you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 5 points 11 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (10 children)

    Consequences are far smaller than that of a car though. I'd prefer drunks going on bicycles then cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    What even is the point in this comment? Why is it suddenly an either-or choice?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Because we're comparing legal consequences of dui and (the new consequences of) cycling-ui.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    But you're saying you'd rather have cycling-UI over DUI as if punishing the former would increase the latter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments