Article compares cycling and driving, so we should stock to that. Opening it up invites all manner of options like designated driver, and a all others.
The article discusses forfeiture of driving license as a consequence of cycling whilst drunk. My stand is that this is unreasonable, as the damage that a drunk cyclist can inflict on others or themselves is magnitudes lower than that of driving drunk.
We can discuss walking if walking whilst drunk also can lead to a forfeiture of a driving license. Because hey, a drunk person could walk into traffic just as much as a drunk cyclist could.
Given the same “price”, the ‘rational consumer’ (of illegal activities) would choose the (seemingly) more valuable purchase (crime) - value here being time saved and convenience.
Could hurt other cyclists and pedestrians, especially other cyclists of going fast
Consequences are far smaller than that of a car though. I’d prefer drunks going on bicycles then cars.
I’d rather they walk or take public transit, taxi etc.
Article compares cycling and driving, so we should stock to that. Opening it up invites all manner of options like designated driver, and a all others.
It would be silly to leave out the option of walking because the article didn’t mention it lol
The article discusses forfeiture of driving license as a consequence of cycling whilst drunk. My stand is that this is unreasonable, as the damage that a drunk cyclist can inflict on others or themselves is magnitudes lower than that of driving drunk.
We can discuss walking if walking whilst drunk also can lead to a forfeiture of a driving license. Because hey, a drunk person could walk into traffic just as much as a drunk cyclist could.
We are talking about walking right now though since that’s the preferable alternative to both
What even is the point in this comment? Why is it suddenly an either-or choice?
Because we’re comparing legal consequences of dui and (the new consequences of) cycling-ui.
But you’re saying you’d rather have cycling-UI over DUI as if punishing the former would increase the latter.
Given the same “price”, the ‘rational consumer’ (of illegal activities) would choose the (seemingly) more valuable purchase (crime) - value here being time saved and convenience.
Time saved and convenience? Doing what?