4 ms·

Why do Cyclists get to be special? Where I live, the same rules apply for cyclists as for drivers up to loosing your drivers license for biking drunk (including

by zaarn 8y ago

Why do Cyclists get to be special? Where I live, the same rules apply for cyclists as for drivers up to loosing your drivers license for biking drunk (including biking ban). A bike can do a lot of damage and harm once it goes beyond walking speed and even at walking speed it can be quite dangerous. I get that not every cyclists runs the red lights but those that do are a clear danger to traffic safety.

7952 8y ago
You could also have a rule that bans drunk pedestrians. Because they could cause an accident by making a car swerve. They are also more dangerous in terms of committing other crimes. The difference is that pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh several tonnes and are able to move at very high speeds. I am not suggesting that bad behaviour should be legal. Merely that it is not morally comparable to dangerous driving.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Lots of places do have laws that ban people from being intoxicated in public. They often aren't severe, more so police are able to remove extremely intoxicated people from a public location.
- zaarn 8y ago
  That is also somewhat the case. If someone is sufficiently drunk walking about instead of getting a safer ride home, they may receive a temporary driving ban (I haven't heard of anything longer than a week in that case) and if you endanger traffic then you can loose your drivers license. The difference is that pedestrian and cyclists don't weigh tons but can still severely endanger others and themselves.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > If someone is sufficiently drunk walking about instead of getting a safer ride home, they may receive a temporary driving ban (I haven't heard of anything longer than a week in that case) Why a driving ban rather than a walking ban? Doesn't the same logic suggest giving cyclists a driving ban rather than a cycling ban?
    - zaarn 8y ago
      A driving ban because if you endanger traffic while drunk then how can we trust you not to endanger traffic while drunk when you're allowed to drive a car? You don't get a cyclist ban, to my knowledge, since it isn't licensed. This is mostly about deriving how responsible you are with a car from how responsible you behave in traffic when you're not a car.
RandomInteger4 8y ago
A car is not a bike. Whatever happened to the concept of context?
- zaarn 8y ago
  If you flatten a pedestrian I doubt they care whether it was with a car or a bike. And the court won't care much if you were drunk. The road is supposed to be used responsibly, driving or cycling drunk shows you don't care about that. Everyone here uses Taxi, public transport or friends for transport if drunk.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > If you flatten a pedestrian I doubt they care whether it was with a car or a bike. The pedestrian absolutely notices whether they were hit by a tonne of metal going 40mph or 20kg going at 20mph. Regulation should be proportionate to how much risk you impose on others. Given how many more people get killed by car drivers than by cyclists, we should be looking to make driving tests much stricter before we even begin to worry about regulating cycling.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Of course the risk is taken into account but in the end, if you hurt someone while driving or cycling drunk, you have thoroughly demonstrated your lack of understanding of traffic rules and shouldn't handle a car.

by zaarn 8y ago

7952 8y ago

You could also have a rule that bans drunk pedestrians. Because they could cause an accident by making a car swerve. They are also more dangerous in terms of committing other crimes. The difference is that pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh several tonnes and are able to move at very high speeds. I am not suggesting that bad behaviour should be legal. Merely that it is not morally comparable to dangerous driving.

maxerickson 8y ago
Lots of places do have laws that ban people from being intoxicated in public. They often aren't severe, more so police are able to remove extremely intoxicated people from a public location.
zaarn 8y ago
That is also somewhat the case. If someone is sufficiently drunk walking about instead of getting a safer ride home, they may receive a temporary driving ban (I haven't heard of anything longer than a week in that case) and if you endanger traffic then you can loose your drivers license. The difference is that pedestrian and cyclists don't weigh tons but can still severely endanger others and themselves.
- lmm 8y ago
  > If someone is sufficiently drunk walking about instead of getting a safer ride home, they may receive a temporary driving ban (I haven't heard of anything longer than a week in that case) Why a driving ban rather than a walking ban? Doesn't the same logic suggest giving cyclists a driving ban rather than a cycling ban?
  - zaarn 8y ago
    A driving ban because if you endanger traffic while drunk then how can we trust you not to endanger traffic while drunk when you're allowed to drive a car? You don't get a cyclist ban, to my knowledge, since it isn't licensed. This is mostly about deriving how responsible you are with a car from how responsible you behave in traffic when you're not a car.

RandomInteger4 8y ago

A car is not a bike. Whatever happened to the concept of context?

zaarn 8y ago
If you flatten a pedestrian I doubt they care whether it was with a car or a bike. And the court won't care much if you were drunk. The road is supposed to be used responsibly, driving or cycling drunk shows you don't care about that. Everyone here uses Taxi, public transport or friends for transport if drunk.
- lmm 8y ago
  > If you flatten a pedestrian I doubt they care whether it was with a car or a bike. The pedestrian absolutely notices whether they were hit by a tonne of metal going 40mph or 20kg going at 20mph. Regulation should be proportionate to how much risk you impose on others. Given how many more people get killed by car drivers than by cyclists, we should be looking to make driving tests much stricter before we even begin to worry about regulating cycling.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Of course the risk is taken into account but in the end, if you hurt someone while driving or cycling drunk, you have thoroughly demonstrated your lack of understanding of traffic rules and shouldn't handle a car.