Drinking and cycling

I think this can be more serious that people think. It's quite possible you
can cause an accident in the street which may not even involve you, but
could be a pedestrian or 2 other cars trying to avoid you. It's the same as
cyclists not stopping at red lights, you can cause a serious accident and if
you want to die why do you have to involve other people?! how would you like
it if you killed a drunk cyclist tonight driving home?

"Jonathan Schneider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

I'm not replying to any post in particular so as not to single out anyone
in particular, but... many people here seem to think it's OK to cycle to
a pub, drink beer or other alcoholic beverage, and then cycle home again
on the public road.

I put it in the same category as drunk walking. If you get it wrong on
the way back from the pub you'll die.

Jon

On 07 Aug 2006 12:36:48 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things I have seen/heard of drunk cyclists doing : cycle off the side of the
road into the bushes.

I've heard of people walking home doing similar.

Made famous by Tom Sharp's novel "Wilt"

Arthur Clune wrote on 07/08/2006 17:56 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

It's an activity that puts other people at risk, certainly. A cyclist who
is in poor control of a bicycle, whose balance and judgement are
adversely affected and whose inhibitions are lowered is dangerous to
others on the road.

Clearly. The question is how much more dangerous, how much more likely.

Don't know the answer to that but I do know a significant proportion of
the cyclists killed and seriously injured every year are "under the
influence of alcohol"

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Dave wrote on 07/08/2006 12:40 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Not quite correct - the RTA states "" 30.-(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."

So it says UNFIT rather than incapable - the incapable parts comes in having
proper control rather than being able to ride.

Not correct either because it says "unfit to ride .... to such an extent
as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle". So if they
are capable of properly controlling the bicycle they are not unfit to
the extent necessary to commit an offence. Ergo they must be incapable
to commit the offence.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

"Panos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think this can be more serious that people think. It's quite possible you
can cause an accident in the street which may not even involve you, but
could be a pedestrian or 2 other cars trying to avoid you. It's the same as
cyclists not stopping at red lights, you can cause a serious accident and
if you want to die why do you have to involve other people?! how would you
like it if you killed a drunk cyclist tonight driving home?

Which isn't as bad as top posting.

I believe.

Simon Brooke said:

I'm not replying to any post in particular so as not to single out anyone
in particular, but... many people here seem to think it's OK to cycle to
a pub, drink beer or other alcoholic beverage, and then cycle home again
on the public road.

Count me in.

Quoted message said:

Am I the only person who thinks that's completely unacceptable?

No, I'm sure you will have many supporters amongst the readers of the
Daily Hate Mail.

Quoted message said:

Or is
drunk cycling at the stage of public consciousness that drunk driving
was thirty years ago?

I doubt that the death toll is comparable.

Simon Brooke said:

I'm not replying to any post in particular so as not to single out
anyone in particular, but... many people here seem to think it's OK to
cycle to a pub, drink beer or other alcoholic beverage, and then cycle
home again on the public road.

Am I the only person who thinks that's completely unacceptable?

Not at all.

As a drunk cyclist, you are far less likely to kill an innocent
bystander than a drunk driver is. BUT you are in serious danger of
ruining an innocent bystander's life.

If you are riding while drunk, you are putting yourself at a high risk
of having an accident. It might be that you hit a parked car, or fall
off onto the pavement and bruise yourself. But there is also a high
risk that you will collide with a moving car/bus/lorry, and be
seriously injured or killed.

And with my motorist's hat on, if I hit a cyclist and paralysed or
killed him, even if I knew that I had no chance to avoid him and that
he was absolutely blathered, that would still rip my conscience to
shreds.

But then, people who drive and cycle when they are drunk are too
selfish to care about that.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Tony Raven said:

Not correct either because it says "unfit to ride .... to such an
extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle". So
if they are capable of properly controlling the bicycle they are not
unfit to the extent necessary to commit an offence. Ergo they must be
incapable to commit the offence.

Not at all.

They may, by dint of luck and good fortune, stagger back from the pub
without falling off while in sight of a policeman and without crashing
into anything too violently - but that doesn't mean that they have
proper control of the cycle. If their balance a/o judgement is
significantly impaired due to substances ingested, they will not have
proper control.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

By the same logic, you could kill a pedestrian as a drunken pedestrian,
eg. if you stumble onto the road and a car swerves and hits the
pavement.

I don't know about you, but I still obey traffic rules even when I've
had 3 pints (and I rarely have more than that), even if my reactions
are slower.

In my opinion, it is acceptable in certain situations.

Cycling in a moderate state of drunkeness isn't a problem as long as
you do it on cycle on paths or residential streets with little traffic,
and you don't do more than 15 km/h

Stevie D said:

Tony Raven said:

Not correct either because it says "unfit to ride .... to such an
extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle". So
if they are capable of properly controlling the bicycle they are not
unfit to the extent necessary to commit an offence. Ergo they must be
incapable to commit the offence.

Not at all.

They may, by dint of luck and good fortune, stagger back from the pub
without falling off while in sight of a policeman and without crashing
into anything too violently - but that doesn't mean that they have
proper control of the cycle. If their balance a/o judgement is
significantly impaired due to substances ingested, they will not have
proper control.

Did you pass your reading comprehension?

Tony was quite clearly pointing out that if they are incapable of
having proper control then they are committing an offence (by actually
pointing out that if they are capable of properly controlling the
bicycle then they are not committing an offence)

With which part of that do you disagree? You raise an example of
someone not being capable of being in proper control (which is clearly
stated as being an offence).
If someones abilities are not significantly impaired then they are not
drunk within the meaning of the legislation.

...d

David Martin said:

Would exercise tend to raise, lower, or have no effect on apparent
blood alcohol levels in a breath test?

A friend of mine had the story how he was driving in France, over the
limit, and without a license. As he stood in the queue for the test he was
getting a bit nervous and was hyperventilating, and when he got to the
test he passed it.

Don't know how much truth there was in the story though!

Roos

Simon Brooke said:

It's an activity that puts other people at risk, certainly. A cyclist who
is in poor control of a bicycle, whose balance and judgement are
adversely affected and whose inhibitions are lowered is dangerous to
others on the road.

So by those measures, should tri-bars be banned? Semi-serious question
for playing Compare And Contrast: they /do/ reduce your control, both
directly by putting you at a point of poor leverage and taking hands
away from brakes, and indirectly by encouraging you to look down at the
road rather than where you're going and to "go for it". All of which
are Bad Things as far as minimising one's chances of Blowing It are
concerned...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Roos Eisma said:

A friend of mine had the story how he was driving in France, over the
limit, and without a license. As he stood in the queue for the test he was
getting a bit nervous and was hyperventilating, and when he got to the
test he passed it.

Don't know how much truth there was in the story though!

Wind instrument players who can do circular breathing are rumoured to
have an unfair advantage...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Panos said:

I think this can be more serious that people think. It's quite possible you
can cause an accident in the street which may not even involve you, but
could be a pedestrian or 2 other cars trying to avoid you. It's the same as
cyclists not stopping at red lights, you can cause a serious accident and if
you want to die why do you have to involve other people?! how would you like
it if you killed a drunk cyclist tonight driving home?

But in all these cases the killer is the car, and the driver not having
proper control or driving in such a manner as to be able to avoid
crashing it - pish'ed cyclist, granny tripping off the pavement, wee
kiddy running out between cars, black ice...

Get cars off the streets, and we can revisit the issue of CUI.

Following on from Stevie D's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Not correct either because it says "unfit to ride .... to such an
extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle". So
if they are capable of properly controlling the bicycle they are not
unfit to the extent necessary to commit an offence. Ergo they must be
incapable to commit the offence.

Not at all.

They may, by dint of luck and good fortune, stagger back from the pub
without falling off while in sight of a policeman and without crashing
into anything too violently - but that doesn't mean that they have
proper control of the cycle. If their balance a/o judgement is
significantly impaired due to substances ingested, they will not have
proper control.

Aha! The travelling back from the pub in whatever state without falling
off is a FACT whereas the copper's view is merely an OPINION. You say

Quoted message said:

If their balance a/o judgement is
significantly impaired due to substances ingested, they will not have
proper control.

but if they don't have proper control then they couldn't have cycled
from the pub to here in the first place. "proper control" is not the
test you see. Being able to ride IS.

I hope that makes it clearer.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

davek said:

elyob said:

This is not to condone drink-riding in the slightest - I know
someone who needed extensive dental repairs after crashing into a bollard
while cycling drunk

A friend of mine was viciously assaulted by a bollard that swerved into
his path one evening when he was cycling home from the pub. He suffered
a badly broken arm and other injuries.

Whilst my friend, after watching the FA cup final in a several of
pubs, went over the (handle) bars down a potholed track, probably
passed out, limped home, went to hospital the next day to find he'd
busted a cheek bone.

Virtual pint for the first person who can say what his proposed method
of avoiding future similar injuries is.

Quoted message said:

I take this incident as a salutory lesson. I wouldn't cycle when I'm
completely blotto any more than I would attempt to walk anywhere when
I'm completely blotto - though I might consider walking or cycling on
occasions when I would certainly be considered too drunk to drive a car.

Pretty much my thoughts.

Tim

Tim Hall said:

Virtual pint for the first person who can say what his proposed method
of avoiding future similar injuries is.

He's bought a recumbent trike?

Kinetic said:

By the same logic, you could kill a pedestrian as a drunken pedestrian,
eg. if you stumble onto the road and a car swerves and hits the
pavement.

I don't know about you, but I still obey traffic rules even when I've
had 3 pints (and I rarely have more than that), even if my reactions
are slower.

In my opinion, it is acceptable in certain situations.

Cycling in a moderate state of drunkeness isn't a problem as long as
you do it on cycle on paths or residential streets with little traffic,
and you don't do more than 15 km/h

The "drunken pedestrian " argument doesn't work unless you really
believe that walking along the pavement is as dangerous as cycling along
the road. If you believe that then carry on using that justification,
otherwise stop it.
Roger

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

Simon Brooke said:

I'm not replying to any post in particular so as not to single out anyone
in particular, but... many people here seem to think it's OK to cycle to
a pub, drink beer or other alcoholic beverage, and then cycle home again
on the public road.

Am I the only person who thinks that's completely unacceptable? Or is
drunk cycling at the stage of public consciousness that drunk driving
was thirty years ago?

No, you're not the only one. The thing that surprises me in this
discussion is how much it sounds like the arguments that motorists used
about thirty years or so ago when the clampdown on drink-driving
started. The only thing that I haven't heard yet is "A few pints help me
relax and make me a better rider".
There's a different topic that comes up here which reminds me of the
introduction of the law making seatbelts compulsory, but I really don't
want to start that one...
BTW I have ridden while under the influence, and got away with it when I
was younger. I was stupid.
--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

Roger Thorpe said:

The "drunken pedestrian " argument doesn't work unless you really
believe that walking along the pavement is as dangerous as cycling along
the road. If you believe that then carry on using that justification,
otherwise stop it.

But most walking journeys are not confined purely to the pavement.
Which probably accounts for how pedestrians manage to accumulate more
serious injuries per unit distance than cyclists.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/