Road Traffic Act 2010 - Impact on cyclists

seamus

So although there's a whole pile of kerfuffaw about BAC limits, there's actually some new stuff in here which will affect cyclists if they ever bother enforcing it:

1. Drink Cycling: If a Garda determines that you are intoxicated to the point that you are incapable of having proper control over the vehicle, you can be arrested and convicted with a fine of up to €2,000. You can also be detained for up to 6 hours in a Garda station if the Garda considers you to be a danger to yourself or others.*

2. "A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of having been concerned or involved in a collision or other event in a public place causing injury to person or property, the name and address and date of birth of such person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his or her name and address and date of birth or gives a name or address or date of birth which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may take the cycle, by reasonable force if necessary, and retain it until such time as he or she is satisfied as to the identity of such person."

Nothing about cycle lanes in it, though that may be retained for an S.I.

* Although there's no requirement by cyclists to provide a breath specimen, any action taken with the intent to "frustrate" the prosecution is an offence in itself. So strictly speaking, refusing to take a breath test, even on a bicycle, could theoretically be an offence in itself

RobBaxter

stupid laws

limklad

seamus wrote: »

So although there's a whole pile of kerfuffaw about BAC limits, there's actually some new stuff in here which will affect cyclists if they ever bother enforcing it:

1. Drink Cycling: If a Garda determines that you are intoxicated to the point that you are incapable of having proper control over the vehicle, you can be arrested and convicted with a fine of up to €2,000. You can also be detained for up to 6 hours in a Garda station if the Garda considers you to be a danger to yourself or others.*

It has already been here for donkey years with addons fines in recent years. It called Drunk and Disorderly and a breach of the peace. In the 80's, I known a few gentlemen trying to cycle home and I mean "Try". The guards took them into the station and into the cell to sleep it off.
You can be fined €200 for refusing to give his name, €100 for breach of the peace and Persons found to be drunk in public can now be fined €100 on the spot (or €140 in respect of disorderly conduct in a public place).
It is already an expensive exercise if caught.

seamus wrote: »

2. "A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of having been concerned or involved in a collision or other event in a public place causing injury to person or property, the name and address and date of birth of such person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his or her name and address and date of birth or gives a name or address or date of birth which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may take the cycle, by reasonable force if necessary, and retain it until such time as he or she is satisfied as to the identity of such person."

The only thing new here is that they confiscate your bike for refusing to give a name. The rest is obstruction to an investigation and failure to identify yourself to the gardai if suspected of causing an offence.

seamus wrote: »

Nothing about cycle lanes in it, though that may be retained for an S.I.

* Although there's no requirement by cyclists to provide a breath specimen, any action taken with the intent to "frustrate" the prosecution is an offence in itself. So strictly speaking, refusing to take a breath test, even on a bicycle, could theoretically be an offence in itself

Refusing to give a breath test is an offence if you are operating a vehicle is an offence and technically as far as I am aware a bicycle is an vehicle under the law although it is exempt in many parts of Transport regulations.

The only problem is enforcement. If gardai arrest everybody for Drunk and Disorderly then we need to build alot of cells in gardai stations around the country. The on the spot fine is their way around this therefore you are no longer their responsibility to look after you when they arrest you.

There is alot of Cycling regulations and laws that the government need to tidy up on.

seamus

limklad wrote: »

It has already been here for donkey years with addons fines in recent years. It called Drunk and Disorderly and a breach of the peace.

This is a different offence though. It's been there since the first RTA, but I think the fine up until now was £50. €2k is not to be sniffed at and worth thinking about if you usually spin down to the pub for one or two and end up having six or seven.

The only thing new here is that they confiscate your bike for refusing to give a name.

Indeed, it's something though and I think the intention is to make people more co-operative on the side of the road without the Garda having the hassle of bringing a separate offence of obstruction to court.

There's not much there that will change any of our lives, but it's useful to know this stuff, even if it's never enforced

limklad

seamus wrote: »

This is a different offence though.

It is a different area of law when it comes to cycling offences, but still you can and will be caught with it. Just because you on a bicycle does not mean you cannot be Prosecuted with it.

seamus wrote: »

It's been there since the first RTA, but I think the fine up until now was £50. €2k is not to be sniffed at and worth thinking about if you usually spin down to the pub for one or two and end up having six or seven.
Indeed, it's something though and I think the intention is to make people more co-operative on the side of the road without the Garda having the hassle of bringing a separate offence of obstruction to court.

Painful costs yes, but only if it is enforced.

loyatemu

€2k fine is ridiculously disproportionate, but I'd imagine the guards will only pull you over if your clearly hammered and unable to cycle in a straight line.

kenmc

if you're cycling on the path you're immune though.

ednwireland

never understood why people think its ok to drink and cycle but not to drink and drive

Moflojo

ednwireland wrote: »

never understood why people think its ok to drink and cycle but not to drink and drive

I think that's down to a belief that drunk-cycling is really only endangering oneself, whereas drunk-driving causes significant risk to others.

At least that's how I justified it to myself...:(

liamo

Moflojo wrote: »

I think that's down to a belief that drunk-cycling is really only endangering oneself, whereas drunk-driving causes significant risk to others.

I had to swerve violently (in a car) recently to avoid a very drunk cyclist. Had I been closer to him when he wobbled into my path he might have gone under my wheels. At the very least that would have ruined my day (not to mention his day). If I had swerved into an oncoming vehicle my day would have been an awful lot worse. And it would probably have ruined the day for the occupant(s) of the oncoming vehicle.

So I don't buy the "only endangering oneself" argument and am in favour of some form of enforcement even if only a small fine.

Having said that, I have been known (many years ago) to cycle after a great many drinks and laboured under that "only endangering oneself" misapprehension myself so I understand how people can think it's ok to drink and cycle but not to drink and drive.

monument

The differences between cycling and driving with a few drinks:

• Reality: The use of cars after drinking has killed 1,000s and 1,000 of people, the use of bicycles after drinking or not has killed so few people it's not notable.
  
  
• Speed:Cars are still unrestricted, most still able to travel above the speed limits, say above 60km/h in towns and 100km/h+ on more open roads vs cyclists mostly likely being slower then 15km/h
  
  
• Weigh: Cars weighing around 900kg to 3,000kg vs bicycles weighing from around 8kg to 16kg (both excluding driver/cyclist, passengers, cargo etc)
  
  
• Size: Cars are generally fairly large things, most can fit five people or more in them plus boot and engine space, cars take up a lane on the road vs bicycles hardly taking up more space than a person, mostly designed for and mostly carriers one person and little else. This makes cyclists more easy to avoid and for cyclist to more easily avoid people, cars and objects

It's important to note that the difference between mass and speed is what kills or makes accidents with pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists worse.

My point isn't about rights or wrongs, but if you don't see the difference between drink driving and drink cycling you need to think long and hard about how blinkered you are.

Moflojo

monument wrote: »

The differences between cycling and driving with a few drinks:

(snip)

My point isn't about rights or wrongs, but if you don't see the difference between drink driving and drink cycling you need to think long and hard about how blinkered you are.

You haven't made any point about the difference between driving and cycling after a few drinks, you've simply pointed out the difference between cycling and driving, so well done on that. :rolleyes:

The issue here is responsibility, including responsibility to oneself; something that the state is obliged to enforce.

I would back the introduction of a reasonable fine for drunk-cycling, making it similar to a minor public order offence, that can be enforced on the spot without costing too much in administrative duties.

snollup

Moflojo wrote: »

You haven't made any point about the difference between driving and cycling after a few drinks, you've simply pointed out the difference between cycling and driving, so well done on that. :rolleyes:

The issue here is responsibility, including responsibility to oneself; something that the state is obliged to enforce.

I would back the introduction of a reasonable fine for drunk-cycling, making it similar to a minor public order offence, that can be enforced on the spot without costing too much in administrative duties.

I think what he is getting at is that you are really only going to kill yourself if on a bike whereas in a car you can kill somebody else.

Moflojo

snollup wrote: »

I think what he is getting at is that you are really only going to kill yourself if on a bike whereas in a car you can kill somebody else.

I understand that, and I addressed it:

"The issue here is responsibility, including responsibility to oneself"

monument

Moflojo wrote: »

You haven't made any point about the difference between driving and cycling after a few drinks, you've simply pointed out the difference between cycling and driving, so well done on that. :rolleyes:

First, the differences between cycling and driving and the differences of those acts after a few drinks are not mutialy exclusive.

Sure, the dangers of cycling after a few may be increased, but driving vehicles which already have a high potential for danger increases the potential danger to very high levels.

Furthermore, some of my points were only referring to the differences between driving and cycling after a few. For example, where I talked about the use of cars while drunk I was only referring to the deaths caused by people who driven after drinking, and, on speed, drink is likely to slow cyclists (or at least hinder them achieving then normal average and top speeds) while it is unlikely to do the same for motorists.

And the issue here is responsibility to oneself, and others -- an important distinction here given how many passengers, drivers and passengers of other cars, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists who have been killed or seriously injured by drunk drivers.

I don't predict any Garda ever confiscating a bike. Imagine the hassle?!

In order to make it look like they're even gonna bother, they'd need to slap a few bike racks onto some of the Garda cars.

Moflojo

@monument:

So we're in agreement then:

Drunk-driving is bad mmmkay.

People have a responsibility towards themselves, ergo drunk-cycling is bad mmmkay.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't predict any Garda ever confiscating a bike. Imagine the hassle?!

In order to make it look like they're even gonna bother, they'd need to slap a few bike racks onto some of the Garda cars.

It's not that much hassle at all. People here have reported that friends' bicycles have been taken temporally by the Gardai while the cyclist was taken to cells for the night. It's rightly only likely when the person is not in control of the bicycle.

Moflojo wrote: »

@monument: So we're in agreement then:

Drunk-driving is bad mmmkay.

People have a responsibility towards themselves, ergo drunk-cycling is bad mmmkay.

Only if what you mean is something comparable to:

Manslaughter is bad mmmkay.

Accidentally killing a spider is bad mmmkay.

Cycling with a few drinks is more comparable to walking after the same, it's not at all comparable to driving after a few.

BTW I have avoided mentioning the phrase 'drunk cycling' for very good reason. In Irish law 'drunk' is a very broad term, very subjective too.

monument

monument wrote: »

It's not that much hassle at all. People here have reported that friends' bicycles have been taken temporally by the Gardai while the cyclist was taken to cells for the night. It's rightly only likely when the person is not in control of the bicycle.

I agree, it makes sense, but what do they do with the bike?

The Gardaì hardly seperate, and one drives back to the station, whilst the other cycles behind?

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, it makes sense, but what do they do with the bike?

The Gardaì hardly seperate, and one drives back to the station, whilst the other cycles behind?

It can be put in the boot or a car (...as people here have reported has happened), in a van, or walked / cycled to the station if it's close by.

monument

monument wrote: »

It can be put in the boot or a car (...as people here have reported has happened), in a van, or walked / cycled to the station if it's close by.

Van makes sense alright, but I'd have assumed Garda car boots would have stuff in them already or such.

Still seems like a fair bit of messing around though. Hopefully it's a rare event that someone's bike is taken. I'd assume it is, as I've never seen it, nor expected it'd happen til I read this thread.

limklad

Moflojo wrote: »

I think that's down to a belief that drunk-cycling is really only endangering oneself, whereas drunk-driving causes significant risk to others.

At least that's how I justified it to myself...:(

I kind of disagree depending on the situation.
If there is nobody using the road then all is ok , the drunken Cyclist only harms him/herself, but we are not alone on the roads.

As most of you are aware no matter what transport you use, the roads are not safe due to arrogant and ignorant people out there.

If you on a country or city road and driving around and then a drunken cyclist veered in front of you. Your first reaction is try to avoid and probably end up on a ditch/wall or into a oncoming vehicle while the drunks cycles away, clueless to who really the cause of the accident.

Also like drink drivers the drink cyclist reaction time is as poor as a drivers. It takes longer while under the infulence of drink to recover you balance, control of the bike or position back to a safe situation after drinking.

Moflojo

I've witnessed Gardai instruct drunken cyclists to lock their bikes to the nearest post or bike rack and send them on their way. Not much hassle involved for the Gardai.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote: »

Nothing about cycle lanes in it, though that may be retained for

Since the existing mandatory use regulations are in SIs, it would have to be another SI that would change it.

Usually whatever when the authorities give with one hand, they take back with the other, so be careful what you wish for....they might withdraw the mandatory use rule and sneak in MHL and flappy High-Vis vests rules.

loyatemu

Moflojo wrote: »

I would back the introduction of a reasonable fine for drunk-cycling, making it similar to a minor public order offence, that can be enforced on the spot without costing too much in administrative duties.

there already is a public order offence of being drunk and disorderly and/or a danger to oneself. Whether you are on a bike or careering down a hill in a shopping trolley is irrelevant. As others have pointed out a bike is not a car, blindly applying the same rules to cyclists as to motorists is daft (see also, numerous threads about traffic lights, one-way streets etc).

Also, ending any point with the word "mmkay?" establishes you as a patronising jerk.

Moflojo

loyatemu wrote: »

As others have pointed out a bike is not a car, blindly applying the same rules to cyclists as to motorists is daft

Also, ending any point with the word "mmkay?" establishes you as a patronising jerk.

Yeah, either that or I'm referencing a well-known animated character.

As far as I'm aware these new laws are aimed specifically at cyclists, they are not general road-traffic laws so why does everyone keep banging on comparing cyclists to motorists, it's a non-issue here.

This is about cyclists, as cyclists, not being allowed to cycle under the influence and the consequences of doing so.

Colmhayden76

I was stopped by a garda in Rathfarnam for being drunk in charge of a bike about 15 years ago.
He stood on the road and watched as I walked it home. (this was after a slap about the head and a stern talking to,I was 17 at the time) this sort of common sence approach is obviously the best way to handle it.

I have no problems with this type of enforcement as obviously it didn't cost me any thing but it sobered me up quick enough and yes I walked the mile home.

rflynnr

Colmhayden76 wrote: »

I was stopped by a garda in Rathfarnam for being drunk in charge of a bike about 15 years ago.
He stood on the road and watched as I walked it home. (this was after a slap about the head and a stern talking to,I was 17 at the time) this sort of common sence approach is obviously the best way to handle it.

I'm intrigued: are you literally saying he hit you? If so, I kind of admire your stoicism, but that still seems like assault.

rflynnr

Incidentally, I would expect pragmatism on this based on my - entirely subjective but generally positive - experience of the boys in blue. I came out of the Dice Bar one night, not pissed but having had sufficient alcohol to fail a breath test. Attempted to unlock bike but broke the key in the lock. Rang Store St and minutes later a van with three guardai arrived, equipped with a jaws of life. Reassuringly the lock proved impervious to this so they went off and got an even bigger set of cutting equipment which, after 20 minutes of effort and with four of us applying force, snapped the cable lock.

It was right outside the bar so it must have been obvious where I'd been for the previous hour but since I didn't appear to be under the influence the guardians of the peace said nothing but wished me a safe good night.

Hard not to be impressed by that sort of thing.

(Incidentally I'm aware that it wouldn't take much to twist this argument into a defence of drink-driving but I'm with Monument on this: the primary risk of cycling under the influence is to oneself, not other road users.)

limklad

rflynnr wrote: »

Incidentally, I would expect pragmatism on this based on my - entirely subjective but generally positive - experience of the boys in blue. I came out of the Dice Bar one night, not pissed but having had sufficient alcohol to fail a breath test. Attempted to unlock bike but broke the key in the lock. Rang Store St and minutes later a van with three guardai arrived, equipped with a jaws of life. Reassuringly the lock proved impervious to this so they went off and got an even bigger set of cutting equipment which, after 20 minutes of effort and with four of us applying force, snapped the cable lock.

It was right outside the bar so it must have been obvious where I'd been for the previous hour but since I didn't appear to be under the influence the guardians of the peace said nothing but wished me a safe good night.

Hard not to be impressed by that sort of thing.

(Incidentally I'm aware that it wouldn't take much to twist this argument into a defence of drink-driving but I'm with Monument on this: the primary risk of cycling under the influence is to oneself, not other road users.)

The gardai like most of the community are all right, they do not want trouble as you from them. But I have come across some pricks all-right (both male and female) over the years. I have no trouble in giving those pricks a hard time when they wrongly gives me a hard time and two of them I went straight to the Sargent or higher, the rest I responded in kind at their tone.

One prick female who was on duty at the station shop. I needed a garda stamp and signature for a document to claim I am who I am. I went to the Garda station in NCW and she claimed to me that she did not know who I am even though I gave her my Driver Licence and Passport for verification. The other Guards behind the counter who I knew very well were sniggering at her. When She refused to sign and stamp, I asked two questions. Do you claim that The Official Documentation I present to you is Fraudulent? and 2 Do you claim I am giving you a false name and address and if so why are you not arresting me if you have made an opinion of me giving you false misleading information about my identity and possible Fraudulent documents and after a brief pause, she was even angrier at me, I responded with my final question: Do I have to commit an offence for you to arrest me in order for you to verify that you will get to know me. She closed the shutters in a huff.

Her boss (The Sargent) walks in the door when it happened, I said hello Pat he responded and we started chatting small talk and then she open the shutters a minute later and then I start telling him the encounter with her. All he did was shook his head at her in embarrassment and order her for the Garda stamp and the book to sign it in and signed and stamped my documents. She knew me from that day on as she avoided me ever since.

Usually when I have unknowingly break the law due to something that I have done then I would like to be inform so I can rectify the situation. As a Kid/early teens one elderly Gardai who was more interested in keeping us on the right side of the law than wanting to arrest or fine us. He inform us especially anything silly (that others guards won't let you off or give us a hard time) and then he lets us know and always responded with respectable tone with "safe journey home lads" as we cycled off.

Two way respect and especially small talk goes along way in avoid unnecessary trouble.

n-dawg

Moflojo wrote: »

I've witnessed Gardai instruct drunken cyclists to lock their bikes to the nearest post or bike rack and send them on their way. Not much hassle involved for the Gardai.

That happened me before a few years ago... Gaurd was 100% right, I shouldn't have cycled! Just didn't fancy forking out €30 for a taxi on my own.

Cabaal

monument wrote: »

Accidentally killing a spider is bad mmmkay.

Seriously?
:rolleyes:

Cycling with a few drinks is more comparable to walking after the same, it's not at all comparable to driving after a few.

If your walking you are
- Walking slowly
- Likely walking on a footpath


If your cycling you are
- Cycling faster
- Likely cycling on the road

You are a bigger danger to other people and yourself on that road as you could easily fall or hit into someone at faster then walking speed and either kill yourself or kill somebody else...or cause damage

Certainly not equal to killing a spider

I have avoided mentioning the phrase 'drunk cycling' for very good reason. In Irish law 'drunk' is a very broad term, very subjective too.

If your on a bike and moving you are cycling, if you've been drinking and your anyway affected you are drunk so its = drunk cycling

monument

Cabaal wrote: »

Certainly not equal to killing a spider

First, I never said it was or was not. I was making a comparison of the level of differences of the other posters' comparison.

Cabaal wrote: »

If your walking you are
- Walking slowly
- Likely walking on a footpath


If your cycling you are
- Cycling faster
- Likely cycling on the road

You are a bigger danger to other people and yourself on that road as you could easily fall or hit into someone at faster then walking speed and either kill yourself or kill somebody else...or cause damage

I said cycling after a few is more comparable to walking, I did not say it was fully comparable to such.

People walking home after drinking are still going to have to cross a number of roads, junctions, drive ways etc -- these are points where the accents can happen.

Moflojo

The fundamental issue of this thread is drunk-cycling. Comparisons to walking, driving, running or any other activity are, in my opinion, completely irrelevant.

I may have cycled while drunk in the past and, if I have, I may also have regretted doing so the following morning. I know this to be the case with many other cyclists that I know and would venture to suggest that most cyclists think drunk-cycling is a bad idea and most regret doing so.

I think most cyclists have been in the situation where a quiet pint or two on a Friday evening turns into a bit of a session, which invariably results in a dilemma over whether to leave the bike where it is overnight (at the mercy of thieves) or try to cycle it (most of the way) home.

I would suggest that better overnight secure parking for bicycles would be one thing that would go a long way towards cutting down on drunk-cycling.

DirkVoodoo

I have found after a few drinks that cycling home can be quite sobering. I've never driven after more than a 330cl bottle of heineken and that was with a full dinner and after a few hours. I don't think they are the same at all. If I get in a car after a drink, as a passenger, I find it quite easy to get too comfortable and drift off or not pay attention. I've never had this on a bike.

I'm not condoning it by the way, this is purely from my own experience. I think monument said it well. If drink cycling were as dangerous as people say then there would be proportionally as many deaths as there are for drink driving.

I was heading home one night, possibly after a drink but still fine to cycle. I saw this guy wobbling up the road on his bike and when I approached him it was clear he was off his face. He had no lights either. It was the early hours of the morning and the two of us proceeded up the bus lane. I didn't want to talk to him (any conversation was broken and difficult to comprehend) but seeing as he had no lights and was barely in control of the bike I thought I should stay with him until my turning off. I kept him on my inside, he was swerving towards the kerb and a few times towards me but he stayed upright.

Should he have been on a bike? God no. Was he as dangerous as a drink driver? I don't think so. He may have got himself knocked down, but I don't think he would have killed anyone else. Is this any different than a drunk person staggering home? I've seen plenty of people run across roads or even walk along the roads (no lights!) when they have been plastered. Or start fights in the middle of roads, piggyback, trying to dodge cars, etc.

It's irresponsible and yes, you are a danger to yourself, but I don't think it's the same as someone in the same intoxicated state sitting behind the steering wheel for a 2 tonne car travelling at 80 km/hr.

Where do we draw the line? Should cyclists on the road for more than 5 hours be required to pull in and take regular breaks so they don't fall asleep at the handlebars?

Btw, I do think it is good to see a harder line being taken with drunk cycling and red light breaking, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it is in the same category of social destruction as drink driving.

HivemindXX

monument wrote: »

People walking home after drinking are still going to have to cross a number of roads, junctions, drive ways etc -- these are points where the accents can happen.

Most Friday nights that I cycle through the city centre I have drunks lunge out in to the road in front of me. Presumably they think they see a taxi, or they think they have time to cross in front of me. Since I'm sober and I'm prepared for it it's pretty easy to deal with.

You won't see me claiming that drunken pedestrians are just as bad as drunk drivers and calling for them to be arrested and banned from driving (walking?). However I think it's the guards responsibility to protect people who are a danger to themselves. If someone cannot control their bike properly or cannot walk down the path without staggering in to the road then I'd like to see the guards do something, up to and including arresting them for drunk and disorderly and putting them in a cell over night.

Cabaal

Its very double standards lads,

Somehow people want laws to be applied to motorists, stopping at red lights etc
But when it comes to cycling a number of people don't think its fair that laws also apply, you can't pick and choose your laws lads.

If your a road user its your job to be on the ball and to have full control of your body to ensure you have full control over whatever you using be it a motorbike, car or bike.

Its not just about being a danger to other people its about being a danger to yourself and when your drink your not thinking 100% straight.

Moflojo

Cabaal wrote: »

Its very double standards lads,

+1

DirkVoodoo

Cabaal wrote: »

Its very double standards lads,

Somehow people want laws to be applied to motorists, stopping at red lights etc
But when it comes to cycling a number of people don't think its fair that laws also apply, you can't pick and choose your laws lads.

I think that's an overly simple observation. Bikes are not cars and a lot of laws can't apply to them.

Otherwise, by extending your logic, should bikes be allowed use motorways? Is it not double standards if they can't?

It's not a case of picking and choosing, I don't think anything said here has been argued with reason.

Like I said, I think it's a good thing to clamp down on reckless cyclist behaviour, but drink cycling is not in the same league as drink driving anymore than cyclists speeding creates as many problems as drivers speeding. I think that it ignores some of the bigger (and more dangerous) crimes committed by cyclists such as cycling at night with no lights, cycling on footpaths, etc.

monument

Further to what DirkVoodoo said:

There's already a law in place which can be used for drunk cycling, and, as many here have said on this thread and else where, the Gardai do act and do stop drunk cyclists. There is no clear reason for this additional law.

Cyclists deaths and injuries have been going down for years and these are no records of any epidemic of drunk cyclists causing mayhem and destruction.

Also -- Bicycles are not cars. And you cannot have double standards where two things are not the same.

dave.obrien

Firstly, I don't think that drunk-cycling is the same as drunk-driving, but I don't think it's right. It should not be done.

Secondly, I think the belief that drunk-cycling only endangers oneself is only part of the picture; if you drunkenly cycle into an occupied car, you've really affected the occupants in a more negative way than is easily appreciated. While you might be the only one with a scar after, several people are left shook and potentially traumatised. It's worth thinking here about the cyclist who broke the lights and crashed into a car. He broke the law, and only got himself injured. Does that make it ok? Absolutely not, he caused numerous people trauma of different kinds because of his actions and the law needs the capacity to implement punitive measure to discourage it from happening again.

Finally, I think this is one of those incidences where the lawmakers are writing into law something which allows lawenforcers to operate within the SPIRIT of the law, as opposed to the letter. They will hopefully judge intoxicated cyclists on a case by case basis; most (but not all) should not be allowed to cycle home, few (but not none) do not deserve to be punished further than that. Few would probably argue with the gardai's assessment that you're unfit to cycle. I think the punishments are written into law just in case they are required in specific cases, which may be more frequent, given the increase in cyclists in recent times.

Lets not get carried away with it; if you go for a pint or two and try to cycle home, it's unlikely you'll get a few hours in a cell and a €2,000 fine, but be aware tht they can do that to you, so don't get s**tfaced and cycle into a bus, or else you'll never afford that cervelo...

glic71rods46t0

if ever one was looking for a reason to start legislating for cyclists on the roads then this thread and the attitude of the posters is it.
Breath taking opposition to common sense and the self serving "justification" of reckless behaviour by virtue of some "we dont hurt anyone except ourselves" deluded logic just serves to inform our legislature that we need to equip the gardai with a whole suite of new laws to get to grips with cyclists who think they are above the law. More of this sort of thing I say!

My solution to drunk cyclists, when the gardai aren't around is simple: a large roll of duct tape and use it to tape the drunkard to the nearest pole. Lock his bicycle to the pole as well and it can be a little monument to road safety.
By morning he'll be right as rain and can be safely released:cool:

worded

Everyone is being so negative.

The good thing about drunk cycling is all you have to do is get on the bike, its a balancing act then after that. Trying to carry your own body weight when drunk walking can be difficult and sometimes impossible.

I was in Loughrea one night and used the white line in the middle of the road to guide me back home as my fore head rested on my hands that were on the handle bars. A lass had bought me a few whiskeys and I wasn’t used to doubles of spirits. Before anyone criticises me, I was listening intently for cars and myself and passenger arrived home safe unaided by net or contraceptive.

I used to go lock my bike in Temple bar and if I didnt get lucky Id ride home. My journey took me across the millennium bridge. One night a copper on the quays said "Id walk if I was you". I took his advice.

I hope this is lesson to you all.

ED E

The main thing on the drunk front is there is not BAL for cyclists, so as long as I'm capable of safely plodding along(like I was at 4:30 thismorning) I dont have to worry. Its actually something I really enjoy, especially when the weather is so nice and you dont freeze your tits off

generalmiaow

4z3nyo2i7f8r10 wrote: »

if ever one was looking for a reason to start legislating for cyclists on the roads then this thread and the attitude of the posters is it.
Breathtaking opposition to common sense and the self serving justification of reckless behaviour by virtue of some "we dont hurt anyone except ourselves" deluded logic just serves to inform our legislature that we need to equip the gardai with a whole suite of new laws to get to grips with cyclists who think they are above the law. More of this sort of thing I say!

I see you're having fun.

The main thing on the drunk front is there is not BAL for cyclists, so as long as I'm capable of safely plodding along(like I was at 4:30 thismorning) I dont have to worry. Its actually something I really enjoy, especially when the weather is so nice and you dont freeze your tits off

This is the best answer to the general question being discussed in the thread. The law already makes a distinction between cycling and driving under the influence, and this is the same with the new one. It's in the first post. Obviously the law is talking about cycling unsafely on a public road rather than being "over the limit", because none exists. I doubt many accidents are caused by people who have had a pint or two and cycled home. Cycling drunk is unsafe and a garda who sees someone doing it might make the decision to prevent you from continuing. I would hope they execute discretion in issuing fines - swerving all over the N11 wouldn't be treated the same as carefully cycling home through a campus.

Cabaal

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Otherwise, by extending your logic, should bikes be allowed use motorways?

:rolleyes:
Given motorbikes under 50cc aren't do you think bikes should be?

Is it not double standards if they can't?

Nope because a motorway is made for a specific class of travel, a bike is not in that specific class.

However bikes are allowed on all other roads and are bound by the rules on those other roads.

It's not a case of picking and choosing,

So you think its ok to drink and cycle?
You see no harm or risk factors to yourself or others if you do it?

I think that it ignores some of the bigger (and more dangerous) crimes committed by cyclists such as cycling at night with no lights, cycling on footpaths, etc.

Its not ignoring it, its merely adding another thingf that is illegal

Do you honestly thionk Gardai will only suddenly go out to enforce the drink cycling law and ignore all others?

No of course not, instead the Gardai will continue as they are they will merely have another law to enforce if they stop a cyclist and suspect he/she may be drunk.

Cabaal

worded wrote: »

I was in Loughrea one night and used the white line in the middle of the road to guide me back home as my fore head rested on my hands that were on the handle bars.

A lass had bought me a few whiskeys and I wasn’t used to doubles of spirits. Before anyone criticises me, I was listening intently for cars and myself and passenger arrived home safe unaided by net or contraceptive. .

Awww thats ok then,

I know a motorist who drove home one night after drinking
He also did the same and drove following the white line, he drove slowly, he had the windows open so he could hear other cars etc and watched out for things.

He made it home ok so its all good, clearly its ok if you arrive home safe and do all of the above.

This is the mentality that made people in Ireland for years think it was ok to drink drive, I honestly can't believe it still exists

briano

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

...I've never driven after more than a 330cl bottle of heineken...

330cl = 3.3L :eek:

Where, may I ask, does one find a 3L bottle of Heineken

Lumen

briano wrote: »

330cl = 3.3L :eek:

Where, may I ask, does one find a 3L bottle of Heineken

Halfway there...

monument

There are clear and established facts that drunk drivers have killed 1,000s of people. There's no such figures for any kind of bicycle accidents -- note that bicycles in crashes and causes of crashes are recorded.

Cabaal -- the Rules of the Road and laws are not uniform, cyclists and motorists are not treated the same in a number of respects. And rightly so as already outlined, cars and bikes are not the same.

Cabaal wrote: »

No of course not, instead the Gardai will continue as they are they will merely have another law to enforce if they stop a cyclist and suspect he/she may be drunk.

What's the need for this when there does not seem to be anything wrong with the current law covering drunk cycling?

ED E

To make it seem like they are doing something, its all for the EU so we can get more medals as people cop on to proper driving.