4 ms·
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
by 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 agoLots 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 agoThat 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 agoA 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.