Poland does. It seems a bit OTT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19534397
I do not recall any cases of drunk in charge of a bike ( or whatever the offense is) .
|
|
In 1956, when factories allowed alcohol to be drunk openly and freely at work on the last working day before Christmas, I was definitely drunk in charge of my bicycle on the way home. They were the good old days!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 09:11
|
Just a couple of weeks ago, there was a "police camera action" type programme where they attended a fatality cyclist on the A10 where the driver had taken off.
Initially it was thought to be a hit and run, but when the young lady got home, she thought shed hit an animal, but was persuaded to report the incident.
It transpired the cyclist was 2 1/2 over the limit, with no lights on an unlit section of the road....she was blameless but will have to live with it for life.
Cyclists a little over the d/d limit, maybe ok but more than double is an accident waiting to happen
|
An alcohol limit for cycling is a ludicrous idea. And banning from driving even more so. Anybody who is going to drink might as well take the car in those circumstances.
That report must be a hoax. It's too stupid for words.
|
>>Anybody who is going to drink might as well take the car in those
>> circumstances.
That reaction would be the true epitome of stupidity. The logical, correct decision to make if one is going to drink alcohol is to walk, use public transport, get a taxi, or heaven forfend, have soft drinks all night.
Unfortunately too many people are too selfish and wrapped up with their own convenience to make the right decisions. And it continues to cost lives.
|
>>Unfortunately too many people are too selfish and wrapped up with their own convenience to make the right decisions
Precisely. That is the world as it is. And while most people can see the sense in drink drive penalties for car drivers, not many people will see anything wrong with taking a bike if you want three or four pints. What is the third party death toll for cyclists over the drink drive limit? Nil I should think, it's more likely that high speed lycra lout commuters are the ones to maim pedestrians.
It wasn't the drunkeness that got the cyclist killed, it was riding without lights. Which if I recall correctly, is an offence.
I use lights in the dark, helmet (a pact with my daughter, I hate them but want her to wear one) and hi-viz. I see the bike as ideal for going for a pub lunch in the next village, so I won't be moving to Poland any time soon.
It must be a joke. There must be more to it.
|
"...I won't be moving to Poland any time soon. It must be a joke. There must be more to it."
There are a lot of good reasons to move here (hot birds, hookers and strip bars), but if it involves four wheels - stay away - and that includes supermarket trolleys. Appalling, useless, idiotic, brainless monkey fudgers - that's the nicest way I could put it.
Occasionally in UK, on a late Friday night you might see a complete fool, dangerously racing out of a village, probably 18, 19 or early 20s. Then see my journey, every day, less than a mile to school, 50 kph, residential, between 7.30 - 8.30 - I absolutely 100% guarantee seeing that kind of driving before I pull up to the school. Desperately trying to overtake, to reach the lights before the car in front. They'll drive over the pavement. I watch them wheel-spinning in the school car park. They can't park. They can't maneouvre, drive forward, reverse or hit right between two white lines. Behind a bus or truck, they sit 50 cm behind having no clue what's going on ahead, but the indicator will be permanently flashing. Boy-racers? No, just regular commuters, managers, mothers, teachers, parents - all driving like cretins. Driving away for a long bank holiday weekend, on the return you will sit for hours in traffic in the country side because there has been a fatality involving overtaking. Every time, often it's two accidents. Every single journey. Every one. I kid you not. And I have a tale to tell for every journey whether it's the school run or 300 km. What are out UK fatality stats? Fewer than 2000 now for 70 million? And Poland is about 5000 for 39 million. They are donkeys.
In 18 months, three children have died on the road within a kilometre of our cul-de-sac.
Exaggerating? Nope.
Every time I cross the border into Germany and across Europe, it's just relief and relaxation. Screw the damned drunk cyclist, educate the drivers instead, fit revenue cameras to every residential road, fit steel bollards all along the edge of the pavements, revise the license point system, massively penalise the drivers and hugely increase revenues to bring out more cop cars, get the damned clamp out for bad parkers (most of them) especially in shopping malls and tow away anyone who abuses disable spaces.
And while I'm at it, they should all have to be re-tested and anyone with an IQ of 80 or lower should be banned from driving for ever - so I get all the roads for my self.
|
>> they should all have to be re-tested and anyone with an IQ of 80 or lower should be banned from driving for ever - so I get all the roads for my self.
Heh heeh heh... where have you been BBD?
Not being probed by aliens again I hope?
|
"Not being probed by aliens again I hope?"
Yes but I always carry KY jelly.
|
i remember spending an evening with friends quaffing copious amounts of home made cider and the occasional spliff, by the time i had to go i couldnt walk so had the bright idea of cycling home,
2 miles into the ride i went over the handle bars having not seen the half brick on the pavement....i ended up face first into a drainage ditch, as witnessed by a cab driver
who swiftly drove me too A&E i was lucky it wasnt full of barbwire , rubbish, rusty metal etc etc , i was lucky to get away with a bloody nose and a few scratches....never saw the bike again !or did it again
Last edited by: Webmaster on Wed 19 Sep 12 at 01:31
|
AFAIK there is an offence 'drunk in charge of a bicycle' for which the maximum penalty's a fifty pound fine.
zookeeper: i went over the handle bars having not seen the half brick on the pavement. Cycling on the footpath's a criminal offence under some section of the highways act IIRC.
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 09:53
|
A friend I work with, in Germany, had a cycling accident. He and another cyclist collided on a cycleway in Bonn. he had had quite a bit to drink. He had a quite bad scalp injury and was in hospital for a couple of days. The police visited him there and took a statement.
In the end he only got a fine. He was lucky not to have points added to his (German) driving license as well.
He took it in good heart and knew he was daft. he has not done it again.
To me it seems quite sensible.
Rgds
Zuave
|
>> AFAIK there is an offence 'drunk in charge of a bicycle' for which the maximum
>> penalty's a fifty pound fine.
There's no blood/breath limit but an officer can infer drunkeness from smell, lack of co-ordination etc.
A drunk cyclist is little more threat to others than a drunk pedestrian. The real risk is to himself.
These days I leave the bike at home if I'm planning on drinking but years ago I rode from Temple to Golders Green after a summer night skinful. How I stayed upright I've no idea as I couldn't regulate braking and was skidding about the road.
|
>> A drunk cyclist is little more threat to others than a drunk pedestrian. The real
>> risk is to himself.
Not sure that's true - a cyclist is already on the road, so an accident is more likely, making it more likely that others will get injured eg. driver swerves to avoid wobbling cyclist and hits someone else.
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 10:32
|
>> A drunk cyclist is little more threat to others than a drunk pedestrian. The real
>> risk is to himself.
>>
The risk of physical harm ok. But how many of us would like to live the rest of our lives waking up screaming in the night at the memory of the dismembered body we pulled from under our car?
When it comes to fatals it's the survivors who suffer.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 13:23
|
>> When it comes to fatals it's the survivors who suffer.
Not the individual who killed my father. He laughed in my mother's face outside court and boasted to her how he'd "got away with it".
|
My wife was struck by a drunk cyclist, the resulting fall cracked her skull. She has, ten years on, a massive and genuine fear of cyclists, even though she now cycles herself.
So year, jail em - the one that hit my wife didnt get so much as a slap on the wrist.
|
Without wishing to diminish the seriousness of your wife's experience, or commenting on that specific incident, would you jail the bloke whose dog bit my son and left him phobic about them? Where are you going to stop?
Accidents happen, even to drunk people.
There's no doubt a lot that can be done to reduce accidents, but jailing cyclists who've had a few pints doesn't sound a logical place to start. I wonder how many lives have been saved in Poland?
Can't we at least focus on jailing bad people? There seems to be enough of them to be going on with.
|
>> Accidents happen, even to drunk people.
>>
>> There's no doubt a lot that can be done to reduce accidents, but jailing cyclists
>> who've had a few pints doesn't sound a logical place to start. I wonder how
>> many lives have been saved in Poland?
>>
>> Can't we at least focus on jailing bad people? There seems to be enough of
>> them to be going on with.
I love this assertion that drunk cyclists are accident free responsible people who can't be blamed for anything. It wasn't your fault you knocked that old lady over and broke her hip old chap - just carry on as before it's really no problem
|
Straw man argument. I never asserted that at all. I see somebody fell for it and gave you a thumb.
A few years ago a well known local figure was knocked off his bike here by someone who didn't stop. The victim (dead) was in the habit of cycling home from a pub about three miles away at about 10pm, after a few pints. He was usually doing about 5mph and keeping well to the left, and usually had lights; but bikes do have rear reflectors that usually work quite well.
If the bloke who hit him had stopped, and been sober, would the cyclist automatically have been at fault?
As it turned out, the man who killed him was a notorious drunk driver who had himself fled the scene because he was well over the limit. Accidents happen. Even to drunk people.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 14:42
|
|
There should be far more emphasis put on people who cycle on the pavement than on drunk cyclists ~ there are far more of the former than of the latter. Years ago, near where I lived, a cyclist on the pavement collided with an elderly woman as she walked from her drive onto the pavement. She suffered a broken hip which lead to gangrene from which she died. The cyclist was never caught.
|
Accidents happen. Even
>> to drunk people.
You keep asserting this fundamentally wrong statement
Accidents happen. ESPECIALLY to drunk people
Being drunk is no accident, we punish one for being drunk on wheels, why not the other.
You are drunk, you are in the road. The law should apply to all
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 15:21
|
A car has a mass of over a tonne and even my Berlingo can do 80mph. In drunken hands it's a lethal weapon. A pedestrian hit by a car at average road speed is very likley to die of multiple traumatic injuries.
A cycle has the mass of it's rider plus, for a real boneshaker 20kg. A hit pedestrian will be very unlucky to sufffer more than bruising. The few who die either hit their heads or have underlying health problems.
Differnent outcomes and different regimes of regualtion.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 15:36
|
THey share road space with cars and can influence the traffic into a lethal situation
Your argument is like saying its ok to hit someone with a hammer because you are drunk
But not ok to stab them.
But then the victim only died because they hit the pavement, so that's ok then.
|
>> Differnent outcomes and different regimes of regualtion.
But that's only one outcome. As I mentioned above, what about if a driver tries to avoid a drunk cyclist who has wobbled into his path, and ends up hitting something else eg. another vehicle?
|
We don't jail drunk motorists unless either they've committed another offence such as death by or are serial recidivists.
The breathalyser and its attendant apparatus are a consequence of large numbers of fatal and serious injury accidents involving drink. They've drawn some of the sting but DD is still a problem and would get worse if not enforced.
There's no real evidence that drunken cycling is causing carnage even to ther drunks themselves.
|
Why stop at cyclists? Why not jail drunk pedestrians in case they wobble in to the road and cause a driver to swerve?
It's fatuous to equate a cyclist under the influence with a car driver ditto.
And accidents do happen to drunk people - i.e. they are not immune, and don't automatically become culpable just because they happened to be under the influence at the time.
Drunkeness is never good. But a few drinks and being over an arbitrary limited designed for drivers doesn't make someone on a bike a menace to society.
There was a suggestion once ISTR that in any accident between a cycle and a motor vehicle, the driver should always be deemed responsible. That seemed unreasonable to me at the time, and it still does. But I'm beginning to understand why somebody thought it might be a good idea. It would result in less injustice than banging up cyclists, or letting drivers off because the cyclist they ran over had a few drinks in.
|
>>But a few drinks and being over an arbitrary limited designed for drivers doesn't make someone on a bike a menace to society.
<<
Of course it does.
If cyclists want the right to use the road they should abide by the rules all other road users have to abide by and face the consequences of not doing so.
Your views are exactly why cyclists are resented so much....you are not 'different', you are a road user, so you all keep telling us.
You can't choose what parts of that you want to adopt and what you want to ignore.
Pat
|
|
Re "If cyclists want the right to use the road they should abide by the rules all other road users have to abide by and face the consequences of not doing so." The argument is illogical simply because cyclists and pedestrians are already at liberty to use the roads. They have nothing to do to obtain rights. They have them. As for errant cyclists, the state needs to get a grip, as with errant motorists. On the matter of errancy I was threatened today by a male, burly cyclist riding furiously along the pavement, standing on the pedals. I brought him to a halt by my power of command:) He rode off, uttering threats. No use calling the police. No blood spilt. Just glad I could see him coming!
|
Oh come on Pat. This is nothing to do with me being a born again cyclist.
There's a world of difference between being impaired in a car and impaired on a bicycle. Do you need me to work out the difference in kinetic energy between 100kg at 12mph and 1800kg at 50mph? Of course not. Never mind an LGV.
As for darting about and making motorists swerve (not your point of course) there's a lot more of that from pedestrians than pedallers.
All the knocking old ladies over is about riding on pavements and not obeying traffic rules like stopping at crossings - nothing to do with being drunk. Ton of bricks for that, sure.
Drunken cyclists are a spectre, an Aunt Sally, a myth on the whole, with all respect to Stu. I can't remember ever seeing one TBH, though I've ridden many a time after a pint or two with no difficulty. Biking has much more on common with walking than driving. No illusions of invincibility for a start.
Yesterday I was passed by a brick lorry doing at least 40, on a B road here
goo.gl/maps/rI5Xc
I could have touched it easily, and the draught was frightening. Had I been hit and killed, and found to be over the DDL, would it have been my fault? I'm guessing 9/10 drivers, under advice, would mount that defence and a court would accept it.
Cyclists wobble, drunk or sober, especially when trying to keep out of the way of a speeding vehicle and possibly dodge a pothole at the same time. It's no surprise that regular cyclists ride assertively. Clearly I wasn't being assertive enough at 3 feet from the verge. On a road like that the car or lorry needs to be on the other side of the road to pass a cyclist, just as with another vehicle. Sort that out before picking on people who have the good sense not to get in a car to go for a drink.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 12 Sep 12 at 20:09
|
>>Had I been hit and killed, and found to be over the DDL, would it have been my fault?
No. You'd still have been over the limit though.
If I was driving my car and the truck hit me and I was over the limit. It'd still be his fault, even if I got done for drink driving.
>>I'm guessing 9/10 drivers, under advice, would mount that defence
And of course if you were sober the same person would never say you'd wobbled in front of him?
Whether or not you should have a DD law for bicycles, the argument against of "oh well someone might lie and say it was my fault" is hardly credible.
As it happens, I think there shold be capability tests. Perhaps being over the limit is just cause for such a test, but the offence would be lowered capability - or it would be in my world.
|
>> Oh come on Pat. This is nothing to do with me being a born again
>> cyclist.
pfd, of course it is. Never seen a more clear cut example of newbie zealot in my life.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 00:36
|
>>Drunken cyclists are a spectre, an Aunt Sally, a myth on the whole, with all respect to Stu.<<
There are a lot of crimes which are rare, that does not mean they should be permissable.
|
>> Do you need me to work out the difference in kinetic energy between 100kg
>> at 12mph and 1800kg at 50mph?
This calculator would tell us if we knew what the speeds were in metres per second. www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html
|
>> >> Do you need me to work out the difference in kinetic energy between 100kg
>> >> at 12mph and 1800kg at 50mph?
>>
>> This calculator would tell us if we knew what the speeds were in metres per
>> second. www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html
>>
Thanks L'es.
Type "12mph in metres per second" into Google and it will give you the answer directly (5.36448). 50mph = 22.352 m/s
The answers are 1439 Joules and 449651 Joules, about 312 times the energy for car vs. cyclist. The car driver is protected by a steel cage for good measure.
That's why it's disproportionate to apply driver standards to cyclists.
As a matter of interest, for a 44 tonne vehicle at 50mph the energy is 10991462 Joules, 7,638 cyclists' worth, or 24 cars' worth. Hence still higher standards are required of LGV drivers.
If cyclists are going to be jailed for drinking, then car drivers should be executed and lorry drivers hung, drawn and quartered. This will of course necessitate changes to the Human Rights legislation so that the death penalty can be reintroduced.
|
>> Do you need me to work out the difference in kinetic energy between 100kg
>> at 12mph and 1800kg at 50mph?
I think I've got it.
Using www.onlineconversion.com/speed_common.htm, 12 mph is 5.36 metres per second and 50 mph is 22.35 metres per second. Putting the figures into the kinetic energy calculator www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html, 100 kg at 12 mph has a kinetic energy of 1436.48 joules and 1800 kg at 50 mph has a kinetic energy of 449570.25 joules.
|
>> You can't choose what parts of that you want to adopt and what you want
>> to ignore.
>>
>> Pat
No, but you can tailor the law to suit circumstances. Truck drivers have stiff medical rules together with tough tests and all the stuff about hours and tacho's
Do you want those imposed on car drivers too because they have a right (subject their current license) to use the road??
|
> >It would result in less injustice than banging up cyclists, or letting drivers off because the cyclist they ran over had a few drinks in.
So its now the drivers fault because he ran over a wobbling p issed cyclist? This is sounding less and less reasonable by the minute.
|
>> Why stop at cyclists? Why not jail drunk pedestrians in case they wobble in to
>> the road and cause a driver to swerve?
Because a cyclist's place is on the road, and a pedestrian's isn't. So that would be a logical place to draw a line.
>> It's fatuous to equate a cyclist under the influence with a car driver ditto.
Not equating; it's less serious.
>> Drunkeness is never good. But a few drinks and being over an arbitrary limited designed
>> for drivers doesn't make someone on a bike a menace to society.
That depends on your definition of 'menace' - an accident is more likely to happen, and it's more likely that someone (other than the cyclist) is going to get hurt.
Actually I'd be interested to know for a given blood alcohol level what the relative chances of an accident are. Cycling requires balance, so I suspect cycling in a straight line while under the influence is harder than driving in a straight line, although clearly it's more complicated than that. I'd guess the cyclist is indeed less of a risk, but how much?
|
Thinking a bit more we used to sometimes use our bikes to get from a youth hostel to a pub a few miles away. Cycling back after 3-4 pints not really a problem. More recently used a Boris bike in London once or twice after an evening with a mate. Probably three pints and a whisky over a couple of hours and with a meal.
No harm done.
The balance thing is pretty instinctive. Any risk is, like in a car, due to altered judgement of one's capabilities. Ride too fast, brake too late, misjudge a passing manoeuvre or that sort of thing.
|
>> Thinking a bit more we used to sometimes use our bikes to get from a youth hostel to a pub a few miles away. Cycling back after 3-4 pints not really a problem. More recently used a Boris bike in London once or twice after an evening with a mate. Probably three pints and a whisky over a couple of hours and with a meal.
>>
>> No harm done.
>>
>> The balance thing is pretty instinctive. Any risk is, like in a car, due to altered judgement of one's capabilities. Ride too fast, brake too late, misjudge a passing manoeuvre or that sort of thing.
>>
So you're in effect saying, that as a large percentage of operating a motor vehicle is also instinctive its perfectly ok to drive slowly when having drunk 3-4 pints??
No of course you're not.
the only difference as I can see it, is a bike itself cannot to a huge amount of damage when out of control.
The fact is, a larger road user CAN cause a huge amount of damage, when trying to avoid that bicycle.....
|
>>So you're in effect saying, that as a large percentage of operating a motor vehicle is also instinctive its perfectly ok to drive slowly when having drunk 3-4 pints??
Since you mention it, I'd be a lot happier with people driving over the limit if they kept to 12 mph.
|
>> hit pedestrian will be very unlucky to sufffer more than bruising. The few who die
>> either hit their heads or have underlying health problems.
Any elderly person hit by a cyclist is likely to fall and suffer serious consequences. Bones get weaker and more brittle as you get older.
|
What about people who use pogo sticks? They should probably be made to wear registration plates and be insured don't you think? All that hopping about. Should be banned in fact. Think I'll write to the papers. Jumping about like that. Hooligans. Then there's roller skates of course, now they are deeply antisocial aren't they? Ban them I say.
In fact lets ban everything. Be easier in the long run eh?
FFS
|
>> What about people who use pogo sticks? They should probably be made to wear registration
>> plates ................
I wear an obsolete registration plate from a previous car when I go out on my pogo stick.
|
>> Any elderly person hit by a cyclist is likely to fall and suffer serious consequences.
>> Bones get weaker and more brittle as you get older.
>>
I know all about that, I spent the first week of July on a hip injury ward. A bloke who'd come off a motorbike and I were the only inmates under 80.
I guess it's the sort of thing I meant upthread about pre-existing health conditions.
|
>>Without wishing to diminish the seriousness of your wife's experience, or commenting on that specific incident, would you jail the bloke whose dog bit my son and left him phobic about them? Where are you going to stop?<<
Yes id jail him. Its a matter of responsibility. Being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. You make a choice not to control your dog and you make a choice to get drunk in full knowledge that you may do something stupid.
>>Can't we at least focus on jailing bad people? There seems to be enough of them to be going on with.<<
Bad people can easily include those who hurt others or put others at risk of injury through nothing but selfish stupidity.
People who get drunk clearly need help with their alcohol consumption issues anyway and the best place to get that help is from behind bars where they have alot of free time and ( one presumes ) less access to alcohol.
|
I used the term drunk as shorthand, sorry. I don't get drunk, but I do go over the DD limit (not driving of course). Drink drivers are often referred to as drunk drivers, but they may be far from drunk.
I wouldn't assume that prison rehabilitates anybody either. Far from it. Not that I have any experience of it.
|
>>I wouldn't assume that prison rehabilitates anybody either <<
Perhaps, but you wont be drinking and riding a bike into people either.
|
Don't we have enough "rules" to be going on with? I'd rather see those responsible for doing so being allowed the time to get on with dealing with and preventing real crime as opposed to being distracted by the pressing case of wobbly farmer Tom riding home from the Dog and Duck after the skittles tournament.
I'm bored with petty legislation. Fiddling while Rome burns frankly.
|
>I'm bored with petty legislation.
+1 Humph
|
>> >I'm bored with petty legislation.
>>
>> +1 Humph
>>
+1 Again
What's the point with new legislation when existing ones are ignored:
see drugs and driving with mobile phones.
Most MPs appear to think the police have infinite powers and numbers to enforce laws. So they act as idiots passing new legislation.
|
While I do agree with you, this isn't about the law regarding cyclists or even if it's enforced. It's about the mindset of cyclist wanting to have the full consideration of other road users, be treated as an equal and yet can't seem to see that there is anything wrong in riding on the road while THEIR reactions are impaired through alcohol.
The way I see it is that they seem to want to be able to drink and ride while all the rest of us take extra precautions around them to protect THEM.
Taking responsibility for your own actions is something we all have to do and if a cyclists lack of awareness ( through alcohol) causes one of your 44 tonne juggernauts to swerve around you and crash into someone else, I suppose that's all right then because you chose not to drink and drive?
Double standards, whichever way you bite the biscuit.
Pat
|
I honestly think you've got this out of focus Pat.
If your juggernaut causes a multiple pile up it's no good blaming a cyclist - the cyclist as a cause is too remote, he should be given room in the first place.
You're in charge of the lorry. I can't drive it for you.
I'm not actually recommending drunken cycling. If I am negligent and cause an accident, I must bear the consequences. If I am near legless, I am in any case more of a danger to myself by far than to anybody else. But to start breathalysing cyclists and apply a limit and sanctions the same as for a car driver (which I am by the way) is just ludicrous.
We need to be removing rules not adding them. The sanctions needed exist already. Where are all the stories of cyclists causing horrendous accidents?
A driver at 70 mph who through drink takes a second to react has travelled 100 feet. Your cyclist at 10 mph has gone three or four paces.
If you can't see the difference between a wobbling bike and 2 tonnes of metal moving at 50, 60, 70 miles per hour then I suppose the discussion is moot.
For what it's worth I'd come down hard on any cyclist on a pavement who collided with a pedestrian. But in mixed traffic, cyclists are the vulnerable element.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 18:20
|
I agree with Manatee. Pat is, with respect, looking down the wrong end of the telescope.
Historically we all had the right to pass and re-pass on the Queen's highway. Controls on motorised vehicles from registration through driver licensing and compulsory insurance to the breathalyser were responses to annual death tolls in thousands.
Speaking for myself I don't want a right to ride home bladdered. Neither do I want to blame somebody else if I ride under a bus after 4 pints. If I'm stopped and cannot recite 'the Leith Police dismisseth us' I'll pay my £50 and take the inevitable rap at work.
I'm never going to wipe out a family like I could with the same BAC in an ordinary car.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 20:47
|
>>I honestly think you've got this out of focus Pat<<
I don't think I have and to be honest it shocked me when I first read this thread.
I sit and listen to conversations, read threads on here about cyclists and have my own years of experience to go on.
Drivers of any vehicle who have a down on cyclists, always complain that they want full rights of the road but can never see they should obey any of the basic rules other road users have to obey.
For me, the jury has always been out on that one and I've tried to find reasons other than that for the conflict.
Reading the views of some on here who are happy to ride a bike in traffic after drinking alcohol instead of walking or taking a cab, I can honestly say I was wrong.
I find it unbelievable anyone would even consider doing that.
>>If your juggernaut causes a multiple pile up it's no good blaming a cyclist - the cyclist as a cause is too remote, he should be given room in the first place.
<<
As for the way you've tried to twist that one after the scenario I quoted, I won't even dignify it with an answer, but it's scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it:)
Pat
|
>>As for the way you've tried to twist that one after the scenario I quoted, I won't even dignify it with an answer, but it's scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it:)
Sorry Pat. I didn't literally mean 'your' juggernaut or you, just the one in your example. No twisting unless you mean extrapolating 'hit somebody' for 'multiple pile up' - just hyperbole.
I really don't want to be, or condone, using a bike when plastered. Or being plastered at all, which I absolutely hate. Three pints is a skinful for me.
To me it's just so obviously OTT. Biking is much nearer to walking than driving. When my pal Martin and I go to the next village for a sandwich and two pints each, as we will one day next week, we have a choice of walk, cycle, or drive. Given there's no footpath, there isn't really any difference between cycling and walking other than the time it takes.
Actually we wouldn't want to drive, taxi or or catch a bus if there was one, because the ride (or walk when we've more time) is half the point.
I usually have two pints. Do you seriously think that my licence should be in exactly the same jeopardy for that as if I were driving? That's just persecution.
I can understand the anti-cyclist attitude provoked by militant lycra'd idiots riding on pavements, swerving round people on zebra crossing etc but I actually don't know any like that. Most aren't, and the ones who are caught doing those things should get clobbered (I imagine 99.9% are completely sober).
Nearly everybody is a driver. If we were all regular cyclists as well I don't think we'd be having an adversarial discussion about this.
I feel as if I'm in the fabled parallel universe.
The Polish thing I can only imagine is an attack on excessive drinking generally as much as on cycling. They must be trying to tackle a public health problem, not a traffic problem. If not, they really are crackers.
|
>> To me it's just so obviously OTT. Biking is much nearer to walking than driving.
Its not, really its not. Biking is nowhere nearly the same as walking. There is barely a shared process or skill between them. There is no shared skill with driving either. Except its a good idea to be sober when you do either. For you and the people around you.
|
>> Its not, really its not. Biking is nowhere nearly the same as walking. There is
>> barely a shared process or skill between them. There is no shared skill with driving
>> either. Except its a good idea to be sober when you do either. For you
>> and the people around you.
In terms of what happens in an accident the cyclist's position speed/mass/KE is closer to that of a pedestrian.
As to driving there's lots of shared skill in observation, defensive techniques etc not to mention incentive for getting the Highway Code into perspective in advance of attaining 17
|
>> As to driving there's lots of shared skill in observation, defensive techniques etc not to
>> mention incentive for getting the Highway Code into perspective in advance of attaining 17
I am persuaded by that argument. There are shared skills required to ride a bike and drive a car. Therefore the rules of being sober should be equally applied.
I trust you agree with that logical conclusion?
|
>> I trust you agree with that logical conclusion?
Up to a point Lord Copper.
Rules for motor vehicles are there because of consequence of an accident. Apart from carnage resulting from the motor vehicle avoiding the wobbling drunk cyclist (a herring that's very deep pink if not red) the rider's only going to hurt himself.
The current law about riding under the influence is fit for purpose without importing the paraphenalia of breath/blood tests.
|
>> Rules for motor vehicles are there because of consequence of an accident. Apart from carnage resulting from the motor vehicle avoiding the wobbling drunk cyclist (a herring that's very deep pink if not red) the rider's only going to hurt himself.
>>
>> The current law about riding under the influence is fit for purpose without importing the
>> paraphenalia of breath/blood tests.
>>
So, what you are saying, is that cyclists ARE above the law?
|
>> So, what you are saying, is that cyclists ARE above the law?
No I'm saying cyclists are under the law for cyclists. It's a different law to the one for motor vehicles for reasons of history & proportionality (see posts ante).
If you want the same laws to apply write to your MP.
|
>> In terms of what happens in an accident the cyclist's position speed/mass/KE is closer to
>> that of a pedestrian.
I used to have kinetic energy when walking when I was younger, but not any more!
|
>>
>> >> To me it's just so obviously OTT. Biking is much nearer to walking than
>> driving.
>>
>> Its not, really its not. Biking is nowhere nearly the same as walking. There is
>> barely a shared process or skill between them. There is no shared skill with driving
>> either. Except its a good idea to be sober when you do either. For you
>> and the people around you.
The common skill is balance, but that wasn't the point. I meant in terms of risk to the person and danger to others, in this case on a road with no footpaths. In that circ you need your wits for either, though I'd suggest if somebody wants to meander home with 6 pints in that's their lookout and they should be let get on with it.
Of course sobriety is a good idea for anything involving traffic. But you don't have to be drunk to fail a breath test and to subject cyclists to it would be bananas.
The response from some here is nothing more or less than the demonisation of a minority. Today cyclists, tomorrow dog owners, joggers, over 60s, under 30s, fat people, classic cars (horribly unsafe some of those you know) and so on.
There's more than enough proscription, red tape and nannying by a factor of about 10 already, but for some reason the witless electorate seems to want more and more, as long as it applies to somebody else that they want to blame for the world's ills at that point - they don't make the connection to the removal of their own freedoms.
I couldn't live in a conurbation now, with the forest of moronic signs, traffic management, parking restrictions, brainless people pushing crossing buttons on a clear road...and some people seem to want more.
I'm genuinely baffled, and very, very disappointed.
|
I'm genuinely baffled, and very, very disappointed....
Just as I am Manatee, at the other end of the scale.
To think that anyone would seriously expect to be respected and considered equally as a road user, yet also make a choice to ride a bike back from a pub.
Pat
|
I'm with you, Pat. However, there are still those, even some on here, who advocate driving with a drink or two on board. We have zero chance of getting them to understand what they are doing when behind the wheel of a car, so we have have even less chance of getting them to see what's what when it comes to cycling.
As you say, disappointing and baffling.
|
If you'd said to me a week ago that apparently intelligent people here were going to condemn going to the pub on a bike for a couple of pints, I'd never have believed it.
You've got the red mist, both of you.
It's cyclists who need protection, where they cannot be separated from motors. 84 cyclists have died on the roads this year so far, the majority of cyclist KSIs being the fault of a driver.
from www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/nhl/headline-concepts/is-cycling-dangerous
"The risk posed by cyclists to others is extremely low. The majority of cyclist miles are in areas where there are pedestrians, but cyclists kill on average under one pedestrian per year – drivers kill around seventy pedestrians on the pavement every year, and over 3,000 people in total. When cyclists are injured in car v. bike collisions the car driver is usually at fault (in between 2/3 and 7/8 of cases depending on your source)
Government figures show only a handful of cases of serious or fatal injury caused to pedestrians by cyclists in a year, and these are massively outweighed by the numbers of pedestrians killed and injured on the footway by motor vehicles. Pedestrians are at vastly more risk from motor vehicles than from cyclists even when they are on the pavement."
Where is your body of evidence?
Or are you just saying that because a bike is on a road the same rules apply? The sheer nonsense of that is obvious. That tortured and misapplied logic presumably dictates that nobody under 17 should ride a bike on a road, and once 17 they should pass a test before they are allowed to, because that's what applies to cars.
You have painted yourselves into a corner with this one.
|
What other forms of transport would you like to see piloted on the roads by drinkers? Steam rollers? Not many accidents in them, and they're pretty slow after all. Or is it really one rule for cyclists (I am one), one rule for everyone else?
>> You have painted yourselves into a corner with this one.
Not really. It's just an opinion.
|
>> What other forms of transport would you like to see piloted on the roads by
>> drinkers? Steam rollers? Not many accidents in them, and they're pretty slow after all. Or
>> is it really one rule for cyclists (I am one), one rule for everyone else?
As I said to ST the idea is an appropriate rule for everyone. What suits the motorised and the risk they present is overkill for cyclists, pedesrians walking in the road or for those herding sheep or cattle (or even riding a horse).
I just cannot grasp how anyone thinks there's any mileage in imposing licences etc on cyclists si they can be withdrawn to 'equitably' punish the few who risk themselves by riding while under the influence.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 15:24
|
There have certainly been more people killed by road rollers this year than by cyclists, so no. And why would I? What a daft argument.
I love the way you ignored the rest of my post, including the fact that 70 pedestrians get killed on pavements by motors vs. virtually none by cyclists.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 15:28
|
>> There have certainly been more people killed by road rollers this year than by cyclists,
>> so no. And why would I? What a daft argument.
Really?
Lets see the figures....
|
Were the drivers under the influence of drink?
That's what we're discussing here. People under the influence of drink, who should not be allowed to take to the road.
|
You're dancing on the head of a pin. I didn't drag road rollers into it.
To be clear an unapologetic - I can think of few better uses for a bike than a potter to the pub on a summer evening. Nor a better lunch stop on a bicycle run than a pub, for a foaming bumper and a cheese sandwich.
I just don't understand the misanthropic urge to curtail other people's innocent and harmless pleasures. Why do the ban-or-regulate-everything-I-don't-like loonies never make the connection between that attitude and the gradual erosion of their own liberties?
I do understand Alanovic's antipathy to all forms of drink driving BTW. But I think it's misapplied here.
Got to go out. On the bike. I did have a pint of Hooky at lunchtime, so I'll be careful.
|
>> I do understand Alanovic's antipathy to all forms of drink driving BTW. But I think
>> it's misapplied here.
It's hard not to think that is because it suits you to argue as much, rather than you actually think it's all right to go out on the roads having taken alcohol on board. I have, a few times in the past, ridden my bicycle back from a pub whilst under the influence. On reflection, I think it makes me a bit of a prat to have done so, and I'll not do it again.
|
>>
>> >> I do understand Alanovic's antipathy to all forms of drink driving BTW. But I
>> think
>> >> it's misapplied here.
>>
>> It's hard not to think that is because it suits you to argue as much,
>> rather than you actually think it's all right to go out on the roads having
>> taken alcohol on board.
I really don't comprehend your reply above, but I sense that if I did I should be offended.
Past time to bow out I think.
|
>> You're dancing on the head of a pin. I didn't drag road rollers into it.
Ummm yes you did... after Alanović mentioned them, you stated 'There have certainly been more people killed by road rollers this year than by cyclists'
|
>> I love the way you ignored the rest of my post, including the fact that
>> 70 pedestrians get killed on pavements by motors vs. virtually none by cyclists.
>>
Because it's got nothing to do with saying that cyclists should be on the road under the influence of drink. Nobody should.
|
|
Who said cyclists should be on the road under the influence of alcohol? It's a free world (just), I don't mind whether they are or not, within reason.
|
>> Who said cyclists should be on the road under the influence of alcohol? It's a
>> free world (just), I don't mind whether they are or not, within reason.
Pretty much my view. If they want to then for the likely harm it's really not worth jailing them or fining them more than £50. Taking their driving licences, with consequences for their livliehood, would be disproportionate.
|
>> Steam rollers?
Crikey! It's many a long year since I've seen a steam roller, except in a transport museum or at a steam fair.
|
>> >> Steam rollers?
>>
Never understood why anyone would want to roll steam !
Ted
|
>> ............ juggernaut ...........
I wonder what the similarly-exaggerating expression is for a bicycle.
|
To be fair it was Pat IIRC who introduced the word juggernaut.
I can't think of a pejorative term for bikes. Cyclists are of course 'militant' or 'Lycra louts'. And they always wobble.
Must shop for Lycra !
|
There were these slightly ill-mannered pavement cyclists in the Grove. A bit gross but but seldom dangerous.
To offset them there were the Stunt Nippers from the estates round the corner. They were a joy to behold on their rare whooping and hollering appearances, riding down the wrong side of the road and on both pavements scaring the bejasus out of pedestrians and motor traffic alike, on a London main road remember not some backwater. I so miss them down here in the quiet boondocks.
|
Since I live a couple of miles outside town, making a taxi home rather pricey after a night out, a couple of years ago I tried cycling part of the way; I can leave the bike, a battered but functional thing with a working rear light, at the back of my local pub which is about halfway to the town centre.
I tried it twice; on both occasions I came home having imbibed a decent quantity of real ale, not enough to make me walk sideways but certainly enough to make the return journey on the bike hazardous. I recall having to spend so much effort concentrating on keeping the bike stable that i was unaware of my surroundings; fortunately my route is along a quiet country lane almost guaranteed traffic-free at that hour.
I made it back in one piece but I won't be repeating the exercise. Quite frankly, with the benefit of hindsight it scared me and that doesn't happen easily.
My two-cents worth; cyclists caught riding a bicycle whilst incapable through drink or drugs should suffer the same financial penalty as a car or motorcycle driver doing the same, and the bicycle should be confiscated. I am in agreement with others who say that they can easily cause a serious accident whilst in that state.
|
>> My two-cents worth; cyclists caught riding a bicycle whilst incapable through drink or drugs should
>> suffer the same financial penalty as a car or motorcycle driver doing the same, and
>> the bicycle should be confiscated. I am in agreement with others who say that they
>> can easily cause a serious accident whilst in that state.
But why? Is there any evidence that they actually do, as opposed to theoretically could, cause accidents whilst in that state?.
I've ridden a Boris bike in London after a few pints. I got to Euston safely. If you breathalysed riders of these after 23:00 I'd bet most of them are over the BAC to drive. Two years and millions of hirings/miles after the scheme started the KSI figure for Boris Bikes is a big fat zero.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 13 Sep 12 at 21:25
|
Yes, but all truckers are car drivers too, so does that make you silly........!
Pat
|
>> Silly truckers.
Sillicyclists ~ that's my new word of the week!
;-)
|
>>
>> But why? Is there any evidence that they actually do, as opposed to theoretically could,
>> cause accidents whilst in that state?.
>>
Using your argument I could also state that motorcyclists slightly over the current limit should only be prosecuted if they actually cause an accident. Nobody in their right mind would back that, and with good reason.
I got nicked for DD in 1992, returning from a friend's funeral; the only reason I was pulled was that my pillion passenger, unbeknown to me, was flapping his arms up and down when we turned a corner in Newark, and was observed by the local inspector. I was slightly over the limit, ISTR had two pints instead of the usual one on an empty stomach and (quite rightly) got a year's ban and £250 fine. The two local bobbies who took me to the station told me that had it not been for my passenger's antics they wouldn't have bothered with me, as it was obvious to them that I was in full control of the bike.
|
>> and the bicycle should be confiscated.
Big deal!
|
|
Take a look at some bike prices, L'escargot. You might be surprised.
|
>> My two-cents worth; cyclists caught riding a bicycle whilst incapable through drink or drugs should
>> suffer the same financial penalty as a car or motorcycle driver doing the same, and
>> the bicycle should be confiscated. I am in agreement with others who say that they
>> can easily cause a serious accident whilst in that state.
Any evidence of that happening?
|
>> www.metro.co.uk/news/68693-drunk-cyclist-survives-rail-plunge
Cloth head rode off a rail platform. He wasn't caught so we don't know if he was drunk or not (though it's s reasonable supposition)
As for nearly caused a rail crash that's just journo hyperbole. The bike was crushed; the train didn't care.
|
That's all right then.
(Don't trains derail sometimes when hitting an obstruction?)
|
>> That's all right then.
>>
>> (Don't trains derail sometimes when hitting an obstruction?)
Yes they do.
And its stated in the 'hyperbole'
''A cyclist narrowly avoided death and almost caused a train crash when he rode off a platform at a busy railway station.
An oncoming train crushed the bicycle seconds after the man managed to scramble off the tracks.
Police said the train, which was put out of service by the crash, could have derailed had it been a non-stop service.''
|
>> Police said the train, which was put out of service by the crash, could have
>> derailed had it been a non-stop service.''
Could have in sense that you cannot wholly eliminate a freak effect. Even a boneshaker only weighs 20kg, a train ain't going to care. Needs to be taken out of service to check for damage to underbody etc.
The guy was stupid, 750 volts is bad enough without a trrain too but we've still not found the drunk cyclist who caused a pile up.
|
>> The guy was stupid, 750 volts is bad enough .........
It's not high voltage that kills you, it's high current.
|
>> It's not high voltage that kills you, it's high current.
Indeed but the third rail would still get you.
|
>> That's all right then.
>>
>> (Don't trains derail sometimes when hitting an obstruction?)
Very occasionally but in vast majority of cases the train stays upright and no lasting damage done.
The two big ones that way in recent times were Selby and Bedwyn. Both involved cars on the track and in both cases the initial effect was to derail one or more bogies with the train staying upright. The damage came when the derailed bogie fouled in facing points and the carriages were overturned. At Selby the wreckage was then hit by another train going the other way.
I doubt, even if you went back to Brunel, you'd find a drunken bike rider who derailed a train!!
|
>> That's all right then.
>>
>> (Don't trains derail sometimes when hitting an obstruction?)
Its actually harder than you think to derail a train, as in this extraordinary video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8gV4DJZUw
|
|
So you produce two examples of drunk people on bikes hurting only themselves. QED I think.
|
>> the one that hit my wife didnt get so much as a slap on the wrist.
>>
Any cyclist, drunk or not, who hit my wife would get more than a slapped wrist, dark night and no witnesses etc.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 14 Sep 12 at 08:14
|
>> >> the one that hit my wife didnt get so much as a slap on
>> the wrist.
>> >>
>>
>> Any cyclist, drunk or not, who hit my wife would get more than a slapped
>> wrist, dark night and no witnesses etc.
>>
+1
Plus a large stick through the spokes...
|
|
My granddad had the right idea. He used to hitch up the pony to the trap and go to the pub in that. The pony knew the way home without any instructions from Granddad.
|
I have been eyeing this thread with some bemusement, all this stuff about the combined mass of a cyclist and his bike and their kinetic energy at 12 mph posing a risk to pedestrians... honestly, bikes are not a threat to pedestrians unless recklessly ridden. It's so obvious (from my own experience) that a drunk cyclist's main threat is to himself that I don't see why anyone wants to argue with it.
Drunk does mean significantly impaired in judgement and physical coordination though. It doesn't mean feeling mellow and expansive after a drink or two. It means being brutish, stupid, slow and clumsy after too many. I can understand why some people need to demand absolute failsafe zero-alcohol conduct having suffered trauma caused by drunks. But I don't need to myself. I trust my own judgement.
|
>>some people need to demand absolute failsafe zero-alcohol conduct
Its an interesting point. These days we seem to think that there must be no impact, no risk and no inconvenience upon ourselves from living in society.
That society must ensure we get everything we deserve, but in no way impose on us. Its an easy trap to fall into, and most certainly one I fell into when I was younger, but it does rob life of an awful lot of interest and stimulation.
|
I ride 4 miles or so each way to the pub along the canal towpath at the back of us. Dog runs alongside with me. Concentrates the mind that when it has gone dark...One false move to the left on the way home and I'd be in the nettles, one false move to the right and I'd be up to my a...rmpits in canal water.
Is this thread still going by the way?
Blimey !
Or actually, YAWN !
|
I was sat in me motor at a major city centre crossroads today. Both roads at a halt 'cos the green man was showing all round in the hope of a pedestrian actually wanting to cross.
No takers on foot but a pavement cyclist, at some speed, decided to take advantage of the green man's benevolence and cross the road. As he left the pavement, he was T Boned by another cyclist jumping the red, this one Lycra clad and pumping like the Tour de France.
So, one jumping the lights and one on the pavement resulting in a fairly large tangled mass of iron, flesh and rucksacks.
No major injury to either but I tried very hard not to chuckle......I did, really.
Ted
|
>> I tried very hard not to chuckle......I did, really.
I hope you managed a howl of harsh, cruel laughter though Ted? Cyclists riding up the Grove sometimes used to swerve suddenly across zebra crossings expecting you to stop. I thought they were taking it and used to try to run over them. Well, to look as if I meant to anyway. Herself hated it but the cyclists seemed to understand.
|
Jail drunk cyclists? - L'escargot
