Hundreds of Drunk Cyclists (not really)

[Scott_C]

Drunk cyclists and pedestrians could be causing scores of car crashes every year

A leading trauma doctor has called for new laws after a study found hundreds of drunk cyclists and pedestrians were seriously injured in collisions with cars and motorbikes in Victoria between 2009 and 2014.

So how many drunk (>0.05) cyclists were there in the 5 years?
47.

And how many not drunk cyclists were there?
~590 (7.3% drunk)

And how many drunk pedestrians were there?
161

And how many not drunk pedestrians were there?
~490 (24.7% drunk)

So when the report says "hundreds of drunk cyclists and pedestrians" what it means is that seriously injured cyclists are 3 times less likely to be drunk than seriously injured pedestrians (who are drunk at the exact same rate as fatally injured Victorian motor vehicle drivers/riders) but we will throw the 2 numbers together so we can barely scrape in 200 vulnerable road users and describe it as "hundreds".

We can now make the obvious conclusion that cyclists should be subject to the same breath testing regime and penalties as motor vehicle drivers/riders. But what about the spectre of drunk vulnerable road users leading to motor vehicle drivers/riders being inappropriately penalised for running them over?

The doctor also called for mandatory blood alcohol testing for all road accident victims in emergency departments because it was possible some drivers were being charged with offences such as culpable driving when a drunk pedestrian or cyclist caused the accident. At the moment, only drivers are tested. If they refuse, they can be charged with preventing a health professional from taking a blood sample.

I am sure glad to see the Doctor putting forward a new excuse for defence lawyers to try the next time their client cleans up a cyclist.

[Thoglette]

So when the report says "hundreds of drunk cyclists and pedestrians" what it means is that seriously injured cyclists are 3 times less likely to be drunk than seriously injured pedestrians (who are drunk at the exact same rate as fatally injured Victorian motor vehicle drivers/riders)

Geez, next you'll be expecting editors to do their job and insist on fact checking.

Unfortunately "journalism" now means reprinting press releases and providing clickbait.

[cj7hawk]

I wonder how many of the "cyclists" were pedestrians too drunk to ride who were wheeling their bikes back home?

[find_bruce]

One of the anomalies in road related injuries & fatalities is that there is a high correlation between being over 0.05% BAC for pedestrians & drivers, but as you point out there is a low correlation for cyclists.

BTW I wouldn't describe people at a BAC of 0.05% as "drunk" - the level of impairment is not consistent across the population - if you are old enough to remember the debate about whether the drink driving level should be 0.05 or 0.08, 0.08 was a level at which almost all drivers were measurably impaired while at 0.05 almost no drivers were measurably impaired.

For pedestrians the two highest correlations are for old age & blood alcohol content - it is a well known reason why there are a high proportion of pedestrian fatalities in the Sydney CBD at night.

For me the interesting question is why people injured whilst riding a bike with a BAC >0.05 are so low?

It is not because getting on a bike makes them different from the general population. Sure there are people who ride a bike as part of a healthy lifestyle who abstain from alcohol, but there are also people who are riding a bike because they are disqualified from driving for driving under the influence.

It is also not because of exercise - there are numerous controlled studies that show exercise does not significantly reduce your blood alcohol content. If anything the sort of impairment caused by alcohol, particularly to risk taking & balance, would point the other way.

Oh & I don't know about the law in other states, but in NSW the blood test requirement applies to any person involved in the collision & includes cyclists & pedestrians. Apart from anything else, how else would they know the percentage who were over 0.05?

[human909]

Implicit in the article is a culture of blame being attributed to the intoxicated vulnerable road users. Yet nowhere is this substantiated at all. For all we know all the vulnerable road users injured could have been due to the fault of motorists (sober or drunk). The fact that the injured vulnerable road user was intoxicated has not been substantiated as relevant in this study.

Lets stop blaming the victims. Lets make the roads safer. If pedestrians and cyclists are being regularly injured in out nightlife areas then surely better speed restrictions would be a good idea.

(From a personal perspective my caution is much higher when I ride after a few drinks. And you know what I'm even more likely to be dodging idiot motorists whether they are sober or not.)
In Amsterdam the vast majority of cyclists after 1am have been drinking.

[Mulger bill]

Usual question for the good doctor...

"Who funded this research?"

[trailgumby]

Usual question for the good doctor...

"Who funded this research?"

Yep. Follow the money trail

[mikesbytes]

Implicit in the article is a culture of blame being attributed to the intoxicated vulnerable road users. Yet nowhere is this substantiated at all. For all we know all the vulnerable road users injured could have been due to the fault of motorists (sober or drunk). The fact that the injured vulnerable road user was intoxicated has not been substantiated as relevant in this study.

Lets stop blaming the victims. Lets make the roads safer. If pedestrians and cyclists are being regularly injured in out nightlife areas then surely better speed restrictions would be a good idea.

(From a personal perspective my caution is much higher when I ride after a few drinks. And you know what I'm even more likely to be dodging idiot motorists whether they are sober or not.)
In Amsterdam the vast majority of cyclists after 1am have been drinking.

Yip, this is exactly what I was thinking, as per the cut in speed limit in high pedestrian areas (NSW), a cut in the speed limit in areas/times that have a higher number of intoxicated people will reduce the risk to those intoxicated.

Its the usual story of blaming those in the wrong rather than addressing the actual cause of injury/death

[DavidS]

Total beat up. Just trying to deflect attention from drivers who, sober or drunk, have a tendency to be crap.

DS

[mikesbytes]

My point, its not being drunk that's killing them, its the collision with the motor vehicle. Reduce the dependency on motor vehicles and less drunks will be killed.

Perhaps we a motor vehicle curfew, aligned with the lock out laws. To ensure the safe passage of those consuming booze to their homes