3 ms·
one major difference is that someone who is incredibly drunk can still drive a car at 100kmph, but they can't balance well enough to ride their bike.
by adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
one major difference is that someone who is incredibly drunk can still drive a car at 100kmph, but they can't balance well enough to ride their bike.
- patcon 4y agoNot sure if this is an example of anti-fragility, but it made me think of that. there's def something diff about bikes for this. Get too drunk as a cyclist and you remove yourself from the situation in relatively safe way, just by not being able to stay in control :)
- Mashimo 4y agoYou have to be really plastered to not ride a bike any more. Like a lot, a lot.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoThat's true, but most fatal car crashes happen for people who are very drunk https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813120 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... reports that in the US, of the 2019 crashes of drivers who had a BAC above .01, 68% had BACs of .15 or higher (and about half were .20 or higher). That's a group that would have a pretty hard time riding a bike at high enough speed to do much damage. None of this is to say that biking while drunk is a good idea. It probably at least triples your likelyhood of being hit and killed by a car. Defensive riding is one of the things I would expect to be significantly impaired by relatively little alcohol, and it's probably dark out which makes everything riskier.