Road Traffic Act 2010 - Impact on cyclists

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.

DirkVoodoo

briano wrote: »

330cl = 3.3L :eek:

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

Woops!

Doctor Bob

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.
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:

At the risk of appearing to engage with your input, I might make one observation- you are suggesting that the appropriate response to someone thinking they are above the law is... to act as if you are above the law.

Duly noted.

worded

Cabaal wrote: »

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

I honestly cant believe that you honestly cant believe.

DirkVoodoo

Cabaal wrote: »

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

I just don't understand how you can't distinguish between a car and a bike. I mean, if a guy on a bike swerves off the road he will probably hit the kerb, fall off and have a few cuts and bruises that he will curse in the morning. Are you saying if I drive my car off the road and onto a footpath at a similar speed (this is assuming the drunk driver is ONLY going at the same speed as the bike), I will fall out the door and cut my arms and knees?

The evidence is there to support the introduction of lower limits for drink driving in Ireland. I will ask once again where are all the road deaths caused by drunk cyclists? If I'm driving home at night I find that a guy wobbling on a bike presents the same risk to me and other road users as a guy stumbling across the road. Drive through Donnybrook after Wesley has been on and you will see. By the way, I'm not condoning it and like I said way back it's good to see it being tackled, but I do have issue with you thinking that drink driving and drink cycling are equally dangerous on our roads.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

The evidence is there to support the introduction of lower limits for drink driving in Ireland.

Is it?

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Is it?

International research indicates that alcohol is a contributory factor in up to 40% of road collisions and in Ireland, it is conservatively estimated that alcohol is the primary cause of 25% of all road collisions and 33% of collisions resulting in fatalities.

Profile of the crashes
• 559 (56.2%) crashes were single vehicle crashes.
• Over half (611, 55.3%) of those killed in all crashes were drivers (this includes
those driving motor cycles), 249 (22.5%) were passengers, 205 (18.6%) were
pedestrians, 34 (3.1%) were cyclists, with 6 (0.5%) classified as other.
Crashes where alcohol was a factor
• Alcohol was a factor in 309 (31.0%) fatal crashes and not a factor in 346
(34.8%). An alcohol test was not available or not done for 340 (34.2%)
crashes.
• There were 110 (36.5%) alcohol related fatal crashes in 2003, 95 (28.4%) in
2004 and 104 (28.9%) in 2005. Differences between years were not
statistically significant.
• Alcohol related crashes were twice as likely to occur on Saturdays or Sundays
than other days of the week (Odds ratio: 2.1; CI:1.6-2.8, P<0.00001).
• Almost two-thirds (199, 64.4%) of alcohol related crashes occur between
22.00 hours on Friday night and 08.00 hours on Monday mornings and are
almost three times more likely at these times than other times of the week
(Odds ratio: 2.7; CI:2.0-3.6, P<0.00001).
Profile of those killed and their alcohol levels
Drivers
• 222 (36.3%) of killed drivers had BACs ≥ 20 mg/100ml.
• 187 (30.6%) of the killed drivers were over the legal limit.
• Males were more likely than females to be over the legal limit.
• The mean or average BAC level was 88.9mg/100ml.
• The mean BAC for males was 95.6mg/100ml and for females was 56.0
mg/100ml.
• Age specific rates per 100,000 population for those with BAC levels ≥ 20
mg/100ml and those with BAC levels >80mg/100ml (the legal limit for
driving) were calculated. The rates in both categories were highest for
those aged 20 to 34 years and lowest for those aged 60 to 69 years.
• Motorcycle drivers were no more likely or less likely than other killed
drivers to be over the legal limit.

Pedestrians
• 205 (18.6%) of those killed in 2003-2005 were pedestrians, of whom 129
(62.9%) were male and 76 (37.1%) were female. The mean age was 49.1
years.
• Pedestrian alcohol was considered to be a contributory factor in 50 (24.2%) of
the fatal pedestrian road deaths or 4.5% of all fatal road deaths. Forty one
(82.0%) occurred between 8 pm and 8 am.
• The mean BAC level was 113.3 mg/100ml (S.D. 147.7). For adults (aged 18
years and over), males were more likely to have tested positive for alcohol
than females.
• Where pedestrians own alcohol was a factor in the pedestrian death, over half
(28, 56%) were aged 40 years and over.
• More than 1 in 10 pedestrians had a blood alcohol concentration in excess of
240mg/100ml.
Passengers
• 46 (18.5%) of passengers had BACs > 80mg/100ml.
• The mean BAC was 83.1mg/100ml.
• Male passengers were significantly more likely to be killed than female
passengers in a crash where driver alcohol was a factor. Fifty one (36.1%)
of the male passengers were killed in such crashes.
• In the age group “15-24”, which had the highest mortality rate, driver
alcohol was no more or no less likely to be a factor in the crash.

http://hse.openrepository.com/hse/handle/10147/84413

It kind of skips over cycling though (numbers are in that report), so it's not saying that drunk cycling doesn't result in deaths, but the numbers of fatalities caused by drunk cycling are not in the same league as those caused by drunk driving. Like I said, I think it is a good thing though, so i don't want you guys to think I am in favour of people getting wasted, hopping on bikes and getting themselves killed and causing their families and the driver unnecessary agony.

Gavin

I'm guessing here, but perhaps Lumen was querying if there is proof that reducing our current drink driving limits will have any affect on drink drive related deaths.

As in, is the problem with drivers who have had a drink and a low blood alcohol level, or drivers who are well above the limit?

DirkVoodoo

I honestly don't know. Although it's probably fair to say that if you can't get your keys inside the front door then you probably aren't well equipped to deal with driving at speed and reacting to hazards.

A lot of this "research" simply finds what percentage of road accident victims have alcohol in their systems, identifying it as a factor but not necessarily a cause.

I think it's really about the eventual and seemingly inevitable move to a zero tolerance policy. I guess even very low limits encourage people to have a drink and maybe take a risk with being over the limit. Having a drink OR drive system is probably going to happen.

Anyway, probably moving slightly off topic but I would have thought that yes, there is proof to support that drink driving laws have worked in making the roads safer.

Lumen

Gavin wrote: »

I'm guessing here, but perhaps Lumen was querying if there is proof that reducing our current drink driving limits will have any affect on drink drive related deaths.

I'm not familiar with the current or proposed limits, but I was thinking of this sort of thing (from NZ site):

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the current or proposed limits, but I was thinking of this sort of thing (from NZ site):

I think it's 50 mg/100 mL at the moment and 20 mg/100 mL for learners but I think they might be dropping it to 20 mg/100mL which would be about half a pint of beer, I think.