simont | (no subject)

(no subject)

After the usual geek-pub-trip last night, I walked home on my own.

That doesn't sound like much of an achievement, but it's the first time I've felt psychologically capable of it since getting mugged last month. In the intervening four weeks I've either walked from the pub to a nearby taxi rank, or walked to the post-pub gathering with a large group of geeks and then phoned a taxi from there, because I didn't want to walk home alone.

Now I'm back at work, going to the post-pub gathering is no longer a sensible option (because I tend to need sleep by then), so I'm running out of options. I suppose I could still have got a taxi, but getting a taxi home from the pub five weeks in succession costs me as much as I lost in the mugging itself - so it seemed to me that even in purely financial terms, taking the risk was a better bet!

So I decided enough was enough, and walked home, although taking care to avoid the danger spot where I was acquired as a target. I'm moderately pleased with myself for that. :-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hey cool, I'm really pleased to hear that. I hope you begin to feel more confident about it soon!

This is important. I had much the same after my little run-in outside the Q last year. It took a while, but I've calmed down about strangers on the street now. It wouldn't have done to end up permanently stressed about it.

I think more than moderate pleasure is in order. Well done.

My house and car were vandalised (broken windows, etc) as part of a mini-campaign of nastiness against me a few months ago. I still look over my shoulder as I get out of my car on my driveway in my street every single time I park at my house... waiting for something bad to happen.

It's no longer my home. Just my house.

So for you to have moved on a stage in your own 'dealing with it' is very, very good. Virtual back-patting is called for...

Regards,
Denny

Thanks :-)

I've been trying not to let the mugging make me feel unsafe in my own street. It did actually happen fifty yards from my front door, but only because they saw me on a main road ten minutes' walk further away and chased me - so I've been having to remind myself every so often that there aren't muggers lurking around my house on a regular basis...

I know what you mean, though: it seriously made me wonder about moving house...

*hugs* cool!

I really do think you should consider getting a bike, though - it's the only convenient, booze-friendly and at least reasonably rapid method of transport in this town..

People have lost their driving licences for riding a bike when drunk. It's still an offence. Not to mention quite dangerous.

Cite please! I don't believe that to be true. You can be stopped for riding while drunk, but whether you are drunk or not is judged by a policeman rather than using the same breathalizer limits as apply in a car. It *can't* affect your driving licence. Especially if you don't have one ;-) And how dangerous it is depends on how much you have drunk and what sort of route you take home. It's perfectly possible to be under the legal limit and prefer not to drive but be happy cycling, many people I know won't drive if they've had *anything* to drink, but seeing as they're only risking their own life and limb on a bike (and not very much at that given how much slower you're moving than in a car) they don't mind quite so much about cycling.

Well, it seems you're right enough. You live and learn . . .

There is a fine of up to 1000 pounds, though.

It's perfectly possible to be under the legal limit and prefer not to drive but be happy cycling

That isn't the same as it being "alcohol-friendly".

as they're only risking their own life and limb on a bike

I'm very glad to hear that a cyclist isn't capable of hurting a pedestrian, and also that innocent or third parties in accidents would have no cause for complaint.

It's a damned sight more alcohol friendly than driving is, if you are one of those people who prefer to have *no* drink when driving. I'm not suggesting that one should cycle when plastered, and in fact I *don't* do so, and I've been known to push my bike home on foot because I knew it wasn't safe to cycle. I still contend it's a lot safer than driving when you've been drinking, and that the risk to other is minimal if you're sensible. If you prefer not to touch a drop while cycling then fine, no-one is forcing you to drink.

It's a damned sight more alcohol friendly than driving is, if you are [&C]

Under equivalent conditions, yes it is. This isn't the same as describing it unqualifiedly as "alcohol-friendly".

If you prefer not to touch a drop while cycling then fine, no-one is forcing you to drink.

Eh? If nobody's drinking then riding, then we're not having this discussion, are we?

I quite often drink without getting drunk, a couple of pints maybe in the pub. In those circumstances I would cycle but would not drive, despite the fact I'd probably still be under the legal limit. I *would* therefore describe cycling as alcohol-friendly. And I think that's all that Vicky meant by it. If you think it means something else maybe you should have checked what she meant first. If you hadn't been peddling (rather than pedalling:-) urban myths about having your licence taken away it would probably have been singularly less irritating though.

I, OTOH, wouldn't normally cycle after two pints. If I'm going to have more than one I get a taxi, bus, or a lift, or more usually walk.

I *would* therefore describe cycling as alcohol-friendly

Well, this is obviously a matter of semantics at this point, but I'd say that was a strikingly casual use of the phrase. YMMV.

I'd probably still be under the legal limit

Depending on how long you took over it.

If you hadn't been peddling (rather than pedalling:-) urban myths

Well, what can I say? You were right and I was wrong. I am both sorry and better-informed.

What's the pedestrian doing stepping out into the road infront of a cyclist who's got working lights and is wearing high-visibility clothing? You can go so far towards preventing accidents, but there's nothing to prevent stupidity.

What has any of that got to do with the potential for injury? Even were we to assume that there was no such thing as cyclist error, accidents would still happen.

Everything has potential for causing injury, both to yourself or to others, whether you walk, cycle when 100% sober, cycle after a few drinks, take a taxi, drive when 100% sober, or drive after a few drinks. Thus far, in this country, only the last of these has caused enough damage to result in safety campaigns, noticable social opprobium, etc.

Obviously different people draw the boundary between OK and not OK in different places though.

Personally I've noticed that I seem to be able to cycle while drunk without injuring anyone else, and that the same applies to lots of other people I know; that I do notice when I'm too drunk to cycle safely (in which case I walk); and that I've yet to see any particular evidence to the contrary (e.g. reports of large numbers of accidents caused by inebriated cyclists - or even a single such report, as far as I can recall). So I put it on the "OK" side; I'm curious as to why you're so vehemently anti.

I've yet to see any particular evidence to the contrary

I'm not aware of any figures either. I would assume that the effects on drivers' judgements are duplicated, though, and I'm as reluctant to trust cyclists saying they're safe and unaffected as I would be to agree with a motorist who said the same (of which, of course, there have been a great many).

I'm curious as to why you're so vehemently anti

I think cyclists take a far too lax view of road safety and discipline in this town. I was a regular cyclist for about 20 years before I moved down here, and I'm stunned by what quite a lot of people seem to think is reasonable. The same is true to a certain extent of drivers too, although the difference isn't as great.

I don't want to give the impression that I think cycling is The Problem here - it's not. It's not quite The Solution either, but it's a major part of it. This doesn't mean I don't have opinions about what standards should be kept.

and what of the drunken pedestrian who stumbles (or falls) randomly into the path of the sober cyclist, knocking zir off zir bike ? ;-)

-m-

More people are hurt (and killed) by sober motorists than drunken cyclists; anyone who drives sober is more deserving of being encouraged not to do so than anyone who cycles drunk.

What a charmingly positive response to a suggestion of how Simon might improve his quality of life: not only patronising but replete with snide accusations of criminal irresponsibility. Also, since as far as I'm aware (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_7.htm) the worst that can be imposed on you for cycling while drunk is a fine, I'm taking that as an urban myth. (Page in reference lacking column headings, but the column which appears to correspond to license endorsements contains no entry for the "cycling while unfit through drink or drugs" offence. Also

mobbsy tells me he can find "nothing in sections 34,35,44,45,46,47 of the Act that suggests that a license can be endorsed for anything other than an offense which involves endorsement in Schedule 2").

What a charmingly positive response

Which? Encouraging him to do something that may be illegal, or pointing out that it may be illegal?

As I pointed out, I got jumped and beaten last year, so I have some idea what it's like. I have a great deal of sympathy for his situation. I definitely think he's going about things the right way.

Which? Encouraging him to do something that may be illegal, or pointing out that it may be illegal?

No. Vastly and incorrectly overstating the risks involved in cycling in a thread where it was originally suggested as a less "mugger-friendly" (let's throw a few more of those nice politically correct usability phrases about, shall we?) alternative to walking, presumably in an attempt to encourage Simon to live his life according to someone else's notion of common sense.

In somewhat less rancorous vein, your urge to look out for the welfare of those less fortunate than yourself is admirable; however, I can't help but think there may be more productive situations in which to attempt to educate your audience on the evils of drink-cycling than in discussion with a group of intelligent, independent-minded and well-informed ~~alcoholics~~ adults who also happen to be habitual cyclists..

where it was originally suggested as a less "mugger-friendly"

I didn't force you to mention alcohol. Your point would have stood just as well without that.

presumably in an attempt to encourage Simon to live his life according to someone else's notion of common sense

As far as I can tell, that's what we were both doing.

I've just spent a while looking carefully at it, and there's absolutely nothing in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that allows endorsement of a license for the offense of "Cycling when unfit through drink or drugs." - the only punishment listed is a fine of "Level 3 on the standard scale".

I'm not aware of any more recent legislation overriding this.
The Act is online at:
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm>

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only