3 ms·
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
by 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 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.