Cycling and Drinking (Chicago: health insurance, law, dangerous)

[JustinHaugens]

Spokesnyc on twitter posted a link to this a few days ago and it caught my attention.

Curious of what thoughts come to mind from this...

Cyclist was riding while intoxicated and officers told him not to ride, he proceeded to and they stopped him again to arrest him for DUI.

Post Now - Biking and drinking? Not in D.C.

What I said when I posted the link to Facebook...
The time has come and this will set a precedence. Cyclists demand rights on the road and with that comes the responsibility to follow the rules associated. Do I ever ride my bike intoxicated? Rarely, but I have done it. In the event of an accident, would the incident be as great as if an automobile was involved? No... When a person demands the same rights as an automobile on the road it's reasonable to feel the rules associated with an automobile come with those rights.

With that in mind, this could be viewed as win by drivers, catch 22 is that it only strengthens the cycling communities foundation of "we are vehicles too".

[Drover]

Not sure what this has to do with Chicago, but here goes anyway...

By failing to specify that the law applies to motorized vehicles, it sounds like the law was broad enough to snare this guy on a technical violation. Riding a bike while zonkered is a bad idea and should be illegal in a crowded city anyway, but to impose the same penalties as driving drunk when the danger it poses to others is orders of magnitude smaller is manifestly unjust. Unfortunately for this guy, it's not the court's job to rewrite the law on an ad hoc basis in order to prevent outcomes that appear unjust on their face. It's up to the legislative bodies to draft laws that aren't stupid or ambiguous.

[JustinHaugens]

It has everything to do with Chicago as there are plenty of residents using bicycles as their form of transportation. Some people don't care about cyclists, some people are enraged over them. In due time this could be an issue in the cross hares of Chicago.

Very similar issue regarding law and cyclists is NYPDs action to clip locks of quite a few bikes along Houston due to "security risk" when Obama came to town. Was it a security risk or a stab at the cycling community?

[Drover]

Eh, an event that took place in DC based on DC law has nothing to do with Chicago. But whatever.

[Feeling Brackish]

I'm not sure if the penalty should be as harsh, but bicyclists who ride drunk should face severe penalties. In an area with lots of pedestrians, they could in fact hurt someone very badly. People wind up int he hospital all the time in Chicago after bicycle accidents.

[Chi-town Native]

it is definitely relevant, as many in the bike community here actively promote biking to bars as a safer alternative to driving. which is true, sorta. I know plenty of people who have hurt themselves badly biking while drunk, the upshot is you generally only hurt yourself - the downshot is some of these folks bike not so much due to fear of a DUI but rather as they are un or under-employed and don't have a car, health insurance, etc.

[JustinHaugens]

It's only a matter of time that cyclists gain more ground as "vehicle". Once there are accepted rules that allow for fines and fees the government will most likely hop aboard to increase revenue. Upside to that, greater accountability for cyclists, downside might be a backlash where one may decide to start cycling then realize the rules and stick with their car. Even in cities like Chicago, it's still a growing trend that you don't want to halt or even slow. At the same time, abiding stop lights and following rules of the road will be expected and should be followed.

People talk about cyclists blowing red lights and not following the rules, some do it because they can, others do it because they feel there is a need to take control of their surroundings rather than allow the vehicles to dictate how the cyclist rides. I've become more aware of following the rules because it's the right thing to do, plus it should prove that not all cyclists are alike, just like not all drivers are either.

[Chi-town Native]

I've been biking in Chicago streets since I was 10, and my worst enemy is the loose coalition of knucklehead bikers who think that by obeying NO traffic rules they are somehow advancing the "cause" by making motorists pay more attention to them.

It's one thing to insist on your right-of-way, I am 100% for that, and being aggressive in terms of defending it and not allowing myself to be pushed around. But these days I often have more near-misses with the cyclist who completely blows a red light than cars. or ignores stop signs, etc.

[lucki13]

I think strict DUI rules for cyclists is fine. The argument that they don't hurt people doesn't fly, especially with how some cyclists in this city act like rules don't apply to them. One of these who thinks stop lights/signs don't apply to them gets drunk and misjudges a car coming can be just as dangerous as if the driver of the car were intoxicated.

And if you're crossing the street and get hit by a bike, you're not going to think, "well, at least it wasn't a car!"

[Drover]

^^ I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get hit by a bike than a car. And no, drunk biking does not pose the same scope of danger as drunk driving, as a simple matter of basic physics.