Bikes N Booze...safer than bikes and speed ?

[Coxy]

Have ridden when hungover, was the fucking bomb

[Gilby104]

Have ridden when hungover, was the fucking bomb

Only known cure for a hangover!

[Dom1]

That would never be allowed to happen on a rideout I organised.

No-one would get to the lunch stop and be utterly hanging.

Certainly not.





One must uphold standards *adjusts Sam Brown belt and toddles off*

[Carbon_ZX6R]

Have ridden when hungover, was the fucking bomb

Only known cure for a hangover!

you seem to be forgetting bacon!!!!! shame on your soul!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gilby104]

Have ridden when hungover, was the fucking bomb

Only known cure for a hangover!

you seem to be forgetting bacon!!!!! shame on your soul!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't mention the feds around Coxy, it makes him all sweaty and nervous...... and a little bit gropey!

[ash]

Just had an interesting discusion with someone I went to the local bike meeting with. In my misspent youf I mixed and saw mixed...and then saw the consequences of mixing 2 wheels, alcohol and other illegal herbs (big offs where it was obvious that judgment was lacking), so I'm now a few decades down the road, and fairly anti alcohol and motorbikes.
He is a bit of a plodder on the bike, and after a pint of real ale became even more of a plodder.
He berrated me for winding it on in a couple of (empty) B road stretches on theway back and asserted that doing this was illegal, whilst putting alchohol in ones system is legal so the lesser of the 2 evils.

What is your POV on this ?

Surely both are somewhat reckless insofar as you're unnecessarily increasing your chances of being in danger - you shouldn't be doing either as upstanding members of society. The reason both are arguably justifiable is you're calculating the risk with both acting accordingly.

If you're had a beer and you plod home, all legal, all careful then you've minimized your risk given the circumstances. If you're chosen your place to speed and based your judgement on experience then you're minimized your risk given the circumstances.

If something happened, I am sure both speed and alcohol if found to be contributory would land you in hot water. My guess is that 'illegal' speed would get you in more bother than 'legal' alcohol.   

Morally neither is worse than the other in my view given how you've described it.

Generally, I'd be more inclined to encourage people not to drink because of the likelihood that it'll make them misbehave and / or misjudge how much they are misbehaving by. For me, that's probably true.   

It isn't the misbehaving which I see alcohol causing an issue because you don't need to be under the influence to go and break the posted limits, and likewise, you may (like he slowed down a bit because you feel less in control after a drink). What I do see an issue with in relation to alcohol (and this is irrespective of the laws of this land governing them) is that alcohol or drugs impairs a drivers (or riders) ability to make a judgment on their acquired experience - travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance to be safe. Someone with impaired judgment may not slow sufficiently for the side road, blind bend, blind summit where they would never put themselves in that position when sober.

I think you're right regarding the judgement element if you're suggesting, for example, will the guy after a pint think 'open gate, likely tractor' etc

However, in my view you're I don't think you;re giving all factors the proper weight in suggesting a pint is worse than speeding.

You've got two elements here. The first is your judgement to avoid being in an emergency situation and the second is your ability to deal with and get yourself out of an emergency.

I'd agree that the pint is going to make you less likely to spot and factor in an emergency situation. However, no matter how good you are, upping your speed will give you less attention and time to focus on those hazards and they will be coming at you faster. Maybe you'll have thought about the hazards (or have more capacity to do so) but there is much less you can do about avoiding them at a higher speed.

Secondly, with regard to actually getting yourself out of danger that is all about having the time to react. I'd argue that speed combined with the lack of time to react and there being less you can do with the situation in front of you is probably worse than having more time to deal with it but a slower brain. For example, as a general rule I'd wager I'd be able to deal much more efficiently and meaningfully with an emergency situation after a pint but 10mph under the speed limit than you would 10mph over but sober. 

I'm basing this on the case above and someone who knows the effect of drink and has adjusted his riding accordingly. 

Interesting article on a large scale study in the states into blood alcohol levels and accidents there. First thing done in the case of a serious accident is to breathalyse the drivers. Over or under the limit, It wouldn't surprise me if arguments be made for impaired judgment if one was drunk and the other one was sober.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/02/drink-before-driving-is-it-ok

[Gilby104]

Just had an interesting discusion with someone I went to the local bike meeting with. In my misspent youf I mixed and saw mixed...and then saw the consequences of mixing 2 wheels, alcohol and other illegal herbs (big offs where it was obvious that judgment was lacking), so I'm now a few decades down the road, and fairly anti alcohol and motorbikes.
He is a bit of a plodder on the bike, and after a pint of real ale became even more of a plodder.
He berrated me for winding it on in a couple of (empty) B road stretches on theway back and asserted that doing this was illegal, whilst putting alchohol in ones system is legal so the lesser of the 2 evils.

What is your POV on this ?

Surely both are somewhat reckless insofar as you're unnecessarily increasing your chances of being in danger - you shouldn't be doing either as upstanding members of society. The reason both are arguably justifiable is you're calculating the risk with both acting accordingly.

If you're had a beer and you plod home, all legal, all careful then you've minimized your risk given the circumstances. If you're chosen your place to speed and based your judgement on experience then you're minimized your risk given the circumstances.

If something happened, I am sure both speed and alcohol if found to be contributory would land you in hot water. My guess is that 'illegal' speed would get you in more bother than 'legal' alcohol.   

Morally neither is worse than the other in my view given how you've described it.

Generally, I'd be more inclined to encourage people not to drink because of the likelihood that it'll make them misbehave and / or misjudge how much they are misbehaving by. For me, that's probably true.   

It isn't the misbehaving which I see alcohol causing an issue because you don't need to be under the influence to go and break the posted limits, and likewise, you may (like he slowed down a bit because you feel less in control after a drink). What I do see an issue with in relation to alcohol (and this is irrespective of the laws of this land governing them) is that alcohol or drugs impairs a drivers (or riders) ability to make a judgment on their acquired experience - travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance to be safe. Someone with impaired judgment may not slow sufficiently for the side road, blind bend, blind summit where they would never put themselves in that position when sober.

I think you're right regarding the judgement element if you're suggesting, for example, will the guy after a pint think 'open gate, likely tractor' etc

However, in my view you're I don't think you;re giving all factors the proper weight in suggesting a pint is worse than speeding.

You've got two elements here. The first is your judgement to avoid being in an emergency situation and the second is your ability to deal with and get yourself out of an emergency.

I'd agree that the pint is going to make you less likely to spot and factor in an emergency situation. However, no matter how good you are, upping your speed will give you less attention and time to focus on those hazards and they will be coming at you faster. Maybe you'll have thought about the hazards (or have more capacity to do so) but there is much less you can do about avoiding them at a higher speed.

Secondly, with regard to actually getting yourself out of danger that is all about having the time to react. I'd argue that speed combined with the lack of time to react and there being less you can do with the situation in front of you is probably worse than having more time to deal with it but a slower brain. For example, as a general rule I'd wager I'd be able to deal much more efficiently and meaningfully with an emergency situation after a pint but 10mph under the speed limit than you would 10mph over but sober. 

I'm basing this on the case above and someone who knows the effect of drink and has adjusted his riding accordingly. 

Interesting article on a large scale study in the states into blood alcohol levels and accidents there. First thing done in the case of a serious accident is to breathalyse the drivers. Over or under the limit, It wouldn't surprise me if arguments be made for impaired judgment if one was drunk and the other one was sober.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/02/drink-before-driving-is-it-ok

There is no doubt in my mind that alcohol impairs your judgement, reaction time or ability to drive..... no doubt at all.

[Gilby104]

My point, which I'll stop making in a minute I promise, is that people need a shitload more ability to drive faster and even then I believe the risk to increase more than people give it credit for. More so than having a beer if you're mindfully driving slow and steady.

An obvious example for me is my mum. There is nobody in the world that would argue that my level of ability in a motor vehicle is not higher than my mums. I have more spacial awareness, better reactions, more feel for a car, more observational, much greater hazard perception, better road positioning and so on. My mum would much prefer to be driven by me than drive herself and the whole driving thing makes her, by her own admission, quite nervous from time to time. I could certainly drive to a higher standard than her after a couple of beers.

But she drives at about two thirds the speed that I do despite all of the advantages I have above, I am so much very more likely to have an accident than her in almost all conditions. 

[Dom1]

I don't believe it.

[Gilby104]

I don't believe it.

Damn it Dom.... Busted.....I was lying......


..... I don't have a mother... I was found!

[Dom1]

In that case, I agree, you are more likely to have an accident.

[Coxy]

"Gropey"

What the fuck Gilby|!!!???

[captain sensible]

All depends on how well you know them I suppose. ...

[Alzo]

Ash tell the Dude to fuck off and get a new riding buddy.

[ash]

Ash tell the Dude to fuck off and get a new riding buddy.

He's got a 600 FZR ATM, but was eyeing up the Harley's at the meeting (he is 61 now) . He is a really nice bloke but I did feel I was towing him along, and the majority of the ride in both directions was a very sedate affair (like 50-55 in an NSL and no overtaking as he kept dropping back)