# Should cyclists be subject to the same drink laws as drivers when on the roads?



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

It's been raised on the smidsy thread here so thought i'd just open this particular issue up a bit. At the moment I am thinking that we probably should be under the same restrictions as drivers when it comes to riding whilst drunk and subject to be brethalised under the same rules.
It is still possible for a drunk cyclist to cause accident and injury to other road users (even if they damage themselves in the process). Even if the accident doesn't injur a third party there is still the cost of emergency services etc.
As I say at the moment I think we should but there are undoubtably points that I haven't considered.


----------



## subaqua (28 Aug 2012)

there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.

if the law makers thought it was an issue they would have especifically included the word Bicycle in the legislation , or changed the law . I beleive there have been several amendments to the law in the past 30 or so years- plenty of time to drop it in if it was neccesary


----------



## Markymark (28 Aug 2012)

I believe just as its not against the law to load a CD into a car, it is illegal if it is deemed to cuase you to drive dangerously, a cyclist who appears to be cycling dangerously should be stopped, as should it be against the law to cycle dangerously.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

Uncle Mort said:


> Why stop there? What about pedestrians?


Because I was more thinking about people in charge of vehicles but it's a fair point and I am already a little bit less convinced than I was about the matter. As I said I'm far from sure on this but on the face of it, it sounded like a sensible idea.


----------



## theclaud (28 Aug 2012)

No. Of course not. And I don't say this just because I'm a pisshead on a bicycle.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Aug 2012)

How many pissed-up cyclists cause accidents? I'm curious.


----------



## oldfatfool (28 Aug 2012)

What would the punishment be? I know motorists get a fine but imo the greatest detterant is the ban and the fact their insurance will be mahoosive for 5 years.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.
> 
> if the law makers thought it was an issue they would have especifically included the word Bicycle in the legislation , or changed the law . I beleive there have been several amendments to the law in the past 30 or so years- plenty of time to drop it in if it was neccesary


I'm not buying the 25kg of metal argument because I think it isn't just about the damage a cyclist will do directly. It could cause a car to swerve and hit someone else. A cyclist whilst drunk could get themselves injured or killed by a driver who was not at fault but will have to live with it on their mind, which some people are better at dealing with than others. 
Also just because it hasn't been made into a law doesn't mean necessarily that it shouldn't be. If that was the case we'd have perfect laws for everything.


----------



## theclaud (28 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'm not buying the 25kg of metal argument because I think it isn't just about the damage a cyclist will do directly. It could cause a car to swerve and hit someone else. A cyclist whilst drunk could *get themselves injured or killed by a driver who was not at fault* but will have to live with it on their mind, which some people are better at dealing with than others.
> Also just because it hasn't been made into a law doesn't mean necessarily that it shouldn't be. If that was the case we'd have perfect laws for everything.


 
No they couldn't. You don't get yourself run over - it's something some else does to you.


----------



## Stonepark (28 Aug 2012)

Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, provides the offence of cycling on a road or public place whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. It 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.

NOTES

(i) The evidence of the extent to which a person is affected must be measured by means other than the provision of a specimen of breath, blood or urine, as there is no power to require such a specimen in these circumstances. However, if such a specimen was offered, it is probable that the evidence obtained by analysis of the specimen would be admissible.
(ii) In Scotland a constable may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence.
(iii) In England and Wales a constable may only arrest without warrant in accordance with the powers of arrest set out in section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In such an instance, that power might be exercised where a satisfactory address has not been furnished, or the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent such a person causing physical injury to himself or any other person (see also other conditions in s24 of PACE).
(iv) The absence of a specific power of arrest in England and Wales affects the ability of the police to present any form of medical evidence of the accused's condition.
(v) There is no offence of 'being in charge' of a cycle under the Road Traffic Acts, but such conduct may well be an offence of drunk in charge of a carriage under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. A bicycle or tricycle is a carriage for the purpose of that section.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> How many pissed-up cyclists cause accidents? I'm curious.


I caused one about 20 years ago. I went belting around a corner into a one way street the wrong way and colided head on with a car. No one else was injured (I bruised my entire groinal area after I collided with and bent the alloy handlebar stem.) I think I got away with it only because the poor driver was in shock and absolutely ashen faced and didn't think to call the police. I picked up my bike after taking his insurance details and buggered off as quickly as i could hobble.
I think it is entirely possible if nit likely that I wouldn't have done this had I known that the law about drinking and driving would apply to me equally. Up until that point I'd thought that riding after a few beers was just a perk of bike riding. This incident changed my mind and I still feel bad about it.
All that said doesn't necessarily make my case but I think it would have prevented that particular accident.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> No they couldn't. You don't get yourself run over - it's something some else does to you.


In the vast majority of cases you are right. I can only refer yo to my post at #12 to illustrate that it is not the case 100% of the time.


----------



## marinyork (28 Aug 2012)

No.

I regard it as fairly unworkable.

If you wanted such a thing, you could conduct rigorous scientific tests as to the point where you'd start to lose control of a bicycle would spiral wildly out of control. The problem in this approach is that the momentum (which includes velocity) and likely outcomes between a standard car and a bicycle (probably at lower speeds on a pub run than even normal cycling) are two very different things. I'd guess that the point for which it deemed an unacceptable risk with cycling would be deemed higher than the limit for driving a motor vehicle. Drink driving causes a quantifiable number of serious accidents and deaths every year. It's right that resources are targetted on that.

I've had a friend who borrowed my bike and cycled back the many miles (mostly on a quiet cycle path) from a brewery and collapsed when he came through the door. Not very sensible behaviour, but comparing it with a motor vehicle is silly. He'd have probably crashed into the first wall, person or vehicle he came across.

When I lived in York the police there were really big on drunk cycling (and very tame in general on motoring offences).

There were two cases that stuck out in my mind. First was a bloke who crashed at low speed and got mugged very badly and the police were more concerned with finding those people. The second a very drunk cyclist in town who got taken away but who should have probably got bundled in the van, taken home and told to go to bed. On the other hand I heard of a number of people who went out for a night out and ended up in the river or hospital or occasionally falling into the river and dead.


----------



## Drago (28 Aug 2012)

I see where the question comes from, but simple fact is cyclists don't rely on licences to ride their machines the way car drivers do, so not sure what sort of punushment would be meaningful?


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Aug 2012)

Hmmm
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.

Something tells me being caught doing anything (vaguely?) silly could trigger an assessment that the cyclist "is unfit", "incapable of having proper control". That could cover a multitude of tiny errors . Without the luxury of being allowed so 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood?


----------



## Thomk (28 Aug 2012)

No cyclists should not be subject to the same drink laws or any other "motor vehicle" laws. Bicycles are not motor vehicles and all laws relating to them should be designed for them. It is possible that it is a bad idea to drink and drive, drink and ride, drink and walk, drink and use forums, drink and have sex, drink and parachute out of hot air balloons, drink and argue with your neighbour etc. Not all of these actions should be subject to drink driving laws though and indeed some of them (using internet forums while steaming drunk for instance) should be encouraged. That's not to say that drink riding is necessarily a good idea and it is certainly worth debating possible penalties so worth bringing up.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

Stonepark said:


> Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991, provides the offence of cycling on a road or public place whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. It 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.
> 
> NOTES
> ...


Well after reading that it would seem that things are fairly well covered and my already none too definite thoughts on the matter have been amended. The existing laws seem to cover things satisfactorily.
My apologies for making a big old fuss about nothing and my apologies to the bloke whose car I splatted myself on whilst pissed up all those years ago. Possibly this whole thread was borne from a sense of that unresolved guilt. (hic)


----------



## snorri (28 Aug 2012)

Anyway,drivers who drive carelessly usually get off scot free, whilst drivers who have taken alcohol and commit the same careless driving errors have the book thrown at them. Some people who have not even moved their vehicles get caught by the drink driving laws.
Would you really want to have cyclists subjected to the present drink/drive laws?

Edit to say.... Woops! It looks as if the OP has already had a rethink on this topic .


----------



## Beebo (28 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> It could cause a car to swerve and hit someone else. A cyclist whilst drunk could get themselves injured or killed by a driver who was not at fault but will have to live with it on their mind, .


 
Drunk pedestrians are just as likely to do this. Witness the numbers of drunks walking in the middle of the road in any city centre on Saturday night.


----------



## slowmotion (28 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> My apologies for making a big old fuss about nothing and my apologies to the bloke whose car I splatted myself on whilst pissed up all those years ago. Possibly this whole thread was borne from a sense of that unresolved guilt. (hic)


That's a generous gesture Cyclopathic. I too will apologise to the brick wall that came out of nowhere and splatted me.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> That's a generous gesture Cyclopathic. I too will aplogise to the brick wall that came out of nowhere and splatted me.


No doubt it was built in a silly place.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

snorri said:


> Anyway,drivers who drive carelessly usually get off scot free, whilst drivers who have taken alcohol and commit the same careless driving errors have the book thrown at them. Some people who have not even moved their vehicles get caught by the drink driving laws.
> Would you really want to have cyclists subjected to the present drink/drive laws?
> 
> Edit to say.... Woops! It looks as if the OP has already had a rethink on this topic .


Truth be told I was never entirely convinced of my own argument in the first place but wanted to thrash it out a bit to see what was said. There seems to be a lot of sense in keeping things pretty much as they are and that existing measures are adequate.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

Beebo said:


> Drunk pedestrians are just as likely to do this. Witness the numbers of drunks walking in the middle of the road in any city centre on Saturday night.


Yes, I'm not entirely against the idea of a drink walk limit for dik heads who can't hold their beer. 2 pints or 4 shandys.


----------



## subaqua (28 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> I caused one about 20 years ago. I went belting around a corner into a one way street the wrong way and colided head on with a car. No one else was injured (I bruised my entire groinal area after I collided with and bent the alloy handlebar stem.) I think I got away with it only because the poor driver was in shock and absolutely ashen faced and didn't think to call the police. I picked up my bike after taking his insurance details and buggered off as quickly as i could hobble.
> I think it is entirely possible if nit likely that I wouldn't have done this had I known that the law about drinking and driving would apply to me equally. Up until that point I'd thought that riding after a few beers was just a perk of bike riding. This incident changed my mind and I still feel bad about it.
> All that said doesn't necessarily make my case but I think it would have prevented that particular accident.


 
if you were sober would you have rode down the street the wrong way ??


----------



## MichaelO (28 Aug 2012)

What would happen to pub crawls by Boris bike?!


----------



## dawesome (28 Aug 2012)

I bust my nose cycling drunk. It's very silly. Cycling drunk, not my nose.


----------



## Crackle (28 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> That's a generous gesture Cyclopathic. I too will aplogise to the brick wall that came out of nowhere and splatted me.


You can get 'morning after' brick walls too, well, sandstone in my case.


----------



## dawesome (28 Aug 2012)

For when you get plastered?


----------



## MrJamie (28 Aug 2012)

I don't really see it particularly as a problem, theres far more problems with drunken pedestrians than drunken cyclists imho. Id speculate that drink cycling is probably much more dangerous to the rider than anyone else, especially if youre involved in an incident with a vehicle.

Do the current Road Traffic Act laws affect people cycling on cycleways and bridleways, away from traffic and roads? I used to cycle back slowly from a local pub a mile away, but the entire route home was bridleway in the middle of nowhere, it would be crazy to make that illegal.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Aug 2012)

I had a very drunk cyclist in a&e who'd fallen from a bicycle and badly injured his face last week. Police came looking for him a couple of hours later. Turns out the bike he was on was one he'd just stolen. He fell off within a few metres of the owner who retrieved his bike and gave a full description to the cops. I was secretly stifling a laugh while trying to remain professional. He's going to cost the NHS a few thousand pounds now though! :-(


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2012)

I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.

I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.


----------



## campbellab (28 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.
> 
> I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.


 
To do that you'd have to license cycling otherwise you couldn't apply the same punishments...


----------



## dawesome (28 Aug 2012)

You'd also have to have bike registrations and we'd live in pretty much a police state.


----------



## MacB (28 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> I think operators of all vehicles should be subject to the same requirements, unless there are good reasons for any differences, such as driving on bridleways or cycling on motorways. I see no logical reason for there to be differences in the way we handle one way streets, incapacitation through alcohol, RLJing or blocking pavements when 'parking'.
> 
> I know there are grey areas and inconsistencies with current legislation in some of those but, for drink-driving or -riding, I see no reason why motorists and cyclists should be treated differently.


 
Seriously Norm? you want to legislate just in case? correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that drink driving laws were a direct response to a serious threat to life and limb? Are you saying that drink cycling is posing the same sort of dangers or that you somehow foresee it becoming so?


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2012)

campbellab said:


> To do that you'd have to license cycling otherwise you couldn't apply the same punishments...


Not quite, I said, there would be inconsistencies and I meant that the crime, not the punishment, should be considered the same, a point which I thought would be obvious but should have made explicitly.


----------



## Chris H (28 Aug 2012)

I guess a cyclist is in the same space as any member of the public and alcohol if they are drunk, is their not some general rules aroung being drunk in a public space ?

Anyway forget cyclists if you were going to raise the bar you would start with mobility scooters now they can and do cause incidents


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> Seriously Norm? you want to legislate just in case? correct me if I'm wrong but I understood that drink driving laws were a direct response to a serious threat to life and limb? Are you saying that drink cycling is posing the same sort of dangers or that you somehow foresee it becoming so?


The risk of an accident is greater for cyclists, IMO, because of the vehicle's inherent instability, the risk might be to the rider rather than others but drink driving laws as they currently stand don't discriminate between a driver who has an accident at 3am on a country lane and one who gets caught at 3pm in the middle of town. I don't get 'legislate just in case', though.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> if you were sober would you have rode down the street the wrong way ??


At that age I was a bit of a dik head so I might well have done but I would not have simply swept around the corner at speed without bothering to look. I was a bit of a dik head but not completely without sense. Suffice to say that knowing what I do about myself I am 100% sure that it would not have happened whilst I was sober. I really was quite drunk at the time.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Aug 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I had a very drunk cyclist in a&e who'd fallen from a bicycle and badly injured his face last week. Police came looking for him a couple of hours later. Turns out the bike he was on was one he'd just stolen. He fell off within a few metres of the owner who retrieved his bike and gave a full description to the cops. I was secretly stifling a laugh while trying to remain professional. He's going to cost the NHS a few thousand pounds now though! :-(


I don't think I's have bothered to stifle my laughter. I would certainly not be able to stifle my sarcasm. I would of course treat them with all professionalism but I'm not sure I'd be capable of extending that to my general demeanor.


----------



## MacB (28 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> The risk of an accident is greater for cyclists, IMO, because of the vehicle's inherent instability, the risk might be to the rider rather than others but drink driving laws as they currently stand don't discriminate between a driver who has an accident at 3am on a country lane and one who gets caught at 3pm in the middle of town. I don't get 'legislate just in case', though.


 
I'm not disputing an increased risk and all that, what I'm asking is why you're advocating this change? Is there a sudden increase in drink cycling, or the dangers therein, that requires a response? I follow cycling news stories,and advocacy, fairly closely and I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case. Assuming there ins't a sudden upswell that I'm unaware of then what exactly is your reasoning in supporting legislation?

The 'legislate just in case bit' merely meant, are you just basing this on a sort of 'stands to reason' thought line? We're traffic as well, we're vehicles, we want to be treated with respect, so should abide by all the same rules?

It strikes me as trying to bring in legislation for a problem that doesn't exist, or not to a meaningful level that requires action.


----------



## Norm (28 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> I'm not disputing an increased risk and all that, what I'm asking is why you're advocating this change? Is there a sudden increase in drink cycling, or the dangers therein, that requires a response? I follow cycling news stories,and advocacy, fairly closely and I haven't seen anything to indicate this is the case. Assuming there ins't a sudden upswell that I'm unaware of then what exactly is your reasoning in supporting legislation?


 I think you're reading a bit much into it! There's nothing more to it than "someone posted a thread asking a question". As a general principle, I'd like to see the default position when drawing up legislation being that cyclists are traffic. I think that would help cyclists assert themselves and stick one up the bottom of the neanderthal "you don't pay road tax" comments.

That's not the same as saying I think cyclists should have number plates.




MacB said:


> The 'legislate just in case bit' merely meant, are you just basing this on a sort of 'stands to reason' thought line? We're traffic as well, we're vehicles, we want to be treated with respect, so should abide by all the same rules?


Well, not necessarily "stands to reason", because reason is in short supply and some incredibly stupid people try to stand up to it, but I think it would help if it was clear that we all stuck to the same rules.

There seem to be people who struggle to understand that RLJ in a bike, car, bus or moped is still an RLJ. There seem to be people who struggle to understand why a cyclist might be riding in the middle of the road. There is a perception amongst many that the place for a cyclist to pass slow moving traffic is *always* on the left.



MacB said:


> It strikes me as trying to bring in legislation for a problem that doesn't exist, or not to a meaningful level that requires action.


I speak for no-one else but, in my case, I'm not proposing bringing in new legislation for it, just using it as a general default position for any new legislation which is brought in.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Aug 2012)

I'd like to see all non-pedestrian road users prohibited from travelling on the highway while under the influence of alcohol (even using the current drivers' limit for cyclists).

I'm a keen motorist, a keen cyclist and occasionally a keen drinker. I do not think cycling or driving on the highway mix well with the cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability that alcohol can combine with a nagging slur in reaction time and a mashing of perception.

I wouldn't want either to cycle or to drive on a road shared with inebriated drivers or cyclists.

As in all matters of opinion, I am right. Disagreeing with me just makes you wrong. If you were already wrong (and you probably were) then you are now even wronger. Wrongerer. 

Thank you.


----------



## nick.b (28 Aug 2012)

the laws apply to anyone, there is no law that states it must be a car or lorry to get done by the police.

"drunk in change of a vehiecle is the offense, you can be done for being smashed and driving an electric wheelchair.

although all the laws apply, the police dont treat the offender in the same manor and the penalties are almost nonexsistant.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (29 Aug 2012)

What's the point? We can't enforce the laws on speeding, drunk driving, red light running, mobile phone use, seat belt wearing (the newest law to fail) etc etc..


----------



## RWright (29 Aug 2012)

Here in North Carolina you can be charged on a bicycle and riding lawnmower the same as in an automobile. I don't think horses are included.

Even if someone doesn't have auto insurance that rates will be raised on, the fines and court cost can be substantial.


----------



## nick.b (29 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2010378, member: 9609"]Wrong - the law is "It is an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with excess alcohol"
A bicycle is not a motor vehicle!
I believe you can be charged with riding a bike while drunk - however the police would have to prove you were drunk, sobriety test or something![/quote]

wrong? ok, to be picky, its a carrage

*CYCLING WHILE DRUNK*
Cycling is intoxicating, it gives a natural high but it's also a very sociable activity and those who partake in the weekend 'pub run' will attest that cycling is easier after the odd drink or two.
A social tipple, imbibed in moderation - the proverbial swift half - will not lead to a massive impairment in your ability to ride home but, despite alcohol's pain reducing effect, it impairs athletic performance so too much booze is bad for biking.
The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness - even in a pub - so is clearly never enforced.
In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same rules as motorists, including 'drink drive' rules.
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.
In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.
'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.
And here's the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling 'dangerously' can be fined by up to £2500.
You can not get endorsements on your UK driving licence for a 'drink cycling' offence. Some US States have such a law so be careful when searching on this topic via Google.
The UK Highway Code - a useful but not a definitive source for UK legislation on motoring and cycling offences - says the penalty point system is "intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices...The accumulation of penalty points acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed."
Note the word 'drivers.'
In law, cyclists propel vehicles on the highway and so have to adhere to most of the same rules as motorists. However, the fines and penalties for offences are different. Cyclists DO NOT qualify for three penalty points for failing to comply with a red light. Offending cyclists, when caught, are given a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket for £30. There are no offences that carry penalty points for cyclists.
Open publication​​*CYCLING FURIOUSLY?*​It's an in-joke in cycling that cyclists can't be booked for speeding (see below) but can be fined for "pedalling furiously." Many cyclists list being cited for "cycling furiously" as one of their life ambitions. Professor David S. Wall, Head of the University of Leeds Law School, a one-time professor of criminal justice, once listed his hobby as: Cycling (Furiously)​However, these legal eagles say they have been unable to find a reference to such a cycling offence in Blackstone's Criminal Practice or in Halsbury's Laws of England.​Which is odd, as Christopher McKenzie, an Australian barrister, pointed BikeHub to these cases: _Taylor v. Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228_, a case where the Queen's Bench Division held, on appeal, that a cyclist was appropriately convicted by a magistrate for furious riding of a bicycle. The dicta of Justice Melor in the case has been cited and followed in a number of cases since: see, for example, _Smith v. Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788_ (cyclist not liable to pay bridge toll) and _Corkery v. Carpenter [1951] I KB 102_ (cyclist liable for offence where cycling drunk).​

​There’s no specific offence of “furious cycling”, but as reported by Cambridge Cycling Campaign in 2007, fast-moving cyclists can sometimes be nabbed for “riding furiously”, an offence under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act. This mentions (under section 28) it is an offence for “Every person who rides or drives furiously any horse or carriage, or drives furiously any cattle.”​So, don’t go herding cows on your bike as you’ll be committing an offence twice over…​Cyclists – and not just Victorian ones – can also be convicted for “wanton and furious driving”.​The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows:​“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”​


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.


So a sliding scale then?

Moped riders cause less damage than a full on sports bike, a small Fiat Uno causes less damage than a full blown Jeep Cherokee

The logic leads to a higher alcohol limit for the former than the latter in each example


----------



## subaqua (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So a sliding scale then?
> 
> Moped riders cause less damage than a full on sports bike, a small Fiat Uno causes less damage than a full blown Jeep Cherokee
> 
> The logic leads to a higher alcohol limit for the former than the latter in each example


 
we already have a sliding scale. cyclists don't get prosecuted drivers of MOTORISED vehicles do. you mniss the point that a car or moped , or motorcycle weigh significantly more than a cycle does and can go significantly faster with little effort required from the operator ( OK mopeds maybe not)


----------



## DRHysted (29 Aug 2012)

I'd like to think it unnessesary, as I'd like to think that no one would be stupid enougth to ride whilst under the influence.


----------



## summerdays (29 Aug 2012)

DRHysted said:


> I'd like to think it unnessesary, as I'd like to think that no one would be stupid enougth to ride whilst under the influence.


In the same way that you would like to think no motorist would be that stupid?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Aug 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> mobile phone use


 
Saw a cyclist doing this last night along with a cyclist riding hands free over a humped back bridge, and a roadie in twilight without lights, and you can be charged for drunk in charge of a bicycle, and as far as I am aware its illegal to undertake in any form, because of the inherent dangers as is riding on pavements (though supervised toddlers I suppose can be overlooked).
I once got a ticking off for no lights when I was about 15.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> we already have a sliding scale. cyclists don't get prosecuted drivers of MOTORISED vehicles do. you mniss the point that a car or moped , or motorcycle weigh significantly more than a cycle does and can go significantly faster with little effort required from the operator ( OK mopeds maybe not)


 
No-one missed anything.

It is simply the logical conclusion of comparing the damage to the weight of the vehicle, and usingthis as a measure of how intoxicated you can be.


As for motorised and non-motorised:as a distinction:

What is the difference between these two:


----------



## 400bhp (29 Aug 2012)

Does it need to be the same drink drive laws? Ideally, the existing laws just need to be used an interpreted properly don't they?

It's a bit like the mobile phone use "law"-there wasn't really a need for one as my understanding is that motorists could be prosecuted under the existing legislation (driving without due care). My reasoning was that the specific law was introduced because the existing law was too inefficient to get fines/points onto licenses, and there was an increasing need for something to be done because every other motorists seemed to be flouting the law.

Based on the above, then i would leave the law as it is because there is not a plethora of drink cycling.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What is the difference between these two...


One is motor assisted the other is just pedal propelled?


----------



## subaqua (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> No-one missed anything.
> 
> It is simply the logical conclusion of comparing the damage to the weight of the vehicle, and usingthis as a measure of how intoxicated you can be.
> 
> ...


 KW rating that can be sustained maybe. I dunno i don't make the laws. am sure the big grey thing behind thenm would do more damage than both of them combined.


----------



## Maz (29 Aug 2012)

Alcohol-free cycling already exists - have you not heard of a TT ride?


----------



## marinyork (29 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> ... but drink driving laws as they currently stand don't discriminate between a driver who has an accident at 3am on a country lane and one who gets caught at 3pm in the middle of town. I don't get 'legislate just in case', though.


 
Driving in the early hours having drunk alcohol are big and well known risk factors, especially in the youngest age groups. Some of the most horrific smashes you'll ever read about are in this category. It is for this precise reason that people have suggested that for new drivers and/or drivers under a certain age there should be restrictions on carrying passengers, early morning driving unsupervised and a different lower drink driver limit.


----------



## Bodhbh (29 Aug 2012)

Punishing and policing drink cycling the same as drink driving would get the drinkers off their bikes and put them back in their cars. Which would you prefer?


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'd like to see all non-pedestrian road users prohibited from travelling on the highway while under the influence of alcohol (even using the current drivers' limit for cyclists).
> 
> I'm a keen motorist, a keen cyclist and occasionally a keen drinker. I do not think cycling or driving on the highway mix well with the cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability that alcohol can combine with a nagging slur in reaction time and a mashing of perception.
> 
> ...


 
I'll take that chance. Why are you running together cyclists and drivers as if they are the same? "Non-pedestrian road users"! This might well be the weaselliest phrase CycleChat has ever seen. Anyway, it falls to me, as ever, to put you straight. The cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability and enjoyable perception-mashing actually mix_ tremendously well_ with the pleasure of riding a bicycle on the highway. Wobbling home from a happy evening's drinking with friends and singing songs about the moonlight whilst narrowly avoiding sudden ambush by hedges is one of the things that bicycles are for. You do know cycling is supposed to be fun, right?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> It's been raised on the smidsy thread here so thought i'd just open this particular issue up a bit. At the moment I am thinking that we probably should be under the same restrictions as drivers when it comes to riding whilst drunk and subject to be brethalised under the same rules.
> It is still possible for a drunk cyclist to cause accident and injury to other road users (even if they damage themselves in the process). Even if the accident doesn't injur a third party there is still the cost of emergency services etc.
> As I say at the moment I think we should but there are undoubtably points that I haven't considered.


 
Yes, I agree. If you're using the road, you should follow the same rules as everyone else using the road. Whilst you may be lighter and smaller than a car, you are still capable of causing serious injury to you and other around you.

When will people get that one person's fun / convenience isn't at all important in the grand scheme of things?

And for those protesting about pedestrians not having the same rules applied:

a) They are not in charge of a vehicle
b) They are mostly not in the road
c) Being drunk and disorderly IS an offence.

The limits applied to cars though area load of rubbish anyway as it really depends on your tolerence to alchohol. Some people can be steaming drunk and still under the legal limit.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Yes, I agree. If you're using the road, you should follow the same rules as everyone else using the road. Whilst you may be lighter and smaller than a car, you are still capable of causing serious injury to you and other around you.
> 
> *When will people get that one person's fun / convenience isn't at all important in the grand scheme of things?*
> 
> ...


 
It's not about "one person's fun" - it's about all of us being able to go about our business and enjoy public space. Motor vehicles present an extraordinary danger to others - drunks on bicycles do not. That's really all there is to it.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> It's not about "one person's fun" - it's about all of us being able to go about our business and enjoy public space. Motor vehicles present an extraordinary danger to others - drunks on bicycles do not. That's really all there is to it.


 
I disagree - if you hit someone on a bike then you are still going to hurt them and why should they pay the price because we decided to have a drink? It's not going about your business when it impacts someone else.


----------



## Trickedem (29 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2010388, member: 9609"]In Germany, laws pivot around the word "Transport" as opposed to "motor vehicle" here in the UK, And as such cyclists can get points on their driving licence (obviously only if they have one) for offences committed on a bicycle, such as mobile phone use and excess alcohol whilst cycling - I do believe the alcohol thresholds are about 4x greater whilst on a bicycle.[/quote]
I am quite proud of the fact that I got a fine and points on my licence for speeding on my bike, when I was in Germany with the Army. I used to commute in to work and whenever I saw someone on a moped, we would chase them down and overtake them as their speed was limited. 

On a related note, relations with the local populace became rather strained because squaddies would regularly steal bikes to get back to the barracks after a night of drinking, however, rather than just dumping them, they would throw them in the river, which ran near the camp entrance. As I recall the punishments dished out for this particular offence were made rather harsh and probably involved being jailed.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I disagree - if you hit someone on a bike then you are still going to hurt them and why should they pay the price because we decided to have a drink? It's not going about your business when it impacts someone else.


 
There are already laws that cover this stuff. The list of behaviours and activities that might occasionally result in harm to someone else is endless - presumably you are not in favour of blood alcohol limits for all of them?


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

Trickedem said:


> I am quite proud of the fact that I got a fine and points on my licence for speeding on my bike, when I was in Germany with the Army. I used to commute in to work and whenever I saw someone on a moped, we would chase them down and overtake them as their speed was limited.


 
Chapeau!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> There are already laws that cover this stuff. The list of behaviours and activities that might occasionally result in harm to someone else is endless - presumably you are not in favour of blood alcohol limits for all of them?


 
I think that the blood alchohol system is flawed as different people are affected in different ways and some people who are legally under the limit are in no fit state to be in charge of wiping their own behind, never mind a car or a bike.

I think that if you are seen behaving in an unfit manner either in a motorised vehicle, on a bike or on foot and you have any alchohol in your sytem then you should have the book thrown at you. (War & Peace, preferably)


----------



## mickle (29 Aug 2012)

I wrote off my pride and joy 1937 Curly Hetchins whilst pissed (rode into a Covent Garden bollard) and that was the very least of the very many stupid things I've done under the influence of alchohol. What I also know for certain is that cycling at night, wearing an all black outfit, on a black recumbent, with no lights whilst 'under the influence' (if that's the term) of a couple of tabs of Blue Pyramid brand LSD is also not a good idea.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I think that the blood alchohol system is flawed as different people are affected in different ways and some people who are legally under the limit are in no fit state to be in charge of wiping their own behind, never mind a car or a bike.
> 
> I think that if *you are seen behaving in an unfit manner either in a motorised vehicle, on a bike or on foot and you have any alchohol in your sytem then you should have the book thrown at you.* (War & Peace, preferably)


 
Why (with obvious exception for the motor vehicle bit)? What do you mean by "in an unfit manner"? It just sounds like legislation based on disapproval rather than on harm. The drink driving limit is there to protect people from something extraordinarily dangerous where minor operator errors have serious consequences for others, in a culture where the people doing the harm have long felt entitled to subject others to great risk. Nothing people do routinely on bicycles, pissed or otherwise, is comparable.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> Why (with obvious exception for the motor vehicle bit)? What do you mean by "in an unfit manner"? It just sounds like legislation based on disapproval rather than on harm. The drink driving limit is there to protect people from something extraordinarily dangerous where minor operator errors have serious consequences for others, in a culture where the people doing the harm have long felt entitled to subject others to great risk. Nothing people do routinely on bicycles, pissed or otherwise, is comparable.


 
By unfit, I mean in a way that is likely to cause harm to the perpatrator or others. Of course cycling whilst drunk is not AS dangerous, but just because it's not as bad doesn't make it fine.

I mean shooting someone in the face is much more likely to harm someone than punching them in the face, but they can both cause some degree of harm and are both illegal, thankfully.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> By unfit, I mean in a way that is likely to cause harm to the perpatrator or others. Of course cycling whilst drunk is not AS dangerous, but just because it's not as bad doesn't make it fine.
> 
> *I mean shooting someone in the face is much more likely to harm someone than punching them in the face, but they can both cause some degree of harm and are both illegal, thankfully*.


 
I quite agree, but neither of them has anything to do with cycling into lamp-posts and wobbling into ditches, which are not acts of violence against another. "Perpetrator" is an odd choice of word for someone who is mainly fumbling with their keys, talking bollocks to themselves, and looking a bit of a tit. As I said, if (in the course of being drunk and riding a bicycle) you cause harm to others either deliberately or negligently, there are already laws in place - the being drunk on a bicycle bit is an irrelevance.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> I quite agree, but neither of them has anything to do with cycling into lamp-posts and wobbling into ditches, which are not acts of violence against another. "Perpetrator" is an odd choice of word for someone who is mainly fumbling with their keys, talking bollocks to themselves, and looking a bit of a tit. As I said, if (in the course of being drunk and riding a bicycle) you cause harm to others either deliberately or negligently, there are already laws in place - the being drunk on a bicycle bit is an irrelevance.


 
I think we may be saying the same thing in a different way - (although if someone is unable to control their steering in such a way that they're veering off the road, I might be inclined to say that they should at least have their bike confiscated until they're sober enough to steer - it's all very well if you're in the countryside with no-one else around, but if you're veering onto the pavement uncontrollably in a densly populated area, then you're much more likely to cause harm to someone).

I don't mean punishing someone because they have had a drink, I am talking about someone who is unable to control their bike to a standard where you can be confident that they're not going to cause harm to themselves or others.

Regardless of anything else, we have a responsibility to not harm others, deliberately or otherwise and if we fail in this responsibility then we must accept the consequences.


----------



## nick.b (29 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> KW rating that can be sustained maybe. I dunno i don't make the laws. am sure the big grey thing behind thenm would do more damage than both of them combined.


 

what you really need is some deathrace 2000 style blades on the wheels of those things, that would rock


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I think we may be saying the same thing in a different way - (although if someone is unable to control their steering in such a way that they're veering off the road, I might be inclined to say that they should at least have their bike confiscated until they're sober enough to steer - it's all very well if you're in the countryside with no-one else around, but if you're veering onto the pavement uncontrollably in a densly populated area, then you're much more likely to cause harm to someone).
> 
> I don't mean punishing someone because they have had a drink, I am talking about someone who is unable to control their bike to a standard where you can be confident that they're not going to cause harm to themselves or others.
> 
> Regardless of anything else, we have a responsibility to not harm others, deliberately or otherwise and if we fail in this responsibility then we must accept the consequences.


 
The nice thing about bicycles is that they are sort of self-regulating when it comes to drunkenness, because of the balance requirement. If you are feeling lively after a couple of pints you might put on an uncharacteristic turn of speed or drop off something bigger than you'd have risked otherwise, but beyond that booze generally makes for more ponderous two-wheeled progress. I simply don't accept the notion that being drunk on a bike presents a danger to others. If you're veering around a lot it won't be long before you veer off into a hedge or simply fall over. If you are the kind of cyclist that stops to make way for pedestrians when sober, then you'll do the same when drunk, but possibly keel over in the process. Booze does not turn otherwise considerate cyclists into hooligans who tear along crowded pavements, and people who terrorize pedestrians are not made less obnoxious by being sober. I've turned a familiar mile-long journey into a sort of marathon mystery obstacle course simply by having too much beer. I have lost Whitstable station entirely at least half a dozen times (it turned out not to have gone very far). All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else. Reiver's example above strikes me as good policing. This and a bit of goodwill is all that's needed. It's important that we don't load people's everyday bimbling about with restrictions, regulations and prohibitions - especially when we all presumably agree (Linford excepted) that cycling is a good thing - a benign, convivial, liberating, useful thing.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> The nice thing about bicycles is that they are sort of self-regulating when it comes to drunkenness, because of the balance requirement. If you are feeling lively after a couple of pints you might put on an uncharacteristic turn of speed or drop off something bigger than you'd have risked otherwise, but beyond that booze generally makes for more ponderous two-wheeled progress. I simply don't accept the notion that being drunk on a bike presents a danger to others. If you're veering around a lot it won't be long before you veer off into a hedge or simply fall over. If you are the kind of cyclist that stops to make way for pedestrians when sober, then you'll do the same when drunk, but possibly keel over in the process. Booze does not turn otherwise considerate cyclists into hooligans who tear along crowded pavements, and people who terrorize pedestrians are not made less obnoxious by being sober. I've turned a familiar mile-long journey into a sort of marathon mystery obstacle course simply by having too much beer. I have lost Whitstable station entirely at least half a dozen times (it turned out not to have gone very far). All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else. Reiver's example above strikes me as good policing. This and a bit of goodwill is all that's needed. It's important that we don't load people's everyday bimbling about with restrictions, regulations and prohibitions - especially when we all presumably agree (Linford excepted) that cycling is a good thing - a benign, convivial, liberating, useful thing.


 
Your drunken cycle sounds tremendous fun. Yes, I think common sense is a good way of dealing with any situation, as mentioned in Reiver's post.


----------



## Maz (29 Aug 2012)

Although I don't drink (I'm Muslim), I do go on social rides with regular pub stops. As the evening progresses, some people do start to wobble a bit when riding, but it's nothing really. They're more a danger to themselves than anyone else!


----------



## hoski (29 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> All of this is absurd, and it might be unwise, but it doesn't harm anyone else.


 
This is precisely the point.

And for the miniscule number of dangerous drunk cyclists, I doubt the law would act as a deterrent anyway. I have been under the impression that the reduction in drink-driving has a lot more to do with the cultural shift and increased awareness of its dangers rather than the law acting as a deterrent.

Plus I like combining my love of drinking with my love of cycling. They have a lovely symbiotic relationship for me.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Aug 2012)

A splendid synergy?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> KW rating that can be sustained maybe. I dunno i don't make the laws. am sure the big grey thing behind thenm would do more damage than both of them combined.


 
The point is the arbitrary distinction between motorised and non motorised

One would according the distinction need regulation, and the other wouldn't.


----------



## subaqua (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The point is the arbitrary distinction between motorised and non motorised
> 
> One would according the distinction need regulation, and the other wouldn't.


 
unless the motorised one is over a certain Kw rating , no it still classes as a bicycle. construction and use regulations i beleive.


----------



## Trickedem (29 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2011559, member: 9609"]Eloquently demonstrated in this little compilation - all appeared to have passed the threshold where cycling becomes impossible
[/quote]
several clips having been filmed in British seaside towns on a Saturday afternoon around the time of the full moon.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> unless the motorised one is over a certain Kw rating , no it still classes as a bicycle. construction and use regulations i beleive.


 
The higher option for the Gekko (350w) does not qualify and needs a full license, insurance ... and according to these criteria would have to comply with drink driving regulations, whilst the other wouldn't?


----------



## subaqua (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The higher option for the Gekko (350w) does not qualify and needs a full license, insurance ... and according to these criteria would have to comply with drink driving regulations, whilst the other wouldn't?


 
yes , as it becomes a motor vehicle. if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck then generally its a duck.

lifes crap like that sometimes, a bit like 65% in an exam will get you into college but 64% will be a "sorry you didn't make it". there is always a small overlap where you think , thats not fair. finishing 0.01 of a second slower than the qualifying time, theres hundreds of examples.


----------



## mangaman (29 Aug 2012)

Well I got back from a smallish ride to meet Dell. No doubt we
were slightly over the driving limit - but we had a lovely evening and I certainly didn't kill anyone on the way
home. The whole thing couldn't have happened without bikes. Jogger drove as doesn't drink, but Dell amd I wetting the baby's head was nice.

As TC said, one cycles to enjoy oneself. I did tonight and I hope DZ did too.

Simple


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> I'll take that chance. Why are you running together cyclists and drivers as if they are the same? "Non-pedestrian road users"! *This might well be the weaselliest phrase CycleChat has ever seen.* Anyway, it falls to me, as ever, to put you straight. The cosy sense of wellbeing and invulnerability and enjoyable perception-mashing actually mix_ tremendously well_ with the pleasure of riding a bicycle on the highway. Wobbling home from a happy evening's drinking with friends and singing songs about the moonlight whilst narrowly avoiding sudden ambush by hedges is one of the things that bicycles are for. *You do know cycling is supposed to be fun, right*?


 
I apologise for the weaseliness. I don't know what came over me. I am normally the second or third least weaselly person in my select social circle.

As to the_ 'fun'_ thing, I'm not sure how serious you're being. How is it meant to be fun? Not only do I hate every minute I spend on a bicycle, I've rashly encouraged my three children to do the same. Sometimes we have so little fun we have to measure it backwards.

I will look into the matter of enjoying cycling, but I think a little research will show this to be the myth I take it for. I hate it and with every new bicycle I build or buy, I hate it more. Fun? Schmun!

That inability to gain any fun may be because I'm not in favour of riding while under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol, too, is something that I will not and cannot associate with fun or enjoyment. Ghastly stuff. The most ghastly (and my least favourite) is Armagnac on a terrace after a big meal, or maybe a slightly peppery Roija with a rare steak. Every time I try either, I hate it more. I also hate Normandy ciders with a big, fat gallette. Yuck!

In that regard, alcohol is like sex, cake and cycling. Hateful things all.

Thank you.


----------



## Theseus (30 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I also hate Normandy ciders with a big, fat gallette.


 
Try Pommeau, ghastly stuff. We stayed with some Normandy farmers one year and they forced me to drink it before every meal. It makes you forget what you are eating.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2012)

mangaman said:


> Well I got back from a smallish ride to meet Dell. No doubt we were slightly over the driving limit - but we had a lovely evening and I certainly didn't kill anyone on the way home. The whole thing couldn't have happened without bikes. Jogger drove as doesn't drink, but Dell amd I wetting the baby's head was nice.
> 
> As TC said, one cycles to enjoy oneself. I did tonight and I hope DZ did too.
> 
> Simple


The issue, if there is one, with this sort of anecdata is that exactly the same thing could have been written a million times over by drivers in the 1960s and 1970s, before drink-driving became the act of a social pariah as it is now. Slightly over the limit, lovely evening, didn't have an accident (this time), couldn't have happened without cars... That script could summarise vast swathes of my early years.

The response should be that I know no-one who has had an accident whilst drink-driving (something which was very prevalent in my youth) but I know at least two who have hospitalised themselves cycling when drunk.


----------



## Linford (30 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> there is one massive point you missed. 25Kg of metal tube doesn't do anywhere near as much damage to people or property as a metal lump on wheels that weighs close to a tonne.
> 
> if the law makers thought it was an issue they would have especifically included the word Bicycle in the legislation , or changed the law . I beleive there have been several amendments to the law in the past 30 or so years- plenty of time to drop it in if it was neccesary


 
A driver doesn't have to have the car in motion to be convicted and banned.
Sit behind the wheel of a car, or sit on a motorcycle whilst over the limit, and you run the risk of getting arrested and charged. No risk to anyone else is there in this action but the punishment is still the same.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> A driver doesn't have to have the car in motion to be convicted and banned.


indeed and, as I pointed out, drink-drive legislation does not discriminate between someone who is caught at 3am without another vehicle on the road, and someone caught at 3pm in a busy town centre.

The level of danger one poses to others simply doesn't feature.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2012)

2013828 said:


> Speeding is illegal because it is potentially dangerous to self and others. Most instances of prosecution or fine and points acceptance have not translated that potential danger into actual damage. It's just part of the responsibility associated with operating heavy machinery in public.


 Remove the redundant word "heavy" and that covers bikes as well, so you have my thanks for your support.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> indeed and, as I pointed out, drink-drive legislation does not discriminate between someone who is caught at 3am without another vehicle on the road, and someone caught at 3pm in a busy town centre.
> 
> The level of danger one poses to others simply doesn't feature.


 
In reality does it though? I would have thought the level of fine/sentence/ban will depend on all the factors at play, not just the binary effect of being over the limit or not. Indeed, doesn't the amount one is over the limit come into it too?

I know these things aren't black and white and there will be inconsistencies with individual cases, but in general that's how it works isn't it?


----------



## DRHysted (30 Aug 2012)

At the end of the day, I do not want to share the road with any one who is under the influence, be them in a car, a HGV, or on a 25kg bike.


----------



## TheDoctor (30 Aug 2012)

Equally, if Parliament or the Police felt there was a danger posed by drunk cyclists there'd be the power to test for it.
There isn't.
I've *never* heard of anyone being injured by a drunk cyclist.


----------



## Norm (30 Aug 2012)

2013886 said:


> Careful there or I'll set Claudine on you.


I'd better put the kettle on then.


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> A driver doesn't have to have the car in motion to be convicted and banned.
> Sit behind the wheel of a car, or sit on a motorcycle whilst over the limit, and you run the risk of getting arrested and charged. No risk to anyone else is there in this action but the punishment is still the same.


 
potential. a lovely little world. and when you are "in drink" your cognitive reasoning goes out the window. therefore the potential ( in risk assesment terms the liklehood )increases.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> I'd better put the kettle on then.


 
... and prepare the "Comfy Chair"?


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ... and prepare the "Comfy Chair"?


 I've been rewatching "yes, minister" and i know that the chair will be anything but comfy .

a courageous decision


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> potential. a lovely little world. and when you are "in drink" your cognitive reasoning goes out the window. therefore the potential ( in risk assesment terms the liklehood )increases.


 
It would be an automatic 12 month ban for sitting on a motorcycle whilst over the limit on a public highway. The same would be applicable if it were in motion. Same applies to a car driver. Have a skinful and decide to sleep it off in a car outside the pub but climb into the drivers seat instead of any of the others and you are risking a ban/fine/etc. Points stay on the license for 10 years also for D/D offences.

This offence will of course have the stigma, and insurance penalties which go with it.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014481 said:


> You almost manage to make it sound as though the person is a victim of something here.


 
I have no sympathy for someone who gets caught driving under the influence.

However, the tarrif of sentencing doesn't work on potential, but of committing a specific offence - even when they may have not actually started the engine and moved the wheels (so not actually becoming a danger to themselves or anyone else)

Is that clear ?


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014621 said:


> Carry a knife but don't stab anyone. Crime or not crime?


 
Posession is an offence


----------



## 400bhp (31 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> I have no sympathy for someone who gets caught driving under the influence.
> 
> However, the tarrif of sentencing doesn't work on potential, but of committing a specific offence - even when they may have not actually started the engine and moved the wheels (so not actually becoming a danger to themselves or anyone else)
> 
> Is that clear ?


 
There's a good reason why there isn't a difference between sitting behind a wheel and starting a car vs driving it. 

Clear intent.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

400bhp said:


> There's a good reason why there isn't a difference between sitting behind a wheel and starting a car vs driving it.
> 
> Clear intent.


 The problem is that when someone has decided to sleep off a few jars instead of risking driving home, their judgment to not drive at that point may be right, but the execution is impaired. They may not have the wherewithal to figure that sitting in a driving seat is as good as actually driving when intoxicated in the eyes of the law.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> The problem is that when someone has decided to sleep off a few jars instead of risking driving home, their judgment to not drive at that point may be right, but the execution is impaired. They may not have the wherewithal to figure that sitting in a driving seat is as good as actually driving when intoxicated in the eyes of the law.


 
Tough titties. I've amended what you said above below:



> The problem is that when someone has decided to sleep off have a few jars instead of risking driving home, their judgment to not drive at that point may be right, but the execution is impaired. They may not have the wherewithal to figure that sitting in a driving seat is as good as actually driving is wrong when intoxicated in the eyes of the law


 
Same basis of argument - poor mitigation though isn't it.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014728 said:


> So don't put yourself in the risk position. Especially the nonsensical sitting on the motorbike but not intending to ride it position.


 
The same actually applies if you were just pushing it. Motorcycles are subject to the same laws whether riding under power or not.



> In recent information that we have seen, and originally obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, Gloucester City Council have stated that a total of 23,975 drivers have been issued with a penalty charge notice (PCN) at Llanthony Bridge since July 2010. We are concerned that many of these drivers were visitors to Gloucester who won't bother visiting the City again after their expensive and probably unintentional mistake.
> *Locals get caught too though. In fact, a motorcyclist who pushed his motorbike across the bridge received a fine, so please do not take any risks!*
> 
> *http://www.gloucester.co.uk/july2011/save-yourself-sixty-pounds-bridge-fine*


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014770 said:


> And how often has this offence been prosecuted and convicted under this circumstance? No anecdotes please, if you could report back once you have done the research I would be grateful.


 
The same applies if you are pushing a motorcycle - you have to wear a crash helmet. I had a plod pull me up on this years ago as a teenager when I ran out of fuel on a motorbike and was pushing it on the pavement with the lid off. - told to wheel it on the road or else he would be taking it further - was a taliban type though. The law is there to enforce at the end of the day.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014792 said:


> What is the point you are making here? You appeared to be pushing a hard done by motorist, can't even get pissed and sleep it off in the car line. Now it is about wheeling a bike on the pavement. Can you at least try to identify what it is you want to say and then try to stick to that? Otherwise it is all just a load of semi-coherent random bollocks.


 
The point being made is that you are not allowed to be in control of a car or motorcycle under any circumstance if under the influence. It isn't random bollocks.it is applicable law.
As a cyclist, you and I have very little regulation on our movement on the highways - pissed or not, and if you were to wheel your cycle home after a night in the pub, you don't run the risk of getting arrested for it, so stop whingeing that motorists get a soft time where the laws are concerned.


----------



## MacB (31 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> It isn't random bollocks


 
this has to be sig material for someone


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> synergy


Oh my god, that word makes me want to kill people.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (31 Aug 2012)

Although this seems to be about motor vehicles, it applies to "mechanically propelled vehicles" broadly..

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm

In theory if you are _in charge_ of a bike, regardless of whether you are actually riding, pushing, holding, sitting next to or otherwise, you can be charged with an offense if you are unfit to be in charge of it through drink or drugs, as it a mechanically propelled vehicle.

The FAQ about smoking in a vehicle is interesting, as it is the defendant's responsibility to prove that they had no intention of using the vehicle whilst unfit, rather than the police's to prove that he has or intended to commit an offence.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2014839 said:


> Boot on other foot. This started with you suggesting that motorists and bikers have a hard time on this score. I have been trying to lead you to see that this is an appropriate level of severity. At no time have I been winging nor have I suggested that motorists get soft treatment.


 
And I have also stated I have little sympathy for anyone getting done for D/D


----------



## MacB (31 Aug 2012)

2014852 said:


> Only if you are confident that it isn't just random words. Possibly generated by a rogue version of the program used to write Mr Men stories


 
Good point, no I'm not, this is certainly a slicker version of Linf, perhaps it's Linf 2.0


----------



## Cyclopathic (31 Aug 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> Equally, if Parliament or the Police felt there was a danger posed by drunk cyclists there'd be the power to test for it.
> There isn't.
> *I've never heard of anyone being injured by a drunk cyclist*.


Conversely I have heard of people being injured by cyclists who were not drunk. Now I'm beginning to wonder if a few chugs of your favorite booze should perhaps be compulsory before mounting your beast. Or getting on ones bike.


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2012)

wheres_my_beard said:


> Although this seems to be about motor vehicles, it applies to "mechanically propelled vehicles" broadly..


A bicycle is not, in law, a mechanically propelled vehicle

sent from my outboard brain


----------



## theclaud (31 Aug 2012)

2014876 said:


> So you are in fact not making a point at all then?


 
Has he _ever_ actually succeeded in making a point?


----------



## slowmotion (31 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Oh my god, that word makes me want to kill people.


 Me too. Sorry, it just slipped out...


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> Me too. Sorry, it just slipped out...


It's ok, we can work through this together


----------



## MacB (31 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Oh my god, that word makes me want to kill people.


 
it's one of my favourite words which is being ruined by its misuse via corporate speak. Every time I hear it misused I get an irrational surge of anger.


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> Remove the redundant word "heavy" and that covers bikes as well, so you have my thanks for your support.


The existence of light machinery (for example, a pair of scissors, a small mechanical balance, a wrist watch) is sufficient to demonstrate that the word "heavy" is not in fact redundant. Unless you're suggesting that drunk people should be restricted to wearing timepieces that contain no moving parts


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2012)

Linford said:


> It would be an automatic 12 month ban for sitting on a motorcycle whilst over the limit on a public highway. The same would be applicable if it were in motion. Same applies to a car driver. Have a skinful and decide to sleep it off in a car outside the pub but climb into the drivers seat instead of any of the others and you are risking a ban/fine/etc.


There are statutory defences, so the ban is clearly not "automatic".


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

Dan B said:


> There are statutory defences, so the ban is clearly not "automatic".


 
Can you enlighten us on this please ?


----------



## snapper_37 (31 Aug 2012)

theclaud said:


> I quite agree, but neither of them has anything to do with cycling into lamp-posts and wobbling into ditches, .


 
... or wobbling down a canal tow path in the dark after far too many Diamond Whites may moons ago. Yes I fell in and yes I did have the book thown at me. It's just that it was my old girl who did the throwing and the book was actually a tea towel. Ok I _may _have been a danger to the few ducks knocking about, eyeing me with a WTF expression, but that was about it.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2015292 said:


> You have been trotting this stuff out for more than 24 hours and you don't actually know the detail?


 
Perhaps you can state it for the record and set us straight.
As far as I was concerned, there is little in the way of mitigation which gives the Judge/magistrate the ability to waive the statuatory penalty in an offence as serious as Drink or Drug driving.

You can learn something new every day


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

This thread has become the ugly bastard child of a drunken, sweaty and regretted union between Helmet Threads and Commuting. 

If ever there was a case for hypothetically safe hypothetical sex, this might well be it.

As ever, I am right.


----------



## Sore Thumb (31 Aug 2012)

I started a similar thread on the CTC forum and got lynched. CTC members seem to be big drinkers.


----------



## Linford (31 Aug 2012)

2015430 said:


> No, you introduced it as an example of hard done by motorists. It's your thing, you research and back it up properly.


 
I don't have a problem with Drink Drivers being caught and prosecuted. My only issue is that all road users have to obey they same laws in relation to sobriety when mixing it up with others in a public space.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (31 Aug 2012)

2015483 said:


> Worry not, it is not the problem you imagine. Indeed if you read back you will see that we have established_* those laws*_ don't apply to cyclists or pedestrians.


 

They don't but other ones do, but with some clauses.




RTA 1988 S. 30 (1) said:


> 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 t_o *__*such an extent as to be incapable of having proper contro*__l*_ of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.


 
So with that wording, being under the influence is not an offence if you are able to remain capable of proper control of the cycle.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

To the OP's point; yes. When cyclists can travel at 60mph in built up areas on bicycles weighing a tonne.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

wheres_my_beard said:


> So with that wording, being under the influence is not an offence if you are able to remain* capable of proper control of the cycle*.


 
Bugger! That means I'm breaking the law even when sober!


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> To the OP's point; yes. When cyclists can travel at 60mph in built up areas on bicycles weighing a tonne.


 
Eki could do that.... with ease. With an elephant in each pannier. No doubt about it.

So that's a* 'yes'* then!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Eki could do that.... with ease. With an elephant in each pannier. No doubt about it.
> 
> So that's a* 'yes'* then!


Not even an ortlieb on a tubus could support that sort of load. and the distribution is all wrong, you'd be popping wheelies and breaking spokes before you passed 30mph.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Not even an ortlieb on a tubus could support that sort of load. and the distribution is all wrong, you'd be popping wheelies and breaking spokes before you passed 30mph.


 
Sorry. It seemed so right when I typed it. I now accept that I was mistaken.

Bugger!


----------



## Norm (31 Aug 2012)

Dan B said:


> The existence of light machinery (for example, a pair of scissors, a small mechanical balance, a wrist watch) is sufficient to demonstrate that the word "heavy" is not in fact redundant. Unless you're suggesting that drunk people should be restricted to wearing timepieces that contain no moving parts


So, where does the bicycle fit in this continuum of mechanical devices and at what point in this continuum does being drunk become a bad thing? Because that's the only point to all this, isn't it. Some people think that it's ok to cycle after a few, and others don't. 

I guess that, at the extremes, most would agree it's not good to be drunk when flying a 747 but you should be okay if you want to wear a watch and over-indulge, and the point where good becomes bad is different for different people. Vive la difference, and all that.

I will say that many supporters seem to be trying to justify their own habits in a way which sounds remarkably like "I drive better after a few drinks and I haven't had an accident yet..."


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Oh my god, that word makes me want to kill people.


 
so that wouldn't be a healing rhythmic synergy then


----------



## Nigelnaturist (31 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> c) Being drunk and disorderly IS an offence.


Not a criminal one like drink driving.


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2012)

Norm said:


> So, where does the bicycle fit in this continuum of mechanical devices and at what point in this continuum does being drunk become a bad thing? Because that's the only point to all this, isn't it. Some people think that it's ok to cycle after a few, and others don't.
> 
> I guess that, at the extremes, most would agree it's not good to be drunk when flying a 747 but you should be okay if you want to wear a watch and over-indulge, and the point where good becomes bad is different for different people. Vive la difference, and all that.
> 
> I will say that many supporters seem to be trying to justify their own habits in a way which sounds remarkably like "I drive better after a few drinks and I haven't had an accident yet..."


 
the law needed a point where to start prosecutions.

being drunk is great when it doesn't involve wheels , driving or riding. and that includes roundabouts in childrens play areas. never ever ever a good idea to ride one of them (RAB) when intoxicated at any level. it invariably ends in loss of skin, stomach blood or sometimes all 3. not that i have ever done that- no not me


----------



## Nigelnaturist (1 Sep 2012)

2015688 said:


> Are you sure?


Yea been done for both, 30 years apart. Its more like a speeding offence, in that you dont get a criminal record for it.


----------



## Cyclopathic (2 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2015913, member: 1314"]I don't cycle better after a few drinks. For me it's about enjoyment - of drinking, of cycling, of drinking and cycling. For me it's like drinking and sex. You can have one without the other but I find the combination of both better.

The parallel ends though as I was always able to cycle without drink. Whereas in, ahem, the day, I would never have had sex had it not been for drink on both sides![/quote]
Have you managed to combine cycling with sex though? No way I'm googling that.


----------



## Cyclopathic (26 Dec 2013)

theclaud said:


> No they couldn't. You don't get yourself run over - it's something some else does to you.


Whilst technically true I still think that it may be the case that a person may lessen the chance of being victim to a road accident if they are not drunk.

I once got very very drunk and rode my bike quite quickly around a corner right into an on coming car. It was a one way street (against me) so I really can not blame anyone else for my crash and injuries. If anything I was going faster than the car so I definitely ran into him. I am utterly convinced that this would not have happened if I'd been sober. As far as behaviour goes I am pretty disgusted with my much younger self and have rarely heard of worse by a cyclist. It was more luck than judgement that nobody else was hurt and I can still remember the ashen look on the face of the driver who was, looking back on it, in a state of shock. So much so that he didn't even shout at me or call me any names for being such an idiot. (which I think I'd have deserved.)

I hope it's clear that I am not proud of what I did and I only mention it to show that we are sometimes the authors of our own poor fate.

I will certainly concede that riding a bike whilst drunk is nowhere near as dangerous as driving a car whilst drunk, I am convinced that it does raise the possibilities of accidents and mistakes which may not be without consequence. For this reason I think there should at least be debate about the issue. Perhaps penalties could be less for bike riding whilst drunk to reflect the lesser impact it has overall on public safety.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (26 Dec 2013)

Norm said:


> The risk of an accident is greater for cyclists, IMO, because of the vehicle's inherent instability, the risk might be to the rider rather than others but drink driving laws as they currently stand don't discriminate between a driver who has an accident at 3am on a country lane and one who gets caught at 3pm in the middle of town. I don't get 'legislate just in case', though.


A bicycle is not a vehicle, it is a carriage in the same way as a pram or horse drawn carriage. Therefore any points made about a bikes instability is moot.


----------



## martint235 (26 Dec 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Yea been done for both, 30 years apart. Its more like a speeding offence, in that you dont get a criminal record for it.


Are you sure you didn't just get a caution?

It won't surprise some that in my teens I was pulled quite a few times for D&D and you do get a court appearance (unless you plead guilty) and you do get a criminal record for it albeit one that is wiped within about 4 years iirc.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (26 Dec 2013)

Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.


----------



## theclaud (26 Dec 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.


Nonsense.


----------



## Glow worm (26 Dec 2013)

There are few pleasures in life more liberating than the joyous feeling of a 'refreshed' ride home from the boozer.


----------



## machew (26 Dec 2013)

The only problem I have with drinking and cycling, is for every pint that goes in one end, a pint needs to come out the other. And having to stop for a piss every 15 mins does make the cycle home slow


----------



## Brandane (26 Dec 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> Yes imo they should. Cycling drunk is a danger to all.


Cycling while DRUNK is already an offence. Cycling while over the limit set for drivers, which is completely different from being drunk, is quite rightly IMHO not an offence.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (26 Dec 2013)

It's not nonsense. Being drunk in charge of a bicycle is a potential risk to rider, other road users and pedestrians, and to my mind irresponsible.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (26 Dec 2013)

ok...what level of alcohol would be an acceptable 'limit' in a cyclists bloodstream then?


----------



## Brandane (26 Dec 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> ok...what level of alcohol would be an acceptable 'limit' in a cyclists bloodstream then?


There shouldn't be any set level. Some people will be "drunk" after 1 pint, but still below the legal limit for driving. Conversely, some people will still be sober after 6 pints, yet well over the driving limit.
That is why the 2 offences are different for drivers. They had to widen the net to stop people driving when they were drunk, yet still under the limit.
As long as a cyclist is in reasonable control of their bike, that should be good enough. We don't weigh much, and don't go very fast, so there is less risk of us causing carnage. As previously posted, it is already an offence to cycle while "drunk".


----------



## snorri (26 Dec 2013)

BigonaBianchi said:


> It's not nonsense. Being drunk in charge of a bicycle is a potential risk to rider, other road users and pedestrians, and to my mind irresponsible.


What's brought this on BoaB? What do you mean by being "drunk"?
There are many greater "potential risks" on our roads than the odd cyclist who may have had one too many.


----------



## Bromptonaut (26 Dec 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> I will certainly concede that riding a bike whilst drunk is nowhere near as dangerous as driving a car whilst drunk, I am convinced that it does raise the possibilities of accidents and mistakes which may not be without consequence. For this reason I think there should at least be debate about the issue. Perhaps penalties could be less for bike riding whilst drunk to reflect the lesser impact it has overall on public safety.



The breathalyser law came in in 1967. In that year there were around 6000 deaths on our roads. That's just deaths, there were many more life changing injuries. Drink was a factor in (random but roughly plausible figure) 40% of those collisions. 

Where's the evidence of drunk cyclists causing that sort of mayhem?

I'm not saying it's impossible for the odd drunk cyclist to cause a problem but the problem is some orders of magnitude below that requiring the sort of intervention you propose.


----------



## Profpointy (26 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> What's brought this on BoaB? What do you mean by being "drunk"?
> There are many greater "potential risks" on our roads than the odd cyclist who may have had one too many.



There's sensibly enough a sliding scale on how drunk is too drunk for various activities. For example, i understand the level for airline pilots is zero, car drivers not zero - though perhaps should be closer to zero than it is, whilst for cyclists and and people in charge of other carriages you do have to be pretty drunk to be booked (an acquaitance of mine was done, quite rightly, for "drunk in charge of a carriage" having TWOK'd a bike) - if you're a pedestrian, you have to be drunk AND (incapable or disorderly) this all seems fair enough as the level of drunkeness to be busted is broadly proportionate to the risk of harming or being a nuisance to others.


----------



## Linford (26 Dec 2013)

Has anyone stopped to consider how much a fatal RTA costs the people who are left behind ?
If you are over the limit to drive, you should be pushing it on the pavement.


----------



## Linford (26 Dec 2013)

2840391 said:


> Arbitrary limits, you know like for how fast you can go.



2 pints or a couple of glasses of red is right on top of the limit for the majority of people. That is a fairly easy guide to follow.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 Dec 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> The breathalyser law came in in 1967. In that year there were around 6000 deaths on our roads. That's just deaths, there were many more life changing injuries. Drink was a factor in (random but roughly plausible figure) 40% of those collisions.
> 
> Where's the evidence of drunk cyclists causing that sort of mayhem?
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible for the odd drunk cyclist to cause a problem but the problem is some orders of magnitude below that requiring the sort of intervention you propose.


just checking, is your opinion really based on nearly 47 year old figures with an element added in that you've to all intents and purposes made up & a belief that the modal share of cycling and driving is equal?


----------



## Glow worm (26 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> 2 pints or a couple of glasses of red is right on top of the limit for the majority of people. That is a fairly easy guide to follow.



A guide for you perhaps. And you can keep it.


----------



## Linford (26 Dec 2013)

2840491 said:


> Your gift for missing the point remains intact then. In a thread about 20mph speed limits you express doubts about blanket limits. In a thread about blood alcohol limits you express support for them.



Eh...exceeding a speed limit doesn't impair the ability to make informed or rational judgments on hazards as they present.. but getting half cut certainly does.

You have a very strange world view Adrian


----------



## Linford (26 Dec 2013)

2840616 said:


> You continue to miss the point. Your argument against the speed limit was that it is blanket, yet you support a blanket limit for alcohol level. It is the blanket thing.
> That aside, your comparison is nonsensical though. No one is suggesting that exceeding a speed limit impairs judgement.



You would struggle to get a conviction against a sober driver who ran over someone who was half cut on their pub bike if they were reportedly riding in a manner which was questionable. It wouldn't get any further than the inquest once they read out the toxicology report.


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

It isn't the speed limits which is the problem........


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

2840645 said:


> Speed limits are not relevant to this subject. It is only your rejection of a blanket limit in one circumstance and promoting one here that is almost of interest.



Why not extend the blanket 20mph limits to motorways passing through cities whilst about it ?


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

2840652 said:


> Irrelevant


Or even dual carriageways ?
I think you are totally missing something here. Those who are already ignoring the 30's will also ignore the 20's. The roads won't be any safer....especially when people with you arrogant attitude would want to encourage vehicle users to mix it up when half cut. 

Over 20% of cyclists whose deaths were recorded in this study had alcohol in their system.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/study-links-alcohol-and-bike-deaths/?_r=1

It's almost like you want cyclists to be be more vulnerable than we need be to prove that accidents should always be blamed on other road users.

How about this. You are sober and cycling past a t junction, someone half cut comes flying out of it and forces you into the path of an oncoming car which you connect with and get some serious injuries....who would you seek to recover loss of earnings damage to your bike etc from ?


----------



## Dan B (27 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider how much a fatal RTA costs the people who are left behind ?
> If you are over the limit to drive, you should be pushing it on the pavement.


No thank you. Pavements are cluttered enough already without drunken drivers pushing their mobile death greenhouses around them


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

Dan B said:


> No thank you. Pavements are cluttered enough already without drunken drivers pushing their mobile death greenhouses around them


Mobile death greenhouse ... at this point people stop taking you seriously


----------



## Bromptonaut (27 Dec 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> just checking, is your opinion really based on nearly 47 year old figures with an element added in that you've to all intents and purposes made up & a belief that the modal share of cycling and driving is equal?



I'm simply making the point that blood/breath alcohol limits for driving were a response to a real and present problem impacting thousands of lives. The correct figure for 1966 is 8,000 dead. Given how the numbers fell post 67 I doubt 40% is an overestimate for those that involved drink. 

Even correcting for modal share there is no evidence that drink cycling is an issue that needs new laws.


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

I am surprised that this has gone on for 11 pages  I have trouble staying on a bike sober never mind trying it when I'm legless. 

The law is pretty clear regarding bikes and drinking. I cannot see why the same rules dont apply to cyclists. Admittedly, a collision with a cyclists and pedestrian do not often have the same impact as a car and a pedestrian, but it has in the past and I am sure, will do again.

When a cyclist goes out with the idea of going out for a few beers and then riding home, they know at the outset that they are not going to be in a fit state to control the bike as it would be normally. All it needs is for them to wobble or swerve and then a car to take action to avoid them and then disaster could strike without the bike hitting anything at all.

I am not going to try to justify drinking and riding a bike just because I am a cyclist. If you want to go out on the beer, get a lift, walk, use a taxi or a bus.

Otherwise if you get caught, dont cry about it. You know the consequences.

Steve


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

2840952 said:


> Shame it doesn't give any detail on the amount, which would be roughly what we are discussing


80 mg to 100ml is the current limit... i think it should be lower. Come on up to chelt and do my regular circuit onto the surrounding hills. We can swing by a pub up that way whilst there, you can have 4 pints and then follow me back down the hill (no lid of course  )...my best so far on strava is 49.4mph...of course you'd be fine, alcohol doesn't affect you like the rest of the polulation...


----------



## snorri (27 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> d then follow me back down the hill (no lid of course  )...my best so far on strava is 49.4mph......


 I'm a safer cyclist when drunk than you are when sober.


----------



## Dan B (27 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> The law is pretty clear regarding bikes and drinking. I cannot see why the same rules dont apply to cyclists


Because the same problem does not (did not) exist to the same extent. Drink driving laws saved enough lives to be worth the expense of passing and enforcing them, do you honestly think the same would be true for cycling?


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> I'm a safer cyclist when drunk than you are when sober.


How often do you ride on 2 wheels at 50+ mph to make this claim ?


----------



## Dan B (27 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> How often do you ride on 2 wheels at 50+ mph to make this claim ?


I can make that claim quite easily based on _never_ riding at 50mph+, or indeed making much of a habit of riding at 49.4mph

You seem to be unaware, but there are no bragging rights in speeds attained while going downhill


----------



## Linford (27 Dec 2013)

Dan B said:


> I can make that claim quite easily based on _never_ riding at 50mph+, or indeed making much of a habit of riding at 49.4mph
> 
> You seem to be unaware, but there are no bragging rights in speeds attained while going downhill


Snorri made in reality a very daft claim when he has never even met or ridden with me .... why do you have to jump on the muppet bandwagon ?
I don't expect much more than RLJing and riding when half cut whilst dodging 'mobile death greenhouses' from a London cyclist  so I'm wondering if you are still suffering from the effects of the night before, or have started early this morning to prove a point


----------



## Dan B (27 Dec 2013)

How strange that you can make claims about everyone else's cycling without having met them or ridden with them, yet for anyone else to make a similar assessment of _your_ riding based on what you've said about it here is apparently not allowed.


----------



## Brandane (27 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I am surprised that this has gone on for 11 pages  I have trouble staying on a bike sober never mind trying it when I'm legless.
> 
> The law is pretty clear regarding bikes and drinking. I cannot see why the same rules dont apply to cyclists. Admittedly, a collision with a cyclists and pedestrian do not often have the same impact as a car and a pedestrian, but it has in the past and I am sure, will do again.
> 
> ...



Could the same thing not be said about people who WALK after consuming alcohol? You are suggesting the use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMO..


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Dec 2013)

Brandane, I have never heard of a walker, walking into another walker and killing him. Nor have I heard of walkers swerving round people and killing them.

Steve


----------



## Bromptonaut (27 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Brandane, I have never heard of a walker, walking into another walker and killing him. Nor have I heard of walkers swerving round people and killing them.
> 
> Steve



And how many cyclists have ridden into another cyclist or ped and killed him while drunk? Low single figures over ten years I'd suggest. 

Drunkenness features heavily in pedestrians killed or with life changing injuries. Ten years of my career were spent working with people incapacitated by severe head injury. The biggest group after drivers and accidents at work were pedestrians falling or getting knocked down while drunk.


----------



## Brandane (27 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Brandane, I have never heard of a walker, walking into another walker and killing him. Nor have I heard of walkers swerving round people and killing them.
> 
> Steve



Likewise, I have never heard of cyclists causing the deaths of others while drunk over the prescribed limit for car drivers (drunk cycling is already dealt with by current laws).
I am not disputing that this MAY have happened, but it is so rare as to be a non-issue.


----------



## Dan B (27 Dec 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> Brandane, I have never heard of a walker, walking into another walker and killing him. Nor have I heard of walkers swerving round people and killing them.


What about walkers walking/falling/running into the carriageway and causing road users to have to swerve around them potentially killing someone? I quite often get people outside pubs trying to high-five me as I go past, it only takes one of them to overbalance


----------



## ShipHill (27 Dec 2013)

I'm going to say "no"

As a good friend of mine pointed out to me during a chat about a variety of cycling and road related topics, "John, cycling is the only thing I can do without the incompetent government, or some do-gooder, telling me how I should do it. They can all fark off to be honest. I have to belt up in my car, wear a lid on my motorbike, but I can ride my bicycle in my swimming trunks while eating a banana if I want."

I paraphrase him, but that was his gist.

I tried to ride my old 5-speed racer home from the pub when I was quite drunk a few years back. It took me ages and I think I spent about 95% of the journey scooting along rather than pedalling. Ended up in a heap on my lawn at the end causing my neighbour much mirth.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Dec 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> The breathalyser law came in in 1967. In that year there were around 6000 deaths on our roads. That's just deaths, there were many more life changing injuries. Drink was a factor in (random but roughly plausible figure) 40% of those collisions.
> 
> Where's the evidence of drunk cyclists causing that sort of mayhem?
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible for the odd drunk cyclist to cause a problem but the problem is some orders of magnitude below that requiring the sort of intervention you propose.


I pretty much agree with you. The magnitude of damage is negligable compared to drunk motorists and I think any law should totally reflect that. I'm not wedded to the idea of drink laws for cyclists but think it is worth the debate.
In a way it regulates itself as anyone knows who has tried to ride a bike when absolutely sloshed. 

All I think my point comes down to is that in extreme cases that perhaps the drunkenness of a cyclist could be taken into account should any prosecution be made. Having said that it may be that such events really are too rare to bother with making a specific law for.


----------



## Glow worm (28 Dec 2013)

ShipHill said:


> I'm going to say "no"
> 
> As a good friend of mine pointed out to me during a chat about a variety of cycling and road related topics, "John, cycling is the only thing I can do without the incompetent government, or some do-gooder, telling me how I should do it. They can all f*** off to be honest. I have to belt up in my car, wear a lid on my motorbike, but I can ride my bicycle in my swimming trunks while eating a banana if I want."



Spot on - couldn't have put it better myself. I love the swimming trunks/ banana bit 
Perhaps this is partly why so many non-cyclists dislike us. They see us happily ambling about the place without a care in the world, whether plastered or not, unhindered by the mountains of rules and regulations that blight their lives and deep down they resent our freedom.

As I ride home from the pub later, free as a bird, lidless, banana in one hand, can in the other, I'll cherish the barely concealed resentment from our 4 wheeled caged friends


----------



## Cyclopathic (30 Dec 2013)

snorri said:


> I'm a safer cyclist when drunk than you are when sober.


I'm not only a better cyclist when I'm drunk, I'm also much wittier, more intelligent and decidedly better looking than when I'm sober. Sometimes my stories are so funny I have to repeat them again and again to be sure everyone has heard just how funny it is. I get so good looking and attractive that I think it intimidates a lot of women who shy away from me, probably because they don't think they'd stand a chance. It's ok I tell them, I'm not that fussy, but still they don't feel like they can bring themselves to ask me home for "coffee". 
It's truly baffling.


----------



## young Ed (30 Dec 2013)

I am under-age to drink (14 but 15 on Thursday) so shouldn't really be to bothered as it doesn't affect me and I am a sensible law abiding citizen. but I think there should be law on drink cycling and walking if you want to get pi**ed up then do it in your own house not in a pub or a the street corner. 
but as said i am a non-drinking basically 15 year old lad you doesn't plan to be an alco when i am legal
Cheers ED


----------



## young Ed (30 Dec 2013)

2845510 said:


> Fret not young Ed, there is. As mentioned in this thread more than once already, S.30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 has it covered.


sorry couldn't be bothered to read 227 posts!  but thanks for informing me 
Cheers Ed


----------



## Dogtrousers (30 Dec 2013)

Brandane said:


> Could the same thing not be said about people who WALK after consuming alcohol? You are suggesting the use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMO..


There _*are*_ laws pertaining to people who walk after consuming acohol - well, sufficient alcohol to be drunk. Just being drunk in a public place is an offence. You don't have to be disorderly.

And no, you can't drive a steam engine while drunk, to all of you thinking of exploiting a loophole. Or be in charge of horses or cattle. It's da law.

I'd have thought that a drunk on a bike would be significantly more danger to themselves and others than a drunk on foot. But the drunk at the wheel is _so much_ more of a danger than either that it really does warrant special specific laws.

Incidentally, I was driving in Finland one morning and there was a police checkpoint where _every _car driver was being breathalysed. Only took a few seconds. A good idea I thought. But if they tried it here there would no doubt be prolongled bleating from the Top Gear tendency (and on here too, if it included cyclists  )


----------



## glenn forger (30 Dec 2013)

I can't be bothered to read any posts on this thread, but a few years ago in Bethnal Green I got so drunk on Urainian vodka I cycled three miles then fell sideways and my face smashed against the kerb and I broke my nose. Think on.


----------



## snorri (30 Dec 2013)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'm not only a better cyclist when I'm drunk, I'm also much wittier, more intelligent and decidedly better looking than when I'm sober. Sometimes my stories are so funny I have to repeat them again and again to be sure everyone has heard just how funny it is. I get so good looking and attractive that I think it intimidates a lot of women who shy away from me, probably because they don't think they'd stand a chance. It's ok I tell them, I'm not that fussy, but still they don't feel like they can bring themselves to ask me home for "coffee".
> It's truly baffling.


I take your point regarding drunkeness in general, , but my reply was in direct response to a claim from Linf that he often cycles at 50mph on a public road, I don't believe I have ever indulged in such risky behaviour either sober or after a drink.


----------



## biggs682 (31 Dec 2013)

yes of course


----------



## Hip Priest (1 Jan 2014)

I nearly got right-hooked at speed whilst cycling drunk. After that, I resolved never to do it again, because although the driver would've been 100% at fault, the news reports would've focused on the fact that I was three sheets to the wind.


----------



## Linford (1 Jan 2014)

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates that the laws for cycling when drunk or under the influence of drugs are fairly inadequate. If people want to use the highways with a vehicle, then irrespective of what that is, they should all be subject to the same penalties.


----------



## Schmilliemoo (5 Jan 2014)

Jeese this thread has been going since August 2012! 
I'd like to add to it with my invaluable contributions of "yes" and "they already are"
Kthanxbye


----------



## ACQPL (12 Jan 2014)

2842625 said:


> The law already exists. A person can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge of a bicycle.



Could I point out, as far as I'm aware, not drunk in charge, it's drunk whilst cycling... 
Under section 35 of the offences against the persons act 1861 - ‘Wanton’ or ’furious’ cycling is a criminal offence. This is however, only valid when the offence did not take place on a road or bridleway and resulted in bodily harm to someone else. Usually only ever used when it has caused serious injury or a fatal collision.. Be careful on those unlit bridleways on the way home from the pub 

Under the Road Traffic act, there are a few more that raise eyebrows.. If someone actually got convicted, they would have to be cycling to a very low standard.. The RTA covers cycling without due care, unfit through drink or drugs and a few others..
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing


----------

