Breathalyzer Bike Lock Stops Drunken Cyclists In Their Tracks 178
Zothecula writes: Driving while drunk is a bad idea even on a bike. Slowed reflexes and decreased awareness of the world around them can make a drunk cyclist a danger on the road. Working in much the same way as breath-test locks for your car, the Alcoho-Lock aims to prevent cyclists from hopping in the seat when they've had one too many. The device even comes with a smartphone app that connects with the lock over Bluetooth and lets a loved one know that you are trying to bike drunk.
And this is a big problem WHERE? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading a while back about drunk cycling being a commonplace issue in Russia, to the extent that authorities began considering requiring licenses for riding a bike (similar to the way driving licenses work). I can't find a source for it now, so take that with a grain of salt.
I
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds laughable, but a lot of accidents DO happen and they DO cause harm to people.
Almost exclusively to themselves, though.
Drunk people in public transportation are probably a bigger danger for the people around them than the same drunkards on bikes.
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the millions of bad things that can happen? We have to protect everybody from everything, especially themselves!
I knew this helicopter parenting was going to start producing shit like this, once the kids got older.
Re:And this is a big problem WHERE? (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember reading a while back about drunk cycling being a commonplace issue in Russia
Well, sure, but alcoholism in Russia is so rampant that it's negatively affect lifespan stats. There's a real problem, for instance, with people passing out in the dead of winter and freezing to death on the streets. So, it's likely that drunk whatever is a problem in Russia, so long as it's possible to do whatever while intoxicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.
And since outright prohibition doesn't work at all, they push to make ethanol consumption as difficult as they can.
So its "ZOMG! ppl iz riding bbcle drunk! It's the leading acuse of drunken bbcle aksdnts!"
Drunk driving is still a problem (Score:3)
Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.
Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem? Roughly 1/3 [cdc.gov] of all accidents in the US involve alcohol according to eh CDC. That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.
You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?
Re:Drunk driving is still a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.
You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics. Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
Respectfully, 10,000 people a year is a barely a blip on the radar when dealing with causes of death. You don't want to hear that, I'm sure, but the drunken driving issue in the US is well into diminishing returns as far as resources expended. When we have random checkpoints set up to fine and incarcerate people who haven't even been in an accident, and when we lower the BAC level needed for conviction, we're running out of options other than setting snipers outside of bars and maybe swatting people if their credit card statements show they ever purchased anything at a liquor store.
To my argument, there is a reason we're seeing those stickers that say "Impairment begins with the first drink" on cars with a MADD sticker on them. Maybe it's time we start random stops and testing for Alka Seltzer Plus intoxication, or banning people who have colds from driving.
Before you call that ridiculous, my father once ran into a light pole when he had a nasty cold and coughed and spit out the window - totaled his car. We used to tease him about "going into hock" for his new car after that accident.
Re: (Score:2)
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics. Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
Except that most of the people killed by guns in the USA are killed by themselves...
To my argument, there is a reason we're seeing those stickers that say "Impairment begins with the first drink" on cars with a MADD sticker on them. Maybe it's time we start random stops and testing for Alka Seltzer Plus intoxication, or banning people who have colds from driving.
How about the cops stop pulling people over for being black, and start pulling people over for driving like shit? They'd have plenty of time.
Re:Drunk driving is still a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the cops stop pulling people over for being black, and start pulling people over for driving like shit? They'd have plenty of time.
Semi related note about the profiling thing - My wife bought a new car a few years back. And we started getting pulled over a lot. Never a ticket issued. Wondering just what the hell, I did a little research. Turns out that Suzuki Arieo's were a favorite of young male drivers who wanted a "tuner" for not too much money.
Also explained the looks of confusion on the gendarme's face, when they were expecting to give some kid a shakedown, and it's a semi respectable olde farte like me was driving the thing. A severe moment of cognitive dissonance for the poor guy. Getting rid of that car, and going back to our Jeeps solved the profiling problem.
Now, its time for an Alka-Seltzer Plus, and I can quit any time I want - that's right. Besides, it's those nuts driving under the influence of Nyquil who are the real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The other 2/3 are gun-related suicides. I don't think a valid statistical conclusion can be drawn including the suicide numbers.
Those numbers are the number of deaths, not the number of injuries too. I'd imagine the number of injuries greatly increases the n
10,000 drunk driving deaths a year in the US (Score:2)
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.
Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.
Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.
Respectfully, 10,000 people a year is a barely a blip on the radar when dealing with causes of death.
10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.
10,000 deaths is a tragedy by any measure (Score:3)
Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE.
Sense of humanity. PLEASE GET ONE. 10,000 people dying in accidents is a tragedy. If you can't see that then I weep for you.
Just because people die from other reasons too doesn't in any way make this less of a tragedy. Just because people die from heart disease doesn't make cancer research unimportant. Just because people die from gunshots doesn't make preventing drunk driving unimportant. By your logic we shouldn't spend any time worrying about anything but the most common cause of death because anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE.
Sense of humanity. PLEASE GET ONE. 10,000 people dying in accidents is a tragedy. If you can't see that then I weep for you.
Just because people die from other reasons too doesn't in any way make this less of a tragedy. Just because people die from heart disease doesn't make cancer research unimportant. Just because people die from gunshots doesn't make preventing drunk driving unimportant. By your logic we shouldn't spend any time worrying about anything but the most common cause of death because anything else "lacks perspective".
I reposted your whole comment, because of the screaming intensity of it.
Putting things in perspective, and being rational and setting priorities != being inhuman.
Turning that into a wild eyed foam at the mouth rant condemning anyone who dares to approach the problem in a rational manner - as you have, is perhaps the pot complaning about the kettle's pigmentation.
What would you do to reduce the problem further?
We've already lowered the BAC, indeed lowered it to 0% for teenagers, and we've create
Absurd reductionism (Score:3)
But it has 100 percent everything to do with someone whining about 10,000 people getting killed by drunk driving.
You're going on and on with a bunch of strawman baloney about more common and largely unrelated causes of death. Let me make this very simple for you since you can't seem to wrap your brain around it.
Just because something else is a more common cause of death IN NO WAY makes these deaths from drunk driving less of a tragedy or less worthy of efforts to prevent those deaths.
Clear enough? If you cannot understand that then I pity you. You are acting like we cannot do anything further about drunk driving an
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking retard.
Re: (Score:2)
When MADD started out, roughly 2/3 of the accidents and deaths were caused by drunk driving. So that value has been cut in half over the last couple decades, which is good. And it's not just the convenient ratio, but the actual number of deaths per year from drunk driving has been cut in half.
Today's problem really is that the other part of that ratio has doubled, with the same increase in actual deaths from sober drivers. So, while drunks now kill half as meany people as they used to, and face stiff penalt
Re: (Score:2)
"Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem?"
Umm, what makes you think making "drunk driving is no longer a problem" was their "original" objective? It is their recruitment phrase, nothing more.
MADD's ideal achievement would be prohibition. They support preposterous minimum drinking ages and absurdly low definitions of "drunkenness". They want mandatory ignition interlocks on all cars. They feel entitled to insert themselves into law enforcement practices. MADD is a problem,
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
The beach community I live in has a bit of a problem with this. The issue isn't drunken bikers, per se, but the route they choose to take when they bike home. The police started issuing DUIs to bicyclists after several incidents with drunken bicyclists swerving out into traffic on one of the only busy roads in the community. In my particular community, one could easily bike anywhere they need to go strictly on almost completely deserted residential roads at the cost of maybe an extra 5 minutes. So the p
Re: (Score:2)
Europe, Asia, ... (just say, non-USA) and young, working-class USA cities (aka hipster cities)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I live in a fairly rural/suburban community.
I also have ATVs to fight with.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
Cyclists are demanding the same rights as motorists, no reason why they shouldn't have to have the same responsibilities.
Back in the days when the bloke riding home from the pub was smart enough to stay on the foot path it was fine, but the cyclists sense of self entitlement has gotten so big that they've demanded everyone rides on the road and tried to make it illegal to ride on foot paths. An experienced and sober cyclists wobbles enough as it is and are a big enough hindrance and danger to other road
Re:And this is a big problem WHERE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of respondents say this is a non-US thing.
Fair enough.
I'm in the US, where there's this attitude of "you're safer in an SUV" prevalent. So, perhaps this has the effect of "I wouldn't be safe on a bike AT ALL", which is ultimately why people in this country hate bikers.
In my experience (and where I'm at), "Share the Road" signs often mean "If you're on a bike, stay on the shoulder and cars will swerve around you into the left lane. That's not safer, but at least drivers aren't inconvenienced by bikers."
In other words, biking sober is highly discouraged. Drunk biking is right out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I just had a bicyclist pass another bicyclist while I was going by, while there was traffic in the other lane. I almost drove straight up his asshole, and he would have deserved it too,
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
If there was an oncoming car, you made an unsafe pass.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Those bikes are traffic, and they were ahead of you. You shouldn't be passing them until you can do so safely by getting all 4 of your tires in the next lane.
As a former-frequent bicyclist, I hate that attitude and the asinine laws that are built around it. If there is a group of two to ten bicyclists riding down a busy road, they should be riding single file, at the same speed, and as far right as is safely possible. When I rode, alone or in small groups, that is how we rode on busy roads. (Empty roads are another story.)
In large groups, such as a biking club, that has ten to a hundred people riding a route has more reason to double up, or for single riders to
Re: (Score:2)
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely.
If he can't move fully over safely, then if any of the three vehicles (northbound car, southbound car, and southbound cyclist) shift at all (say, to avoid an obstacle), the cyclist dies.
Re: (Score:2)
If he can move half-way over and pass safely, why would he need to put his entire vehicle into another lane instead?
If he can move half-way over safely, he can move fully over safely.
What if there is a two lane road, with a single car trying to drive down it, and along each edge, going in the correct direction, there are bicyclists riding single file? The car can't go fully into the other lane without hitting the oncoming cyclists. But he could quite safely travel down the road straddling the center line. Hypothetical? Not really, as I'm sure it happens at some point in the country often enough to be a valid argument against "all four tires".
In addition, in normal traffic, with just one
Re: (Score:2)
I just had a bicyclist pass another bicyclist while I was going by, while there was traffic in the other lane. I almost drove straight up his asshole, and he would have deserved it too,
In my state, at least, riding two abreast is completely legal.
Pulling out in front of traffic to do it without warning is just as illegal for a bicycle as it is for an automobile. He cut me off, and if I had been paying less attention, he would be dead. He is a goddamned idiot and a menace to public safety. He certainly didn't signal his illegal maneuver, either, which is just as much of a legal requirement for a cyclist as it is for a motorist if you're planning to interfere with traffic.
If there was an oncoming car, you made an unsafe pass.
There was plenty of room for me to pass if a cyclist didn't make an illegal and
Re: (Score:2)
He certainly didn't signal his illegal maneuver, either, which is just as much of a legal requirement for a cyclist as it is for a motorist if you're planning to interfere with traffic.
If he was already occupying the lane, he wasn't interfering with traffic. He has the right to the lane.
He also needs to choose to obey the other laws of the road if he wants respect.
So, I assume when you did this pass UPHILL, it wasn't across a solid yellow line?
Re: (Score:2)
If he was already occupying the lane, he wasn't interfering with traffic. He has the right to the lane.
He wasn't already occupying the lane. He was in the bicycle lane. You assumed he was already occupying the lane, because that's the version of the narrative you want to believe.
So, I assume when you did this pass UPHILL, it wasn't across a solid yellow line?
Well, after I waited for him to complete his illegal pass, which was illegal because it was a) a direct obstruction to the flow of traffic and b) unannounced, no, I didn't have to pass the solid double yellow line, not even to give him the three feet of special snowflake clearance that only cyclists get — not motorcyclists, not
Motorists are morons too (Score:2)
People in this country hate bicyclists because some bicyclists are gigantic fucking morons.
Funny I could say EXACTLY the same thing about a lot of automobile drivers. Furthermore as someone whose ridden for most of his life that VAST majority of drivers flipping out has precisely zero to do with anything the rider did. I've had people throw soft drinks on me while riding when there was no possible way I was causing them any problems or danger. I've had people maliciously try to drive me off the road. I've had morons moon me, scream obscenities, flip me the bird, clip me with their car and mor
Re: (Score:2)
Thus my original point.
Which is more dangerous: me riding the shoulder, where drivers on my left swerve into the left lane (sometimes only halfway) to make sure they don't hit me, or letting me ride in the lane and passing me safely when the opportunity presents itself?
I realize that some cyclists are "smug" and don't ride as fast as they should, but I do my part: I ride at a time of day when traffic is at a reasonable minimum, as much as I can on designated bike lanes and paths, and never on roads where th
It's not just bad driving (Score:2)
It's frustrating, but it's not personal. It's just that a lot of people are really bad drivers.
Sometimes it is just bad driving but I can verify from first hand experience that very often it is VERY personal. I've had drivers intentionally try to drive me off the road. It wasn't bad driving and it wasn't them not knowing I was there. It was intentional vehicular assault. There are quite a few cases of drivers pulling in front of bicycle riders and brake checking them. I've had drivers throw soft drinks on me and spit at me. There was nothing accidental about that.
There are more than a handful
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than a handful of people who honestly and earnestly believe that bicycles do not belong on public roads.
Some people are just assholes and you can't tell them shit, so some people will just always hate cyclists. Sorry. But some cyclists provably don't belong on public roads, and until the majority of vocal cyclists hold them to the same standards as they hold drivers — that is, expecting them to follow laws which are placed there for everyone's protection, and which only work if everyone follows them — there's a whole other group of people who will believe that who you could have on your side.
I gre
Re: (Score:2)
Proportional to the amount of gas tax they pay. So done.
Re: (Score:2)
Proportional to the amount of gas tax they pay. So done.
Not only is gas tax only a portion of where road funds come from, but they also pay such taxes indirectly, when they consume goods which have such costs baked in.
Re: (Score:2)
Those taxes paid for the use of the roads by the delivery vehicles. 100% cyclists are still freeloading.
Gas taxes more than paid for roads for decades. It's only recently that they have fallen short. Give credit for all the decades gas taxes also paid for mass transit and bike trail building. Their accrued surplus still has many decades before it's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until the brake check thing. It is not illegal to hit your brakes.
If you expect cars to wait for your slow ass, you have to accept that they will, sometimes deliberately, but legally cost you your inertia up a hill by slowing in front of you. They are making your workout better for you.
Re:And this is a big problem WHERE? (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Amsterdam and I've been biking drunk way more times than I should admit.
Still I wouldn't buy one of these things!
This.
All Dutch people bike drunk (at least, those who drink also bike, since every Dutchie has a bike). But there is a decent infrastructure for bikes, and as a result there are negligible accidents with drunk bikers.
If you grow up biking all the time (like most Dutch people), you will be able to bike home just as easily as you can walk home. A biker will (at most) cause harm to himself, if anything... but the numbers are so negligible that I cannot begin to state my disapproval of this invention.
Also, I just already thought of a funny way to sabotage my friend's alco-lock on his bike (remember, that bike is parked outside the pub). Spray a little parfume (or any alcohol containing liquid) into it, and that bike isn't moving for the next 15-30 minutes, lolzors. Vodka shots probably work as well. :)
Also, I can just breathe into all the bikes on the bike parking while drunk.
And a smart drunk person will just ask someone else to open his lock.
Why not put an alcohol lock on your shoes? Drunk walking is probably a problem too. Hell, just turn all the pubs into hotels: mandatory staying overnight until you're sober. You cannot leave if you're intoxicated. That would make the world a better place. /rant
Re: (Score:2)
A biker will (at most) cause harm to himself, if anything...
That's only true as long as they stick to bike paths, and don't use public roads. A bicyclist can do major damage to another cyclist, or to a pedestrian, and they can certainly cause a car accident.
Cars are the problem. (Score:2)
and they can certainly cause a car accident.
...which requires the presence of cars.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks. So the drunk bikers will mostly meet other bikes (sober and drunk alike), and in worst case (when both are way too drunk) it can end in scratch and bruises.
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
Sharing the road (Score:2)
...which requires the presence of cars.
Yeah funny how cars tend to be on roads. Same roads that bikes have to use.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
In the VAST majority of the world it is normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other because dedicated bike lanes are not available.
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks
Many cities I've seen in Europe barely have roads wide enough for the cars much less cars plus bike lanes. Those ancient cities Europeans are so (rightly) proud of weren't often designed with the automobile in mind. Those that were are those that were rebuilt after WWII. And in case you wer
Re: (Score:2)
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
Never going to happen.
It is happening, albeit agonizingly slowly. We're seeing more separated cycle lanes, and more bike paths. I am overwhelmingly in favor of these things, and would use bicycle transport more if they were more prevalent. I think they make the world a better place for both cyclists and automobile drivers. I don't do street riding because I have full awareness of just how dangerous it is. I have two mountain bikes, one hard and one soft. The hardtail is outgoing, I'm building another softtail from one of those o
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter.
At least in the USA the bike lanes are full of broken glass and sharp gravel and most shell heads are riding road bikes with high pressure tires (along with a gay Tour deFrance costume). So they ride in traffic right fucking next to the bike lane, where the cars tires sweep the road clear of debris.
Re: (Score:2)
A bicyclist can do major damage to another cyclist, or to a pedestrian, and they can certainly cause a car accident.
Theoretically possible, and not completely unknown but much, much, much rarer. I lived in Cambridge for must have been about 8 years. Lots of bikes, and due to the high student population, lots of people after they'd had a few. Well, I can't exactly not claim to not have done it myself.
By far the majority of accidents were caused by cars. Despite bikers doing stupid things, most of the accide
Re: (Score:2)
And thats a nice thing.
So you got:
1. Bikers already in a separate lane
2. You can't accidentally hit the assholes
This creates greatness. Even if tight suit commuters are assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I could bike just fine drunk when I was a student. Only problem was I would go from "can't walk straight" drunk to stone cold sober by the time I got home... It was a fair distance, and there were hills. I suppose that isn't really a problem, but it was to me...
The 2000lbs cages are the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2000lbs steel cages are the problem.
If you bike while surrounded by these steel caches, yes biking while drunk is going to be a serious danger. Your lack of reflexes and attention might end you up painting red the front bumper of some gaz guzzler.
If you live in Europe, there's a high chance that you bike on separate bike lanes, where you mostly only encounter other bikes (with drunken or sober bikers on them). At worst, you'll get some scratches and bruises if you managed to collide into another biker a
Re:The 2000lbs cages are the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually....I have to say, I think in the US the real problem is inexperience. Not just on the part of car drivers but of bicyclists as well.
I grew up riding a bike. I learned to ride a bicycle living on the longest main road in one of the most densly populated cities in the US (we compete with burroughs of NYC for density). I had no bike lanes and city busses passing me going 35 at 2 feet away. I learned to navigate rotaries....but...nobody was riding back then. It was something kids or the occasional DUI convict did.
Now bikes are everywhere and some of them are clueless.
Just the other day I stopped for a pedestrian entering the crosswalk on the right. Bicyclist next to me completely ignored this and almost creamed a 70 year old woman entering the road, just kept right on going. The woman had to step back to avoid being hit and still was brushed.
A few months back I was in heavy traffic approaching a crosswalk. I saw a bicyclist on the side street across the road. He was approaching at about 25 MPH, and what did he do when he got to the intersection? He scooted over to the crosswalk and crossed the street at full speed making me slam on my brakes to avoid him.
But I don't think the problem is bikes so much as, we never had so many people using them, people are new. Compare them to young car drivers and its clear what the issue is. I remember being both a shitty bicyclist and shitty driver. Its just growing pains, we don't need technological solutions, we need people to get used to new situations, and that takes time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've put up more than one ghost bike in my time, and it is almost always a hit and run wreck.
Huh? WTF is a "ghost bike"? Is this some kind of simulation or something?
But yeah, what we really need is separate bike lanes, so cyclists don't have to worry about getting creamed by a car. Shitty cyclists suck, but they're not nearly as dangerous as shitty drivers. 200lbs of mass at 10-20mph doesn't have remotely as much kinetic energy as 3000lb at 50mph.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you also ask 'WTF is "Google"? [google.com]' too.
Re: (Score:2)
Well? Don't keep us in suspense!
Re: (Score:3)
The 2000lbs steel cages are the problem.
If you bike while surrounded by these steel caches, yes biking while drunk is going to be a serious danger. Your lack of reflexes and attention might end you up painting red the front bumper of some gaz guzzler.
If you live in Europe, there's a high chance that you bike on separate bike lanes, where you mostly only encounter other bikes (with drunken or sober bikers on them). At worst, you'll get some scratches and bruises if you managed to collide into another biker as drunk as you are.
Biking while drunk is a lot safer than driving while drunk, and provides a safer way of transportation when you want to have a few drings before going home.
- A breathalyzer bike lock would just discourage people using this "safer-while-drunk" transportation device when drunk.
- Building separate bike lanes would let drunks drive only among other bikers, no car arround, and thus give a safer solution to drive home while drunk. (compared to use a car while drunk, for example).
(Of course, eventually, self-driving cars will render the whole point moot, eventually...)
A 82kg (179 pound) typical weight male on a bike is traveling at a typical biking speed of 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph) and, due to being drunk, fails to stop before riding head on into an oncoming bicyclist in the bike lanes.
How much damage does this do to the innocent party?
If you're drunk get a fucking taxi and if you can't afford the taxi then don't get drunk.
Ecin = 1/2mv^2 (Score:2)
A 82kg (179 pound) typical weight male on a bike is traveling at a typical biking speed of 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph) and, due to being drunk, fails to stop before riding head on into an oncoming bicyclist in the bike lanes.
How much damage does this do to the innocent party?
Answer: a lot less than a drunken typical-weight in a car colliding head on into an oncoming car in the car lane.
The general formula for kinetic energy is:
Ecin =1/2 m v^2
The kinetic energy scales linearly with the weight ( ~100 kg person+bike vs. 2'000 kg car : 20x less energy)
and it scales squared with regards to speed ( 15 km/h bike vs. 60 km/h car: 4x ^ 2 = 16x less energy)
so that's about ~300x less energy in bike to bike vs car to car collision. (and that's a a conservative estimate. Cars can easily be
Re: (Score:2)
"Answer: a lot less than a drunken typical-weight in a car colliding head on into an oncoming car in the car lane."
- it's also a lot less than a big truck so while very well written, your point is irrelevant.
"- the oncoming bike actually collide." :-)
Yes, that is the assumption otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it
"- the drunken biker is on the bike in the first place."
Also yes, otherwise it doesn't count towards 'riding drunk'
"You can also use the bike as a walking frame if you're that much fuc
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it ok to expect people to be responsible for their decisions only part of the time? We all make decisions, hopefully more good than bad. At the end of the day, we're all responsible for the decisions we mak
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta love the anti alcohol crowd around here. Or does MADD have paid shill posters now since they're a prohibitionist group these days?
Sure I'm so anti-alcohol that I probably still have enough in my bloodstream now from last night to fail a test.
I am, however, against drinking and driving anything off your own private property.
No one had to pay me to post my own opinion. You don't like it - too bad for you. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes nerf the fucking world cause life should be without risk?
I assume this the biggest issue where you live? if not grow up
Have to love AC postings by idiots who don't even have the courage to post under their login.
Depends on country (Score:2)
Hell, how much damage does a drunk cyclist do when it gets into an accident compared to a drunk driver?
In the US where the cyclist need to share the lane with cars:
a big risk to collide with a car which can end up deadly. This might even happen if the cyclist was sober.
Here around in Europe (specially northern europe):
on bike lanes, a drunken nothern european cyclist is most likely to encounter other cyclists (sober or drunk).
in worst case (both cyclist way too drunk) you can expect scratches, bruises... but no deadly or life-long (paralysis) consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because those separate bike lanes don't ever have to cross the path of cars and other motorised vehicles - say, at junctions or turnings etc. Just the sort of place where impaired decision making abilities could put a cyclist into a dangerous situation...
So yes, there are worse case scenarios for drunk cyclists than just scratches and bruises.
Re: (Score:2)
And pedestrians? Who cares about them?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Do you still need a normal lock? (Score:2)
Or does this lock also feature a combination or key so that some random bike thief (who probably hasn't been drinking any alcohol) can't just come up, blow into it and steal your bike?
Re:Do you still need a normal lock? (Score:4, Funny)
Even if they can't steal your bike, can they steal your $300 lock?! Also, don't most cyclists have another rather obvious means of blowing (alcohol-free) air into a tube..?
Walking is dangerious when drunk.... (Score:4, Informative)
A drunk biker is safer then a drunk driver.
1. They are exercising so blood is pumping and creating energy that a downer like alcohol to prevent. Cars on the other hand you can be very relaxed and amplify the sedative effect.
2. Bikers do get some leeway, they can drive on the sidewalk away from traffic without mush hassle, although you suppose to ride in the road, it isn't inforced. They can also drive in the breakdown lane.
3. Exponential less damage when they hit something. Sure you can get hurt but your collateral damage is much less.
The issue with drunk driving isn't about the safety of the drunk, but the safety of others. A biked drunk will cause less damage.
This device only removed an other transportation method for people who may had a bit too much to drink. While offering little actual safety advantage.
If you are dangerious to bike, you probably wouldn't get too far anyways.
Bike lanes (Score:2)
2. Bikers do get some leeway, they can drive on the sidewalk away from traffic without mush hassle
Or, you know, drive on bike lanes, those things away from traffic of which we have a lot here around in northern Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up John, you are drunk. Sidewalks are better and wider.
And its how it goes, in Scandinavia.
Long winter nights.... (Score:2)
Sidewalks are better and wider.
And its how it goes, in Scandinavia.
Well at least you have the excuse that you need to dig through 1m layer of snow if you wanted to see the lane markings on the street, so you might as well ignore them and bike wherever you want. ;-)
And all the vodka you've drank doubles probably as anti-freeze in case you get lost in the winter snow storm.
Self-respecting drunks (Score:5, Insightful)
No self-respecting cyclist drunk will ever voluntarily purchase one of these, and they can't serve a purpose sitting on a store shelf, so what's the point? Will the manufacturer now secretly draft boilerplate for new state legislation that will require the use of breathalyzer locks by all cyclists and make it a criminal offense to refuse, thus guaranteeing themselves a captive market?
(Don't laugh; how do you think California wound up with laws mandating bicycle helmets, car insurance, and smog checks, among other things? Assemblymen had little faeries with deep pocketses whispering in their ears. Captive markets created by and for corporate interests.)
Re:Self-respecting drunks (Score:5, Funny)
No self-respecting cyclist drunk will ever voluntarily purchase one of these,
This product is worthy of a Lance Armstrong endorsement.
Re: (Score:3)
No self-respecting cyclist drunk will ever voluntarily purchase one of these, and they can't serve a purpose sitting on a store shelf, so what's the point? Will the manufacturer now secretly draft boilerplate for new state legislation that will require the use of breathalyzer locks by all cyclists and make it a criminal offense to refuse, thus guaranteeing themselves a captive market?
Not by all cyclists, just those with a DUI. If it's reasonable to force people to install them on their cars, it's reasonable to make people use them with their bicycle in the same circumstances.
(Note if..then, I'm not really sure what I think, except that I think most of the existing devices are bullshit, but I also think drunk driving is bullshit)
Re: (Score:2)
Any crime that does not involve anybody else is bullshit. Drunk driving is stupid but should not be a crime until you damage something that is not yours or somehow impact another.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is choice. You chose to drink, you chose to drive. Society is the one who pays for your choices. Driving is one of the few activities you can do where the damage is borne disproportionately on those around you, and not on the person performing the activity.
Sure, you crash into a tree and die, no big deal. But more often
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of what might have happened your supporting laws that punish for what might have happened. Your quickly get into thoughtcrime. Requiring that you need an aggrieved party makes far more sense.
You can't predict when the accident will occur (Score:2)
Any crime that does not involve anybody else is bullshit. Drunk driving is stupid but should not be a crime until you damage something that is not yours or somehow impact another.
That's like saying wearing a seat belt is a dumb idea because you haven't crashed yet. You pretty much missed the entire point.
The problem with your logic is that by the time the drunken person's behavior does damage someone else it is too late. Driving drunk is A) unnecessary and B) substantially and demonstrably more likely to result in tangible harm to other people or property. So it makes sense to prohibit behavior with no societal value that causes significant burdens on society. You want to get dr
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your logic is that by the time the drunken person's behavior does damage someone else it is too late.
Thanks a lot. You just legitimized prosecution of thoughtcrime and the chipping and monitoring of every living human.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is not about making a civilized society it's about the bare minimum of required regulations so we can live with each other. The basic premise for any criminal law is would you kill somebody for doing it?
Seatbelt laws are dumb, your logic is that since we have socialized medicine society has the right to police any behavior that would place a burden on that socialized medicine. Extend that out and suddenly you have a reason to police everything by that same standard.
Re: (Score:2)
It is much more difficult and expensive to get a spare car, and driving a car requires a license. A spare bike on the other hand would be much cheaper than the lock (2nd hand oldies go here for about $50 - 100), and you don't need a license to drive one and bikes don't have license plates who tell the state who's their owner.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not reasonable. A 30 lb bicycle, which for most riders barely goes above 20mph, being considered equivalent to a 2000+ pound machine that can trivially exceed 80 mph, is downright idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did that get repealed?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile your begged question is right on the money.
For people under court order? (Score:2)
For people under court order?
Oh dear oh dear (Score:2)
The only thing that surprises me about this useless gadget is that it actually exists as a thing on sale right now instead of being yet another harebr
Anything (Score:2)
>"Driving while drunk is a bad idea even on a bike"
Doing most anything that requires movement or thinking is a bad idea while drug intoxicated.
Internet of stupid things (Score:2)
On the always secure internet, where law enforcement pretty much has access to everything on your phone, a person is going to put this device on their bicycle, and the app is going to report that they are out in public drunk?
Golly gosh - who else is going to get that information? Officer Friendly might just happen along to visit you at the bike rack.
And so why not? (Score:2)
Here in Florida you can be arrested for DUI while mowing your yard on a tractor mower. And it has happened.
Bikes and tractor mowers are considered vehicles (motorized or not), and you're responsible for the safe operation of any of those vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
By what authority do these pigs claim authority over operations confined to one's own PRIVATE PROPERTY which are not violating zoning regulations, disturbing the peace, etc? Long established norms only require licensure to operate on public roads.
I'm not saying persecution has never happened, but anyone with competent legal resources could take these nazis to school.
Re: (Score:2)
Hacked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, hack it so that only drunk people can ride their bikes. Hilarity ensues.
Cognative impairment (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't a reasonably complicated combination lock basically serve the same purpose without needing any fancy electronics?
Can be used for more than bikes... (Score:3)
actual product? (Score:2)
I don't know if this is an actual product intended to be sold to the public, or just a gimmick product design intended as part of a PSA campaign.
'would you just blow in this for me?' (Score:2)
auto locks mandated by courts for repeat drunk drivers doesn't stop friends, neighbors, strangers, children, spouses from blowing into the little device that prevents drunk usage. so if it doesn't work for cars then it isn't going to work for bikes. i bet one could even teach a dog how to blow into the breathalyzer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Considerably less than that, particularly in the USA where the average "car" is an exceptionally heavy behemoth. The amount of wear caused is basically proportional to about the fourth power of the axle weight [cyclelicio.us]. On all roads which have any appreciably large truck traffic at all, practically all of the wear is caused by truck traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
My real life experiments showed otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, it is surprisingly easy to ride around while totally shitfaced. Casually bicycling around doesn't require the kind of fine motor control and fast reflexes that driving does.