You are more likely to hurt yourself while drunk biking than while drunk driving - or at least that's what the Freakonomics guys say.

Regardless, I use my bike to get home from the bar/parties all the time because I won't be hurting OTHER people. That punishment seems incredibly draconian.

//accidentally bumped a cop car after drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels. They thanked me for not driving. <3 UMaine police.

Apparently the thing that makes drunk walking/running more dangerous is that you are considerably less visible and typically less likely to obey street crossing laws.

You don't have to lead them as much ? ;)

Why shouldn't we be able to use our smaller, quicker, more nimble vehicles in a manner that utilizes these special traits, as opposed to lining up with the death machines? We are not equal in space on the road, speed, pollution, threat to others, size/weight, or survival in a car-vs-bike crash. We are not equals, nor will I be treated as an equal in a crash. The rules of the road do not apply to me. Rather, I use my skill as a rider, common sense and courtesy to dictate my road behavior. If I had to depend on the "rules of the road" or some driver's respect to keep me alive, I would have died a long time ago.

Because at the end of the day, there is always going to be one pedestrian, one cyclist or one motorist somewhere that simply doesn't have the mental capacity to realize there are small children, senior citizens and the handicapped at risk on the sidewalks & streets. It's a pecking order and the system only works if the weakest link is protected from harm, mentally or physically, real or perceived. It's where each of us fits into the pecking order, not of being first in line, but of vulnerability.

If I didn't link this story would you ever believe that it would've ever happened ?

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-ri...staurant-rage/
http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=12082651

Come on bros,.

Honestly, the laws in some states regarding drinking while mobile (indiscriminate of the vehicle) sound like they aren't exactly appropriate for keeping the public safe. Sure, bikes in many ways can be less dangerous to yourself and others than cars; however,there are also circumstances where bikes can be equally if not more dangerous. There are so many variables involved: how busy the streets are, how drunk one is, the skill of the rider, climate, physical road conditions, carelessness of other parties involved, etc; that creating a law flexible enough to accommodate any and all situations, would be easily beaten in a court room. It is far easier for the law to say, "if you are moving by any means, and have a BAC of >x% then you will be charged with y fines/time."

This is why the laws are made in this manner, legislators would much rather falsely incarcerate people than let guilty people of heinous crimes go. That is where they get in trouble in the media. The OP didn't kill anyone, but perhaps if the law did allow for more flexibility, an individual who did cause some harm to the public could get out of/lessen the charges because of the inability to "prove" all of the variables to be true, i.e. busy-ness of street, carelessness of the victim, or other conditions "observed" by a police officer or prosecutor. The more the law can rely on physical evidence: photos, speed guns, breathalysers, wire taps, etc; the more these pieces of evidence of guilt will hold up in a court.

Thus we see blanket charges for what are obviously a variety in severity of crimes. It isn't a perfect system, and this imperfection is not limited to "bicycle law". Regardless of whether you feel the laws, the punishments for violation of these laws, or the ways the laws are enforced are appropriate; many of us still know the law, and should be willing and ready to face the consequences should we violate them. Many people are falsely incarcerated or charged everyday and it is an injustice. Unfortunately, efforts to change the law are done in powerless ways, i.e. by the defendant in the case. If you disagree with ANY law, please write your legislator/lobbying group/protest/etc to correct what you feel are injustices. Many people like to blame the legislative system; however, it is the fault of a public which is not applying enough pressure to demand appropriate laws.

/rant

tl;dr The best time to challenge/change a law isn't while you are in cuffs or a court room, but rather surrounded by many supporters with political power/influence at an appropriate time in an appropriate place. Until the law has been changed, don't hope for a "BFSSFG v Oregon" precedent to be set.

I did my victim's panel meeting last night. I sat in an auditorium with 100 other people, watched a slideshow of smashed cars and dead people. Listened to people who have had family members die in car accidents scold us, guilt trip us etc. The ONLY mentioning of cycling was that "cyclists are killed by drunk drivers."

I raised my hand and said, "I ride my bicycle drunk because its safer than driving. Have you ever heard of a cyclist running over and killing a pedestrian?"

The guy speaking (who lost his son to a drunk driver) said, "yeah, it happens ALL THE TIME!" then proceeded to call me a menace and said I deserve to be in jail.

I started laughing and somehow, still got credit for the class.

Riding your bike drunk is as smart as riding with a blind fold on and should not be advocated, nor should you be proud of doing so.

Time for squirrels.

http://mytrickpony.com/images/produc...l%20detail.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Y80ue92Ao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM

I have no idea why you quoted me, then posted this. I'm totally missing the connection here.

Because taking your original quote, you asked why, then stated the rules of the road didn't apply to you, the links I posted demonstrate similar behavior where others felt intolerance to share space and time for whatever reason(s). I agree with you on the last two sentences, but if you have to ask why any cyclist would have to ride as

indicates, you aren't taking into account that any given pedestrian you encounter may be handicapped or not capable of getting out of your way for whatever reason even though you later state on a reliance on skill, common sense & courteousy. I'm actually confused by the statements, stating rules of the road don't apply, yet indicating that many concepts that are inherent in the rules of the road are what you rely on ? I mean, if the rules of the road don't apply, why bother looking both ways before crossing the street ?