simont | (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

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-