Cycling - legal alcohol limit?

the boss of me

flickerx wrote: »

my past caught up with me on sunday night, after many close shaves i was involved with a collision with a bus, no idea who hit who i was so drunk, had been on a 2 and a half day binge after a breakup with my partner, but got up after i regained consciousness and cycled off, with people telling me to come back and wait for the ambulance, all i could hear was the rushing in my ears.

woke up monday morning totally destroyed, went straight to my local A+E, tomorrow i am going to the hospital again to see if they need to put a wire in my right hand where it is broken, i cant write, hold anything in my right hand, and am typing this now with one hand, my left (i am right handed). skin taken off my left arm, left leg, left hip, small gash on my face, various other cuts and bruises. i really dont want this steel pin in my hand but they are saying it might be necessary if the splints dont set the bones right.

needless to say i'm not in the best form, cant get up on the bike again for ages, the poxy bus for me!!!

be warned. dont binge and bike.

Hard luck Kev, when I was young and foolish I used to bike and drive too. The last time I did it was 17/11/1993 to be exact, it was also the night that Ireland drew with N Ire to qualify for the 1994 world cup and you can imagine the celebrations that followed.
Anyway after about 15 pints and 10 shorts (shots weren't invented) we left the pub and I got my bike and tried to ride home from me mates house. For some reason I couldn't steer :rolleyes: , so at the end of his road I crashed into the kerb and fell over the handlebars right into a big dirty pile of dog sh1te.
Next morning woke up with the hangover from hell saw the dogsh1t all over my jacket and promptly threw up. I didn't have any injuries other than a big dent in my pride.
So don't beat yourself up too much mate, you're not the first and certainly won't be the last...hope you're back in the saddle soon !!

doozerie

Cycling while drunk is explicitly listed in the Irish Road Traffic Act (section 51, I believe, for anyone that has access to that act). So too is being drunk in charge of a horse drawn vehicle, etc. Unfortunately I can't find a copy of the Irish act online but it is available on one of the irish legal sites. The appropriate section of the UK traffic act is easy to find online though, and it is very similarly worded - it is section 30 here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_3

The penalty in Ireland for being drunk while cycling is a fine of up to €800 and/or a prison sentence of up to 3 months (these are written in the Irish act), so it is taken seriously, regardless of what any individual garda might say or do about it.

Incidentally, it is generally acknowledged that there is a very casual attitude to drink driving in this country, which is why it remains so prevalent. Personally, like a lot of people, I can't understand how anyone can justify driving while drunk. However, some of the view expressed here suggest that cycling while drunk, or high, is acceptable and chances are some of the people expressing that view would themselves be very opposed to drink driving. The truth is that both are dangerous, as already described by several posters, and arguing that drunk cycling is acceptable gives moral justification to the idiots that argue that drunk driving is acceptable.

seamus

doozerie wrote: »

Cycling while drunk is explicitly listed in the Irish Road Traffic Act

Which one?

Incidentally, it is generally acknowledged that there is a very casual attitude to drink driving in this country, which is why it remains so prevalent. Personally, like a lot of people, I can't understand how anyone can justify driving while drunk. However, some of the view expressed here suggest that cycling while drunk, or high, is acceptable and chances are some of the people expressing that view would themselves be very opposed to drink driving. The truth is that both are dangerous, as already described by several posters, and arguing that drunk cycling is acceptable gives moral justification to the idiots that argue that drunk driving is acceptable.

While the reasoning behind "drink cycling is less dangerous" is obvious, I can't see how anyone thinks it's a remotely good idea. You need to have your wits about you cycling home in the blistering sunshine through Dublin streets. Cycling through insane-taxi-driver filled streets in the middle of the night while pissed, is just asking for trouble. Not to mention the number of pedestrians who are also pissed wandering around.

Ghost Rider

Is there a penalty for being drunk in charge of a body?

doozerie

seamus wrote: »

Which one?

The 1962 act, I believe.

seamus wrote:

While the reasoning behind "drink cycling is less dangerous" is obvious, I can't see how anyone thinks it's a remotely good idea.

I don't agree that drink cycling is less dangerous than drink driving. It can be in that if a drunk cyclist collides with someone/something, then that person/thing _might_ end up less damaged than if they were hit by a car, but that only applies if the cyclist is the only cause of direct harm/injury. Quite often, the person that causes an accident is not involved in the resulting collision at all (e.g. where the collision occurs as a driver swerves to avoid a car/cyclist driving toward them on the wrong side of the road), so the consequences of the collision are potentially the same regardless of whether the collision arises out of the stupid antics of a drunk driver or a drunk cyclist.

seamus

doozerie wrote: »

The 1962 act, I believe.

You got me on the right track, tis the 1961 act, section 51.

51.—(1) A person shall not, in a public place—

( a ) drive or attempt to drive, or be in charge of, animal-drawn vehicle, or

( b ) drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle, while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month or to both such fine and such imprisonment and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(3) A person liable to be charged with an offence under this section shall not, by reference to the same occurrence, be liable to be charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, with the offence of being drunk while in charge, on a highway or other public place, of a carriage.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person is committing or has committed an offence under this section, he may arrest the person without warrant.

I don't agree that drink cycling is less dangerous than drink driving
...so the consequences of the collision are potentially the same regardless of whether the collision arises out of the stupid antics of a drunk driver or a drunk cyclist.

Well, I would say that the likely potential damage is far less for a drunken cyclist. A drunk driver is far more likely to cause more damage than a drunk cyclist because of the size of the vehicle. One would hope/assume that a driver encountering a drunk cyclist, is not drunk himself and therefore can take appropriate action. The chances of a serious accident being caused by a drunken cyclist are far less than the chances of a serious accident by a drunken driver.

doozerie

seamus wrote: »

You got me on the right track, tis the 1961 act, section 51.

I saw a printed version of this act recently, which gave the fines in euros, and I think the fine listed was up to €800 (as opposed to the "twenty pounds" in the text that you quoted), and also I think that it didn't explicitly list a first and second offence for cycling while drunk (i.e. the fine and/or imprisonment (up to 3 months) were basically for a first offence).

seamus wrote:

Well, I would say that the likely potential damage is far less for a drunken cyclist. A drunk driver is far more likely to cause more damage than a drunk cyclist because of the size of the vehicle. One would hope/assume that a driver encountering a drunk cyclist, is not drunk himself and therefore can take appropriate action. The chances of a serious accident being caused by a drunken cyclist are far less than the chances of a serious accident by a drunken driver.

I don't share your optimism about the chances of an accident being less serious if caused by a drunken cyclist. If a third-party/driver has to take drastic action to avoid a collision with another object, be that a person on a bicycle or a person in a car (drunk or otherwise), then the potential outcome is the same.

The circumstances (such as pedestrians at risk, available space for the non-drunk driver to manoeuvre around the drunk cyclist/driver, etc.) will dictate whether the relative speed of the (drunk) person causing the accident, or their relative size, will have a significant influence on the outcome of the incident, but as there is no way of predicting the circumstances in advance I think it is reckless to assume that a drunk cyclist is less of a danger to others than a drunk driver.

Victor

Ghost Rider wrote: »

Is there a penalty for being drunk in charge of a body?

Being intoxicated in public is an offence.

blorg

@doozerie- I still think you can assume the cyclist will be less of a danger. How much less is open to debate and it's certainly not a good idea. Your argument would also apply to drunken pedestrians crossing the road, and while they are certainly a danger, again, less so than a driver (or a cyclist.)

doozerie

blorg wrote: »

@doozerie- I still think you can assume the cyclist will be less of a danger. How much less is open to debate and it's certainly not a good idea.

Assuming that a drunk cyclist is less of a danger suggests that you can't think of a situation where a drunk cyclists is at least as much of a danger as a drunk driver. I can think of several off the top of my head:

- drunk cyclist cycling on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic
- drunk cyclist pulling out of a junction straight into moving traffic
- drunk cyclist breaking a red light and crossing moving traffic
- drunk cyclist veering suddenly further into the road while being overtaken

None of these problems are unique to a cyclist being drunk, but being drunk makes them more likely to occur. In each case, whatever about the danger the cyclist puts himself/herself in, the situation is also dangerous for those other road users that end up swerving, or braking hard, to avoid the idiot on the bike.

I have seen quite a few near misses during my daily commute, where an idiot cyclist/biker/driver/pedestrian has done something clearly stupid, and blindly/ignorantly kept on going regardless of the near carnage that they caused behind them as other road users took evasive action to avoid squashing the muppet who caused the problem in the first place. Mix some drink with the same idiot and the danger they pose increases significantly.

blorg wrote:

Your argument would also apply to drunken pedestrians crossing the road, and while they are certainly a danger, again, less so than a driver (or a cyclist.)

Yes, drunken pedestrians crossing the road stupidly do pose a danger, which is why there are laws against crossing the road dangerously too. And again, the danger they pose is not just to themselves.

Civilian_Target

Crap sober cyclists commit the offences you've listed on a regular basis.

The problem with drunken cycling is basically that, once you have a drop of alcohol in you, you are solely responsible for any accident you may be involved in, regardless of whether it's your fault or not. If you get hit by a bus while even a little bit drunk on a bike, you have no recourse.

doozerie

Civilian_Target wrote: »

Crap sober cyclists commit the offences you've listed on a regular basis.

Yes, they do, as I mentioned in my post. Put drink in people, stick them on a bike, and you'll see more of it, which cannot be a good thing.

Civilian_Target wrote:

The problem with drunken cycling is basically that, once you have a drop of alcohol in you, you are solely responsible for any accident you may be involved in, regardless of whether it's your fault or not. If you get hit by a bus while even a little bit drunk on a bike, you have no recourse.

That is only a problem for the drunk cyclist. They voluntarily put themselves in that position by cycling drunk. Personally, I don't care what people do to themselves, drunk or otherwise, as that is their choice. What I do care about though, is what they do to others (as this could include me), and by cycling drunk they put other people at risk.

doozerie

I found the more recent update to the older Road Traffic Act 1961, which update the amount of the fine that may be applied.

The Road Traffic Act 1961, section 51, is available here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0051.html#zza24y1961s51

...and the more recent update is here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/sec0023.html#sec23

...and here is the actual text of the update to section 51 (section b refers to cyclists, and is in addition to a possible prison sentence of up to 3 months):

10 Section 51(2)(a)

In the case of a first offence, a fine not exceeding €800

In the case of a second or any subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding €1,500


11 Section 51(2)(b)

A fine not exceeding €800

oneeyedsnake

Listen mate I don't mean to piss on your parade but no one cares.I'm a student,so I'm invariably skint,so on the average night out I'll have 15 euro,20tops to get pissed on.I can spend 10 euro getting to and from the pub club or I can do it for free on my bike and get properly twisted in the process.For me(and my mates) there is no competition.I imagine its qiute a funny sight seeing a small peloton of pissed maniacs flying through Drumcondra in the early hours.

doozerie wrote: »

I found the more recent update to the older Road Traffic Act 1961, which update the amount of the fine that may be applied.

The Road Traffic Act 1961, section 51, is available here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0051.html#zza24y1961s51

...and the more recent update is here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/sec0023.html#sec23

...and here is the actual text of the update to section 51 (section b refers to cyclists, and is in addition to a possible prison sentence of up to 3 months):

The Chessplayer

michaelm wrote: »

Serious question - is there a legal alcohol limit for a cyclist? It's not that I'm planning to be irresponsible or anything but I have on the odd occasion cycled to my local for (at most) 2 drinks - last week I passed two gardai doing breath tests, they didn't stop me but it got me thinking. Does anyone know of a cyclists who has ever been tested or is it a case of "unless you are behaving in an irresponsible way while in charge of a mechanically propelled something or other"?

The Chessplayer has good experience in the field of drunken bicycling. I'm a keen cyclist and was often to be seen cycling drunk in the days of yore, before I had a car - not that I drink-drive now (it just so happens that I live within walking distance of a plethora of public houses).

I've been stopped, heavily intoxicated, by the guards on my bike - but only because I had no light, and was dressed in dark clothes. In any case, they just told me to get a light and sent me on my way.

The Chessplayer

Actually, I would be a major advocate of drunk bicycling - although I've never done it in the city centre, but I fully intend to in the coming weekend just for a laugh.

I might even buy a pair of tour-de-france shorts and lash them on in the jacks at closing time, and grab my helmet from behind the bar.

Capt'n Midnight

The Chessplayer wrote: »

lash them on in the jacks at closing time, and grab my helmet from behind

:eek:

Ciaran500

doozerie wrote: »

- drunk cyclist cycling on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic
- drunk cyclist pulling out of a junction straight into moving traffic
- drunk cyclist breaking a red light and crossing moving traffic
- drunk cyclist veering suddenly further into the road while being overtaken

Everyone of those situations could be far, far worse if you added an out of control 1 tonne lump of metal capable of 100mph+ at the press of a pedal. The idea that a drunk cyclist is just as dangerous as a drunk driver is ridiculous.

doozerie

oneeyedsnake wrote: »

Listen mate I don't mean to piss on your parade but no one cares.I'm a student,so I'm invariably skint,so on the average night out I'll have 15 euro,20tops to get pissed on.I can spend 10 euro getting to and from the pub club or I can do it for free on my bike and get properly twisted in the process.For me(and my mates) there is no competition.I imagine its qiute a funny sight seeing a small peloton of pissed maniacs flying through Drumcondra in the early hours.

Well, I suppose someone has to keep Natural Selection going. Bravo.

doozerie

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Everyone of those situations could be far, far worse if you added an out of control 1 tonne lump of metal capable of 100mph+ at the press of a pedal. The idea that a drunk cyclist is just as dangerous as a drunk driver is ridiculous.

That say that each of those situations "could be far, far worse" if the drunk person were driving a car, suggesting that you believe there may be times when a drunk cyclist is just as dangerous, yet in your next sentence you completely dismiss drunk cyclists as being a danger. That is an impressive leap of logic, which your own words discredit.

oobydooby

The thread is about a legal alcohol limit. While few reasonable people would call themselves 'drunk' after a pint (or two pints) they would not drive a car. This would be drink-driving. Both illegal and insensitive to other road users. However with a bicycle, after two pints it's hard to imagine people leaving the bike and taking a taxi.

In fact, the dangers associated with 'drink-driving' as opposed to 'drunk-driving' are severely reduced on a bicycle as the increase in reaction time is mitigated by the low speeds and the increased drowsiness by the fresh air and alertness required to navigate the roads. Drunk-cycling is irresponsible, despite us all being young once etc. I agree with doozer that a drunk cyclist could cause an accident which would be as serious as that a drunk driver might cause. But a 'drink-cyclist' is unlikely to do this.

It seems that the legal issue is that you should not be drunk in control of a bike, but you can still have a drink. Sensible law IMHO.

Victor

oobydooby wrote: »

In fact, the dangers associated with 'drink-driving' as opposed to 'drunk-driving' are severely reduced on a bicycle as the increase in reaction time is mitigated by the low speeds and the increased drowsiness by the fresh air and alertness required to navigate the roads.

Fresh doesn't do anything to reduce your level of intoxication or improve alertness.

rubadub

oneeyedsnake wrote: »

.I can spend 10 euro getting to and from the pub club or I can do it for free on my bike and get properly twisted in the process. .

Yep, same goes for people who choose to walk home drunk instead of paying for the taxi which people seem to presume to be safer, though I have heard of people meeting plenty of drunk taximen...

Fresh doesn't do anything to reduce your level of intoxication or improve alertness.

I personally find it does, by fresh air I presume he means air with more oxygen and colder. Now people are in smokey cars or houses or stuffy pubs with poor ventilation. When I come out of a warm smoke free pub into the cold winter air it does tend to make me more alert and sober me up a bit. I have been know to nod off in pubs, yet never did in "outside events", like festivals or BBQs where I could be seated in the same fashion.

flickerx

flickerx wrote: »

my past caught up with me on sunday night, after many close shaves i was involved with a collision with a bus..

woke up monday morning totally destroyed, went straight to my local A+E, tomorrow i am going to the hospital again to see if they need to put a wire in my right hand where it is broken, i cant write, hold anything in my right hand, and am typing this now with one hand, my left (i am right handed).

back in hospital again today, more x rays and a new splint, and first session of physiotherapy which was NO FUN. thumb is still broken, couldnt even move it a small bit after the therapist had warmed the skin using a gel pack and some cream... some new bone lump that never existed before is now sticking up out of the back of my hand, no idea whats going on with that...

and STILL off the bike for another few weeks, more physio to come!! and all this during the poxy bus strike!!! its a killer. i miss my bike(s). maybe even as much as that guy in the other thread who was caught making love to his machine... :eek:

The Chessplayer

I'd be on for helping organise an annual drunken charity cycle around the city, as a two-fingers to those irritating "enjoy guinness responsibly" messages they have on our their ads. Wa.nkers!

5 or 6 pints, and a couple of whiskies - all after lunch, then a drunken cycle in time for rush hour, up through phoenix park.

blorg

Well, that would certainly not be enjoying Guinness responsibly. But it would hardly be a two-fingers to the advertiser either.

The Chessplayer

blorg wrote: »

Well, that would certainly not be enjoying Guinness responsibly. But it would hardly be a two-fingers to the advertiser either.

Actually I'd say they would delighted if everyone rebelled against their "enjoy this beer" responsibly ads by slugging back as many pints as possible.

Is it just a diageo thing or do they have to print that message by law?

311

driving your bicycle home is not as bad as cycling your car.

blorg

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Actually I'd say they would delighted if everyone rebelled against their "enjoy this beer" responsibly ads by slugging back as many pints as possible.

Is it just a diageo thing or do they have to print that message by law?

That was my point. There is a voluntary industry code which drinks companies abide by (Diageo is not the only one) in their efforts to avoid the sort of regulation you see in cigarette advertising. There are compulsory government warnings in other EU countries (France for example) and efforts to bring such a thing in EU-wide. At least at the moment they can slip the message in whatever way they like.

flickerx

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'd be on for helping organise an annual drunken charity cycle around the city, as a two-fingers to those irritating "enjoy guinness responsibly" messages they have on our their ads. Wa.nkers!

5 or 6 pints, and a couple of whiskies - all after lunch, then a drunken cycle in time for rush hour, up through phoenix park.

if you were serious about doing this around this time of year, you'd need to get an early start for it to be bright, so maybe organise to hit an early house on a saturday morning, and then go for a lunchtime spin on the bikes.