Drunk Cycling

Limestone1

djburchgrove wrote: »

3. As easy as driving a car is, It requires far more skill and know-how to get moving than cycling, hence decision making and reaction times etc. don't really come into the equation.

Totally disagree having done both in my younger years. The whole balance thing comes into play when cycling after a good scatter of pints so physically getting moving and staying upright is a massive challenge. It is much easier to start a car and keep moving.

monument

imitation wrote: »

Did I make a statement saying there is no difference ? Your just inferring what you want.

But yet you have made statements such as "Everybody should be held to the same standards"

imitation wrote: »

My point is, you are at more risk cycling drunk, to your self and to motorists who might have to avoid you.

And you have yet to support that with anything nearly a logical argument.

For example, you said:

Its also likely the person is not going to have any safety gear, hi viz or lights and its pretty likely when they will be cycling at night when there is reduced visibility and reaction times for everybody is that bit poorer.

But it's actually much less likely that people walking would have such gear or lights.

Your posts seem to stem from the idea that walking is generally much much safer than cycling when there's little hard evidence to prove this. There's a few bits of hard evidence to say otherwise, including the Irish indications that pedestrians get hit by motorists going faster than cyclists do (See the Phillips report etc).

We know that most motorist-cyclists collisions happen at junctions and that's the same with pedestrians and other places where they are crossing the road -- they are at risk when crossing the road and exposed for longer than a cyclist. But pedestrians even on footpaths in cities and towns are also at risk from motorists at night who are hitting faster speeds with a strong chance of ending up on footpaths --

And we also know that the addition of many new cyclists who are commuting to work (hopefully mostly non-drinking) who have often been described as reckless and cycling in the middle of the road or all over the place -- but the death rate of cyclists in Dublin city has dropped despite the increase. Gardai claim to council meetings that the city is safer for all because of more cyclist. So, you need so kind of evidence to back your hunches that cyclists are more of a danger to your self and others -- because what people think is true or common sense often is not.

monument

Limestone1 wrote: »

Totally disagree having done both in my younger years. The whole balance thing comes into play when cycling after a good scatter of pints so physically getting moving and staying upright is a massive challenge. It is much easier to start a car and keep moving.

So when you're plastered in a car you're going to keep going and more likely to hit some poor sod, while most people plastered and trying to cycle will fall off quickly or not even get started?

imitation

monument wrote: »

But yet you have made statements such as "Everybody should be held to the same standards"

Yeah, and that means you shouldn't under take an activity that requires balance, motor control after consuming large quantities of alcohol. Not the same as "BIKES ARE AS DANGEROUS AS CARS!!!"

Why do I need statistics to prove a common sense statement like the above? Moreover they would only be misleading because, yes bikers have less fatality's than cars. Does this disprove that having 4 pints and getting on a bike probably isn't a great idea ? No.

So, you need so kind of evidence to back your hunches that cyclists are more of a danger to your self and others -- because what people think is true or common sense often is not.

When this turn from drunk cyclists to cyclists in general ? 5 seconds on google looking at alcohol, reaction times & balance should give you all the evidence you need that a drunk cyclist is more of a risk than a sober one.

allez

Should probably be a limit alright! In fairness how are they going to police it? Next time i swerve to avoid a pot hole or some other joke on the Irish roads am i going to be confused for inebriation and pulled over for a breathalyser?

Let's be honest we spend most of out time ranting on about how we have as much right on the roads as cars and other users so we should follow the same basic rules ie. have lights, stop at lights, watch out for signs and not cycle under the influence of whatever.

If we decide to get shfaced and cycle home on our merry way. End up getting hit by a car and dying through our own misjudgment we can almost certainly assume the driver will be prosecuted and have his life ruined. I won't have that on my conscious. Im not gonna lie ive done but then again i wasnt older than a teenager and ive grown up since then. I hope

monument

imitation wrote: »

Yeah, and that means you shouldn't under take an activity that requires balance, motor control after consuming large quantities of alcohol. Not the same as "BIKES ARE AS DANGEROUS AS CARS!!!"

That does not compute with your suggestion to treat everbody the same -- without the same danger there's no reason to do so. 

And you know you require balance for walking? 

imitation wrote: »

Why do I need statistics to prove a common sense statement like the above? 

I was looking for evidence (not stats alone) to support your claims that cycling drunk was more dangerous than walking, not your latest point (and I'm not quite sure what that point is).

imitation wrote: »

Does this disprove that having 4 pints and getting on a bike probably isn't a great idea ? No.

Depends on individual, the route, the weather etc.

Your perspective on the question likely also depends on your views of the dangers of cycling generally.

imitation wrote: »

When this turn from drunk cyclists to cyclists in general ? 5 seconds on google looking at alcohol, reaction times & balance should give you all the evidence you need that a drunk cyclist is more of a risk than a sober one.

Cycling/walking generally is related for a few reasons:

1. The example given is of where a "common sense statement" has proven wrong: ie a few years ago it would be called common sense to say "more reckless and erratic cyclists = more deaths" but this has been disproven for Dublin and for the last few years.

2. Relates to your apparent views on the general danger of cycling.

3. Danger points walking/cycling generally will relate (even if not totally) to danger points when drink has been taken.