I think that's also something that's different in the US: individualism.

I wouldn't normally call e.g. Germany a "collectivist" society but in comparison to the attitudes I frequently hear about from Americans (especially in politics) Germans apparently genuinely care more about their fellow citizens.

Not being as likely to kill someone else is the entire point. Heck, drunk cycling is only slightly better than drunk driving because you're less likely to run someone over (but might still cause an accident when a driver has to do something dangerous to avoid you).

>Heck, drunk cycling is only slightly better than drunk driving because you're less likely to run someone over (but might still cause an accident when a driver has to do something dangerous to avoid you).

Drunk cyclists killed 1 person between 2007-2011 in Poland. Drunk pedestrians killed 3 persons. http://ibikekrakow.com/2012/03/28/ile-osob-zabili-pijani-row...

Drunk drivers killed hundreds.

50% of people caught for DUI are riding bicycles. And until recently, they were getting exactly the same prison sentences as drunk truck drivers. Almost half of people imprisoned for DUI were riding bicycles.

I think drunk cycling is completely harmless, and should be legal. If someone is too drunk, he can't keep balance on bicycle anymore and problem automatically fixes itself.

There is a lot of moral panic about drunk driving, but at BAC under 0.5 permille (vast majority of people caught) it's completely harmless or even safer than riding sober. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WHO_BAC_... Only truly drunk people in cars should be punished.

It's not about being able to balance on a bike, it's about reaction time, coordination, and judgement.

In some way it's self-correcting, drunk cyclist can't ride fast. If he's super drunk, he becomes more of a pedestrian than cyclist. I agree it's not the best argument.

I like numbers, and numbers say drunk bicyclists are not a problem.

Drunk cyclist is hundreds times less danger than drunk driver, and should get hundreds times less punishment.

I'm not saying necessarily that this is due to a lack of care about fellow citizens, but the closest i've come to being hit as a pedestrian was in germany. single lane windy road in the heart of town, porsche flying by at 60+kmph.

I get that different cultures have different jay-walking habbits, even within the US cities are vastly different, but if i really cared about well-being of others i wouldn't drive like that in a city. I think the theory in other comments that drunk driving is seen culturally as immature and stupid is a better explanation.

> different in the US: individualism

It's funny, but in the US it's common for college freshmen to have two choices of lodging: either in a fraternity (Animal House, the movie ;-) or in a dorm room, two people per room (hence the 'Roommate from Hell' stories that grace the internet).

Not big on leaving individuals alone.

Just because you share a room with someone doesn't mean you do the same social activities as them. First roommate in college we kinda did, second roommate we barely did anything together other than be present in the same room (there was a point where we were playing Tony Hawk together regularly).

Yup. I think that as a culture, we need to think more about the risks we take with other people's lives.

I think this is best demonstrated by the minimum liability insurance required to operate a car. In California, right now, you can drive a car with only $35K in liability insurance... which is crazy. Sure, that will cover most cars, but it won't even cover a moderate injury. Very few people have the assets required to pay for a serious injury, and therefore, the victim is usually under-compensated.

Right now, cars are essentially being subsidized by the people who are getting hurt who get under compensated, because few people have enough liability insurance (or assets) to cover the cost of really hurting someone. If the injuries per mile were better factored into the cost of driving (which could be done by increasing the liability insurance minimum) driving would be a lot more expensive; quite possibly, once you factor in injuries, other, safer forms of transport would start looking practical.

> In California, right now, you can drive a car with only $35K in liability insurance... which is crazy. Sure, that will cover most cars, but it won't even cover a moderate injury. Very few people have the assets required to pay for a serious injury, and therefore, the victim is usually under-compensated.

In Germany, there are regulations for this. The mandatory insurance has a minimum coverage of 7.5M € for injuries, 1.12M € for property damages and 50 k€ for other accident related costs. And yet our car insurances are affordable AND the insurers make really nice profits.

The minimum insurance won't cover that much vehicle damage, it's mostly bodily injury coverage ($5000 property).

You guess? That is the whole thing with drunk driving. You endanger others. With a conscious choice I might add, when you go somewhere and drunk driving is the only way home.

You're being downvoted, but you make a good point. Here's some more commentary in support of your statement.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/28/the-perils-of-drunk-walki...

It's a damn shame the US has decided to build streets that are safer to drive on drunk than walk on.

Cycling while intoxicated can also get you a DUI, though in practice it's probably rare.

Even walking can be risky. If you are seen falling down or even staggering a bit you can get a public intoxication charge.

The point of DUI being illegal isn't to protect drunk drivers; it's to protect everybody else (and everything) nearby.