Poland 'can jail drunk cyclists' - BBC

I don't know how long this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
7994857.stm) is good for.


Cyclists found to be drunk are serving an average of almost a year in
jail
....

[A judge] argued that intoxicated cyclists should be treated like
drunken pedestrians, who face a fine rather than jail, as both use
their own muscles to achieve motion.

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

On Apr 11, 9:52*am, Brian Huntley wrote:
I don't know how long this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
7994857.stm) is good for.

Cyclists found to be drunk are serving an average of almost a year in
jail
...

[A judge] *argued that intoxicated cyclists should be treated like
drunken pedestrians, who face a fine rather than jail, as both use
their own muscles to achieve motion.

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

Cullen
Appleton, WI

Cully J wrote:

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

Does anyone know if there are stats on people being hurt by people
CUI (cycling under the influence)? I think that even if a drunk cyclist
hit a pedestrian, the general lower velocity and definitely lower mass
of the cyclist would reduce the injury potential.


Bill


__o | Roads aren't for cars. They're for people.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

In article ,
writes:
Cully J wrote:

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

Does anyone know if there are stats on people being hurt by people
CUI (cycling under the influence)? I think that even if a drunk cyclist
hit a pedestrian, the general lower velocity and definitely lower mass
of the cyclist would reduce the injury potential.

I can't imagine a drunk rider getting far enough (or staying
on the bike long enough) to cause any trouble, except perhaps
to himself. Seems to me drunk riding would have its own
built-in penalty.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Apr 11, 3:40*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:



Cully J wrote:

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

* * Does anyone know if there are stats on people being hurt by people
CUI (cycling under the influence)? *I think that even if a drunk cyclist
hit a pedestrian, the general lower velocity and definitely lower mass
of the cyclist would reduce the injury potential.

I can't imagine a drunk rider getting far enough (or staying
on the bike long enough) to cause any trouble, except perhaps
to himself. *Seems to me drunk riding would have its own
built-in penalty.

cheers,
* * * * Tom


You're absolutely right, Tom. Instead of having breathalyzers, police
should test suspected drunk drivers by carrying bike, and challenging
them to ride it.

I hope the penalty for drunk cycling is far less than drunk driving.
FAR less!!!

Cullen

On Apr 11, 1:40*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:



Cully J wrote:

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

* * Does anyone know if there are stats on people being hurt by people
CUI (cycling under the influence)? *I think that even if a drunk cyclist
hit a pedestrian, the general lower velocity and definitely lower mass
of the cyclist would reduce the injury potential.

I can't imagine a drunk rider getting far enough (or staying
on the bike long enough) to cause any trouble, except perhaps
to himself. *Seems to me drunk riding would have its own
built-in penalty.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom is right on here

In article ,
Cully J writes:
On Apr 11, 3:40*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:



Cully J wrote:

The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that cyclists use public
roads and are considerably more dangerous because of the speed they
can travel.

This is totally ridiculous. I'd say there's A LOT more danger in
driving drunk than there is cycling drunk.

According to the link "Many courts here apply the stricter penalty and
the average sentence is 11.5 months imprisonment. "

They call this almost draconian. I call it TOTALLY draconian.

* * Does anyone know if there are stats on people being hurt by people
CUI (cycling under the influence)? *I think that even if a drunk cyclist
hit a pedestrian, the general lower velocity and definitely lower mass
of the cyclist would reduce the injury potential.

I can't imagine a drunk rider getting far enough (or staying
on the bike long enough) to cause any trouble, except perhaps
to himself. *Seems to me drunk riding would have its own
built-in penalty.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

You're absolutely right, Tom. Instead of having breathalyzers, police
should test suspected drunk drivers by carrying bike, and challenging
them to ride it.

Make 'em shoulder-check while track-standing!

If they can ride away from the cops, they were
innocent all along. I'd hope they'd eventually
return the bike, though. Including a "thank you"
card with the returned bike would be a nice touch.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca