Should have stuck to the bike

A "don't you know who I am" councillor cycles home after a few drinks
and gets home safely. He then makes a grave error of judgement and
gets his car out as he is hungry.

It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/drink_dr...toft_1_1002838

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.

Yes, it is well over time for bringing the same alcohol level offences
which apply to drivers to include cyclists.

On Aug 24, 10:07*am, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:59:45 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:
It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.

Yes, it is well over time for bringing the same alcohol level offences
which apply to drivers to include cyclists.

I'm afraid there are many laws that don't apply to cyclists.
Speeding, bald tyres, MOTs, insurance, VED, seat belts, mobile phone
use, insurance, driving test, written exam, eyesight test, children on
the front seat, parking on yellow lines etc, so you've got a lot to
wade through before you get to alcohol limits and parity with drivers.
For a start, you'd have to have a cycling licence which could be
withdrawn for being over the limit, otherwise such a limit would be
useless. And that is not going to happen.

--
Simon Mason

Simon Mason wrote:

A "don't you know who I am" councillor cycles home after a few drinks
and gets home safely. He then makes a grave error of judgement and
gets his car out as he is hungry.

It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.


Eh? It shows that just as he can ride a bike while three times over the
drink-drive limit, he can drive a car while three times over the drink-
drive limit.

It shows nothing about his competence to cycle while drunk.

On Aug 24, 10:28*am, Scion wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
A "don't you know who I am" councillor cycles home after a few drinks
and gets home safely. He then makes a grave error of judgement and
gets his car out as he is hungry.

It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.

Eh? It shows that just as he can ride a bike while three times over the
drink-drive limit, he can drive a car while three times over the drink-
drive limit.



Apparently not as he caught the attention of Plod.

"Tess Mann, prosecuting at Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court yesterday,
said Draper was arrested in Beccles Road on August 12 after he was
seen “accelerating hard” in a car. Police followed the vehicle and it
later overshot two kerbs as it pulled in at the Tesco express service
station. When police asked Mr Draper if he was aware he had “gone
across the two kerbs”, he later said: “Do you know I am a councillor?”

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:15:03 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:


I'm afraid there are many laws that don't apply to cyclists.

Of course there are not, but if cyclists want parity on the road with
other users perhaps some need to be reconsidered. Cycling while
impaired through drink is certainly one. The cycling high priests are
pushing "vehicular cycling" so some vehicular laws need to apply.

Speeding,

No reason why this should not apply to cyclists, especially in urban
areas. Cyclists have poor manoeuvrability and poor brakes so are
badly placed to avoid accidents caused by children coming out from
between cars for example.

bald tyres,

No reason why this should not apply to cyclists. Cycle stability is
poor at best - compromising it with faulty tyres makes it worse.

insurance,

This really should have been made mandatory years ago.

mobile phone use,

No reason why this should not apply to cyclists,

driving test, written exam, eyesight test,

These should have been made mandatory years ago. If riding a moped
requires a knowledge of the highway code so it should be for riding a
bike. Similarly a test of practical competence before riding on roads
should occur.

so you've got a lot to
wade through before you get to alcohol limits and parity with drivers.
For a start, you'd have to have a cycling licence which could be
withdrawn for being over the limit,

Not necessarily - all you need to do is as now happens with cars with
failure to demonstrate insurance, If a known disqualified rider is
seen on a bike seize the bike and dispose of it in a crusher, impose a
large fine or a period of imprisonment. Police patrols have a list
(now) of addresses of disqualified drivers and regularly pass them in
the hope of spotting someone driving - the same could be done for
disqualified cyclists.

I can see no logical reason why people should expect to be allowed to
use a vehicle on a public road while impaired by drink or drugs. A
cyclist can be as dangerous as any other impaired driver if they
swerve into the path of a larger vehicle or disobey road rules.

Cyclist appear to want to be treated the same as cars (the central
tenet of the "vehicular cycling" cult) when it suits them but not when
it doesn't. This isn't rational.

On Aug 24, 11:48*am, Peter Parry wrote:


I can see no logical reason why people should expect to be allowed to
use a vehicle on a public road while impaired by drink or drugs. *A
cyclist can be as dangerous as any other impaired driver if they
swerve into the path of a larger vehicle or disobey road rules. *


That is entirely correct and there are already penalties for being
drunk in charge of a bicycle commensurate with what penalty society
believes the problem warrants.

Cyclist appear to want to be treated the same as cars (the central
tenet of the "vehicular cycling" cult) when it suits them but not when
it doesn't. *This isn't rational.

They can't be treated the same as cars, as they are different forms of
vehicular transport. They share some common qualities such as obeying
red lights, not using the pavements and having certain mechanical
checks applicable such as brakes.

However, emissions, fog lights, number plate fonts, tyre tread depth,
brake lights, windscreen clarity, washer liquid, speed limits,
suspension parts, horns and so on have nothing to do with bicycles.

--
Simon Mason

On Aug 24, 11:48 am, Peter Parry wrote:

Speeding,

No reason why this should not apply to cyclists, especially in urban
areas. Cyclists have poor manoeuvrability and poor brakes so are
badly placed to avoid accidents caused by children coming out from
between cars for example.

So you would advocate having mandatory speedometers for all bicycles?


bald tyres,

No reason why this should not apply to cyclists. Cycle stability is
poor at best - compromising it with faulty tyres makes it worse.


So you would ban tyres such as these?

http://s.wiggle.co.uk/images/conti-podium-tt-med.jpg

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Aug 24, 2:02*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:
And the most important of all - why should a moped rider be subject to
VED, when the driver of a Band A car pays nothing whatsoever?
That is totally unfair.

But not unsafe, everything I was mentioning impact upon the safety of
road users in general or in the case of insurance from the
consequences of a road users actions, why should cyclist want to be
exempt from them?

It is up to the law makers to decide what laws should apply to
cyclists and for the cyclist to adhere to them.
As the Govt wants to encourage more cycle usage to reduce pollution,
obesity and congestion, amongst other benefits, then they feel that
any laws which may put people off cycling, such as registration,
licencing and helmet laws are counter productive.

Indeed, just taking VED as an example, it would cost millions to issue
tax discs to bicycles, which, as they are zero carbon emitters, would
be subject to a fee of zero quid. Licencing schemes have been mooted
and shelved worldwide as unworkable. "Speed limit" enforcement is not
even taken seriously - lots of times I've ridden through a police
speed trap and shared a joke with the cops about trying to set it off.
As with the case yesterday, a kindly cop took home a sozzled cyclist
for his own safety and pavement cycling gets the odd purge now and
again.

All of this hints that despite the foaming at the mouth brigade, then
the minor problems caused by a few cyclists is not really seen as a
matter worth tackling by the powers that be. There are far more
pressing issues at large which need addressing than picking on a group
of people that by and large are doing little or no harm and indeed are
benefitting themselves and society and the environment at large in all
sorts of positive ways.

--
Simon Mason

Simon Mason wrote:

On Aug 24, 10:28*am, Scion wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
A "don't you know who I am" councillor cycles home after a few drinks
and gets home safely. He then makes a grave error of judgement and
gets his car out as he is hungry.

It shows that he can ride home three times over the limit, but driving
a car is a different matter.

Eh? It shows that just as he can ride a bike while three times over the
drink-drive limit, he can drive a car while three times over the drink-
drive limit.



Apparently not as he caught the attention of Plod.


It does not follow that, just because he did not get stopped on his bike,
he was cycling competently.