Advocacy & Safety - Drunk Cycling

Do not cycle drunk in Germany!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/student-drunk-biking-banned-from-cycling-15-years.php

Banned from cycling for 15 years!:eek:

Do not cycle drunk in Germany!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/student-drunk-biking-banned-from-cycling-15-years.php

Banned from cycling for 15 years!:eek:

On public streets, I would imagine that on private streets/property that he could still ride. Would the trails going through the German countryside be considered public streets as far as this offense is concerned?

How do you ban someone from riding a bicycle? That is to say, how could the law possibly prevent the gentleman in question from obtaining and using another bike?

Very silly.

How do you ban someone from riding a bicycle? That is to say, how could the law possibly prevent the gentleman in question from obtaining and using another bike?At least in the US, judges include punishments like that all the time, even for things that don't involve licenses.

You use a computer to steal money? You're banned from computer use for a few years. (Hopefully this isn't as popular a punishment as it used to be.)
You use the Internet to stalk somebody? Banned from the Internet (or computers in general.)
Sex crime? Banned from being near schools, etc.
etc.

If you disobey the prohibition, you get with contempt of court (or in the case of sex offender issues, things that are even worse.)

Though to be fair, it looks like he wasn't exactly banned from cycling for cycling drunk. He was banned from cycling for getting arrested while really drunk, then ignoring the demand that he submit to a medical exam that everybody arrested for being really drunk is forced to submit to. But yeah, 15 years seems quite excessive -- but Europe is certainly known for being far more strict on alcohol offenses than the US.

At least in the US, judges include punishments like that all the time, even for things that don't involve licenses.

You use a computer to steal money? You're banned from computer use for a few years. (Hopefully this isn't as popular a punishment as it used to be.)
You use the Internet to stalk somebody? Banned from the Internet (or computers in general.)
Sex crime? Banned from being near schools, etc.
etc.

If you disobey the prohibition, you get with contempt of court (or in the case of sex offender issues, things that are even worse.)

Though to be fair, it looks like he wasn't exactly banned from cycling for cycling drunk. He was banned from cycling for getting arrested while really drunk, then ignoring the demand that he submit to a medical exam that everybody arrested for being really drunk is forced to submit to. But yeah, 15 years seems quite excessive -- but Europe is certainly known for being far more strict on alcohol offenses than the US.

Also let's not forget that there are more people using their bicycles for transportation in Europe then the US. So overall it's probably not an unreasonable punishment.

He may also have as I think was stated in the article that because he didn't drive and had no intentions of driving that logically it didn't apply to him or others in his situation.

And also let's not forget that there are other countries with even more severe penalties such as:

Drunk Driving Penalties in other Countries


Australia:
The names of the drivers are sent to the local newspapers and are printed under the heading "He's Drunk and in Jail". Malaysia:
The Driver is jailed and if married, his wife is jailed too. South Africa
A 10 year prison sentence and the equivalent of a $10,000.00 fine Turkey
Drunk drivers are taken 20 miles outside of town by police and are forced to walk back under escort Norway
Three weeks in jail at hard labor, one year loss of license. Second offense within five years, license revoked for life. Finland & Sweden
Automatic jail for one year of hard labor Costa Rica
Police remove plates from car Russia
License revoked for life England
One year suspension and a $250.00 fine and jail for one year France
Three year loss of license, one year in jail and a $1000.00 fine Poland
Jail, fine and forced to attend political lectures Bulgaria
A second conviction results in execution El Salvador
Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad

I like both Turkey's and Australia's penalties. On the Malaysia punishment I have to wonder what would happen if the couple children.

I'm all about strict DWI penalties, but this is a little silly. The punishment was to remove his ability to operate unlicensed vehicles, but he can still drive a car? It seems this wasn't really about safety, which should be the goal of any DWI law, imo.

I'm all about strict DWI penalties, but this is a little silly. The punishment was to remove his ability to operate unlicensed vehicles, but he can still drive a car? It seems this wasn't really about safety, which should be the goal of any DWI law, imo.

I suggest that you go back and re-read the article, he has to wait until his record clears before he can apply for a drivers license:

<quote>
Hahn was given a €500 ($700) penalty, which he paid. And he would have to live with the fact that there would be no chance to apply for a driver's license until his record cleared. He thought the affair was over and done with.
</quote>

Student Caught Biking Drunk Banned from Cycling for 15 Years (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/student-drunk-biking-banned-from-cycling-15-years.php)

by Christine Lepisto, Berlin (http://www.treehugger.com/author/christine-lepisto-berlin-1/) http://www.treehugger.com/images_site/feed-icon-10x10.png (http://www.treehugger.com/feeds/authors/Christine%20Lepisto.xml) on 11.29.09

Cars & Transportation (http://www.treehugger.com/cars_transportation/) (bikes (http://www.treehugger.com/cars_transportation/bikes/)) http://www.treehugger.com/bike-drunk-ban.jpg

Image: Bild (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2009/11/29/fahrradverbot/student-darf-15-jahre-kein-fahrrad-fahren.html)

Americans are still reacting to the news that a man got away with only a four-month jail sentence after shooting a bicyclist in the head (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/man-gets-120-days-shooting-cyclist-head.php) in cold blood, in front of his three-year old child. In Germany, the web is buzzing about a sentence equally extreme, on the opposite end of the spectrum. Christopher-Felix Hahn, a student of theater science in Gießen, has learned he is banned from riding a bike, skateboard or any other "unlicensed vehicle" on the streets -- for fifteen years.
Most cyclists in Germany know someone with a friend-of-a-friend who lost their driver's license because they were caught cycling drunk. Cyclists are vehicles subject to street laws just like everybody else, under the law. When conversation turns to the topic, the question of what happens if a cyclist has no driver's license soon follows. Now the Hahn case provides the answer.
Christopher-Felix Hahn says he did not feel unduly impaired when he made the decision to take his bicycle home from a party in June of 2008. On his way home in the wee hours of the morning, he attracted the attention of the local police. The police administered a breath test and found a blood-alcohol content of 0.171%, over three times the German legal limit of 0.05%.
Hahn was given a €500 ($700) penalty, which he paid. And he would have to live with the fact that there would be no chance to apply for a driver's license until his record cleared. He thought the affair was over and done with.
However, in Germany, all arrests with a blood alcohol content finding of over 0.16% must be reported to the drivers' licensing bureau. Hahn was surprised to receive a letter requiring that he submit to a medical and psychological examination. He ignored the letter. After all, he had no plans to seek a driver's license. And the €500 euro cost for the examination was a steep price for a student.
The lack of response did not go unnoticed. The letter was soon followed by a second missive, this time forbidding Hahn from using any license-free vehicle on the public streets. According to the Geißener Anzeige, the local newspaper, authorities indicated that such a ban cannot be lifted for at least fifteen years.

I suggest that you go back and re-read the article, he has to wait until his record clears before he can apply for a drivers license:


Ahh, gotcha. Still silly, though. Hope he gets an appeal of some kind.

Ahh, gotcha. Still silly, though. Hope he gets an appeal of some kind.


From the tone of the article it seemed to be a common punishment for drinking and driving any type of vehicle in Germany.

Hmm, kind of makes one wounder what the penalty would be IF one was riding a horse (or other animal) while drunk.

Nothing new here I suspect. When I was in Germany in 1972 I met a German who told me he was banned from driving for 1 year and fined one month's income for having been arrested for bicycling when drunk. The level of many fines in Germany is scaled to the income of the offender.

BTW I recently noted that the listed fine for cycling drunk in California is up to $250. They get off easy there compared to in Germany.

BTW I recently noted that the listed fine for cycling drunk in California is up to $250. They get off easy there compared to in Germany.In Texas, the DWI law specifically says `motor vehicle' -- so it doesn't apply to cyclists. Therefore, there's no penalty in Texas for bicycling drunk, though of course a public intoxication or reckless driving charges are fair game.

And to be fair, I think that's reasonable. If you're too drunk, you can't cycle at all (it's not like a car, where all you have to do is push that pedal, though I guess a tricycle could get past that) and if you're sober enough that you can bike, you're more of a danger to yourself than anybody else, though pedestrians and other cyclists will probably want to avoid you. Certainly, if somebody was drunk, I'd much rather have them ride their bicycle home rather than drive home. The risks to others are much reduced, and so I think the penalties should be reduced. And in Austin, the police certainly will give you a PI charge and throw you in the drunk tank if they do catch you -- which isn't good, but it's far better than a DWI charge.

http://drunkcyclist.com/

DrunkCyclist.com? What does this have to do with the thread? I will never come back to that website with that somewhat-dark yellow background...

The February 21, 2001 issue of JAMA has an article that concludes that your risk of being killed while cycling is 20 times higher at the 0.08 g/dl level (legally drunk in most state) and 5.6% higher at the 0.02 g/dl level than if you are stone cold sober. The results were confounded by the fact that drunk cyclists were much less likely to be wearing a helmet than other cyclists. As far as being a risk to other road users, I might mention that in Germany (where the incident CB HI references took place) in a recent three year period 33 people died in pedestrian bicycle collisions but I won't because this is apparently a sensitive subject for some people on this forum. I actually was once almost a victum of a drunk cyclist albeit in an indirect way - a car swerved to miss the drunk cyclist who had swerved in his path and barely missed hitting me ...

The February 21, 2004 issue of JAMA has an article that concludes that your risk of being killed while cycling is 20 times higher at the 0.08 g/dl level (legally drunk in most state) and 5.6% higher at the 0.02 g/dl level than if you are stone cold sober.
And the authors had to backtrack, hem and haw and shuffle their feet, and acknowledge that their shocking conclusions could not be honestly drawn from their data, after Charles Komanoff's rebuttal letter was published in the same magazine on May 16, 2001. See attached.

...whereas in neighboring Denmark, 78% of poll respondents admit to having cycled drunk.

http://multimedia.ekstrabladet.dk/eb/archive/00470/No_name_470580m.jpg

(It's illegal, sort of, and you could lose your driving privileges, sort of, but half the cyclists that get seen at the emergency room after 9:00 are drunk.)

And the authors had to backtrack, hem and haw and shuffle their feet, and acknowledge that their shocking conclusions could not be honestly drawn from their data, after Charles Komanoff's rebuttal letter was published in the same magazine on May 16, 2001. See attached.

Komanoff's letter is correct about the odds ratio - the 5.6% is for the 0.02 level or greater so he is quite right they it tells nothing about how much your risk is increased at the 0.02 level. I actually noticed this when I read the article and should have been more precise in my post by saying that it was 0.02 or higher.While Komanoff does make the case that there appears to be no evidence from the data that one drink has any effect on the injury rate (2.4% of the injured group and 2.0% of the control group had alcohol in the 0.02 to 0.07 range) there is fairly persuasive evidence that the risk is a lot higher for the 0.08 group, given that that 10.5% of those injured had an alcohol level over 0.08 but only 1% of the control group did. Komanoff did his share of dancing around this point himself. Now the 0.08 and higher group includes some that were as high as 0.20 so we really can't tell from the data as presented in the article if it was those at the high end that were driving the injuries. But as I did point out in the previous post this data is confounded by the finding that people were about seven times as likely to be wearing a helmet who were not drinking as those that were, however, the helmet rate even among the non-drinking group was only 38%. To assess the contribution the helmet effect made they should have examined the causes of the injuries and separated out the head traumas. What else is a real limitation to the study is it did not consider night time riding. This was eliminated because they thought is was too risky to get the controls at night because they would have had to stop cyclists along the route at night which they thought a very risky thing to do. My gut feeling is there are more drunks on the road after dark, so this is a big limitation to the study.

So, it appears that the risk is about ten times higher if you are over the 0.08 level but maybe not if you're wearing a helmet and maybe not if you're riding at night and maybe not if you are riding at night with a helmet. It would be interesting to see the complete data set which should be available since it was funded by the NIH and the CDC. I think there can be little doubt that if you are over 0.08 your risk is higher but it would be nice to have better data on what the increased risk is.

Locally, the only cyclist fatality in my memory where the cyclist was clearly at fault, was at night, wrong way on a one way street, with a very intoxicated cyclist.

...whereas in neighboring Denmark, 78% of poll respondents admit to having cycled drunk.


(It's illegal, sort of, and you could lose your driving privileges, sort of, but half the cyclists that get seen at the emergency room after 9:00 are drunk.)
More useless free floating statistical factoids grasped from cyberspace.

How often did/do the poll respondents cycle drunk? Once in a lifetime? Equivalent to asking people if they EVER have taken an illegal drug, done something dishonest, or told a lie, and then drawing conclusions about the poll respondents' drug problems, or how many criminals or habitual liars were in the population.

Also the issue is accidents while drinking. Was there any data gathered and published showing an association of the 78% factoid with accident/risk rates? If not, what does the 78% factoid provide besides a scare headline?

Any info on what was the metric used for pinning the "drunk" tag on emergency room patients? (I suspect smell of alcohol, or any indication that the patient had had a drink) What percentage of all people seen at the unnamed emergency room after 9:00 are described as "drunk"?

Using the same metric, what percentage of all adult Danes could be considered drunk by/after 9PM?

More useless statistical factoids.
How often did/do the poll respondents cycle drunk? Once in a lifetime? Equivalent to asking people if they EVER have taken an illegal drug, done something dishonest, or told a lie, and then drawing conclusions about the poll respondents' drug problems, or how many criminals or habitual liars were in the population.

Also the issue is accidents while drinking. Was there any data gathered and published showing an association of the 78% factoid with accident/risk rates? If not, what does the 78% factoid provide besides a scare headline?

Any info on what was the metric used for pinning the "drunk" tag on emergency room patients? (I suspect smell of alcohol, or any indication that the patient had had a drink) What percentage of all people seen at the unnamed emergency room after 9:00 are described as "drunk"? Using the same metric, what percentage of all adult Danes could be considered drunk after 9PM?

Did you even see the picture I posted? It should be self-evident.

Anyway, I forget that some people take their A&S seriously, so here's something to get worked up over:

http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article1227545.ece

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1226979.ece

Did you even see the picture I posted? It should be self-evident.
That picture (probably staged BTW) is your best "answer" to my legitimate questioning your post of statistical gibberish? One thing is evident, and it is related to your ability to make a rational or logical response. Smarm is neither a defense, nor an argument.

That picture (probably staged BTW) is your best "answer" to my legitimate questioning your post of statistical gibberish? One thing is evident, and it is related to your ability to make a rational or logical response. Smarm is neither a defense, nor an argument.

My ability to make a logical response >>>>>>>>>>>> Your sense of humor.

Stop hyperventilating and google translate the links; they actually answer most of your questions.

Since you'd probably rather just simmer in your juices, I'll at least answer one: the picture is not staged.

My ability to make a logical response >>>>>>>>>>>> Your sense of humor.

Stop hyperventilating and google translate the links; they actually answer most of your questions.

Since you'd probably rather just simmer in your juices, I'll at least answer one: the picture is not staged.

I am not going to translate anything. You posted the Factoid, in English, on an English language site, with no detail or explanation, support or explain its significance in English, if you can.

Or perhaps your posting the factoids and picture, as well as your concern about Danish drinking habits was just a stupid Danish joke, that my lack of a Pedaleur Brand sense of humor didn't pick up on.

Staged or not, the photo doesn't mean diddley in any language, in support of the 78% factoid, or anything else, except the language of goofball internet ranting and posting meaningless photos to match unsupported conclusions.

...my lack of a Pedaleur Brand sense of humor...

It's not just my sense of humor. You lack _any_ sense of humor.

It's not just my sense of humor. You lack _any_ sense of humor.
I guess I just don't find the humor in passing off moronic gibberish, idle gossip and random factoids as useful information or advice about bicycling safety. And you do.

...moronic gibberish...

Tsk, tsk. Danish _is_ a weird language, and it does sound like gibberish sometimes, but Danes are hardly moronic.

Tsk, tsk. Danish _is_ a weird language, and it does sound like gibberish sometimes, but Danes are hardly moronic.
And funny too when they get drunk and post meaningless statistical "stuff" on the Internet, eh?

And funny too when they get drunk and post meaningless statistical "stuff" on the Internet, eh?

I wouldn't know. Do you know any that have done that?

Did you even see the picture I posted? It should be self-evident.Evident of what?

A cyclist fell down. She was barefoot. She had a bag, broke some bottles (of wine or beer presumably.) She looks unhappy, as people often do after falling down.

That's all I can tell from the picture. I can't tell that she's drunk. I can't tell that she's even been drinking. I can't tell what caused the accident, etc.

In short, that picture shows/proves nothing.

Did you even see the picture I posted? It should be self-evident.

Anyway, I forget that some people take their A&S seriously, so here's something to get worked up over:

http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article1227545.ece

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1226979.ece

What I see in the picture is a barefooted woman riding her bike, laying on her side with a bag under her and two bottles and reaching for one. The bottle that she's reaching for could be water, it could be gin, it could be vodka. We don't know, as for the bottle closet to her in the gutter how do we know that that bottle wasn't already there when she fell?

Evident of what?

A cyclist fell down. She was barefoot. She had a bag, broke some bottles (of wine or beer presumably.) She looks unhappy, as people often do after falling down.

That's all I can tell from the picture. I can't tell that she's drunk. I can't tell that she's even been drinking. I can't tell what caused the accident, etc.

In short, that picture shows/proves nothing.


What I see in the picture is a barefooted woman riding her bike, laying on her side with a bag under her and two bottles and reaching for one. The bottle that she's reaching for could be water, it could be gin, it could be vodka. We don't know, as for the bottle closet to her in the gutter how do we know that that bottle wasn't already there when she fell?


Oh my God. ILTB, I apologize. It _is_ me!

Sorry to bother you all.

Carry on with your serious discussions...

I wouldn't know. Do you know any that have done that?
You mean you were sober when you posted your dingy nonsense factoid post and smarmy BS replies to this thread, and thought you were funny too? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, perhaps you really are seriously deficient in logical capabilities and really don't know any better.

Evident of what?

A cyclist fell down. She was barefoot. She had a bag, broke some bottles (of wine or beer presumably.) She looks unhappy, as people often do after falling down.

That's all I can tell from the picture. I can't tell that she's drunk. I can't tell that she's even been drinking. I can't tell what caused the accident, etc.

In short, that picture shows/proves nothing.
And even if she really was dead drunk, it proves absolutely nothing about drinking or its relationship to accidents, and certainly is not evidence of the wingy factoids being posted by the Danish Funny Man.

You mean you were sober when you posted your dingy nonsense factoid post and smarmy BS replies to this thread, and thought you were funny too? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry, perhaps you really are seriously deficient in logical capabilities and really don't know any better.

No, no, no. That I'm not Danish.

As for the rest, I've already apologized for all the liberties I've taken with this forum. I had no idea _no one_ here had a sense of humor.

No, no, no. That I'm not Danish.
No wonder you are unwilling to translate the Danish baloney you are referencing or explain why you are posting it. You don't have a clue what those factoids meant, but they sounded "funny" to you. Got it.

No wonder you are unwilling to translate the Danish baloney you are referencing or explain why you are posting it. You don't have a clue what those factoids meant, but they sounded "funny" to you. Got it.

Det er ikke mit problem at du ikke forstår dansk. Jeg forstod det hele og jeg kan godt lide at drille idioter som dig der klarer som en 5-årig pige og ikke kan spilde fem minutter at oversætte det.

Det er ikke mit problem at du ikke forstår dansk. Jeg forstod det hele og jeg kan godt lide at drille idioter som dig der klarer som en 5-årig pige og ikke kan spilde fem minutter at oversætte det.
I know you said:

It is not my problem that you do not understand Danish. I understood everything and I like to tease idiots like you are doing as a 5-year-old girl and not wasting five minutes to translate it.
But all I read was:

This is a bunch of Danish moronic gibberish

:P

But all I read was:

"This is a bunch of Danish moronic gibberish"

:P

Exactly! The Danes are so much more clever than I am. I had to sneak in from Germany just so they wouldn't stop me at passport control.

But send ILTB the translator link so he can read the articles. Not that it matters, because this thread is only about Important Matters. Certainly not Tangential Factoids that don't affect Americans but still are Moderately Amusing.

Oh, for helvede. I'm spent.

Later.

Hmm, well this could have been an interesting discussion but it seemed to have gotten derailed early on by I-Like-To-Bike's rather over the top attack on the 78% surveyed say they have cycled drunk as an irrelevant factoid. A little civility could have led to a more informed discussion. The article itself does have some interesting statistics but I really think Pedaleur should have provided a translation because, contrary to his claims, Google translate comes out pretty much gibberish for these articles. For example, some times it translates the Danish word fuld as "drunk" and sometimes as "full."

I could make some sense out of the article only because I can read Swedish, which is close enough to Danish I could sort of figure it out with a little work. One interesting statistic in the article is that there are 8 - 10 people in Denmark who die every year while riding drunk. Denmark has a population of 5.5 million so that is equivalent to 560 people a year in the USA. That is enough I think to say it is a problem but the article doesn't go into any details about how they determined the 8 - 10 people died as a result of cycling drunk. It could just mean that 8 - 10 people died who were riding a bicycle while drunk which is not the same thing as saying the intoxication was the principal cause of the death. Anyway, the penalty in Demark seems to be less than California - 500 DKK which is about $95 at the current exchange rate versus California's $250. For the second offense the fine doubles but it is still less than California.

...but I really think Pedaleur should have provided a translation because, contrary to his claims, Google translate comes out pretty much gibberish for these articles. For example, some times it translates the Danish word fuld as "drunk" and sometimes as "full."


Fair enough. Interesting about 'fuld,' though, because one meaning comes from the other. ;)

Factoids:

9 of 10 admit to riding drunk. 4 of 10 say they've crashed while riding drunk. No time-span given, though it was a poll of young people.

8-10 die every year "because they ride off smashed" (you're correct, though, no further details)

First time offense for riding drunk is ~$100. Second and third, $200.

At the ER, they systematically asked 20,000 cyclists who came in with injuries if they were under the influence, and 5,000 admitting they were (This must be nationwide, and still seems like a lot.)

A quote from the head of the Accident Analysis Group in Odense claims that the number don't seem to have gone down, adding that 1 in 4 that come in after 9.00 are drunk.

You don't get points on your DL for it, but you can lose your license if you're a repeat substance abuser or otherwise deemed unfit to drive. So, technically, you could lose your license.

Commentary:

While drinking and driving is take very seriously here, drinking in general is very liberal. Riding your bike home is seen as the natural alternative to driving (though they run extra busses during Christmas Party Season -- seriously).

Hmm, well this could have been an interesting discussion but it seemed to have gotten derailed early on by I-Like-To-Bike's rather over the top attack on the 78% surveyed say they have cycled drunk as an irrelevant factoid.

You obviously find it over the top to criticize the posting of misleading factoids about cycling safety; factoids derived from sophomoric agenda driven polls conducted by agenda driven organizations/individuals, or in some cases, polls or "tests" that are fabricated to provide a "correct" solution. That is OK,I don't, and after all Pedaleur claims he gets his jollies posting statistical/pictorial nonsense to get a reaction.

In the meantime, zealots and well meaning logic deficient posters (or in the case of Pedaleur, joke tellers) may keep posting misleading statistics/factoids on a safety related list in support of their agenda, but expect that at least one person will be skeptical of any and every factoid about cycling risk that was derived, at best, from simple minded/sloppy "polling" methods and/or sophistry.

You obviously find it over the top to criticize the posting of misleading factoids about cycling safety; factoids derived from sophomoric agenda driven polls conducted by agenda driven organizations/individuals, or in some cases, polls or "tests" that are fabricated to provide a "correct" solution. That is OK,I don't, and after all Pedaleur claims he gets his jollies posting statistical/pictorial nonsense to get a reaction.

In the meantime, zealots and well meaning logic deficient posters (or in the case of Pedaleur, joke tellers) may keep posting misleading statistics/factoids on a safety related list in support of their agenda, but expect that at least one person will be skeptical of any and every factoid about cycling risk that was derived, at best, from simple minded/sloppy "polling" methods and/or sophistry.

I don't disagree that more often than not, people cherry pick results from studies (and "studies") off the Internet- 30 minutes with your evening TV news program reveals that. However, I'd be interested to see how you would design a study to evaluate drunk cycling in some country- Denmark is good, but even here in the US. In order to critically appraise the biomedical literature (any scientific literature, actually), one should have a fair amount of expertise in study design.

How would you do it?

Rather than the nonspecific rants provided by ILTB, here's a quick and dirty appraisal of these factoids:


Fair enough. Interesting about 'fuld,' though, because one meaning comes from the other. ;)

Factoids:

9 of 10 admit to riding drunk. 4 of 10 say they've crashed while riding drunk. No time-span given, though it was a poll of young people.
We have no idea what this actually means. The potential for recall bias here is huge, but in addition to that, absent a time span (person, place, time- it's the epidemiologist's mantra), these data are meaningless. And "young people"??? What does that mean? Do you have an age range? Mean age with variance? Age distribution? And "poll" is something you do to get information from voters and others during election season, not a scientifically designed survey or interview.


8-10 die every year "because they ride off smashed" (you're correct, though, no further details)
Right- so these data are worthless, because we don't know WHY they died. We MIGHT know the cause of the crash that caused their death, but we can't say whether or not drinking actually caused them to be in the situation that caused the crash. Crashes are never, ever single events- they are the result of a chain of events, many times starting with the most innocuous thing (like tapping a stone in the road with your front tire). Causation is a damn hard thing to prove, unless you're an engineer or a physical scientist. Any time you see the word "causes" (or its variants) in biomedical literature, get skeptical.


First time offense for riding drunk is ~$100. Second and third, $200.
And your (the article's) point?


At the ER, they systematically asked 20,000 cyclists who came in with injuries if they were under the influence, and 5,000 admitting they were (This must be nationwide, and still seems like a lot.)
Whoooo boy- I don't even know where to start with this one- it has bias (both sampling and information) and confounding all over it. First of all, they interviewed only those cyclists whose injuries they deemed sufficiently severe to go to the ER. Second, they used a "systematic" sample- well, there are numerous types of systematic samples, but they all have their weaknesses. Third. 20K cyclists were interviewed- over what time period? What age distribution? Injury severity? Time of day? Road and weather conditions? Reason for riding? Type of bike? The list goes on... Fourth, asking someone if they were "under the influence" is ridiculous- you need an objective measure, and a simple breathalyzer would have been a start. Social desirability bias here- people will systematically answer such a question in the negative to escape a disapproving response (or fear of one) from the interviewer or whomever reads the respondent's survey. Fifth- was the survey instrument standardized? Was it administered by a trained interviewer or just a simple question asked (most likely in a non-standardized way) by ER staff? Or was the instrument self-administered? What was the response rate? All this said, I don't know what to think about the 5K- this could be an underestimate, but absent a standardized measure of the BAC, who knows????


A quote from the head of the Accident Analysis Group in Odense claims that the number don't seem to have gone down, adding that 1 in 4 that come in after 9.00 are drunk.
I know this group, and they are respected in the injury research field- they've been doing this stuff for a long time. However, a quick search shows nothing from them in PubMed about drunk cycling- do you have any peer-reviewed papers to cite?


You don't get points on your DL for it, but you can lose your license if you're a repeat substance abuser or otherwise deemed unfit to drive. So, technically, you could lose your license.

Commentary:

While drinking and driving is take very seriously here, drinking in general is very liberal. Riding your bike home is seen as the natural alternative to driving (though they run extra busses during Christmas Party Season -- seriously).

Common sense would/should probably dictate that riding a bike after a few snorts is not a bright idea, especially during the holiday season.

...The potential for recall bias here is huge, ... not a scientifically designed survey or interview.

Right- so these data are worthless...

And your (the article's) point?

Whoooo boy- I don't even know where to start with this one... The list goes on... ? ...????

...a quick search shows nothing from them in PubMed about drunk cycling- do you have any peer-reviewed papers to cite?

Common sense would/should probably dictate that riding a bike after a few snorts is not a bright idea, especially during the holiday season.

Peer-reviewed papers?

::p:proverbial facepalm::

The February 21, 2001 issue of JAMA has an article that concludes that your risk of being killed while cycling is 20 times higher at the 0.08 g/dl level (legally drunk in most state) and 5.6% higher at the 0.02 g/dl level than if you are stone cold sober. The results were confounded by the fact that drunk cyclists were much less likely to be wearing a helmet than other cyclists...

Please don't tell me you're linking the higher rates of deaths to drunk cyclists to lower rates of helmet usage amongst the drunk cyclists. Please.

Cycling drunk in New York street traffic would seem to be almost a self-resolving problem....:eek:


:lol:


.

Peer-reviewed papers?

::p:proverbial facepalm::

Why the facepalm?

Please don't tell me you're linking the higher rates of deaths to drunk cyclists to lower rates of helmet usage amongst the drunk cyclists. Please.

Ummmm- he said confounded. There's a difference between an effect modifier and a confounder. Is helmet use an effect modifier in the relationship between a crash and fatal outcome? Most definitely. Helmets don't prevent crashes, but they do lower the severity and incidence of a TBI in many crashes. A confounder would exert an effect on some other variable(s) which in turn would have an effect on the outcome. I have little doubt that helmet usage probably does confound the relationship between cyclist impairment and cyclist fatality, but that relationship is unclear. In an analysis, we'd want to adjust for the confounder to remove its effect on the outcome so that the relationship between impairment and fatality is clarified.

... I have little doubt that helmet usage probably does confound the relationship between cyclist impairment and cyclist fatality, but that relationship is unclear...

Oh no. Now, you're linking lack of helmets with increased risk of death too.

Rather than the nonspecific rants provided by ILTB, here's a quick and dirty appraisal of these factoids:
Well thanks for giving me time to respond, Jack.
My "Rant" about careless use of polling and other misleading factoids huh?

Then what the heck are your very good and pertinent questions to the Jokester, but just a continuation of the same "rant" and "over the top attacks"?