When I was in high school I used to ride my bike home when I was drunk all the time. Never even considered that it might be illegal. Just thought people would be glad I wasn't driving a car.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
A buddy of mine was a bike courier that used to get bombed at the Castle and bike home. Many a time I saw him, unable to stand or walk, jump on a bike and HAUL ASS home.
It was funny until he went through the back window of an SUV and spent 2 days in hospital on a spine board. Had to get surgery to pull the glass out of his forehead.
Illegal? Maybe not. Stupid? Absolutely.
Operating anything that moves you faster than you can run when drunk is a bad idea in my books.
Riding a bike while intoxicated is not illegal. You only get a DUI in Calgary operating a motor vehicle. It is or it can be illegal in other cities though.
Just like walking home though you can be cited with a drunk in public ticket.
After a few, I think it's just fine and perhaps better than driving. I was pulled over on my bike one night by CPS after 3-4 pints and after a few questions to make sure I wasn't gooned they wished me a safe ride home.
After a few too many, it's a bad idea. Just as in a car, it's way too easy to lose judgment and over-estimate your abilities. In my mis-spent youth I rode into the back of parked car at about 35 km/h. Long night in the emergency room.
One night during welcome week in University I decided to ride my bike home from the bar. I went to jump my bike up onto a curb at a pretty good pace and I didn't jump it high enough. My bike came to an abrupt stop, but I did not as I went right over the handlebars and scraped myself up a bit. Fortunately I don't recall it hurting too bad due to my inebriated state.
I haven't done it since I was a cheap student and even then it was only 2 or 3 times. I suppose it sort of relates to something like motorcyclists wearing helmets in that, why should something be illegal if it only hurts yourself (besides maybe the fact that everyone's tax dollars contribute to health care).
I think a compelling argument can be made that the possibility exists to harm someone else, not physically but psychologically. Let's say a drunk on a bike darts into traffic and gets killed by a motorist. I would imagine that even though it was not their fault, the motorist would be pretty traumatised by the incident.
Obviously drinking and driving a vehicle like a car, motorbike, etc. is a horrible idea, but IMO there are other vehicles where it's a little more of a gray area (morally; not necessarily legally).
Just wondering what CP's thoughts are on a couple of hypothetical scenarios. I was debating this with a couple of friends the other day, and they took the stance that someone engaging in the below activity should be charged in the same way a drunk driver in a jacked up F-150 should be charged, while I took more of an "oh, be fun" approach.
Now, there are clearly multiple stages of being drunk. For these scenarios, let's say you had exactly one beer over what you would have legally been allowed to drink to drive a car.
So without further ado, I present the scenarios in question:
1. Riding a bike home from the pub.
2. Riding a mobility scooter home from the pub (maximum speed is the pace of a light jog; has a headlight and tail light).
Any thoughts?
Are they both defined as "vehicles" under the Traffic Saftey Act?
If so, I would suspect that a ticket could be issued.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
A mobility aid is exempted from being defined as a vehicle in the TSA.
Special laws: A mobility aid user is by definition considered a pedestrian. All
rules that apply to pedestrians also apply to individuals operating a mobility
aid.
(Traffic Safety Act, Section 1, definition of “pedestrian”)
The Following User Says Thank You to Misterpants For This Useful Post:
A mobility aid is exempted from being defined as a vehicle in the TSA.
Special laws: A mobility aid user is by definition considered a pedestrian. All
rules that apply to pedestrians also apply to individuals operating a mobility
aid.
(Traffic Safety Act, Section 1, definition of “pedestrian”)
What if you dont actually need said mobility aid?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Hmm, well don't think there are any regs saying who can and can't use a mobility aid. Could just be a fat dude, could be a guy with a sore foot, could be the motivationally impaired.
The Following User Says Thank You to Misterpants For This Useful Post:
A mobility aid is exempted from being defined as a vehicle in the TSA.
Special laws: A mobility aid user is by definition considered a pedestrian. All
rules that apply to pedestrians also apply to individuals operating a mobility
aid.
(Traffic Safety Act, Section 1, definition of “pedestrian”)
You rule dude. Imma print that off, get it laminated, and keep it in the pocket of my scooter. Case closed!!
I think a compelling argument can be made that the possibility exists to harm someone else, not physically but psychologically. Let's say a drunk on a bike darts into traffic and gets killed by a motorist. I would imagine that even though it was not their fault, the motorist would be pretty traumatised by the incident.
I thought about that when writing the post but a drunk running down the street could make the same decision. Granted, you have more control on your feet than on your bike.
That is the in the definition of what a mobility scooter IS and not in any mention of who can ride them.
1(v): “Mobility aid” means a device used to facilitate the transport, in a normal seated
orientation, of a person with a physical disability.
1(gg): “pedestrian” means
i) a person on foot, or
ii) a person in or on a mobility aid
13
1(ww): “vehicle”, other than in Part 6, means a device in, on or by which a person or thing
may be transported or drawn on a highway and includes a combination of vehicles but does
not include a mobility aid.
I don't know that you can argue that a mobility scooter ceases to become a mobility scooter if the rider does not have a physical disability. I don't think physical disability is defined in the Act so it could be any ailment couldn't it?
I don't know that you can argue that a mobility scooter ceases to become a mobility scooter if the rider does not have a physical disability. I don't think physical disability is defined in the Act so it could be any ailment couldn't it?
I'll use the 'giant balls' defense if I need to. Not afraid to whip 'em out, either.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
. 
