rajman

If I was not confident in my ability to control the vehicle, and be aware of other traffic, I would avoid highway interchanges - if I had to go through one I would walk it (it's much easier to jump backwards while walking than cycling).

Quiet residential streets would be vehicular for me, but I would take care not to blow stop signs or red lights, and finally I would avoid busy suburban arterials.

If I was really impaired, I would likely just fall off the bike before getting anywhere (those crazy teenage years )

Bekologist

let me tell you guys this true story....

one night in the 80's I awoke, floating in the shallows of Lake Superior, bike helmet strapped to my head, my bike nowhere to be found! I got up, floundered around looking for the bike- no luck! I walked home, soaking wet and confounded by my predicament.

I found my bike a week later, recovered at a friends house, but it remained a mystery how I came to be in the lake.

I guess, kids, my message is : don't ride TOO drunk!

dougmc

Right, I know that, though I think it's more than a few. (But far less than `most' or even `a majority'.) I saw a chart somewhere that gave a number of states that prohibited it at the state level -- but I can't find it now. Either way, the number of states that prohibit it at the state level is small, and does not include Texas.

In any event, I was responding to powers2b's claim that `Vehicle laws are statewide NOT city specific' -- which is not really true. In most cases, most laws regarding vehicles are set statewide by the state, but cities and counties and such can add their own laws to that, and the `no riding on certain sidewalks' prohibition in Austin is such a case.

maddyfish

ok that is easy. I wondered what your real question was. It would be safer riding drunk on the road, then on the sidewalk.

But I would not ride drunk, on either.

noisebeam

I'd do what I normally do.

genec

ah but then you failed the test... as given only two choices, you made up a third...

JRA

I failed to mention that, in VC jargon, there is a common synonym for 'rolling ped' which more clearly expresses the negative connotations: POW, which stands for "Pedestrian On Wheels."

VC jargon is, of course, loaded with derogatory terms for anyone with the timerity to ride a bicycle in any way not in keeping with VC Dogma-- (snarky comment deleted-- LOL).

---

True confessions(true but not necessarily complete): I am not proud of it but, in my mispent younger days, I left the pavement a couple of times because I had had a little too much to drink. One time I took what must have been a rather spectacular head over heels tumble (on grass, thankfully). Much to my amazement, I was pretty much unhurt and my bicycle was undamaged. The following day, I noticed that one of my water bottles was missing. Where could it be? I went back to the site of my wipeout and, sure enough, there it was. So I guess it wasn't a dream.

I won't bore you with stories of running drunk or running half asleep (I think I kind of dozed off a couple of times-- LOL).

---

If you ride and, especially, if you drive drunk, I sincerely hope that you kill or injure yourself and not someone else. I have no sympathy for anyone who drives drunk. U.S. laws on drunk driving are way too lax. [end of rant]

I-Like-To-Bike

"Incompetent" is one of their favorite terms.

JRA

Indeed. VC-ists apply that term to pretty much anyone who doesn't have his nose up John Forester's rear end (OK, the comment I deleted from a previous post is pretty much restored).

Another true story from decades ago:

A group of students walk out of a tavern in a small college town somewhere in the Midwest. A policeman asks, "Will you be driving home?" When the reply is, "yes," the policeman says, "that's good, because you're in no condition to walk."

maddyfish

Originally Posted by genec The real question is which is safer... being drunk on a bike in traffic on the road in the traveled way... or being drunk on the sidewalk.


you asked which is safer--

I answered riding on the road.

genec

ok.

gcottay

After a "few" my judgment would be impaired enough I would jump on the bike and head home. That's why I would not ride (or drive) to the bar in the first place.

alicestrong

It's all just kind of a cultural mind game, isn't it? Sort of like the line women are fed. Look sexy, but don't actually DO anything (except under the "just right" circumstances)...

Drink, but don't feel the effects.

Most people don't want to sit home alone and drink. Sure, you can host a drinking party, but then you are stuck with the worry about how all your friends get home.

Car drivers can have designated drivers. Bike riders? Once again, should cabs have bike racks?

Also, in Los Angeles taking a cab can be very costly, not like New York.

sggoodri

When I was introduced to the term "pedestrian on wheels," it was not meant or used as a derogatory term, but to convey the paradigm or mindset of the operator. A "pedestrian on wheels" was defined to me as one who attempts to exercise the legal rights and fulfill the legal responsibilities of a pedestrian while operating a bicycle (or perhaps skating or scootering).

By contrast, a "vehicular cyclist" or "bicycle driver" was defined as one who attempts to exercise the rights of a vehicle driver and follow the rules for drivers of vehicles.

I found these terms to be an excellent way to understand the two dominant paradigms under which people operated bikes. I recognized that I myself had often operated as a "pedestrian on wheels" when I was in grad school, encouraged to do so in part by bicycle facilities that directed cyclists onto sidewalks, and by a local culture that discouraged roadway cycling. It was always my assumption that when riding on sidewalks I would be expected to obey the laws for pedestrians, but this was sometimes awkward or inconvenient given the maneuverability contstraints and speed potential of a bicycle. Much worse, however, would be attempting to exercise the rights of a driver while operating on the sidewalk, since intersection traffic does not yield as reliably to sidewalk traffic moving at attainable bicycle speeds as it does to roadway traffic at the same or greater speeds. So, if I wanted to ride on the sidewalk, I had to do my best, however frustrating, to act like a pedestrian when it came to not entering junctions under conditions where turining or crossing drivers were too close to stop, and I had to turn at right angles and cross at crosswalks. Some localities have even codified the legal requirements of sidewalk cyclists to obey pedestrian laws and police often enforce the pedestrian laws on sidewalk cyclists in this way without legal clarification.

Adopting the vehicular cycling paradigm required following all the vehicular rules but enjoying the rights and safety benefits as well. Contrary to what many VC-skeptics say, I've never thought vehicular cycling meant always taking the lane mid-block even if the lane is narrow. Since vehicular traffic law doesn't require staying in the center of the lane, I see no reason to discount mid-block curb huggers as being non-vehicular. However, one of the implications of the vehicular paradigm is that the cyclist has the right to use the center of the lane, and if he or she wants to use it for any reason, such as to discourage close passing, they should feel entitled to do so.

So in this thread we have the question of whether a cyclist operating on the sidewalk is immune to the legal sobriety requirements applicable to drivers of bicycles. I say no, because no matter what the paradigm of the cyclist, the sobriety law applies to the type of equipment being operated and not where or how it is being operated.

mprvise

Just ride it home! And do it the way you normally would (on the road or sidewalk as you think appropriate).

This time of year I do my daily ride at night - sometimes very late, and after a hard night of playing guitar in a bar or watching friends do same. I typically shorten my route after several beers and take the mountain bike, but some of the drunk rides are just as satisfying (and sometimes more fun) as the completly sober longer rides during the week on the cyclocross bike.

Getting ready to go out on the mountain bike very soon. You guys have fun smileys here.

JRA

Emphasis mine.


"A 'pedestrian on wheels' was defined to me as one who attempts to exercise the legal rights and fulfill the legal responsibilities of a pedestrian...

By contrast, a 'vehicular cyclist' or "bicycle driver" was defined as one who attempts to exercise the rights of a vehicle driver...

I found these terms to be an excellent way to understand the two dominant paradigms under which people operated bikes..."

-

The contrast is a false dichotomy, otherwise known as "The Fallacy of Either/Or," "Birfurcation" or "The Black and White Fallacy."

In VC theory the either/or fallacy is expressed in various ways: sometimes as a choice between vehicular cycling and incompetent cycling, sometimes as a choice between riding in the road and riding on the sidewalk, sometimes as a choice between being a man or an adult and being a sissy or a child; and so on-- including, of course, the choice between vehicular cycling and being a POW.

In every case, the first choice is vehicular cycling and the second choice is a bad choice according to VC dogma.

All these choices are pretty much the same choice, and it is a false choice.

Many ride bicycles on MUPs and follow neither vehiclar rules nor pedestrian rules. Many ride bicycles on the sidewalk without attempting to exercise the legal rights or fulfill the legal responsibilities of a pedestrian. And many ride on the roads while attempting only half-heartedly, if at all, to fulfill the legal responsibilities of a vehicle driver. Indeed, rules of the road cyclists and rule following POWs, far from representing the dominant paradigms, may be in the minority.

The premises of VC-ism are rarely challenged, even though they are a boatload of logical fallacies (to be fair, so are premises accepted by opponents of vehicular cycling).

I'm pretty sure I agree with that (although, even after years of trying, I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of a bicycle driver). I agree that the law should treat intoxicated bicycle riding on a road and intoxicated riding on a sidewalk the same. Neither should be treated the same as driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

Ed Holland

Presumably at some point, any individual could fall foul of being "intoxicated in public", bicycle or no bicycle. In which case there is no legal way at all to get home under ones own steam (sic).

sggoodri

I understand why you feel as you write above, as some vehicular cycling proponents do present the pedestrian on wheels paradigm in a very negative, derogatory way.

However, I don't mean to imply or infer a derogatory meaning. I believe that when transportation planners, police, and bicycle operators think and talk seriously about bicycling safety and traffic negotiation, they are compelled to adopt one model or the other for any given situation. Traffic law does not identify a third or intermediate model for traffic negotiation - one is either a pedestrian or a driver - and the most common way people select a model under a given situation appears to be based on the similarity of the facility used to either a vehicular travel lane or pedestrian way, and any conflicts the facility design may have with one model or the other.

While I prefer to operate under the vehicular paradigm, I recognize that when operating on a pedestrian facility, I must adapt to pedestrian rules at intersections and driveways for my own safety, and possibly for legal reasons as well, while at the same time being aware of my vehicle's maneuverability limitations.

I agree, just as automobile drivers do not always follow the rules. However, I believe when one challenges a bicycle operator to prescribe a set of rules for bicycling that is reasonably safe and "practicable", they typically describe either pedestrian rules or vehicular rules. They may describe a mixture of both applied based on context, showing that they transition between the paradigms. If a third, preferable paradigm between vehicle driver and pedestrian could be clearly articulated and defended, one would expect lots of traffic laws addressing it, but in the USA, they are largely absent. The closest I have seen is legal treatment of the Segway, whose manufacturer promotes classification of as a pedestrian accessory, and whose operators often prefer the option of being treated as a driver so they can travel at speed with vehicular traffic rather than against, resulting in a terribly confusing set of laws varying from state to state. In NC, a drunk person can legally operate a Segway at night without lights while facing traffic (it's against the law here to drive a segway on the right) but in other states this would be treated like driving a motorcycle drunk and against traffic without lights.

genec

True.

In your native land is the barkeep or [use proper term] responsible determining the intoxication limit of the patrons?

Ed Holland

We use the term landlord for the pub owner, and barman or barmaid for servers.... Odd but there you go.

...and yes, they are responsible for keeping an orderly establishment which legally includes refusal to serve those who are intoxicated - but how long is a piece of string?. Fortunately, as long as you don't cause trouble or pass out, you can usually buy as many rounds as you like .

Good lord, it's nearly time for the pub!

Road Rage

Your definitions of rolling could be colloquially inncorrect.

1. rolling

trippin' on ecstasy

Young Tfunk was rolling hard at the rave..

Mike S.

I'm not going to waste time here; don't ever ride your bike after drinking alcohol.

It will seem like you're fine over and over again but you'll just keep falling down.

Maybe into the path of a car or truck.

qmsdc15

Ride as fast as possible to limit the time you are exposed to risk.

Ed Holland

I think in this case the correct term is steamin' pedestrian.....

and, this just in, if you're drunk, would that make you a Ve(hic)ular Cyclist?

Good evenin ossifer.... whatsseeems to be the probblemm?

TVS_SS

This is easy... i always drive my car on the sidewalk to avoid a DUI... cops will never catch me there.