple of drinks, but ended up having four bottles of Corona (well over the drink drive limit). I used to be a big drinker, but not so much any more, so to be fair i was a bit squiffy – although still compos mentis, which was helped by the fact i stopped drinking at half ten, drank water for an hour then left at half 11.

Now, normally after that much to drink i'd pick my bike up the following day, but it was in quite an exposed position and i thought there was a risk it might be nicked or cut off by an overenthusiastic council employee. i also thought i was relatively ok to cycle, and i couldn't really face getting the bus in.

It came pretty clear that i was still quite squiffy, so i took it very carefully on the way home, took quiet roads, etc, and made it home without incident. i was very aware, though, that my reaction times were appalling and that i was a bit wobbly – although i suspect that i looked ok to passerbys.

So. Was i irresponsible? Should i have left the bike behind and got the bus home? Was i a danger? Or was i in the right, and ok to do what i did?

I know my view – which i'll reveal later. First, i want your thoughts...

biondino

It's not impossible that you weren't over the limit, fwiw. I wouldn't have risked it in a car mind!

Clever Pun

alfablue wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

3 pints?? that means your blood is 50/50 surely?

The beer doesn't flow directly into your blood stream

well yes I'm aware of that.. have you seen how small he is??? that was my point

_Brun_

I reckon four 330ml bottles over that time and there's a pretty good chance you'd be legal behind the wheel, or certainly not far off.

Good job I wasn't out meself last night or I may have been witness to your wobbliness

DonDaddyD

On the subject of wobbling on a bike, how is a police officer going to tell if I'm drunk or simply new to cycling?

pretty clear that i was still quite squiffy, so i took it very carefully on the way home, took quiet roads, etc, and made it home without incident. i was very aware, though, that my reaction times were appalling and that i was a bit wobbly – although i suspect that i looked ok to passerbys.

Was i irresponsible? Should i have left the bike behind and got the bus home? Was i a danger? Or was i in the right, and ok to do what i did?

Yes you were irresponsible. No you shouldn't have left the bike behind. Yes you should have sought other means of transportation. Your impaired judgement made you a risk and therefore a danger, so yes you were a danger. No, what you did wasn't OK. And you know what, I've done exactly the same...

Its a bicycle and not a motorised vehicle, which weighs a ton and is able to achieve 60mph in seconds.

Like Blondie I wouldn't have driven in those circumstances...

I will say this, this thread has made me think and I probably rethink how much I drink if I drink at all when on the bike...

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

On the subject of wobbling on a bike, how is a police officer going to tell if I'm drunk or simply new to cycling?

maybe by talking to you??

ozzzyosborn206

not read all the posts as it would have taken ages, but i live in guernsey where the roads are alot quieter at all times, and very few cars late at night/early morning, i think it is fine to ride your bike after having a few, it helps with the hangover:-), i often find it easier to ride a bike in a straight line than walk in a striaght line after a few too many, if you are going to swerve on a bike you are just as likly to step off the pavement and into the road in front of a car. Also i have never adn would never do this but am sure some people would after having a few drinks, distract the perfectly sober driver causeing them to serve or crash, had that person ridden home this wouldn't happen.

Oh and the main reason you should be allowed to ride, if its as illeagal to ride as it is to drive people won't say i will take the push bike they will be more likely to drive,

CiB

Paulie W wrote:

I accept that riding a bike after having a few drinks is likely to be less dangerous to others than driving a car in the same state. I also accept that driving a car while drunk is likely to be less dangerous to others than driving a HGV whilst drunk. I wouldnt accordingly set a different limit for different forms of transport but I would allow that the punishment could vary dependent on whether I was cycling, driving a car, driving a bus, lorry, etc.

No - this is wrong. The point here is that a drunken cyclist is v unlikely to cause much damage at all, whereas a drunken driver in a Mini, Ford Focus, Merc etc all the way up to and including an HGV is likely to do some serious damage, including - for each & every one of those vehicles - killing someone. That likelihood isn't present for the drunken cyclist, hence the punishment options are on a lower scale.

I still don't get why some members of a group of people are desperately keen to lay themselves [ourselves] open to much more draconian punishment that is currently open to the law enforcement agencies. Heck - they already have enough power; reading this on-going argument about how much better it would be if we could be given some heavy punishment for something that isn't really a big problem, on some half-ar$ed pretext hat it would somehow makes us equal in the eyes of the cyclist-hating car-driver makes me smile ruefully, and makes me glad I'm out of the way of you lot. We're not equal. If I hit a car on my bike, whoops. I hit a cyclist in the car - different matter entirely.

Have a nice weekend y'all.