Cycling and Drinking (live in, move, car)

[WhaThe]

Ya, next it will be walking drunk.

"He could just stumble into traffic and cause a pileup!"

Calm down people.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

^^ I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get hit by a bike than a car. And no, drunk biking does not pose the same scope of danger as drunk driving, as a simple matter of basic physics.

Absolutely in agreement. The only nuance I see is people who seem OK with trying to ride a bike when completely wasted who would never drive a car in said state. If you're wondering if you're too drunk to bike, you are - throw it on a bus or pop the wheel and find a cab that will let you put it in the trunk.

[lucki13]

Didn't say that all drunk bikers are as dangerous as drunk drivers, but that some of them could be. And, again, if you got slammed into by a bike, you wouldn't take the time to think "at least it wasn't a car".

Besides, I don't see a whole lot of people just running out into traffic at full speed on a regular basis. I see people on bicycles do it constantly. Should we stop worrying about drunk drivers? Of course not. Should people on bicycles have to obey rules of the road? Of course.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by lucki13

Didn't say that all drunk bikers are as dangerous as drunk drivers, but that some of them could be.

Even if we accept your premise as true -- even though it's laughable -- your premise still acknowledges that the degree of risk they pose isn't the same, which is what several of us have been saying. So why advocate the same penalties for different degrees of risk?

[MassVt]

An intoxicated cyclist can CAUSE a much more serious accident than originally thought if his "driving" is forcing CARS to take evasive,and possibly dangerous maneuvers to avoid said cyclist, or other cars. The impact of a bike can go far beyond a simple low-speed collison with a pedestrian.

[Drover]

Same thing with someone driving drunk -- only the risk a drunk driver poses by forcing other cars to swerve around him is even greater because they have even less reaction time and have a larger object to avoid.

No matter how you try to frame it, the magnitude of risk posed to others is not nearly the same. And neither should the penalty be.

[lucki13]

Never said that they should be the same rules for cyclists as for vehicles. I said there should be strict rules. There is a difference. But I don't think anyone needs to be on the road on anything with wheels if they've been drinking. I don't think that they should be excused from bad behavior on the road that can cause problems just because they aren't as bad as a car. Okay, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules in place.

Does it really have to be all or nothing, Drover?

[lucki13]

Originally Posted by Drover

Same thing with someone driving drunk -- only the risk a drunk driver poses by forcing other cars to swerve around him is even greater because they have even less reaction time...

And I just have to say - not to be argumentative, but to point out - that I have to disagree with you on this. See my earlier argument about sober cyclists disregarding red lights, then adding alcohol to that. Just sayin.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by lucki13

Does it really have to be all or nothing, Drover?

Uhm, no. And just in case you missed it, that's my point entirely. Applying the same penalties to drunk biking as drunk driving is stupid. The end.

Originally Posted by lucki13

And I just have to say - not to be argumentative, but to point out - that I have to disagree with you on this. See my earlier argument about sober cyclists disregarding red lights, then adding alcohol to that. Just sayin.

You can disagree all you want, but it's an irrefutable fact that drunk biking does not pose anywhere near the same level of risk to others as drunk driving does. This should be so obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of physics that I can't believe I even have to keep belaboring the point.

[lucki13]

I've never advocated the same penalties. Ever. Reread my posts if you don't believe me. But I still believe that there need to be strict rules about it. As it is, it seems that cyclists can get away with any kind of behavior on the roads. And my second argument was that cars would not necessarily have less time to react to other cars than to a cyclists shooting out into the road based on the behavior of sober cyclists. This should be so obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the English language that I can't believe I even have to keep belaboring the point.