The same thing can - and has - happened in England.
Authorities deemed that the offenders were “likely to pose a significant danger when driving a car”.
That’s quite a leap of reasoning.
Alcohol has long been seen as a social lubricant for thousands of years in Japan, where business deals and difficult issues are discussed over bottles of beer and sake.
It is believed that drinking alcohol creates a more relaxed environment for such discussions.
This is such an odd bit of “cultural context” to include in the article. Alcohol is a social lubricant in basically every culture that doesn’t outright forbid it.
ChatGPT just kinda felt like that would be useful context today.
I think it’s to a whole different degree in Japan though, at least from what I’ve heard. Forced drinking parties at work, for example.
It’s always funny to watch drunk men in suit trying to stumble to the train station on a Friday night in Japan.
That was largely true. Now much less, but it depends on the industry and company.
So the more comfortable way to lose a license is to drive a car instead?
If you punish everything you’ll just get people who stop caring.
Or people will stop driving because they have no license… Who cares if they care, then?
I just drive without one.
Not really, same in Germany if you are generally drunk in traffic (except by foot or public transport, i.e. an active participant) the same sober laws apply. So the incentive is not to do that when drunk. Also believe me when you lose your driving license completely you will care if you need it, and even if you don’t, fines hurt, too.
Japan is even harsher as you can go to prison directly, and if you are in their court system once (that is after only a fine or simple suspension) due to customs and cultural norms you will be found guilty with a chance of about 99 % (the Japanese court system is notoriously bad).
Alternatives to escalating by using a car can bet walking or taking the metro, the latter is easily possible in Japan, for instance. When the trains don’t run there are plenty cheap manga cafes or capsule hotels.
Ah, if Germans do it too it must be the right then. Never met a German who didn’t know the absolute best way of doing everything.
Not really, same in Germany if you are generally drunk in traffic (except by foot or public transport, i.e. an active participant)
An active participant in operating a vehicle, I’m sure. I would disagree with the implicit characterization of walking on foot as being a non-active participant in traffic.
Alternatives to escalating by using a car can bet walking or taking the metro, the latter is easily possible in Japan, for instance. When the trains don’t run there are plenty cheap manga cafes or capsule hotels.
If you’re in Tokyo, maybe. I imagine this might be a bigger problem in rural areas, where the distances are greater and public transportation less available.
Drink cycling is fun, red wine and white wine is a good cycle option, stay away from gin and vodka though. Ohh not that drink cycling…
M friend got super fucked up falling off her bike doing this. She was in clip in pedals tho.
It is hella fun though! Just know your limit.
Chipped a permanent front tooth quite badly drunk cycling. I’d fallen off and when I picked the bike up by its handlebars I threw them into my face trying to lift the bike. Was so lucky to only fracture a tooth instead of 7 of them lol.
Drunk cyclist: oh no! what will I do for transportation now?
DC: wait
This is Japan. There are other ways to get around than cars. Surprisingly, perhaps, if you’re American. Although it depends where you live.
(the joke here is getting fined for driving a car and yet the cyclist is, in fact, not in a car)
This is something that happens in beach cities in CA. People get drunk at the beach bars and then take the beach bike path home. However, those paths are used by pedestrians and other cyclists going at high speeds.
…going at high speeds.
Well, there’s a double entendre for you.
*Drunk cycling
You can edit titles OP.
Drunk driving (or drink-driving in British English)
Yours is an incorrect correction.
This is dumb. Write a drunk in public, sure, but a drunk cyclist isn’t a danger to anyone but themselves.
Depends on the path, traffic and speed. They’re still a danger to pedestrians, other cyclists, and cars (not directly dangerous but can cause an accident).
I get where you’re going with this but it’s not that dumb IMO, the maximum penalty absolutely is dumb.
If a person can barely cycle and obviously is drunk on a bike I think it’s fair to assume that they’re a danger to others so it should be illegal but the police shouldn’t be breathalysing everyone.
With tweaks to the law I think it’s fine:
-
Allow 0.3 instead of 0.15 so you can have two drinks and ride a bike. Bikes go a lot slower so the reaction time requirement is not the same.
-
Removing driving license for a non-traffic violation doesn’t make sense, it disproportionately affects those that have licenses.
-
The fine and jailtime is ludicrous. Add in recklessly riding a bike for those such as riding too fast past pedestrians and jailtime for seriously injuring someone like breaking their leg or something.
Generally you want people to ride a bike instead of driving a car when drinking, it’s a lot safer for everyone but still discourage it enough so people consider taking public transportation. If people walk their bike through crowds and then ride along empty streets just let them.
Bottom line, it’s a good idea, but horrible execution.
-
Only thing i agree with you is that this is dumb.
Getting fine from public intoxication is just so weird concept for me. Especially when thinking some assbackwards places where its legal to carry a gun in public, but carrying open beer bottle is punishable.
Also drunk cyclist can be dangerous. If they collide with pedestarian or another cyclist there is good change for a hospital trip, or in extreme cases morgue. Especially now when e-bikes are more common.
Few years back some drunkard who was biking at the side of large road suddenly and without any signal crossed the road and allmost got hit by my car. I needed to pull over after that and wait for some time to get my hands stop shaking. If i would had bad brakes he would be dead and i would be traumatised, or if there would have been another car following me there would have been a crash.
Reason why i think its dumb is that if the punishment for driving a car and driving a bike is more or less the same, more people are going to choose the car.
See, the larger vehicle is responsible for accidents over here, almost all of the time. So if cyclists get drunk and a car hits them, the car driver could get a lot of flack, legally and in insurance costs. Which is kinda fucked up, but that’s the system.
So we expect cyclists to be sober. So they don’t create those situations.
Could hurt other cyclists and pedestrians, especially other cyclists of going fast
Consequences are far smaller than that of a car though. I’d prefer drunks going on bicycles then cars.
I’d rather they walk or take public transit, taxi etc.
Article compares cycling and driving, so we should stock to that. Opening it up invites all manner of options like designated driver, and a all others.
It would be silly to leave out the option of walking because the article didn’t mention it lol
The article discusses forfeiture of driving license as a consequence of cycling whilst drunk. My stand is that this is unreasonable, as the damage that a drunk cyclist can inflict on others or themselves is magnitudes lower than that of driving drunk.
We can discuss walking if walking whilst drunk also can lead to a forfeiture of a driving license. Because hey, a drunk person could walk into traffic just as much as a drunk cyclist could.
We are talking about walking right now though since that’s the preferable alternative to both
What even is the point in this comment? Why is it suddenly an either-or choice?
Because we’re comparing legal consequences of dui and (the new consequences of) cycling-ui.
But you’re saying you’d rather have cycling-UI over DUI as if punishing the former would increase the latter.
Given the same “price”, the ‘rational consumer’ (of illegal activities) would choose the (seemingly) more valuable purchase (crime) - value here being time saved and convenience.
Time saved and convenience? Doing what?
What? If some drunken fuck rams into me on a bike, then I’ll l get injured.
It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.
Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).
Cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks do.
Yeah and donkeys kill more people per year than sharks and more people die at their home every year than at volcano eruptions and earthquakes put together.
If you want to quantify danger of something you need to account the number of encounters.
And you did not answer the question.
Thanks for confirming my assumptions above. I don’t agree.
How can you disagree with a recorded fact? 🙄
Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:
It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it’s impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.
Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won’t be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).
Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?
No, I’m saying cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks do, which is what your disagreeing comment appeared to be replying to. It’s a recorded fact that cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks. For my country, that’s in the Recorded Road Casualties of Great Britain dataset.
I replied about your assumptions in another comment.
Not impossible, but very very rare in practice.
And whether the driver is liable varies around the world. Most countries require drivers not to hit dumb animals, including drunk humans.
If its like Australia, then its probably because the way the legislation is worded.
If the DUI legislation has demerit point accumulation for DUI, and it covers all vehicles, not just motor vehicles, then drunk cycling or horse riding could also result in a loss of licence.
It is a single point system. One DUI and your license is gone. For cars and bicycles.
Cyclists here in Japan flaunt all the rules and ride like maniacs (illegally in most cases) on the sidewalks (and also illegally with earphones and staring at their phones). Pedestrians have absolute right-of-way and the cyclist is at fault for hitting them. Add to this generally high density and bad spacial awareness and it’s bad without drunks. Absolutely keep people from drinking off the cycles.
I dunno about what part of Japan you’re in but what grinds my gears in Okinawa is how they NEVER use their damn bells to let me know they’re approaching me from behind.
