Police in Japan have revealed more than 1,500 people had their driver’s licence suspended last year for riding a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol.
In total, 1,507 people had their licence suspended for the offence in 2025, dramatically up from just 23 people in 2024, a surge put down to the country’s revised Road Traffic Act which introduced new stricter penalties for cycling while drunk.
The country’s police chiefs told national daily newspaper The Mainichi anyone who is willing to ride a bicycle while under the influence would also “pose a serious risk of traffic danger if they drive cars”.
In December, we reported that 4,500 cyclists had been arrested in Japan in 2025 for cycling while under the influence of alcohol, with 900 driving licence suspensions, however the full-year completed data suggests the actual number of licence suspensions was 1,507.
Along with imposing tougher penalties on drunk cycling, the revised Road Traffic Act also stipulated that any cyclist who uses their phone in any capacity, for calls, texts, or just general scrolling, will be subject to a maximum jail sentence of six months, or a fine of 100,000 yen (£508).
In cases where a cyclist’s phone-use results in a collision, a maximum penalty of a year’s imprisonment, or a fine of 300,000 yen (roughly £1,500) can be imposed.
Next month, a further proposed revision to the Road Traffic Act will mean cyclists in Japan will be subject to a mandatory 5,000 yen (£25) fine for cycling without lights at night, riding through red lights, cycling while wearing earphones – and holding an umbrella as they ride their bike.
These so-called ‘blue ticket’ offences represent a continuation of the clampdown on cycling conduct in the country most prominently demonstrated by the drink-cycling arrests and bans.
While the traffic law has not meant traffic violations when cycling can result in penalty points, the authorities have been granted powers to issue suspensions of up to six months if they believe a person would likely cause significant danger as a driver.
The majority of cases came in urban areas, such as Osaka and Tokyo, with 13 of the country’s prefectures reporting zero licence suspensions by comparison.
The mobile phone-use crackdown has come alongside the stricter laws for drunk cycling.
The National Police Agency suggested the number of collisions caused by cyclists on their phones jumped by more than 50 per cent to 454 between 2018 and 2022.
An official from the agency said the rise in phone-related collisions – which, the Japanese government says, have resulted in the deaths of pedestrians – could be attributed not only to the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, but also the increasing variety of video and gaming content available on them.
“Making a call with a smartphone in your hand while cycling, or watching the screen, is now banned and subject to punishment,” a National Police Agency leaflet said, introducing the new law in November 2024.
25 thoughts on “Japan bans 1,500 people caught drunk cycling from driving, under first year of stricter traffic rules”
Possibly an unpopular opinion but in my view, good for them, and I wish the same sort of action could be taken over here. I know everybody says that cyclists cause a lot less damage than cars and a drunk cyclist is mainly only a risk to themselves, but I’m afraid I don’t buy that. If someone is too drunk properly to control their bicycle they are quite capable of veering around in a way that may make other road users have to take evasive action which may then lead them into collisions. Riding your bike pissed (something I’m ashamed to say I did far too much of as a teenager and early 20-something before I grew up a bit) is just plain stupid and should be discouraged at every opportunity, including by the law.
Tend to agree. If riding a bike is (marginally) more dangerous than walking (many people feel so and eg. wear a helmet) then drinking can only compound that risk (and to others).
Not sure that the measure of threatening people’s driving licence would be an ideal sanction for the UK currently though. While it would certainly signal “this is serious” detection is laughable currently, get-outs abound. And maybe for some it may be “better drunk on a bike than drunk in their car”?
The law already exists that if you deemed to be incapable of riding your bicycle because of alcohol or drugs you can be charged. What isn’t needed is demands for a similar limit as those who are driving a 2 ton lump of metal, potentially with passengers, at speeds significantly faster than any cyclist. Otherwise we might as well impose that same limit on pedestrians.
Oh, I don’t know – let the second be zero, and I think we’re good!
(Of course there will continue to be the perverse incentives either way for people not to stop, and perhaps then suggest they had to “calm their nerves” with a few swift ones when they got home).
Cyclists pose a fairly small risk to pedestrians compared to motorists, but I believe they can pose more than other walkers or runners and a few people are killed most years.
I believe we’re *at* more risk of harm than people walking. IIRC there are some numbers eg. from NL – but this fits expectations as being on a bike will limit your ability to break your fall and you’re moving faster.
A risk-scaled approach is possibly more justifiable somewhere that cyclists are generally separated from motorists and pedestrians. That’s pretty rare in the UK though!
But fear not, AFAICS this won’t be happening in the UK soon. It wouldn’t surprise me if eg. Ian Drunken Smith has been known to have a few light ales then cycle home.
(Just kidding – does he cycle at all?)
I believe the ruling for cyclists (i.e. incapable of riding rather than 2 pints of bitter) is due to the coordination skills required to ride a bicycle. If you can’t ride a bike then you must be fairly pissed. It is perhaps why the thumb throttle on e-bikes was outlawed from 2016. Cyclists kill themselves a lot more than cyclists kill pedestrians. As newer generations come through, alcohol is going be less of a problem than drug impairment. Drugs are cheaper than booze.
Not sure it’s just price, though booze has gone up. But perhaps other intoxicants are more easy to obtain?
(Ones that are less likely to kill or maim than meths or solvent fumes that is).
Also isn’t the risk profile going to be increasingly dominated by the growing fraction of elderly people?
We’ve become good at keeping far more people alive longer and even somewhat mobile. But our abilities still decline and our vulnerability is still a lot greater. IIRC the Dutch stats suggests that starts going up markedly above 50.
Of course perhaps something else will come along to help? Would bet on digital assistance rather than medical.
Pedestrians don’t interact with motor vehicles for sustained periods at speeds of 10-20 mph or even more so the comparison isn’t really valid. Also you are disregarding my point that although drunk cyclists may not injure or kill that many people they have the potential to cause incidents as other road users take evasive action because of their erratic manoeuvring. Yes you have to be “fairly pissed” not to be able to ride a bicycle, you don’t have to be that pissed for your coordination, balance and judgement to be severely affected. I really don’t think cyclists are doing ourselves any favours if we say, as I assume most of us would, oh yes, driving or riding a motorcycle over the limit is utterly reprehensible and the offenders should be dealt with extremely severely, but then add that we should be allowed to ride under the influence as long as we are not so far gone that we can’t actually physically manage to get on a bicycle. Every time I raise this point I’m really surprised by how many people seem to think that it’s controversial to say that you shouldn’t ride a bike on public roads when you are impaired by drink or drugs and that if you do you should face sanctions for it, it seems the simplest of common sense to me.
As far as I can see, they didn’t say that drunk cycling was OK, or that you shouldn’t face sanctions for it. Only that those sanctions shouldn’t be as severe as for drunk driving, because the /degree and likelihood/ of danger it causes is lower. Equally, drunk walking can also cause danger, but the degree and likelihood is orders of magnitude again below that of drunk cycling, to the point where it’s not worth sanctioning it.
Respectfully, they weren’t quite saying that, or not only that (I was replying to both comments at once so may not have made it clear), they were also saying that the limit for being under the influence should be entirely different, basically a couple of pints of bitter for drivers and motorcyclists but anything up to can’t actually physically ride a bike for cyclists. Have different sanctions if you want, though for the reasons I have stated of cyclists maybe not being such a direct danger but being perfectly capable of causing dangerous incidents I don’t agree with that, but if 0.08 BAC is deemed enough to make you a danger when driving a car then it is enough to make you a danger when riding a bicycle, something that arguably requires more concentration and coordination than driving a car.
Fair enough – it does make more sense as a response to the later comment than it does to the one it appears as a reply to.
The last sentence still seems a bit apropos nothing though.
-Police say anyone caught under the influence on a bike would likely “pose a serious risk of traffic danger if they drive cars as well”-
I wonder if the authorities will collate the stats on the reduction in harm now that this in place, to compare to before…
And I look forward to them applying the same logic up the chain and apply proportional penalties…
So:
-Police say anyone caught under the influence behind the wheel of a car would likely “pose a serious risk of traffic danger if they drive trains/fly planes as well”-
But I’m not holding my breath.
Seems fair enough to me, if somebody is so cavalier with their own safety and that of others as to be riding a bicycle pissed on the public roads they quite possibly will think it’s okay to do the same in a car. Personally I would say your latter point would be fair enough as well, if a pilot or train driver was caught drink-driving in a car that would be indicative of an attitude to safety that unfitted them for their occupation; I believe in some jurisdictions (Australia?) a drunk driving conviction on the roads is enough to get train drivers sacked.
Let’s arrest anyone who plays GTA. If they can go around shooting and punching strangers in a computer game, they could pose a serious risk of punching strangers when out on the town.
Behind the wheel or on two wheels, a drunk or high driver is equally dangerous. This is a question of principle that calls for responsible behaviour while on the road regardless of the means of transport. In Western Europe, the driving license suspension would trigger outrage and send millions to the streets. Not in Japan where the individual shan’t disturb the collective harmony.
[Citation needed]
(It’s tempting to just say “rot” but I don’t have stats to hand.)
I think we can hold “let’s just not drive or ride drunk, m’kay” without what appears to be a false equivalence.
Well I’m prepared to stick my neck out and say that any drunk driver who’s managed to get their car onto two wheels is definitely more dangerous than one who’s kept all four firmly on the ground.
Along with imposing tougher penalties on drunk cycling, the revised Road Traffic Act also stipulated that any cyclist who uses their phone in any capacity, for calls, texts, or just general scrolling, will be subject to a maximum jail sentence of six months, or a fine of 100,000 yen (£508).
I know there is not the capacity in the UK, but imagine if people were banged up for 6 months for using a mobile phone whilst driving or cycling? And it was enforced. People would stop using their phones in an instant.
imagine if people were banged up for 6 months for using a mobile phone whilst driving or cycling? And it was enforced
It doesn’t require any radical change- simply persuading the police to cease imposing their substitution of the Police Version of the Law with no penalties for road traffic offences committed by drivers for the True Version of the Law. 6 points would do the trick, if only there was some way of proving the offence
The interesting thing to me is that they are not banning drunk cyclists from cycling if I have understood correctly. Banning them from driving will mean they continue to use a bike and pose a much reduced threat to other road users as a result, a tacit acceptance that dangerous cycling is much less dangerous than dangerous driving. The new dangerous cycling laws in the UK would seem to indicate we see tham as equivalent problems in this country.
PS I think it is an excellent idea.
It would be interesting to compare the penalties for similar offences while driving…
They appear to be identical.
And this is the actual concern with the law changes made.
The penalties are the same as driving. Which risks people deciding that if the risk of prosecution is the same then why not just drive drunk rather than cycling drunk…
Totally agree with these policies. Stop at lights , don’t use your phone , make sure you can hear , don’t be under the influence. I particularly like the idea of applying points received on a cycle to any other vehicle. If your a danger on your cycle then you’re a danger in your car ; and we all know that , outside of London , most cyclists also drive.
Got no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who drives or cycles under the influence. They’re a danger to themselves and others. Once saw a drunken cyclist go straight into a bus!
That old chestnut, ‘I once saw’
I didn’t see, because I wasn’t there, but I have one mate who has a scar on his chin from riding into a parked skip, one who broke his arm riding into a parked car and one who broke his collarbone swerving off a cycle path and falling down an embankment. All of these incidents when we were young, they are all pillars of society nowadays (more or less), all of them when they were drunk. Surprised that you, usually a rational and sensible contributor, seem so keen to defend the idea of riding a bike when you’re drunk.