Banned for drink-driving

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I suppose it's similar to getting points on your license when you haven't even got one yet.

Or getting a driving ban after you were caught driving whilst banned.

[Tigger]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?

Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.

[mozg]

What the hell is drink-driving?

[FBM]

What the hell is drink-driving?

That's what them Brits call 'drunk driving'. I just pretend that it's normal and let them carry on.

[Feck]

What the hell is drink-driving?

That's what them Brits call 'drunk driving'. I just pretend that it's normal and let them carry on.

Not the same we are not allowed to drive after A drink (ie 1 pint of ale)... you in the US are not allowed to drive if totally shit-faced (that's 3 Miller Lite for most of you )

[FBM]

Oh, sorry to hear that, Feck.

I suppose the expression "not drunk enough to drive" isn't common over there, then?

Here in Korea, they have alcohol checkpoints and you're busted if you're over 0.06, IIRC. On the other hand, if you're
involved in an accident of any sort and have any BAC whatsoever, you'll be prosecuted whether you're the cause of the accident or not and whether or not alcohol played a role.

[Feck]

Oh, sorry to hear that, Feck.

I suppose the expression "not drunk enough to drive" isn't common over there, then?

Here in Korea, they have alcohol checkpoints and you're busted if you're over 0.06, IIRC. On the other hand, if you're
involved in an accident of any sort and have any BAC whatsoever, you'll be prosecuted whether you're the cause of the accident or not and whether or not alcohol played a role.

Same here you can have a glass of wine or 35ml of vodka that's the legal limit and they can and do check whenever they want ..

In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me )

[charlou]

The limit is 0.05 g/100ml here.

[FBM]

...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me )

Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck.

[Feck]

...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me )

Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck.

things to do tomorrow ... blow up vacuum cleaner ...teach dog to drive ...

[Meekychuppet]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?

Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.

You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.

[FBM]

...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me )

Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck.

things to do tomorrow ... blow up vacuum cleaner ...teach dog to drive ...

Unremarkable behavior for Ratzians, methinks. What're ya gonna do in the afternoon, then?

[Tigger]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?

Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.

You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.

I certainly agree with you on that one.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?

Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.

You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.

I certainly agree with you on that one.

I wish I could find the photo of my face after a cyclist knocked me flying on a footpath. He was sober - but he was racing along an unlit footpath with neither lights nor consideration.

I was so badly concussed, I couldn't remember my address or the phone number of anyone that I knew! Two weeks off work recovering from that 'total non-issue'!

Cunts that do not consider other road/path users can and do cause damage whatever they are driving/riding. Pissed-up cyclists should be fined every bit as severely as motorists.

[Tigger]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?

Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.

You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.

I certainly agree with you on that one.

I wish I could find the photo of my face after a cyclist knocked me flying on a footpath. He was sober - but he was racing along an unlit footpath with neither lights nor consideration.

I was so badly concussed, I couldn't remember my address or the phone number of anyone that I knew! Two weeks off work recovering from that 'total non-issue'!

Cunts that do not consider other road/path users can and do cause damage whatever they are driving/riding. Pissed-up cyclists should be fined every bit as severely as motorists.

But do you think it's fair that a motorist committing an effectively "non-motoring" offence - in that he doesn't need a driving licence to ride a bike even though he's on the road - should have his car licence impacted upon? On the grounds that there are highway code rules for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists in the Highway Code, then should not a pedestrian be liable to the same punishments as the cyclist and motorist? Get pissed, walk up a motorway, get banned from driving.