top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 58 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Alcohol has long been seen as a social lubricant for thousands of years in Japan, where business deals and difficult issues are discussed over bottles of beer and sake.

It is believed that drinking alcohol creates a more relaxed environment for such discussions.

This is such an odd bit of “cultural context” to include in the article. Alcohol is a social lubricant in basically every culture that doesn’t outright forbid it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Drink cycling is fun, red wine and white wine is a good cycle option, stay away from gin and vodka though. Ohh not that drink cycling...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    So the more comfortable way to lose a license is to drive a car instead?

    If you punish everything you'll just get people who stop caring.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Not really, same in Germany if you are generally drunk in traffic (except by foot or public transport, i.e. an active participant) the same sober laws apply. So the incentive is not to do that when drunk. Also believe me when you lose your driving license completely you will care if you need it, and even if you don't, fines hurt, too.

    Japan is even harsher as you can go to prison directly, and if you are in their court system once (that is after only a fine or simple suspension) due to customs and cultural norms you will be found guilty with a chance of about 99 % (the Japanese court system is notoriously bad).

    Alternatives to escalating by using a car can bet walking or taking the metro, the latter is easily possible in Japan, for instance. When the trains don't run there are plenty cheap manga cafes or capsule hotels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Not really, same in Germany if you are generally drunk in traffic (except by foot or public transport, i.e. an active participant)

    An active participant in operating a vehicle, I'm sure. I would disagree with the implicit characterization of walking on foot as being a non-active participant in traffic.

    Alternatives to escalating by using a car can bet walking or taking the metro, the latter is easily possible in Japan, for instance. When the trains don’t run there are plenty cheap manga cafes or capsule hotels.

    If you're in Tokyo, maybe. I imagine this might be a bigger problem in rural areas, where the distances are greater and public transportation less available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    The distinction you make is fair. What I meant by active is as you describe "operating a vehicle", pedestrians are active participants as well, but you arguably are more likely to cause harm when misusing vehicles than on foot.

    I was generally speaking about cities where most of these fines/sentences happend. In rural areas it is harder in many countries, although bare extreme mountainous parts, Japan is generally OK here as well.

    Though I believe in these parts you are not only less likely to cause harm when drunk driving + police is less likely to stop you as well.

    Generally speaking, it is always possible to either plan well enough to be able not to operate a vehicle drunk, or to simply don't drink if the former isn't possible. Don't you agree?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is something that happens in beach cities in CA. People get drunk at the beach bars and then take the beach bike path home. However, those paths are used by pedestrians and other cyclists going at high speeds.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Drunk cyclist: oh no! what will I do for transportation now?

    DC: wait

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago
    [–] 1 point 11 months ago (29 children)

    This is dumb. Write a drunk in public, sure, but a drunk cyclist isn't a danger to anyone but themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

    Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    Cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    Yeah and donkeys kill more people per year than sharks and more people die at their home every year than at volcano eruptions and earthquakes put together.

    If you want to quantify danger of something you need to account the number of encounters.

    And you did not answer the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Thanks for confirming my assumptions above. I don't agree.

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

    How can you disagree with a recorded fact? 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Based on their comment above I asked if the following assumptions were correct. They appeared to confirm them:

    It sounds like you are saying that if a drunk cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's impossible for the pedestrian to get injured.

    Or if that same cyclist weaves out in to the street, a car that hits them cannot be damaged (and the driver of the car won't be held liable even though cyclists pretty much always have the right of way vs. cars).

    Are you saying there are recorded facts that agree with their assumptions? Could you please provide a source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    No, I'm saying cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks do, which is what your disagreeing comment appeared to be replying to. It's a recorded fact that cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks. For my country, that's in the Recorded Road Casualties of Great Britain dataset.

    I replied about your assumptions in another comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Not impossible, but very very rare in practice.

    And whether the driver is liable varies around the world. Most countries require drivers not to hit dumb animals, including drunk humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 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)

    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
  • [+] 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)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Only thing i agree with you is that this is dumb.

    Getting fine from public intoxication is just so weird concept for me. Especially when thinking some assbackwards places where its legal to carry a gun in public, but carrying open beer bottle is punishable.

    Also drunk cyclist can be dangerous. If they collide with pedestarian or another cyclist there is good change for a hospital trip, or in extreme cases morgue. Especially now when e-bikes are more common.

    Few years back some drunkard who was biking at the side of large road suddenly and without any signal crossed the road and allmost got hit by my car. I needed to pull over after that and wait for some time to get my hands stop shaking. If i would had bad brakes he would be dead and i would be traumatised, or if there would have been another car following me there would have been a crash.

    Reason why i think its dumb is that if the punishment for driving a car and driving a bike is more or less the same, more people are going to choose the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I get where you're going with this but it's not that dumb IMO, the maximum penalty absolutely is dumb.

    If a person can barely cycle and obviously is drunk on a bike I think it's fair to assume that they're a danger to others so it should be illegal but the police shouldn't be breathalysing everyone.

    With tweaks to the law I think it's fine:

    1. Allow 0.3 instead of 0.15 so you can have two drinks and ride a bike. Bikes go a lot slower so the reaction time requirement is not the same.

    2. Removing driving license for a non-traffic violation doesn't make sense, it disproportionately affects those that have licenses.

    3. The fine and jailtime is ludicrous. Add in recklessly riding a bike for those such as riding too fast past pedestrians and jailtime for seriously injuring someone like breaking their leg or something.

    Generally you want people to ride a bike instead of driving a car when drinking, it's a lot safer for everyone but still discourage it enough so people consider taking public transportation. If people walk their bike through crowds and then ride along empty streets just let them.

    Bottom line, it's a good idea, but horrible execution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Cyclists here in Japan flaunt all the rules and ride like maniacs (illegally in most cases) on the sidewalks (and also illegally with earphones and staring at their phones). Pedestrians have absolute right-of-way and the cyclist is at fault for hitting them. Add to this generally high density and bad spacial awareness and it's bad without drunks. Absolutely keep people from drinking off the cycles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I dunno about what part of Japan you're in but what grinds my gears in Okinawa is how they NEVER use their damn bells to let me know they're approaching me from behind.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    *Drunk cycling

    You can edit titles OP.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment