A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
ChatGPT just kinda felt like that would be useful context today.
I think it's to a whole different degree in Japan though, at least from what I've heard. Forced drinking parties at work, for example.
It's always funny to watch drunk men in suit trying to stumble to the train station on a Friday night in Japan.
That was largely true. Now much less, but it depends on the industry and company.
Authorities deemed that the offenders were "likely to pose a significant danger when driving a car".
That's quite a leap of reasoning.
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.
Or people will stop driving because they have no license... Who cares if they care, then?
I just drive without one.
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.
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.
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?
Ah, if Germans do it too it must be the right then. Never met a German who didn't know the absolute best way of doing everything.
I gave Germany as an example, but this is the case for many countries. Japan, Germany, UK, some regions of Australia, etc.
The same thing can - and has - happened in England.
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...
M friend got super fucked up falling off her bike doing this. She was in clip in pedals tho.
It is hella fun though! Just know your limit.
Chipped a permanent front tooth quite badly drunk cycling. I'd fallen off and when I picked the bike up by its handlebars I threw them into my face trying to lift the bike. Was so lucky to only fracture a tooth instead of 7 of them lol.
Drunk cyclist: oh no! what will I do for transportation now?
DC: wait
This is Japan. There are other ways to get around than cars. Surprisingly, perhaps, if you're American. Although it depends where you live.
(the joke here is getting fined for driving a car and yet the cyclist is, in fact, not in a car)
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.
This is dumb. Write a drunk in public, sure, but a drunk cyclist isn't a danger to anyone but themselves.
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).
Cyclists injure fewer pedestrians per year than sidewalks do.
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.
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.
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
Consequences are far smaller than that of a car though. I'd prefer drunks going on bicycles then cars.
I'd rather they walk or take public transit, taxi etc.
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.
It would be silly to leave out the option of walking because the article didn't mention it lol
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.
We are talking about walking right now though since that's the preferable alternative to both
What even is the point in this comment? Why is it suddenly an either-or choice?
Because we're comparing legal consequences of dui and (the new consequences of) cycling-ui.
But you're saying you'd rather have cycling-UI over DUI as if punishing the former would increase the latter.
Given the same "price", the 'rational consumer' (of illegal activities) would choose the (seemingly) more valuable purchase (crime) - value here being time saved and convenience.
Time saved and convenience? Doing what?
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:
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.
Removing driving license for a non-traffic violation doesn't make sense, it disproportionately affects those that have licenses.
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.
It is a single point system. One DUI and your license is gone. For cars and bicycles.