I don't think I'd claim to perform better while intoxicated, I've always done better in alleycats starting sober or just one puff. I know I did poorly in one race due to relaxing restraint, I got into the finals at an NACCC but I wasn't aware of it. I was on a MTB so didn't expect to get far, it was easy to win a qualifier but in the semi I didn't think I fared too well. So directly after the semi I went hanging out with some people and got totally ripped and nicely toasted watching others race. Then for fun checked the results and had only 20 mins to chill before the final started. I definately didn't have as fast a reaction time, definately couldn't navigate or remember too well what was next checkpoint and lost power after an initial burn of about a half hour that felt like a lot of energy til it was gone. Add all that to the fact I was on an MTB and it comes out to 19th out of 20, oh well.

"If you already have one conviction for DUI and are charged with another you my friend might start to ponder whether you have a problem. "

DUI or no DUI, i will not consider someone having lost his licences for a .01 (or even .05) as problematic. Youre not necessarily drunk just because a feelgood law says you are.

I can see your point stevo, and it would be to bad if a young person got bumped up to a felony later because of somthing done under the age of 21. The "feelgood law" here is called Minor In Possession (MIP) and it is used to inforce/protect young adults. Check the satistics with your insurance carrier regarding the amount of fatalitys based on alcohol consumption, inexperance of the driver and the # of occupants in the car. I assume the original poster is still young and willing to break feel good laws to indulge in alcohol

"it would be to bad if a young person got bumped up to a felony later because of somthing done under the age of 21."

Dont get me wrong, I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions. If someone actually was driving intoxicated at the age of 20 (or 18 or 12), I have no problem with a later resultant felony. Thats not necesssarily the case with this law.

As far as stats on alcohol involvement, I would be real interested in any stats any agency or RG has compiled regarding BACs of .05 or less. doubtful. and if thats the case, its feelgood.

my $.02 on something i never need to worry about.

I like to get wasted and do laps at the velodrome.

Can they pull back my Olympic GOLD if I was simply sauced?..LOL

Can they pull back my Olympic GOLD if I was simply sauced?..LOL
Damn what a sight at the summer pursuits.... bunch of hardcore cyclists, laughing and falling over themselves, changing the race to LaMans start...just cuz. Oh And peeing while warming up....lol

the .01 law is ********, if youre going to get busted for dui at .02 might as well get totally ****ed up and blow a .3

it gives kids no room to mature, once they turn 21 how will they know what their limits are. I say drinking age laws as well as driving should be the same as germany.

libertarians for a common sense society.

I was so scared of my old man I never drank until early adulthood then I went whole hog into it. I might not have been wasted for so long had I drank a bit in high school.

The years are for learning about life not just geometry.

I do not know the Laws of Germany, but I can agree that there are laws that do not accomplish the ends the Legislature intended. Unfortunatey,the days of the local PD/Sheriff taking minors back home and releasing them to thier parents is fading away.
helvetica, I assume you are now of legal age to drink and with that comes the responsibility of your actions both intentional and unintentional
I know I could type untill I had bloody nubbins for fingers and still not convince you to see things my way, that is why I only metioned a few thoughts, and I appriciate you reading them. I hope you do not have an alcohol/drug problem and my I apologize if I have offended you.
You are familiar with German laws? What dose it take to obtain your DL over there?

drinking age is 16 driving age is 18, you must take the driving test with a manual car.

I was on a jury for a case EXACTLY like this (in rural Georgia). We found the guy not guilty, because the law stipulates that you have to be in control of the vehicle, which unloading/loading it isn't. Sucks that you had to go through all that bull****.

QUOTE: Fugazi Dave "Jeez, shants is out to be a reckless dickhead again. Riding drunk is dangerous and irresponsible. Period. You get a BWI, you ******** deserve it. "

"I don't smoke and I don't drink and I don't F##K! At least I can F**king think."

I'm not getting "D**Khead" out of anything Shants is saying.... Am I sensing a little straight edge angst? Just curious?

BUI is trouble in CA if the cops feel like messing with you. However, I think you have to have a driver's license for it to really make trouble. There is a fine involved.

I cannot find my bike when I am really drunk

Well if anyone on here lives in south dakota, you won't have to worry about biking while drunk, or riding a horse while drunk.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aber...s/13710086.htm

I got one a few years ago. Same rules as a car driver. I ended up with a $200 fine, disorderly conduct charge, and license suspended for 1 year, not that it mattered, I dont drive to begin with. I could get it back though with a court order, no traffic violation involved in my final charge so ohio law says I can have it back for free.

NEVER EVER SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST/BREATHALIZER. Dont even talk to the cops, name and SS#, maybe your address, other than that, F' em, make them earn their pay AND protect yourself. They represent and/or are agents of the municipality, a test is evidence against you, failing it adds physical evidence and a second DUI charge in most states. Without physical evidence all they have is the police report and officer(s), and in some courts that may or may not be worth much.

If you fail a field sobriety test, or don't do well enough on it to quell an officer's suspicions, they can take you in and do a blood test if you refuse a breathalyzer. There may be more steps involved here, but that's the jist. My mother was a forensic chemist who ran Blood Alcohol Content tests day-in-day-out, and had to testify at trials of people who pleaded NG to DUI and DWI. A lot of crazy stories.

*edit - also most experienced cops (in ND at least, the highest DUI rates in the country) can guess your BAC within .03% just by seeing your pupil dilation when they shine the light in your eyes.

was that in columbus?

How else are you supposed to get to the bar without driving a car? ;)

I think that most states have an implied consent law (or at least Pennsylvania does). Basically, in the documents that the mostly under-literate people don't/can't read when signing for driving priviledges, you agree to consent to blood/urine/breath testing if asked by law enforcement.

You do have the right to refuse testing, but there are repercussions for such actions. Often you won't be eligible to enter the treatment based programs, and will be relegated to prison and such. In pennsylvania, you are placed in the highest rate of intoxication (BAC 0.17+) for refusal to test. In most cases, if the officer has to ask if some adult beverages have been consumed, it's game over. The physical evidence just determines your treatment in the CJ system.

A high rate of blood alcohol concentration isn't necessary for conviction, and neither are test results. The arresting officer's ability to determine that you have a diminished capability is also enough. To expound on the situation, suggesting some locations where he can put his blood vial doesn't reflect well on the subject's self-control. Someone could conceivably have a low BAC and be extremely impaired. Consider someone who has been drinking lightly, huffing tons of paint thinner and taking large doses of sudafed... The BAC will be (mostly) unaffected by the paint thinner and sudafed, but the impairment will none the less be obvious.

State by state it varies, but the poster who referenced implied consent got the jist of it.

If there is PC for DUI, which is a relatively low standard, officer can ask for a breath test.

Before you refuse "for the record" the officer will inform you that the penalties for refusing the test are considerably worse than the penalties for failing the test. Quiet the conundrum for those who fancy themselves tough guys. Very few people refuse armed with that knowledge.

Now if there is an accident that involves physical injury, there is no refusing. Officer will go to the judge to force a sample of blood, breath or urine. This is generally not pretty.

On a side note, people who waste the courts time with weak arguements are generally given harsher sentences. Thats just the way it is.

Again, state to state, locale by locale will vary.

Stay safe all...

-Z

i've gone through one too any bikes to tip my glass at riding drunk. for me, it's a done deal.

...how do you guys get your foot in the clip when your drunk anyways, the last time i tried this, (3am) i think a few people witnessed a drunk guy flipping out on his bike, scary ****.

NEVER submit to a breath test if you get pulled over.The penaly is about the same for car or bike,however the system is pretty impotent when it comes to doing anything to you for riding drunk. Bikes require no license. You might have to pay court cost etc.. but thats a small price to pay. No breath test=no conviction only refusal. Penalty's are steep for refusing in a car,but few excist for biking.If you refuse it will cost you some $$$,but you will walk away otherwise unscathed.