# Cycling and drinking, should we do it



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

if I were to go for a ride and have a few beers along the way then become responsible for causing an incident due to be being (even mildly) intoxicated, I would expect to be held accountable to the courts and would also expect the injured party to make a claim against myself / my insurers. To suggest it is "ok" to go out and drink and then ride your bike is totally irresponsible in my opinion. Unless of course you mean to drink and then ride (for instance) along the canal towpath, then it is your own fault if you end up in the canal.

*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.
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't worry too much if others do it as I think the risk is pretty low unless you can find me any evidence the current legislation is allowing many injuries to occur?


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't worry too much if others do it as I think the risk is pretty low unless you can find me any evidence the current legislation is allowing many injuries to occur?



here's the question - how many people killed by sober drivers each year?
(my guess would be a considerable number)

how many people killed by drunken cyclists each year?
(my guess would be zero)

Not to say drunk cycling is OK, never mind wise, but......


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

It's one of those things that shouldn't be done as there probably is a risk and a small number can and do get injured. But any police/court resources taken up by something of such low risk is to take time away from stuff which is massively more dangerous and kills hundreds each year - bad driving.


----------



## Scotchlovingcylist (28 Oct 2015)

I had my first 2 of cans of beer at 14. 
I then tried and failed to ride my bike home 
I would maybe do it if I lived near a pub and could ride a cycle path slowly all the way home, that said I never get to the point of being paralytic these days


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

Are there any stats to show its a problem worth worrying about?

Or, as I suspect, is it a problem for those in a 2 tonne metal box and want cyclists to have the same restrictions as they do?


----------



## Joffey (28 Oct 2015)

Lance road for years off his face and never killed anyone


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycling-influence4marv.pdf


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> ...party to make a claim against myself / my insurers. To suggest it is "ok" to go out and *drink and then ride your bike is totally irresponsible* in my opinion. Unless of course you mean to drink and then ride (for instance) along the canal towpath, then it is your own fault if you end up in the canal.
> 
> *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.
> 
> ...



It wouldn't be worth living if we weren't allowed to be irresponsible sometimes.

Chill out.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2015)

Cycling and boozing is so yesterday - K-holed downhilling is where it's at...


----------



## stuee147 (28 Oct 2015)

its a hard one its very funny to see for one but also it can in some areas be the only way home after the taxis say your to drunk and refuse to take you 10 miles home and it tends to be pretty harmless. 
but there is always the risk of the drunk cyclist vering into the road and causeing a car or lorry to lose control causeing who knows what to happen then who do you blame ?

as cyclists we are always claming our right to be classed as a road vehical and as such we have our right to be aloud to ride on a public road. in such case we as cyclists should expect to have the same rules and regulations as other road useres. 
i dont consider myself any more or less entiteled to use the public highways as any car van lorry or anything else so why should i expect special treatment


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> It wouldn't be worth living if we weren't allowed to be irresponsible sometimes.
> 
> Chill out.


 be irresponsible by all means just don't endanger anyone else in the process, i don't need to "chill out" I just thought it would be a good subject for discussion.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> be irresponsible by all means just don't endanger anyone else in the process, i don't need to "chill out" I just thought it would be a good subject for discussion.



As a subject it strikes me as an over worry. Have a couple and cycle home this weekend, see for yourself.

I personally don't, but I did once a few months ago. It's not for me when clipped in on tight country lanes.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

stuee147 said:


> its a hard one its very funny to see for one but also it can in some areas be the only way home after the taxis say your to drunk and refuse to take you 10 miles home and it tends to be pretty harmless.
> but there is always the risk of the drunk cyclist veering into the road and causing a car or lorry to lose control causing who knows what to happen then who do you blame ?
> 
> as cyclists we are always claiming our right to be classed as a road vehicle and as such we have our right to be aloud to ride on a public road. in such case we as cyclists should expect to have the same rules and regulations as other road users.
> i don't consider myself any more or less entitled to use the public highways as any car van lorry or anything else so why should i expect special treatment



Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with as much right to be on the roads as anyone else. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Oct 2015)

It's called a 'Pub Bike' for a reason - that reason is not to drink Lime and Soda.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> As a subject it strikes me as an over worry. Have a couple and cycle home this weekend, see for yourself.
> 
> I personally don't, but I did once a few months ago. It's not for me when clipped in on tight country lanes.



having a "couple" is fine, I've done it myself and like you, its not for me. I was referring more to those who go out on their bikes and have four or five or more drinks then cycle home, i have seen the funny side of it too, one chap who was staggering home on the pavement in the early hours of the morning, i'm not sure whether the bike was holding him up or he was holding the bike up as they were both almost 45 degrees to each other


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> It's called a 'Pub Bike' for a reason - that reason is not to drink Lime and Soda.



by the same token you could have a "pub car" or a "pub moped" but that wouldn't be acceptable would it, ...........................


----------



## gavintc (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with as much right to be on the roads as anyone else. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?


Yawn, but still not a big issue!


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> by the same token you could have a "pub car" or a "pub moped" but that wouldn't be acceptable would it, ...........................


No becuase cars are much bigger and heavier and kill far more people.

I could kill someone with a pencil or with a machine gun. Machine gun is more dangerous and can kill more people quicker. That is why there's more restrictions on machines guns as opposed to pencils. But both can kill.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

gavintc said:


> Yawn, but still not a big issue!



So the same rules should apply for motorists then?
After all if cyclists can do it why not motorists or are there different rules for cyclists?


----------



## Milkfloat (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> by the same token you could have a "pub car" or a "pub moped" but that wouldn't be acceptable would it, ...........................



So now as well as n+1 for bikes, there is n+1 for cars. I need to talk to the boss, I already have a normal car and a weekend toy, now I need a pub car.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> No becuase cars are much bigger and heavier and kill far more people.
> 
> I could kill someone with a pencil or with a machine gun. Machine gun is more dangerous and can kill more people quicker. That is why there's more restrictions on machines guns as opposed to pencils. But both can kill.



that is a very simplified way of looking at it, it would appear that some people believe there should be different rules when it comes to cycling under the influence ,even if your balance etc can be impaired after a few beers, it is acceptable to steer a cycle on a public road????


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

The trouble is most cyclists drink that god-awful northern beer stuff getting turned on by the stupid names they all have. A proper cyclist only drinks lager preferably served in a reassuringly expensive bar.


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> that is a very simplified way of looking at it, it would appear that some people believe there should be different rules when it comes to cycling under the influence ,even if your balance etc can be impaired after a few beers it is acceptable to steer a cycle on a public road????


You shouldn't do it. But the police and courts should spend their time stopping drivers from doing it as that is what's killing people.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2015)

In light of Steve's sage advice, I shall never attend the Mobberley Wobbly 8 again...


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> getting turned on by the stupid names they all have.





Origamist said:


> Mobberley Wobbly 8


I rest my case.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> So now as well as n+1 for bikes, there is n+1 for cars. I need to talk to the boss, I already have a normal car and a weekend toy, now I need a pub car.



I like this.

Like a winter bike. A pub car could have bumper car bumpers, minimal controls, have a max speed say ten miles an hour, be lit up like a Christmas tree...yes I can see it working.

Congrats to steve50 for bringing back drink driving!


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Congrats to steve50 for bringing back drink driving!


It's only dangerous if you hit someone!!


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I rest my case.



You'd be very welcome to attend if you just wanted to swig Hofmeister, Marky. We've still got an underground bunker full of the stuff for when southern daisies visit.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> It's only dangerous if you hit someone!!



wrong! It's also dangerous if your drunkenness causes an accident.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> It's only dangerous if you hit someone!!



Now I think it through, automated cars will rescue golf clubs and other businesses that don't sell so much beer anymore. NHS will like the drop in RTAs but maybe not the rise in liver disease.


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

Origamist said:


> You'd be very welcome to attend if you just wanted to swig Hofmeister, Marky. We've still got an underground bunker full of the stuff for when southern daisies visit.


Only if you promise to put it in a frosted glass and charge me at least £10 for it.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

User3094 said:


> like wetting yourself?



yeah, you realise you've peed yourself, bend down to take a look and get hit by a passing drunk cyclist


----------



## Julia9054 (28 Oct 2015)

My sister was arrested back in the day for being drunk in charge of a bicycle.
She was stopped two Friday nights running by the same policeman. On the second occasion she unwisely decided to give him some friendly advice about catching real criminals!


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

Julia9054 said:


> My sister was arrested back in the day for being drunk in charge of a bicycle.
> She was stopped two Friday nights running by the same policeman. On the second occasion she unwisely decided to give him some friendly advice about catching real criminals!



 oops!


----------



## Dan B (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with* as much right to be on the roads as anyone else*. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?


Pedestrians have an absolute right to be on the road.

Cyclists, by virtue of the greater danger they pose other road users, have some restrictions on their right to use the road (e.g. not allowed on footways, must have lights at night, shouldn't be incapacitated through drink, etc)

Motorists, by virtue of the yet greater danger they pose other road users, have even more restrictions (e.g. must pass test and get licence, stiff limit on alcohol, MOT, insurance etc)

You may be under the impression that motorists are the rightful owners of the road and everyone else should fit round them. Although practically speaking this may be the case today, historically it was not the case, legally[*] it is not the case, and it's clearly not desirable (in view of CO2 levels, urban congestion, lives lost to RTCs etc) that it remain the case. I would therefore be very opposed to any measures that seek to reinforce the status quo at the expense of people who do not have the good fortune of an outsize tin box to cart themselves around in.

[*] hypothetically-legally in the sense of "good luck finding a CPS that'll bring the case and a jury who'll convict"


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2015)

There's no real equivalence is there. If I put my two ton vehicle through a wall, the wall loses. If I put my 74ish (depending on beer consumption) through a wall, well actually, I can't. I know this to be fact and it was a soft sandstone wall not a hard granite one.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Only if you promise to put it in a frosted glass and charge me at least £10 for it.



Deal - "The wan*ers don't drink it because they can't afford it".


----------



## Wolf616 (28 Oct 2015)

I've only run over 3 pedestrians drunk cycling and they all survived, so I don't see the problem


----------



## slowmotion (28 Oct 2015)

Ideally, no. It's a lot fun however.


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with as much right to be on the roads as anyone else. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?



because the risk to others is negligable - far less risk to others that soberly driven cars say. That-s why you don't have MOT's for bikes, don't need insurance, why it's ok for a small child to ride a bike but not drive a lorry etc etc. Whilst it's possible to imagine the drunken cyclist causing a truck to run over a group of pedestrians - has this ever happened? Hundrds, maybe thousands of people are killed by sober drivers each year


----------



## subaqua (28 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> because the risk to others is negligable - far less risk to others that soberly driven cars say. That-s why you don't have MOT's for bikes, don't need insurance, why it's ok for a small child to ride a bike but not drive a lorry etc etc. Whilst it's possible to imagine the drunken cyclist causing a truck to run over a group of pedestrians - has this ever happened? Hundrds, maybe thousands of people are killed by sober drivers each year


more people are killed by sober drivers each year which means it must be safer to drive drunk 

this has no basis in statistical analysis and may* be incorrect

* = most definitely is


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Oct 2015)

I've cycled "home" in cph once or twice when I was so drunk I could hardly stand up let alone walk. I'd NEVER get that smashed and ride on the roads in the UK.
Drunk cyclists are pretty common in cph btw. Especially on Thursday nights, after, say, 20:00, and, let's face it, anyone cycling here after 23:00 is almost bound to be slotted.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Oct 2015)

I also had four pints in Horsham and rode home on the wrong side of the road a couple of month ago.


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

subaqua said:


> more people are killed by sober drivers each year which means it must be safer to drive drunk
> 
> this has no basis in statistical analysis and may* be incorrect
> 
> * = most definitely is



well OK, perhaps I should have said "even" by sober drivers.

And I do get your actual point point as well - but it's still clearly "false equivalance" that cars and cycles should be same rules.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> because the risk to others is negligable - far less risk to others that soberly driven cars say. That-s why you don't have MOT's for bikes, don't need insurance, why it's ok for a small child to ride a bike but not drive a lorry etc etc. Whilst it's possible to imagine the drunken cyclist causing a truck to run over a group of pedestrians - has this ever happened? Hundrds, maybe thousands of people are killed by sober drivers each year



Indeed I'll wager that drunks on foot are more a danger to others. Walking into high street traffic arms spread, singing I Did It My Way can't be all that safe...for example.

So, "pub shoes" that don't let you off the pavement are one for the innovators as their is clear demand.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Ideally, no. It's a lot fun however.



Flat handle bars?

A Recumbant could be fatal(!)


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Indeed I'll wager that drunks on foot are more a danger to others. Walking into high street traffic arms spread, singing I Did It My Way can't be all that safe...for example.
> 
> So, "pub shoes" that don't let you off the pavement are one for the innovators as their is clear demand.



hey that's a good idea for Dragons' Den - if they can keep you in a straight line without falling over as well, that'd be fab


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> hey that's a good idea for Dragons' Den - if they can keep you in a straight line without falling over as well, that'd be fab



If those are the Requirements, I'll go with a automated wheelchair.

Like Boris Bikes, a line of them set up on the street outside the boozer. Hacks your phone as you approach for your address and credit card, and wheels you off as you collapse.

So just the name required: Peter (O'Toole) Punts, Oliver (Reed) Wheels or Harris (Richard) Chairs?


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> If those are the Requirements, I'll go with a automated wheelchair.
> 
> Like Boris Bikes, a line of them set up on the street outside the boozer. Hacks your phone as you approach for your address and credit card, and wheels you off as you collapse.
> 
> So just the name required: Peter (O'Toole) Punts, Oliver (Reed) Wheels or Harris (Richard) Chairs?




already have the name "beer scooter" surely


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> already have the name "beer scooter" surely


IIRC that's a trading name already, for those guys that use scooters to come and drive you home in your own car.

Or so a friend told me...


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

Well, thanks for all of your opinions including one or two of you who admitted to riding whilst under the influence,



Profpointy said:


> but it's still clearly "false equivalance" that cars and cycles should be same rules.


I never inferred that cars and cycles should have the same rules , ie; mot, tax etc. What I was trying to get across is should we drink and then ride our bikes whilst under the influence of alcohol. If we say yes thats fine are we then not being irresponsible especially if we then ride on the roads, whether we like it or not our balance and coordination is impaired after drinking three or four pints or shorts .

It also begs the question how many incidents "could" have been caused by cyclist error and never been reported, after all, if a cyclist caused an incident it is more than likely the cyclist that is going to be the injured party.

I think this says it all, http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/


These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police.* Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police, *even when the cyclist is inured badly enough to be taken to hospital. The figures also exclude cycling accidents that occur away from the road. Although the number of deaths is accurate, there could be two or three times as many seriously injured cyclists and double the number of slightly injured.


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

As a cyclist I'm statistically more in danger of being overtaken by a twonk who doesn't notice an oncoming car than I sm from another drunk cyclist.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> As a cyclist I'm statistically more in danger of being overtaken by a twonk who doesn't notice an oncoming car than I sm from another drunk cyclist.



Where are you getting your statistics from? 
any chance of a link?


----------



## mattobrien (28 Oct 2015)

I'll hold my hands up and say I am partial to cycling home after an evening out. Having reached the age / stage in life where I don't get blotto anymore, I have never felt that I haven't been in control of my bike or have posed any kind of threat to others.

While it is illegal to be drunk in charge of a bicycle, it is not illegal to ride having had a few. The line comes in defining drunk and if you are compus and in good control, then perhaps you are not drunk.

I don't even wear a helmet when on the pub bike


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

mattobrien said:


> I'll hold my hands up and say I am partial to cycling home after an evening out. Having reached the age / stage in life where I don't get blotto anymore, I have never felt that I haven't been in control of my bike or have posed any kind of threat to others.
> 
> While it is illegal to be drunk in charge of a bicycle, it is not illegal to ride having had a few. The line comes in defining drunk and if you are compus and in good control, then perhaps you are not drunk.
> 
> I don't even wear a helmet when on the pub bike



Thanks for your openness and honesty, it would seem to be the anally retentive bmw driver(s) among us who are having difficulty equating a hypothetical situation from real life and resorting to childish retorts.


----------



## MarkF (28 Oct 2015)

mattobrien said:


> I'll hold my hands up and say I am partial to cycling home after an evening out. Having reached the age / stage in life where I don't get blotto anymore, I have never felt that I haven't been in control of my bike or have posed any kind of threat to others.
> 
> While it is illegal to be drunk in charge of a bicycle, it is not illegal to ride having had a few. The line comes in defining drunk and if you are compus and in good control, then perhaps you are not drunk.
> 
> I don't even wear a helmet when on the pub bike



I have a pub bike too, it gets used a lot...........I like to think that I am cycling off the calories on my return to base. The only time I've done it pissed, I ran over a cat, cut my hands and lost my glasses, so I don't ride pissed nowadays, but I am not sober either.


----------



## Jon George (28 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> It's not for me when clipped in on tight country lanes.



As I discovered on Monday night .... 

See here


----------



## hopless500 (28 Oct 2015)

mattobrien said:


> I'll hold my hands up and say I am partial to cycling home after an evening out. Having reached the age / stage in life where I don't get blotto anymore, I have never felt that I haven't been in control of my bike or have posed any kind of threat to others.
> 
> While it is illegal to be drunk in charge of a bicycle, it is not illegal to ride having had a few. The line comes in defining drunk and if you are compus and in good control, then perhaps you are not drunk.
> 
> I don't even wear a helmet when on the pub bike


Ditto


----------



## Markymark (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Thanks for your openness and honesty, it would seem to be the anally retentive bmw driver(s) among us who are having difficulty equating a hypothetical situation from real life and resorting to childish retorts.


Why are you creating hypothetical situations where you display awful driving skills?


----------



## Fab Foodie (28 Oct 2015)

Drinking and bicycles are my passions in life. I like to use one as an excuse for the other ....
i own a collection of pub-bikes.


----------



## winjim (28 Oct 2015)

I used to ride home from my pub job absolutely hammered. I mean properly stopping to vomit, falling off the bike paralytic. Trip was through the woods, along the path by the airfield, past the terrifying guard dog and then through the residential streets. No traffic at 1am in the town I grew up in so I was always OK.

That was the year of Hale-Bopp. Riding home through the woods on a clear night, all pissed up with a comet blazing through the sky. It was really something.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Oct 2015)

when I was young and stupid I'd ride after 4 or 5 pints and found I could fly home, but you get acid reflux.


----------



## snorri (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> I think this says it all,facts-figures/


......yes, it says it all in that accidents caused by cycling under the influence are so rare they don't warrant a mention in the linked article.


----------



## Wolf616 (28 Oct 2015)

I realised I should not cycle after drinking anymore following a morning where I woke up, the only indication I had cycled home that night was I was still wearing my hi-vis jacket. Nothing else mind, just the jacket. On the plus side I was clearly thinking about cycle safety when I decided it was a good idea to cycle home, and I'm _pretty _sure I was wearing clothes at the time.


----------



## Tin Pot (28 Oct 2015)

Jon George said:


> As I discovered on Monday night ....
> 
> See here



I love* finding photos of last nights journey home.


*Dread.


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

snorri said:


> ......yes, it says it all in that accidents caused by cycling under the influence are so rare they don't warrant a mention in the linked article.


the point i was making is that a LOT of accidents / incidents involving cyclists don't even get reported to the police even if the injuries are bad enough to have the cyclist admitted to hospital (as per the article I linked to) so there are no records of a lot of incidents whether they involve alcohol or not.
I imagine what it boils down to is the old bill are not interested in logging incidents involving cyclists "probably" because we do not / are not required to have a license or mot etc to be on the road . lets also note in law there is no requirement for a cyclist to take a breath test or a blood test to determine the amount of alcohol in the cyclist system.
lets bear in mind i am simply making an assumption with the above statement apart from the facts regarding the breath test etc...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycling-influence4marv.pdf
http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/html/cycling_myths_busted.html#CA


----------



## young Ed (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Exactly, we all want to be recognized as road users with as much right to be on the roads as anyone else. So, why shouldn't the same rules apply when it comes to using the roads when under the influence?


indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
Cheers Ed


----------



## steve50 (28 Oct 2015)

young Ed said:


> indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
> Cheers Ed



Cheers, looking forward to reading more of your blog.


----------



## young Ed (28 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Cheers, looking forward to reading more of your blog.


erm, errr 
yeah, well i just haven't had much time reccently nor have i been doing much interesting :/
unless you want a post about this seasons hay making and a general update on the farming scene?
Cheers Ed


----------



## Profpointy (28 Oct 2015)

young Ed said:


> indeed, having equal rights brings equal responsibilities in my opinion
> Cheers Ed




sooo, given pedestrians have more rights than vehicles, should pedestrians have (even) stricter drunk-walking limits. Maybe they could be banned from walking and forced to drive if convicted...

Rules and restrictions proportionate.to doing harm

Thus - airline pilot - zero alcohol, loads of v strict rules, airworthyness certificates.for plane etc etc.

Truck / bus driver - fairly strict rules again, tacographs, speed limiters, harder to get driving licence

Car - test, insurance, fairly low alcohol limit. Age.limit etc

push bike - some rules, pretty slack alcohol limit (must be not "drunk in charge" ie proper drunk, not merely over 80mg or whatever). Ok to cycle as a small child.

pedestrian - virtually no rules - and anything less than paralytic is ok ("drunk and incapable" or "drunk and disorderly")

This is rather.how things ahould be in my view.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

young Ed said:


> erm, errr
> yeah, well i just haven't had much time reccently nor have i been doing much interesting :/
> unless you want a post about this seasons hay making and a general update on the farming scene?
> Cheers Ed



Ah, just noticed your blog was from September 2014, did you ever finish it?


----------



## Racing roadkill (29 Oct 2015)

Plod: "I believe you've been drinking and riding"

Pissed up rider: "bollox"

Plod: "okay then, seeing as I can't make you give any evidential samples, I guess you can go"


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> Plod: "I believe you've been drinking and riding"
> 
> Pissed up rider: "bollox"
> 
> Plod: "okay then, seeing as I can't make you give any evidential samples, I guess you can go"



the criterion is "drunk" rather than over so many mg per whatsit. Thus, evidence would be "wobblin about all over the place" etc

Merely "having had lots to drink" isn't sufficient.

An acquantance was (quite righlty) done for "drunk in charge of a carriage" and for twoc'ing same. He got away with a fine. He got away with twoc'ing rather than theft as when challenged "is that your bike" he replied "no, I was just having a go". The "drunk" bit was never in dispute.


----------



## DaveReading (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> He got away with twok'ing rather than theft as when challenged "is that your bike" he replied "no, I was just having a go".



I had to Google that to realise you mean Taking Without Konsent.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

DaveReading said:


> I had to Google that to realise you mean Taking Without Konsent.



ah - good point - fixed now


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> but the only time it would become punishable behaviour would be when it was caused by alcohol?


Or when some twonk in a car tries to overtake too closely with an oncoming car. Not punishable by law but punishable by injury or death.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

As usual we have some cyclists defending their corner in self-righteous fashion where they can do no wrong whilst wishing eternal damnation on motorists.

I accept that errant cyclists _probably_ would cause less of a problem than a similarly errant motorist.

However, *issed cyclist swerves across road, car swerves mounts pavement squashes several people etc.

How would the actions of that cyclist be defensible?

If a cyclist uses the road then they ought to be subject to the same alcohol/drug laws as other road users. I remember something on here a while back advocating zero tolerance on these matters for motorists and there was much vocal support for this - same rules apply both ways in my view.

At some point the cycling anti-motorist brigade needs to get off their high horse and recognise that the whole world really does not revolve around them and that life is a two way street. As in all things in life their have to be mutually beneficial solutions to all problems.


----------



## Inertia (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As usual we have some cyclists defending their corner in self-righteous fashion where they can do no wrong whilst wishing eternal damnation on motorists.
> 
> I accept that errant cyclists _probably_ would cause less of a problem than a similarly errant motorist.
> 
> ...


I think our response should be proportional to the problem, how often does a drunk cyclist mount the pavement and squash even one person? Drunk drivers kill.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> No one has said cyclists can do no wrong, don't be silly. But errant cyclists _definitely_ cause less of a problem than a 'similarly errant' (i.e., drunk) motorist. Again, don't be silly.



Not being silly TMN - just read the numerous threads re motorists, horses & pedestrians (I'm sure you have) and the sentiment persists.

There are very definitely a number of cyclists who will go out of their way to rationalise their own poor behaviour on the road as being fine and dandy whilst taking every opportunity to snipe at the other aforementioned groups.

if you think that's a 'silly' observation then cest la vie.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Inertia said:


> I think our response should be proportional to the problem, how often does a drunk cyclist mount the pavement and squash even one person? Drunk drivers kill.



No idea have you? Was just citing a possible example.

However, should such an incident (or similar) occur and your child, grand child, other family member, dog etc was killed then I wonder how proportional your response would be.


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Not being silly TMN - just read the numerous threads re motorists, horses & pedestrians (I'm sure you have) and the sentiment persists.
> 
> There are very definitely a number of cyclists who will go out of their way to rationalise their own poor behaviour on the road as being fine and dandy whilst taking every opportunity to snipe at the other aforementioned groups.
> 
> if you think that's a 'silly' observation then cest la vie.


How much should finite police resources should be spent dealing with drunk cyclists as oppsoed to drunk drives? Give me an idea of ratios? Should it a similar ratio to the number of KSIs from each group?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> How much should finite police resources should be spent dealing with drunk cyclists as oppsoed to drunk drives? Give me an idea of ratios? Should it a similar ratio to the number of KSIs from each group?



The matter of finite resources vs the probability of the offence has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to ride a cycle under the influence. It is still wrong.

The probability of someone nipping down to Kendal Town Centre and lopping off someone's head with a machete is low. We can't afford to post a policeman in KTC full-time just in case someone with a cleaver seeking retribution for some obscure 'wrong' turns up and starts swinging away. Doesn't make head lopping ok does it.


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> The matter of finite resources vs the probability of the offence has no bearing on whether or not it is ok to ride a cycle under the influence. It is still wrong..


Correct, I don't do it - that was stated in about post 2 on this thread from me. However as it's pretty much harmless I don't really care whether anyone does it or not. And I certainly don't want much police resources spent on it as their time is better spent dealing with drunk motorists.


----------



## Inertia (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> No idea have you? Was just citing a possible example.
> 
> However, should such an incident (or similar) occur and your child, grand child, other family member, dog etc was killed then I wonder how proportional your response would be.


No but then it was your example.

In such a scenario I would obviously be too close to the problem and my response would not be proportional.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> No idea have you? Was just citing a possible example.
> 
> However, should such an incident (or similar) occur and your child, grand child, other family member, dog etc was killed then I wonder how proportional your response would be.



yebbut has this ever actually happened in the whole history of the world?


----------



## Dogtrousers (29 Oct 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> Plod: "I believe you've been drinking and riding"
> 
> Pissed up rider: "bollox"
> 
> Plod: "okay then, seeing as I can't make you give any evidential samples, I guess you can go"


This is pretty much the situation in Finland: Oddity of Finnish law – both illegal and legal to ride a bike drunk


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> The probability of someone nipping down to Kendal Town Centre and lopping off someone's head with a machete is low. We can't afford to post a policeman in KTC full-time just in case someone with a cleaver seeking retribution for some obscure 'wrong' turns up and starts swinging away. Doesn't make head lopping ok does it.



But seeing as we don't have any cases of drunk riders killing pedestrians your analogy should actually read that we should ban all knives/machetes incase someone lops off a head.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> yebbut has this ever actually happened in the whole history of the world?



A I said I don't know but it could as could a whole number of other similar examples. It's not raining hard enough today to try to list them all.

In the whole history of the world can you imagine that not one single *issed cyclist has ever screwed up and caused a serious incident?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> *But seeing as we don't have any cases of drunk riders killing pedestrians* your analogy should actually read that we should ban all knives/machetes incase someone lops off a head.



So you have access to a database of every accident that has ever happened involving a cyclist and can 100% rule this out?


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As usual we have some cyclists defending their corner in self-righteous fashion where they can do no wrong whilst wishing eternal damnation on motorists.
> 
> I accept that errant cyclists _probably_ would cause less of a problem than a similarly errant motorist.
> 
> ...



just to check you actually mean what you say - are you really arguing that the alcohol limit for cycling - a 10kg vehicle capabably of what 20 or 25mph (for normal people) and which requires very modest skill to operate safely, should be the same as iperating a 1500kg car capable of well over 100mph, requiring significantly greater skills and observation / alertness to drive.

What about pedestrians ? What limit should they operate under - and just as likely to cause the innocent car driver to swerve into the bus queue. Hey, what about (hopefully sober) children running out without looking.

Riding drunk is illegal (not unreasonable) - but same rules / limits - really?


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> So you have access to a database of every accident that has ever happened involving a cyclist and can 100% rule this out?



Given the anti-cycling agendas of many I do think we.might have heard.of it

EDIT I might add for comparison that we have a couple of reports of people being eaten by tigers each year in the uk - but we don't hear of the deaths caused by drunken cyclists (and we would) this suggests that the drunk cyclist carnage scenario is less commin than tiger predation in the UK


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> A I said I don't know but it could as could a whole number of other similar examples. It's not raining hard enough today to try to list them all.
> 
> In the whole history of the world can you imagine that not one single *issed cyclist has ever screwed up and caused a serious incident?



... so - are you conceding it's extremely rare at least?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> OMG, I seem to have stumbled into the First Form Debating Society practice session.
> 
> (Sorry Prof, that was addressed at the previous posts.)



Apologies TMN - I must try harder to reach your illustrious heights. One for around midnight on December 31st maybe?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> just to check you actually mean what you say - are you really arguing that the alcohol limit for cycling - a 10kg vehicle capabably of what 20 or 25mph (for normal people) and which requires very modest skill to operate safely, should be the same as iperating a 1500kg car capable of well over 100mph, requiring significantly greater skills and observation / alertness to drive.
> 
> What about pedestrians ? What limit should they operate under - and just as likely to cause the innocent car driver to swerve into the bus queue. Hey, what about (hopefully sober) children running out without looking.
> 
> Riding drunk is illegal (not unreasonable) - but same rules / limits - really?



So what are you saying there? The mg/ml limit should be mass related?


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> So what are you saying there? The mg/ml limit should be mass related?



not necessarily in those words or rules, but that's the spirit of it. The status quo in fact

edit - as I said upthread - rules / restrictions should be proportionate with likelihood of doing harm to others


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Well, thanks for all of your opinions including one or two of you who admitted to riding whilst under the influence,


Riding after drinking alcohol (legal) is not the same as being unfit (illegal) although I realise some statements probably were admitting riding unfit.



> These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police.* Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police, *even when the cyclist is inured badly enough to be taken to hospital. The figures also exclude cycling accidents that occur away from the road. Although the number of deaths is accurate, there could be two or three times as many seriously injured cyclists and double the number of slightly injured.


"There could be". *There could be* conclusive proof that I am God and it wouldn't show up in those figures. That is a silly argument that *could be* used to justify any mad claim to stupid people.



steve50 said:


> the point i was making is that a LOT of accidents / incidents involving cyclists don't even get reported to the police even if the injuries are bad enough to have the cyclist admitted to hospital (as per the article I linked to) so there are no records of a lot of incidents whether they involve alcohol or not.


That's not entirely true. It won't be in the police STATS19 returns, but the Hospital Episode Statistics will record mode of transport and whether the patient appeared intoxicated at admission (in the opinion of staff, not a police-style evidential test, so probably reports even more). HES isn't as easy to inspect as STATS19s, but I didn't find anyone reporting a significant number of drunk cycling injuries - is there any reason to suspect it's widespread? I suspect the inability to balance a bike if you're too drunk keeps numbers down.


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> So you have access to a database of every accident that has ever happened involving a cyclist and can 100% rule this out?



All I ask from your database is some examples of a drunk cyclist killing anyone other than themselves.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> ... so - are you conceding it's extremely rare at least?



I've never said otherwise. It was just an eg and there may be other eg's that are more common.

The principle is that cyclists 'under the influence' are a potential problem. I doubt very much whether a cyclist in this condition has never caused a serious accident or even non-serious. Makes drunk/drugged up cycling wrong in my book.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> not necessarily in those words or rules, but that's the spirit of it. The status quo in fact
> 
> edit - as I said upthread - rules / restrictions should be proportionate with likelihood of doing harm to others



Ok. I hear you.

Slightly OT but sort of on principle. How would those who are in favour of a proportional limit on alcohol/drug levels vis-à-vis scale of the potential consequences feel if I were to say that eg motorway speed limits should be variable too? As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago, I was driving up to Carlisle on the M6 north of J36 and saw not one vehicle for over 20 minutes. So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?


----------



## young Ed (29 Oct 2015)

i would suggest that it be an offence if cyclists are drunk enough to be causing a a risk to other members of the public. although this would be hard to prove when they become a risk to others and now days it would seem that nothing can be left to the discretion or judgement of the individual copper

personally i VERY rarely drink (even though we home brew beer and at current have about 40 pints in storage soon to be about 100 i think!) and wouldn't mind the law to be changed to ZERO tolerance on any alcohol when driving and even cycling
i know personally on the rare occasion i do have a pint i wouldn't dream of getting behind the wheel of a tractor! 




steve50 said:


> Ah, just noticed your blog was from September 2014, did you ever finish it?


unfortunately not, i guess i just ended up side tracked with other stuff and working etc :/
just remembered that i went on about a 4 day canoeing trip this summer so will do a post on that soon, i can send you a PM when i've got it posted if you like?
Cheers Ed


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Ok. I hear you.
> 
> Slightly OT but sort of on principle. How would those who are in favour of a proportional limit on alcohol/drug levels vis-à-vis scale of the potential consequences feel if I were to say that eg motorway speed limits should be variable too? As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago, I was driving up to Carlisle on the M6 north of J36 and saw not one vehicle for over 20 minutes. So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?


I have no issue with variable speed limits. In fact they're quite common on motorways. They are regularly adjusted to the conditions, typically between 40 and 70 mph. It seems a very sensible approach to me.


----------



## Ian H (29 Oct 2015)

There are sensible limits for alcohol and different activities. I might cycle after a couple of pints but I wouldn't use a chainsaw. We have a regular weekly pub-run, anything between 8 and 20 miles each way. No one has died.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Oct 2015)

I cycled while drunk and using a chainsaw. Four people died.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

young Ed said:


> i would suggest that it be an offence if cyclists are drunk enough to be causing a a risk to other members of the public. although this would be hard to prove when they become a risk to others and now days it would seem that nothing can be left to the discretion or judgement of the individual copper
> 
> personally i VERY rarely drink (even though we home brew beer and at current have about 40 pints in storage soon to be about 100 i think!) and wouldn't mind the law to be changed to ZERO tolerance on any alcohol when driving and even cycling
> i know personally on the rare occasion i do have a pint i wouldn't dream of getting behind the wheel of a tractor!
> ...


yeah cheers, I have to agree with you on the point of zero tolerance, I also think the law should be changed when it comes to cyclists and drinking. I bet the stats would soon change if plod started breathalysing wobbly cyclists on the way home from the pub or cyclists involved in rta's. The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> yeah cheers, I have to agree with you on the point of zero tolerance, I also think the law should be changed when it comes to cyclists and drinking. I bet the stats would soon change if plod started breathalysing wobbly cyclists on the way home from the pub or cyclists involved in rta's. The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.


There are no stats for pedestrians injured and when drunk they often hurt themselves and others. We must breathalyse them too as I can conjure all sorts of different scenarios with a pedestrian injuring someone drunk.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I have no issue with variable speed limits. *In fact they're quite common on motorways. They are regularly adjusted to the conditions, typically between 40 and 70 mph. * It seems a very sensible approach to me.



I know that but that wasn't my point, as you well know.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Ok. I hear you.
> 
> Slightly OT but sort of on principle. How would those who are in favour of a proportional limit on alcohol/drug levels vis-à-vis scale of the potential consequences feel if I were to say that eg motorway speed limits should be variable too? As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago, I was driving up to Carlisle on the M6 north of J36 and saw not one vehicle for over 20 minutes. So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?



I guess you mean 2am, yes you could have "nipped" up the motorway at a greater speed had you chosen to do so but the law states the speed limit on the mway is 70mph and it would be your own fault had you been caught speeding much the same as a driver or a cyclist could be well over the dd limit the difference being the dd driver or cyclist potentially run a greater risk of being involved in an rta and possibly killing themselves or some poor sod who happens to be on the road at the time.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Note to Messrs Forger/Smeggers - careful, or you will have TMN of the Silly Police on your case.


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago


2am, I guess you meant.



SpokeyDokey said:


> So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?


You would probably have put users of nearby roads, inhabitants of any neighbouring properties at risk because the motorway barriers and run-off areas have been built to deal with a 70mph off (or should have been) and not a 120mph one. If they're strengthened suitably, I've no problem with motorway speed limits that can be varied upwards, subject to the driver's eyesight being certified good enough to see the stopping distance (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE="mjray, post: (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)[/QUOTE]

On your last point bear the eyesight test is reading a numberplate rather than seeing a great big car on an empty motorway. That said the eyesight test os a pretty low standard


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

Oh ok - you clearly have a closer relationship with the Head of the Silly Police than me.


mjray said:


> 2am, I guess you meant.
> 
> 
> You would probably have put users of nearby roads, inhabitants of any neighbouring properties at risk because the motorway barriers and run-off areas have been built to deal with a 70mph off (or should have been) and not a 120mph one. If they're strengthened suitably, I've no problem with motorway speed limits that can be varied upwards, subject to the driver's eyesight being certified good enough to see the stopping distance (180m at 90mph, which is ten times the driving test eye test distance...)



Yes 2am - apologies for error; was retrieving broken down friend coming down from Scotland on M74. Nightmare night!


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> There are no stats for pedestrians injured and when drunk they often hurt themselves and others.


There are stats for that! As well as Hospital Episode Statistics, there are also private studies, such as "126 injuries to people on foot in Glasgow who had been drinking" reported in http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/glasgow-third-worst-for-drunk-pedestrian-injuries-1-3631790



steve50 said:


> The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.


What discussion are you reading? I thought the main argument was that it hurts no-one besides themselves and it doesn't seem to hurt enough drunk cyclists to merit reporting. There are statistics, as I mentioned a few posts ago and again above.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Oct 2015)

QUOTE]


User3094 said:


> She knows me well enough by now



Oh to be part of the hallowed circle.


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> On your last point bear the eyesight test is reading a numberplate rather than seeing a great big car on an empty motorway. That said the eyesight test os a pretty low standard


And a low standard often not met, plus what's necessarily illuminated on the back of a car? Only the number plate and a couple of smaller red lights. The rest of the "great big car" will probably be in darkness when the motorway is empty. I'm not saying we should be able to read number plates at ten times the distance, but we need to be able to see it.

Actually, it's worse than that: we'd need to be able to see an unlit obstruction in the lane 180m ahead.


----------



## Profpointy (29 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> And a low standard often not met, plus what's necessarily illuminated on the back of a car? Only the number plate and a couple of smaller red lights. The rest of the "great big car" will probably be in darkness when the motorway is empty.



My point was that it's onky necessary to see there's an object, rather than read the text. But agree, if you can't read a numberplate you aren't far off Mr Magoo


----------



## surfdude (29 Oct 2015)

i woke up with 2 teeth missing and a cut that needed 4 stitches in my lip . drink and cycling home was not a good idea


----------



## Glow worm (29 Oct 2015)

I think some research is needed. I'll be cycling the 10 or so miles home from the pub after work tonight, and will report back. Honestly the things I do for you lot


----------



## young Ed (29 Oct 2015)

@SpokeyDokey 
yes you could have put your foot down and depending on what truck you were in could have easily done 150+ MPH but i wouldn't recommend it. seeing as you aren't trained or experienced (i'm guessing) to do 150 MPH you won't be used to the increased braking and stopping distances and how the vehicle handles when you're doing such a speed
so more the sake sake of your own safety then any one elses, no i would not recommend it
Cheers Ed


----------



## Dan B (29 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I cycled while drunk and using a chainsaw. Four people died.


Were they wearing headphones?


----------



## MattDB (29 Oct 2015)

I used to drink and ride every time I went on a night out - didn't think anything of it despite being very safety conscious during my daily commute. 

It makes me cringe the states I've cycled home in. The last time I did it I'd drank well over ten pints and woke up on my lawn with no recollection of the cycle home. My 1972 wheels were also never as straight as they'd been after that night.

I've had so many near misses this year on my commute that it's really opened my eyes to how stupid it is to cycle on roads with less than all your wits about you so I will never cycle drunk again.


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

MattDB said:


> I've had so many near misses this year on my commute that it's really opened my eyes to how stupid it is to cycle on roads with less than all your wits about you so I will never cycle drunk again.


I can cycle to at least two pubs (and a few restaurants that serve drink and some off-licences) without riding on any roads  Of course, some of the no-motors-allowed routes require a bit more balance and agility than the roads


----------



## Ian H (29 Oct 2015)

MattDB said:


> I've had so many near misses this year on my commute that it's really opened my eyes to how stupid it is to cycle on roads with less than all your wits about you so I will never cycle drunk again.



I can't remember when I last had a near miss, so I'm not sure you can apply your experience to everyone.


----------



## Yazzoo (29 Oct 2015)

Well it's nearly the weekend, maybe we should create test groups and all go out Saturday night and report back our findings (if possible!) 

We'll need a test group drinking nothing, and then several others at different levels of inebriation to compare.

We may need to split up further to account for those of us living in rural/urban areas, roads/trails and just for good measure probably a mix of helmets/no helmets lights/no lights


----------



## snorri (29 Oct 2015)

t[UOTE="steve50, post: 3977726, member: 44061"]s. The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.[/QUOTE]
You can be sure there would be statistics if it did happen more than once in a blue moon.
Why not tackle well documented and known road safety issues rather than an issue which exists mainly in your head?


----------



## Markymark (29 Oct 2015)

Yazzoo said:


> Well it's nearly the weekend, maybe we should create test groups and all go out Saturday night and report back our findings (if possible!)
> 
> We'll need a test group drinking nothing, and then several others at different levels of inebriation to compare.
> 
> We may need to split up further to account for those of us living in rural/urban areas, roads/trails and just for good measure probably a mix of helmets/no helmets lights/no lights


The problem with this is that as a Londoner I'll barely feel any effects from the level of alcohol that would make a northerner paralytic.


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The problem with this is that as a Londoner I'll barely feel any effects from the level of alcohol that would make a northerner paralytic.


But that is because the lime you put in your little bottle of lager soaks up all the alcohol.


----------



## MattDB (29 Oct 2015)

Ian H said:


> I can't remember when I last had a near miss, so I'm not sure you can apply your experience to everyone.



I could add 'busy' city roads. Maybe I sound judgemental and I'm mainly judging myself but I've had to apply brakes sharply and swerve so often that I'd hate for my senses to be dulled. If some people are in the situation where there are no cars around or those that are have exceptional manners and common sense then that might be very different. Would I cycle home along with country roads after a few pints? Still no. But you are correct that I don't have any empirical evidence to support my assumption that cycling while drunk is more dangerous than sober, just my opinion.


----------



## Wolf616 (29 Oct 2015)

Yazzoo said:


> Well it's nearly the weekend, maybe we should create test groups and all go out Saturday night and report back our findings (if possible!)
> 
> We'll need a test group drinking nothing, and then several others at different levels of inebriation to compare.
> 
> We may need to split up further to account for those of us living in rural/urban areas, roads/trails and just for good measure probably a mix of helmets/no helmets lights/no lights



We'd need to make sure routes planned were different - the ten pint group meeting members of the stone cold sober group might lead to some interesting but erroneous test results...


----------



## Wolf616 (29 Oct 2015)

I always assumed "There is a Light that Never Goes Out" was a song about two drunken revellers on a tandem


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Oct 2015)

Personally I wouldn't. But I don't drink alcohol full stop... It's enough of a struggle to remember what the hell I'm doing as it is!


----------



## swansonj (29 Oct 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Ok. I hear you.
> 
> Slightly OT but sort of on principle. How would those who are in favour of a proportional limit on alcohol/drug levels vis-à-vis scale of the potential consequences feel if I were to say that eg motorway speed limits should be variable too? As an eg: at about 2pm in the morning two Sundays ago, I was driving up to Carlisle on the M6 north of J36 and saw not one vehicle for over 20 minutes. So, as precisely no one was at risk apart from myself I could've nipped up the motorway considerably faster than the 70mph limit which (one must assume) takes into account an average level of traffic with a greater level of risk?


Fine by me. I have long argued that, as a matter of pragmatic psychology, there should be a quid-pro-quo. Zero tolerance of speed over the limits, enforced automatically and 100% of the time by an ever-expanding network of average speed cameras. In return, relax some speed limits that carry the least credibility with motorists. Thirty limits in built up areas generally carry credibility- motorists understand why they are there even while they break them. 70 limits on motorways less so. So relax motorway limits to 80 in dry weather (whilst reducing to 60 in wet) and a further relaxation to 90 below some specified traffic density. Then reduce the disqualification limit to 7 points. Or preferably 5. So we end up enforcing something that has broad acceptance (bit like where we've got to with breathalysers) rather than the present situation of not enforcing something that doesn't have broad acceptance. And, if the sop we give to motorists relates primarily to motorways, it has little direct impact on cyclists and pedestrians...


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

MattDB said:


> [...]I've had to apply brakes sharply and swerve so often that I'd hate for my senses to be dulled.


Sorry to be blunt, but when did you last take a hazard perception test or training? Or maybe you're cycling in outer London?



> Would I cycle home along with country roads after a few pints? Still no. But you are correct that I don't have any empirical evidence to support my assumption that cycling while drunk is more dangerous than sober, just my opinion.


There's a difference between "a few pints" and "unfit from drink". It's not black and white. The trouble with me cycling along country roads when too drunk would be that too many roads here are bordered by water-filled drains, and few motorists means I'd probably not be seen as I fell in - but the same applies to walking home too, taxis won't take drunks any more and I don't like sleeping rough, so I stop well short of getting that drunk. TTBOMK I've cycled while unfit once in my life (through a city, too!), I was accompanied and that was quite scary enough.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2015)

I seem to remember drunkcyclist.com or similar was a rather fruity website ....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Oct 2015)

I'll continue to ride pished when I want to, ta very much.

Sober semi-conscious drivers driving on autopilot, and not expecting a cyclist to be there, being the significantly greater risk to my wellbeing than the fourth pint of porter...

... me being sober will not effect the outcome of an rtc with a vehicle driven by a twunt.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

snorri said:


> t[UOTE="steve50, post: 3977726, member: 44061"]s. The main argument for cyclists in this thread is there are no records or statistics relating to cyclists and alcohol incidents so therefore it doesn't happen,a very blinkered view imo.


You can be sure there would be statistics if it did happen more than once in a blue moon.
Why not tackle well documented and known road safety issues rather than an issue which exists mainly in your head?[/QUOTE]

I don't have an "issue" with it, if you want to go out and get bolloxed then ride your bike thats your choice. I started this thread to see what the general consensus was regards drinking and then riding ones bike, the discussion has been very interesting,
It doesn't matter to me one way or another if you or anyone else wants to drink and ride or drink and drive your choice your funeral!
Oh and it doesn't "exist" in my head it is purely a topic for discussion but as usual theres always someone ready to snipe.


----------



## MattDB (29 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> Sorry to be blunt, but when did you last take a hazard perception test or training? Or maybe you're cycling in outer London?
> 
> 
> There's a difference between "a few pints" and "unfit from drink". It's not black and white. The trouble with me cycling along country roads when too drunk would be that too many roads here are bordered by water-filled drains, and few motorists means I'd probably not be seen as I fell in - but the same applies to walking home too, taxis won't take drunks any more and I don't like sleeping rough, so I stop well short of getting that drunk. TTBOMK I've cycled while unfit once in my life (through a city, too!), I was accompanied and that was quite scary enough.



Firstly ridiculous point - nothing at all wrong with my hazard perception. If you read a recent publication on 'near misses' there are statistically a huge amount of 'non injury incidents' in the UK. It's not just me for whom the roads can be a dangerous place. If you haven't read this it's very interesting 'investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists'.

Secondly yes, completely right, there's a big difference between a drink and being unfit to ride. I wasn't getting evangelical about it, I just choose not to drink if I'm cycling.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Oct 2015)

_"your choice your funeral!"_

What's your opinion of someone who used a pissoir in Amsterdam and found a vacuum-packed box of Dominican Magic Mushrooms on top of the cistern and necked them and fell off his bike on the way back to the hotel? Without mentioning death.


----------



## Wolf616 (29 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> _"your choice your funeral!"_



At my funeral I want everyone to get really drunk and then cycle the wrong way down the M5 in a huge, bell tinkling peleton of sympathetic death


----------



## mjr (29 Oct 2015)

MattDB said:


> Firstly ridiculous point - nothing at all wrong with my hazard perception.
> 
> If you read a recent publication on 'near misses' there are statistically a huge amount of 'non injury incidents' in the UK. It's not just me for whom the roads can be a dangerous place. If you haven't read this it's very interesting 'investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists'.


I do read stuff like the recent report from nearMiss.bike and I take part in things like the One Day Diary for that site, but there are an awful lot of "near miss" events which fall well short of "had to apply brakes sharply and swerve" so I think it's a fair question and I notice that no firm answer was given. It may be that you're cycling in a really hostile environment where it's unavoidable, but if I was taking such evasive action "so often", I'd want to just check myself in general, rather than simply forsake drink while cycling. After all, other things such as tiredness can slightly impair performance and that's harder to avoid.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> _"your choice your funeral!"_
> 
> What's your opinion of someone who used a pissoir in Amsterdam and found a vacuum-packed box of Dominican Magic Mushrooms on top of the cistern and necked them and fell off his bike on the way back to the hotel? Without mentioning death.



Lucky guy, was the packet labeled, did he know what he was taking, i for one would not have taken the risk not knowing what was in the package even if it was labeled.
he must have had a hell of a trip.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Oct 2015)

It was sealed, as it comes from the shop. I know the shop it came from. I mean the bloke in the story did.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Oct 2015)

Yazzoo said:


> Well it's nearly the weekend, maybe we should create test groups and all go out Saturday night and report back our findings (if possible!)
> 
> We'll need a test group drinking nothing, and then several others at different levels of inebriation to compare.
> 
> We may need to split up further to account for those of us living in rural/urban areas, roads/trails and just for good measure probably a mix of helmets/no helmets lights/no lights


 What about headphones and hi-viz?


----------



## Yazzoo (29 Oct 2015)

I don't know if we have enough members to even have one representing each variable in each category - we may have to recruit


----------



## glenn forger (29 Oct 2015)

You need to get a bloke and dress him in hi vis and give him booze and magic mushrooms and a bike. I can't do Tuesdays.


----------



## steve50 (29 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It was sealed, as it comes from the shop. I know the shop it came from. I mean the bloke in the story did.[/QUOTE
> 
> Each to their own, the only drug I partake in is alcohol................. in moderation. I'm not surprised you / he fell of his bike though, magic mushrooms are an halucinagenic I believe. He must have been in a very strange place at the time...........


----------



## Tin Pot (29 Oct 2015)

Wolf616 said:


> At my funeral I want everyone to get really drunk and then cycle the wrong way down the M5 in a huge, bell tinkling peleton of sympathetic death



What a coincidence! At my funeral I want the mourners to die too, but by drone strike.


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Oct 2015)

I cycled home after about 8 pints once. Probably a bit extreme and not very sensible, but hey, it was only 5 miles. I could feel myself weaving about. Thankfully it was late and there were few cars on the road, but the ones that did probably had a good laugh.

Before anyone criticises me, I was wearing a helmet and had lights front and rear.


----------



## MattDB (29 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> I do read stuff like the recent report from nearMiss.bike and I take part in things like the One Day Diary for that site, but there are an awful lot of "near miss" events which fall well short of "had to apply brakes sharply and swerve" so I think it's a fair question and I notice that no firm answer was given. It may be that you're cycling in a really hostile environment where it's unavoidable, but if I was taking such evasive action "so often", I'd want to just check myself in general, rather than simply forsake drink while cycling. After all, other things such as tiredness can slightly impair performance and that's harder to avoid.



Apologies if I overreacted  Yes definitely I've been on several commuter courses - the last course was an advanced commuter training course run by 'go smarter to work'. If anything goes wrong I do have a long think about what I could have done differently. Saying that I've lived in Bristol, Plymouth and Southampton and commuted by bike for the past 8 years but since moving to Gateshead and committing to Newcastle I've never seen anything like the roads or the drivers here. Yesterday a driver put his foot down as I crossed a junction and swung left in front of me - cue emergency stop. Minutes earlier a driver approached a junction quickly and pulled out into the cycle lane before stopping in front of me, causing me to swerve. Yes some things can be anticipated but I feel like I have a lot of scary incidents here.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Oct 2015)

snorri said:


> t[





Wolf616 said:


> At my funeral I want everyone to get really drunk and then cycle the wrong way down the M5 in a huge, bell tinkling peleton of sympathetic death


Couldn't you just invite them to join you in a game of Sardines at the crematorium?


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2015)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Personally I wouldn't. But I don't drink alcohol full stop...



Your avatar suggests otherwise


----------



## MissTillyFlop (29 Oct 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Your avatar suggests otherwise



Where's the drink?

I always look like that! Literally. No alcohol needed.

Sober for 2 years now. Idiot for 37 years now.


----------



## fossyant (29 Oct 2015)

My old man has got on a bike at 70, so wants to aim for a small pub crawl on the bikes next year. Cycle about 3 miles away, have a pint, then back to next place, pint, next, pint, then virtually at the caravan, for the next pint. Seems reasonable to me, no road use and no speeds in the shared areas.


----------



## Simontm (30 Oct 2015)

Haven't gone through the 12 pages but has anyone done the "No because you might spill your pint" crack yet?

...

I'll get me coat


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2015)

Simontm said:


> Haven't gone through the 12 pages but has anyone done the "No because you might spill your pint" crack yet?
> 
> ...
> 
> I'll get me coat


No, and nor have we had this:







http://coolmaterial.com/food-drink/the-hopworks-beer-bike/


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> Won't that disturb the sediment?


Not a problem with keg beer.


----------



## Profpointy (30 Oct 2015)

winjim said:


> Not a problem with keg beer.



there are lots of problems with keg beer


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2015)

Yeah, try not to worry about it.


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> there are lots of problems with keg beer


True dat.


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> I thought this thread was about drinking and cycling


I can't help reading the thread title thinking as an invitation/call to action


----------



## Markymark (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> I thought this thread was about drinking and cycling, not transportation of FYP by cargo bike.


No, it's a thread like the lights/mobile use/insurance/helmets/HiViz/pedestrians ones that want to make cyling like driving because we sometimes share the same space.


----------



## glenn forger (30 Oct 2015)

Isn't there a "how" missing from the thread title?


----------



## Markymark (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> On a more positive crossover, Bartlebysbrewery deliver beer by bike.


Except it's silly beer with a silly name which is even worse in my book.


----------



## Wolf616 (30 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Couldn't you just invite them to join you in a game of Sardines at the crematorium?



Well the whole point of the exercise is to make everyone's bodies much easier to sardine with me


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Isn't there a "how" missing from the thread title?


Surely a "when" and "where"


----------



## winjim (30 Oct 2015)

The thread title is not a question. It is the title of the polemic in the original post.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> What about headphones and hi-viz?


I'd have to be trashed to wear space lemon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> I cycled home after about 8 pints once. Probably a bit extreme and not very sensible, but hey, it was only 5 miles. I could feel myself weaving about. Thankfully it was late and there were few cars on the road, but the ones that did probably had a good laugh.
> 
> Before anyone criticises me, I* was wearing a helmet and had lights front and rear*.


Do they make you immune from criticism then?


----------



## Hip Priest (30 Oct 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Do they make you immune from criticism then?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

This short john bike is much nicer than the beer, though if the crate were loaded with Jacobsen's I wouldn't say no.


----------



## Lonestar (30 Oct 2015)

I wouldn't do it.


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> So the same rules should apply for motorists then?
> After all if cyclists can do it why not motorists or are there different rules for cyclists?


When cars are required to have a bell fixed to the steering wheel at the time of first sale, and drivers are required to have reflectors on their pedals, your argument MIGHT just hold water.

Until then ........


----------



## Yazzoo (30 Oct 2015)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adnamssouthwold/15425388187/in/album-72157648528158328/


----------



## kiriyama (30 Oct 2015)

I used to work in a pub in London.At the end of ever shift i would have a beer and cycle home usually about 1am...my route was a relaxed one that took me along back streets and through parks, not many busy roads, at the time I had a crappy mountain bike and never any problems....

One day instead of a beer I had a redbull.... ended up in A&E!


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2015)

kiriyama said:


> One day instead of a beer I had a redbull.... ended up in A&E!


Just yesterday I was wondering about the manner of driving of the vehicle whose occupants had thrown onto the grass verge a Morrison supermarket bag (!) full of empty energy drink cans .


----------



## steve50 (30 Oct 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> When cars are required to have a bell fixed to the steering wheel at the time of first sale, and drivers are required to have reflectors on their pedals, your argument MIGHT just hold water.
> 
> Until then ........





User said:


> I want to see a "Drivers get out and push" sign first.



well neither of the above hold much water, cars are required to have a horn attached to the steering wheel and reflectors are at the rear of the car where they belong.
What you are basically saying is its ok for cyclists to drink to the point where they are over the limit then cycle on a public highway but car drivers can't.
the reasons car drivers cannot drive whilst over the limit (I am aware that some do) is because their judgement is affected to a point where it is unsafe for them to be in control of their vehicle, surely this rule by default should also apply to cyclists.


----------



## Tim Hall (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> well neither of the above hold much water, cars are required to have a horn attached to the steering wheel and reflectors are at the rear of the car where they belong.
> What you are basically saying is its ok for cyclists to drink to the point where they are over the limit then cycle on a public highway but car drivers can't.
> the reasons car drivers cannot drive whilst over the limit (I am aware that some do) is because their judgement is affected to a point where it is unsafe for them to be in control of their vehicle, surely this rule by default should also apply to cyclists.


Consider the damage a pissed up cyclist in charge of 10kg of metal can do and compare it with the damage a pissed up motorist can do in charge of 1000kg of metal.


----------



## swansonj (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> well neither of the above hold much water, cars are required to have a horn attached to the steering wheel and reflectors are at the rear of the car where they belong.
> What you are basically saying is its ok for cyclists to drink to the point where they are over the limit then cycle on a public highway but car drivers can't.
> the reasons car drivers cannot drive whilst over the limit (I am aware that some do) is because their judgement is affected to a point where it is unsafe for them to be in control of their vehicle, surely this rule by default should also apply to cyclists.


As has been pointed out already, the law already treats different road users differently. HGV and PSV drivers are already treated differently from other drivers in a number of ways, in recognition that the consequences if they get it wrong are on average greater. You are asking us to accept an equivalence between car drivers and cyclists. Such an equivalence is counter not just to common sense but to the principles on which road law is based.

Edit: TMNs to Tim and Adrian, my typing was too slow


----------



## steve50 (30 Oct 2015)

User said:


> I do believe that this has run full circle now.


Agreed!!


----------



## vernon (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> Agreed!!



And you lost.


----------



## slowmotion (30 Oct 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The trouble is most cyclists drink that god-awful northern beer stuff getting turned on by the stupid names they all have. A proper cyclist only drinks lager preferably served in a reassuringly expensive bar.


----------



## vernon (30 Oct 2015)

winjim said:


> No, and nor have we had this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a lack of ambition.

Think big like this:


----------



## slowmotion (30 Oct 2015)

Has The Daily Mail picked up on this thread yet?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

Saw this today just up from my billet, really nice bike too...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> the reasons car drivers cannot drive whilst over the limit (I am aware that some do) is because their judgement is affected to a point where it is unsafe for them to be in control of their vehicle, surely this rule by default should also apply to cyclists.


Is it so hard to understand that the high level of sanctions pished drivers face is due to the risk they represent to other road users?

Just like the sanctions for pished cyclists are lower because they represent lower risk to others. It is all about kinetic energy you see.

So yes, pished cyclists fine. Slightly merry drivers not fine.


----------



## Markymark (30 Oct 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Is it so hard to understand that the sanctions pished drivers face are due to the risk they represent to other road users?
> 
> (Just like the sanctions for pished cyclists are lower because they represent lower risk to others)


Don't bother.


----------



## steve50 (30 Oct 2015)

It was never a competition, but if you want to see it that way...................


----------



## steve50 (30 Oct 2015)

vernon said:


> And you lost.



It was never a competition , but if you want to see it that way............................


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> It was never a competition , but if you want to see it that way............................


It was an argument thobut.


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It was an argument thobut.


I dunno . An argument is an intellectual process. I think that was just contradiction


----------



## slowmotion (30 Oct 2015)

Dan B said:


> I dunno . An argument is an intellectual process. I think that was just contradiction


 Sorry, your five minutes is up.


----------



## mjr (30 Oct 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Sorry, your five minutes is up.


No it isn't.


----------



## snorri (30 Oct 2015)

steve50 said:


> What you are basically saying is its ok for cyclists to drink to the point where they are over the limit then cycle on a public highway


Which is repeating what you said yourself....


steve50 said:


> having a "couple" is fine, I've done it myself


....but a "couple" would put most people over the limit.


----------



## steve50 (30 Oct 2015)

i think we have exhausted this subject now, thanks for everyones input, its been interesting.


----------



## Profpointy (30 Oct 2015)

snorri said:


> Which is repeating what you said yourself....
> 
> ....but a "couple" would put most people over the limit.



what limit ? the zero limit for airline pilots (certianlu) or 80mg drunk driving limit for cars (quite likely) or the drunk in charge limit which apllies to cycling (doubt it), or drunk and incapable.limit for pedestrians (don't be daft)

Rules sound pretty sensible and proportionate to me


----------



## mattobrien (31 Oct 2015)

So are we filing drinking and cycling in the same category as headphones and helmets?

Different views, none of which are likely to be changed by the other side?


----------



## Profpointy (31 Oct 2015)

what about similar limits for drinking at home. Drunk people regularly set light to chip pans you know

Not entirely a silly idea


----------



## winjim (31 Oct 2015)

Profpointy said:


> what about similar limits for drinking at home. Drunk people regularly set light to chip pans you know
> 
> Not entirely a silly idea


Prohibition? It's working really well with other types of narcotic.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (31 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> Tired people fall asleep while cooking chips. No one should be allowed to get tired.



Even better idea, ban chips, and ban deep fried foods


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Oct 2015)

Drunk people are frequently in charge of children...

...but oddly the state doesn't seem to have a problem with that if they are the children's parents.


----------



## Brandane (1 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Drunk people are frequently in charge of children...
> 
> ...but oddly the state doesn't seem to have a problem with that if they are the children's parents.


It does in Scotland, if it's in a public place, and the child is under 10 years old.
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 50 (2).


----------

