« Trail Oriented Development | Main | This time the Vandals invade Paris »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

what a great way to encourage people to DRIVE A CAR drunk instead of a bicycle.

These laws go too far. Lay off the cyclists- who basically do no damage except to ourselves when plastered.

There are way too many bored lawyers in this damn country.

I don't think anyone dissuaded from biking drunk by the law or safety concerns is then going to end up driving drunk. But yes, if you must operate a vehicle drunk, a bicycle is a better choice than a car. Better still is getting a taxi home and leaving your bike overnight or waking your bike onto Metro. We're lucky to live some place with so many good choices.

I don't think we should treat driving and biking the same here.

First, 0.08 isn't really drunk driving but, rather, driving under the influence. And why do we care that someone may be slightly impaired while driving? Because of the threat that person imposes on themselves and others.

But a cyclist at 0.08 is pretty much just a threat to themselves. How much of one I can't say as I don't think I've ever biked after drinking.

I think we should apply the same standard to drunk (and here I mean drunk) cyclists as we do pedestrians. If they are weaving all over the place and falling down then deal with them.

I'd agree that drunk cycling should probably be a lesser crime than drunk driving, but that may be what the "up to 90 days" is for. Also, where drunk driving really gets penalized is when a drunk driving hurts or kills someone, so the different levels are king of inherent in the system. And a drunk cyclist who kills someone is just as bad as a drunk driver who does so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader