World News

See, the larger vehicle is responsible for accidents over here, almost all of the time. So if cyclists get drunk and a car hits them, the car driver could get a lot of flack, legally and in insurance costs. Which is kinda fucked up, but that's the system.

So we expect cyclists to be sober. So they don't create those situations.

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).

Depends on the path, traffic and speed. They're still a danger to pedestrians, other cyclists, and cars (not directly dangerous but can cause an accident).

What? If some drunken fuck rams into me on a bike, then I'll l get injured.

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.

Could hurt other cyclists and pedestrians, especially other cyclists of going fast 

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.

If its like Australia, then its probably because the way the legislation is worded.

If the DUI legislation has demerit point accumulation for DUI, and it covers all vehicles, not just motor vehicles, then drunk cycling or horse riding could also result in a loss of licence.

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.