Cyclists in Queensland, Australia, as well as e-scooter riders, could face being randomly breath tested for excess levels of alcohol under plans put forward by the state government.
Current laws mean that police in the state, who are permitted to carry out random breath tests on drivers of motor vehicles, are unable do so on people travelling by bicycle or e-scooter, reports ABC Radio Brisbane.
The media outlet says that the state’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) will hold a consultation before any change to the law is implemented.
A TMR spokesperson said: “Before progressing any changes, consultation will be undertaken with key stakeholders and the community, including vulnerable road user groups.
“This work forms part of the Personal Mobility Safety Action Plan, which was released in mid-2022.”
While riders of bikes or e-scooters in Brisbane and elsewhere in Queensland cannot currently be asked to undertake a random breath test, they can be arrested, breathalysed and potentially fined should a police officer believe that they are under the influence of alcohol.
“Queensland police can and have enforced [penalties for] drink riding,” the spokesperson explained.
“Additionally, drinking alcohol while riding is an offence carrying an on-the-spot fine of $464.”
Mark Ryan, the state’s Police Minister, said that while random breath testing on drivers fell within the responsibility of the TMR, which would ultimately decide whether the law should be changed, he had asked the Queensland Police Service to discuss potentially extending it to other road users with the department.
As with many other subject areas, legislation surrounding e-scooters in Australia varies depending on the state or territory.
In Queensland, where new laws were introduced last year including setting speed limits, both private and hire e-scooters may be ridden.
In New South Wales, however, private e-scooters are banned from public roads, but trials of e-scooter hire schemes are being carried out in a number of areas – similar to the situation within the UK – and like here, riders of e-scooters, who are required to hold a driving licence, can face a ban and fine if found riding drunk.
In 2021, our sister site eBikeTips reported how the rider of an e-scooter was banned from driving for 12 months after he crashed in London’s Hyde Park, the impact also resulting in a broken leg for his dog, which he was carrying at the time.
Ramin Jabbari, who at the time was an electric scooter salesman, was breathalysed by police due to his slurred speech and apparent confusion, and was found to have 50 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath with the legal limit being 35.
Appearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, he was also fined £285 and agreed to undertake a driver rehabilitation course.
So far as cycling while intoxicated is concerned, the law firm Slater & Gordon summarises the position as follows: “It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle.
“You would be committing an offence whether you were on a footpath or on the road.
“Although it is an offence to cycle under the influence of alcohol, a police officer cannot force you to provide a breath, blood or urine sample. They can ask, but if you refuse and are subsequently charged with cycling under the influence, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wouldn’t be allowed to use your refusal as evidence against you.”
The maximum penalty is £1,000, but as a non-driving offence, conviction would have no effect on the status of the cyclist’s driving licence, should they have one.
52 thoughts on “Cyclists in Queensland, Australia to face random breath tests to ascertain if they are riding while drunk?”
An excellent use of police
An excellent use of police resources I’m sure, given the hundreds of deaths caused by drunk cyclists every year in Queensland.
Why are you looking at me like that?
Boopop wrote:
Because these comments may be searched/read by people who aren’t party to the larger conversation, don’t have the relevant context, may have an agenda, etc., etc., I feel obliged to be the buzzkill who points out: that comment was sarcastic.
Drunk cyclists do not actually kill hundreds of people per year and in general are not actually a large problem, and using scarce resources to police them while ignoring actual problems is disingenuous and incompetent in the extreme.
I like the high rising
I like the high rising terminal in the headline, really gives it an authentic Australian feel?
I see what you did there?
I see what you did there?
Aussie on holiday in Europe,
Aussie on holiday in Europe, other then the thousands of bike parked all around Amsterdam, was surprise by the number of people riding, chatting to friends, using mobile phones, smoking, dodging pedestrians and just going on with their daily life. Back in Melbourne that behaviour would be frown upon, using a mobile phone would see you cop a $400 fine, not to mention the complaint about footpath ride, particularly e-scooters, that the local media will blow out of proportion by 1000% just to get click bait. I just think European are a bit more mature then the us Aussie when it comes to cycling. Just my observation, cheers.
Quote:
I hope you aren’t including us Brits in that..
Car Delenda Est wrote:
I suspect even us Brits are a bit more mature than Australians, when it comes to attitudes around cycling…
brooksby wrote:
I suspect even us Brits are a bit more mature than Australians, when it comes to attitudes around cycling…
Agree, was in London back in 2016 and found your cycling culture far more mature than Australia. I am from Melbourne and while we do have cycling it’s not near the same standard. Car rule and what little space is provided for cycling on the road always vanish at the next intersection. We do have some very nice shared paths along freeways, rivers, creeks but they can be limiting for certain tasks. Helmet law also has stifled any growth in cycling, as it is now viewed as a dangerous activity were falling of a bicycle could mean sudden death. Anti cycling media really does not help, they love to target any thing on two wheels just for click bait, e-scooters are the current target.
Anyway just my thoughts.
Meanwhile in West Mercia,
Meanwhile in West Mercia, according to the Shropshire Star:
This week alone officers in Shropshire Herefordshire and Worcestershire have detected 72 drink/drug drive offences.
In the last three years 23 people have died and 154 seriously injured in collisions across Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire where alcohol has been listed as a contributory factor. A further 12 people have been killed and 68 seriously injured in collisions where drugs have been involved.Imagine how many they’d catch if the police had adequate resources.
I’m aware it won’t be a
I’m aware it won’t be a popular opinion, but although as fond of a jar as the next chap I really wouldn’t mind cyclists being subjected to random breathalysers. Yes, I know all the arguments, cyclists only likely to harm themselves etc, but…firstly, not a bad idea to deter cyclists from harming themselves (in 15% of cyclist fatalities the rider is over the drink drive limit) and also a drunk cyclist may not be involved in accidents but can quite likely cause them: at closing time in London it’s really quite scary, especially since the rise of Lime and other hire schemes, to see how many people are mixing with traffic who are quite clearly pretty severely impaired by booze and/or drugs. Riding drunk on the road is a bloody stupid thing to do and I can’t see the harm in it being deterred/stopped.
N.B. To forestall (possibly) some criticism, no I don’t believe in compulsory helmets, hi-vis or insurance, cycle licences or reg plates…
I think you’ve got to be
I think you’ve got to be careful there. Would you also start breathalysing pedestrians? There are countless cases of drunk pedestrians being run over in the road. The same argument holds there, that they’re only a danger to themselves but could cause an ‘accident’.
Drunk cycling is self-limiting, there becomes a point if you’re that drunk, you wouldn’t be able to ride a bike. Yet, people in that state can often still drive a motor vehicle; there are many examples of drunk drivers being pulled over by the police, who are barely able to walk in a straight line.
Then what about penalties? If it’s a similar penalty to driving, then why not just do that? There was a case of an e-scooter rider being caught drunk on the Isle of Wight. They got the same penalty (well actually more, 2 year driving ban, 12 month community order) as a driver of a car would typically have got and whilst their riding was stupid and reckless, it was not as dangerous as driving a car and far more comparable to crossing the road without looking as a drunk pedestrian.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-55709565
HoarseMann wrote:
Pedestrians don’t share the road apart from crossing it though, and not at the speeds cyclists can manage. Any pedestrian drunkenly running amongst the traffic would soon be arrested.
Most drinkers can still ride a bike after three or four pints or more (I know I can, if I ride to the pub and have a few I’ll push home but part of the route is across a (closed to cars at that time) large supermarket carpark, so I’ll wobble across that). More than enough to impair their road sense, reaction times and sense of risk.
That’s a fair point, though as a rule it’s probably not a good idea to say we won’t enforce one law (and cycling drunk is against the law, you just can’t be breathalysed for it) because people might just break another. So make the penalty less severe but still enough to act as a deterrent, no points but a meaningful fine with increasing penalties for repeat offenders.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Maybe not in a city, but I’ve walked down single track roads after a pub session. It’s still sharing the road when you cross it.
Your point about reaction times and risk applies equally to pedestrians.
I think when it comes to cycling and walking when under the influence, a breathalyser test is way over the top. As you rightly say about a pedestrian drunkenly running amongst the traffic being arrested (again, more likely in a city), it’s the behaviour that matters. As it stands, the existing laws about it being illegal to be drunk in public are in my view totally adequate to address the threat.
I’d far rather someone walks, cycles or scoots after a few beers than decides to drive.
HoarseMann wrote:
It really doesn’t though, a drunk pedestrian approaching a junction whose reaction times/risk assessment is impaired might wander into the road but most likely at a speed where an attentive driver can react and avoid them; this is not going to be the case for a drunk cyclist approaching a junction at the bottom of the hill at 30 mph, if they get it wrong, they are under the wheels.
As above, there’s really no comparison between a drunken pedestrian and a drunken cyclist; in terms of cycling, scooting, or driving on the roads after a few beers I’d rather someone doesn’t do any of them, it’s not an either/or situation, walking, public transport, cabs or a lift home from a sober friend are all available.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There are a lot of what-ifs with this statement. A drunk pedestrian walking into the road from behind a parked van might be harder for a driver to see than a drunk cyclist doing 40mph down a hill on a wide open country road.
There’s an argument that even walking after a few beers is ill-advised. We could say that breathalysing pub-goers as they leave the establishment would be a sensible precaution. With a taxi/wheelchair called for those above a certain limit. I do think a cyclist is far more like a pedestrian in terms of risk to both themselves and to others. Certainly in comparison with a motorised vehicle.
HoarseMann wrote:
Absolutely we are nowhere near as dangerous as cars, but I can never really agree with the “we’re pretty much like pedestrians” (pedestrians don’t have to wear lights at night, why don’t people lobby for pedestrian helmets etc) argument. Pissed pedestrians, unless Usain Bolt is having a particularly big night out, don’t mix with motorised traffic at 15-25 mph and so are far less likely to do themselves harm or to cause accidents, either directly or because of the actions people have to take to avoid them. That’s why I think it’s appropriate to have a higher level of regulation for cyclists than pedestrians in this area, even if it’s not as high as that for motorists.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The view from the North says hold my beer…!
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24008377.footage-man-breaks-ribs-hit-car-durham/
Rendel Harris wrote:
Really? I’ve never heard that before and would be surprised that anti-cycling groups haven’t used it if it was true.
sheridan wrote:
According to this article, the percentage for pedestrians is even higher, at 39% in the US: https://www.dudleydebosier.com/drunk-pedestrians-at-greater-risk-of-getting-hit-by-cars/
sheridan wrote:
It doesn’t necessarily mean they are at fault.
Perhaps the cyclist-haters aren’t aware of the statistic.
I can only guess that you must live in a very well-behaved community with lots of wide pavements. Shrewsbury’s streets are not all like that on a Saturday night. The last time I collected my wife from a night out with friends there were groups scattered everywhere, shouts, cat-calls, aggression and people running or stumbling across the road; her ‘friend’ was unable to stand up straight let alone walk home, though she still managed to abuse virtually everyone she interacted with.
When you get out of the town centre there is little or no provision for pedestrians and we have to run the gauntlet of drivers who think they own the road. This happens each time I go for a walk along the 2 quiet lanes (AKA rat runs) near our edge-of-town estate.
If it can be shown that drunk cyclists are a genuine issue then by all means do something to address it; but while there are many more and worse crimes being committed, mostly by drivers, then I think it is a waste of time and a misuse of police resources.
Simon E wrote:
I would say from my empirical observations that they are genuine issue, at least in London: it’s very difficult for anyone to produce statistics about this because clearly the police don’t bother stopping people at the moment because there is no offence of a cyclist simply being over the limit. However, I don’t agree that the police should ignore some crimes just because there are worse ones going on, by that logic they should ignore shoplifting because there are bank robberies, or ignore speeding because there are drunk drivers. Riding pissed in traffic is an incredibly stupid and dangerous thing to do, I can see no harm at all in there being stronger deterrents to it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not addressing the should/shouldn’t but just wondering realistically what level of policing of this (and penalties) would be a *deterrent*?
Drink driving – that’s taken decades and still goes on (and driving intoxicated is a thing). While it did require police action / fear of getting caught I suspect it was mostly a change in societal attitude. Not sure how that would work with cycling? Although some people are already happy to say “just don’t cycle” – to the sober.
Probably numbers and “who’s doing it” needed here for “what priority to assign” – eg. as mentioned is it often those who have been banned from driving?
chrisonabike wrote:
Well, may sound a bit authoritarian but I’d have no problem with police check stations as used in other countries – everyone on a certain road at a certain time (after closing most logical) gets stopped and tested, cars and bikes alike. Penalty for cyclists, bike confiscated and only returned on collection from police station with proof that fine (£100?) has been paid. People on hire bikes reported to hire company and barred from further rentals (and fined). Repeat offenders to have driving licences endorsed, some suitable additional penalty TBA for those without licences. Not quite my usual woolly liberal self I know but I really do have a horror of drink driving by all road users – even those who are “less dangerous than XYZ”, less dangerous doesn’t mean safe.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Blimey!
Mostly with you but I’m concerned about best use of finite police resources. Plus the unintended consequences given our existing failures to effectively police the roads – and certainly disqualified drivers. Plus the realities of selective policing (HP has noted the way in which this can go with the example of Australia … and then there’s the Met).
I don’t think cycling intoxicated is a trivial matter. However maybe worth looking at NL and Scandinavia (where they are certainly hot on policing drinking-related matters)? Noting that the calculation may change with mass cycling (obviously we’re not near there yet, exceptions like Central Cambridge (?) aside). Because that *requires* space for cyclists, separated from both motor vehicles and pedestrians.
I wonder if this will be
I wonder if this will be disproportionally enforced on certain social and ethnic groups?
A very good point. Given the
A very good point. Given the concentration of cyclists in London and what I see on TV about the Met Police it’d be another weapon in their arsenal.
Man the Australian
Man the Australian authorities do not like cyclists hey? Why not just go the whole hog, licence, MOT, insurance, get it fecking done my aussie friends. It’s only fair… why shouldn’t child raping, tax dodging, lycra nazi dogs be subjected to the same rules / constraints as decent motor vehicle driving citizens?
Personally speaking however, I think the existing rules have this nicely covered. As already mentioned, if you are too drunk to effectively control a bike, you are going to be swiftly found out. There is a distinct difference between the level of functionality required to balance a bike, pedal etc. than to sit in a car and press the go pedal. Not to mention the significant difference in the amount of damage done.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Most people who drink even semi-regularly would be perfectly capable of effectively controlling a bike whilst over the alcohol limit for driving but would have their reaction times and risk perception capabilities severely impaired. Do we really want to set the bar for being safe/acceptable to ride when drinking on the road “anything up to not being able actually to ride your bike”?
I really don’t see why this issue always becomes whataboutery about how shit motorists are and also compared to forcing cyclists to have licences, wear helmets et cetera. Wearing a helmet, for example, is (and should remain) a matter of personal choice and that choice definitely won’t affect anyone but the rider; riding drunk on the roads is bloody stupid, risks endangering others and is frankly, in my opinion, inexcusable. Saying that is not an attack on cyclists, it’s an attack on anyone who chooses to use any vehicle on the public roads when impaired by alcohol (and for the record I would be fully in favour of a much higher level of random breathalysing of motorists and if I had my way every motorcar would have an alcohol interlock device preventing anyone from starting the engine if they were over the limit).
Rendel Harris wrote:
The “bar” for cycling on the road should be that you’re in control of the bike and not endangering others. Putting the bar higher could easily mean banning children from riding on the roads and I think that’s a terrible indictment of our infrastructure if traffic is deemed to dangerous for kids to ride in.
There’s also the idea of damage limitation – maybe we should encourage people to cycle back from the pub as otherwise they might be tempted to drive.
Ultimately, I can’t see that breathalysing cyclists is going to solve any problem that can’t be handled by a copper stopping a drunk cyclist and telling them to get off and push.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I absolutely agree, and in my opinion if your hazard perception, reaction times and risk awareness are impaired by the fact that you are over the legal alcohol limit for driving then you are a danger to others. I don’t quite see what this has got to do with children riding on roads at all, I’m talking about the bar for alcohol consumption when riding, not anything else.
Because without some meaningful sanction we all know that the drunk cyclist will wait until the copper is out of sight and get back on the bike. It’s not about punishing people for riding when drunk, it’s about deterring them from doing so in the first place, and I don’t think being told to get off your bike and push it round the corner until you’re out of sight of the police is much of a deterrent.
Rendel Harris wrote:
that’s where all the problems start. Consuming alcohol in the bar
Rendel Harris wrote:
I consider that a kid wobbling along on the road to be roughly equivalent to a very drunk adult cycling – that’s why I compare the two.
I think it would be excellent if we saw a fleet of drunk cyclists heading along the roads at closing time. Maybe have people place bets on which ones are about to fall off or crash into each other.
Sorry – I don’t think drunk cycling is really a problem, whereas drunks walking/staggering arguably present more danger to other people by getting into fights etc. A drunk on a bike is nicely preoccupied and unlikely to start harrassing others.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well if the kid was wobbling all along the road I wouldn’t risk taking them out in traffic until they had more control, would you? Being able to ride in a straight line is something of a pre-requisite, I’d say.
Well, our experiences differ, my experience of coming home late on a Friday or Saturday night in London, either on a bike (sober) or on the bus (not so sober) is that a sizable minority of cyclists around that time are quite obviously riding impaired through alcohol and presenting considerable dangers to themselves, pedestrians and other cyclists and increasing the likelihood of motor vehicle incidents as drivers try to avoid them.
As for fighting, drunk cyclists are definitely more likely to engage in fights in my experience, a number of times I’ve seen incidents where drivers or pedestrians have shouted at a clearly impaired cyclist for dangerous behaviour and the cyclist has got off and fronted up to them. Aggressive drunken arseholes are aggressive drunken arseholes, whether walking, cycling or in a car.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Straight-ish line maybe. Other traffic should be required to cope with cyclists having to avoid potholes and other road hazards, so some wobbling should be perfectly safe, especially if they’re accompanied by other cyclists.
Complete disagree – when a drunk cyclist gets off their bike, then they become a drunk pedestrian. I’m not having you skew the drunk cyclist fighting stats.
hawkinspeter wrote:
And vice versa- they can
And vice versa- they can always get back on the bike!
Also thinking back as an underage drinker I was coming to grief much more often when pie-eyed than when so later in life (as were my peers). And (shamefully though) only once in a bike *.
So we should be showing the Australians what sensible, proportionate public policy looks like. And breath-testing everyone driving**, cycling or walking who looks older than 12, say.
* Friends don’t let friends walk drunk. The statistics speak for themselves.
** Drunk drivers sometimes swap with a passenger to dodge the law you say? Test everyone in the vehicle!
[Snip] Straight-ish line
[Snip] Straight-ish line maybe. Other traffic should be required to cope with cyclists having to avoid potholes and other road hazards [/snip]
NMOTD is exhibit A … not to mention your own experiences and the experiences of other cyclists around you.
There is a portion of society that feels that “should” and “must” are for others to follow.
Unfortunately, quite a few of these drive vehicles.
There ain’t no fecking way I’d put the lives of my kids in the hands of some moronic stranger who only just has the mental capacity to grunt.
“The “bar” for cycling on the
“The “bar” for cycling on the road should be that you’re in control of the bike and not endangering others.”
People texting while driving (or indeed drink-drivers) are, for the large majority of the time they’re doing it, in control of their cars and not endangering others. The problem comes when something unexpected happens, and their perception and reaction times are not good enough to prevent it turning into a collision. Which is why we legislate against people doing it: we should stop far more motorists of course, but that doesn’t mean that pissed/drugged cyclists are not a danger to themselves and others.
Brauchsel wrote:
Yes, phone use whilst driving is more about the lack of attention they are paying to their surroundings rather than their control of the vehicle, but that’s exacerbated by the nature of cars – they insulate drivers from their surroundings anyway, which is why they need to use mirrors etc. Cyclists are unlikely to become that divorced from their surroundings as there’s a minimum level of attention required just to keep balanced.
I wonder what the actual stats are for drunken/drugged cyclists causing harm to others?
You’ll need to look carefully
You’ll need to look carefully…
Same again but bears repeating. Now – were most of those few dots intoxicated / wrong’uns? IIRC there has been some follow up work done on one of these datasets more recently but can’t recall if that recorded this sort of thing.
[Snip] Putting the bar higher
[Snip] Putting the bar higher could easily mean banning children from riding on the roads [snip]
Children shouldn’t be drinking alcohol… ?
Seriously though .. cargo bikes carrying kids is having prevalence.
It should not be acceptable for a rider to have kids on board their bike, and be over the drink/drug drive limit.
“Current laws mean that
“Current laws mean that police in the state, who are permitted to carry out random breath tests on drivers of motor vehicles…”
Wait. What?
They can?
And when was the last time they (or any police force, anwhere) did this?
mitsky wrote:
All European countries except Germany and Malta carry out random breathalyser tests, I’ve certainly seen it happen quite a lot in France and Spain. In those two countries, approximately 10% of motorists are subjected to random breathalyser tests at least once a year, in Estonia it’s a massive 57%.
This is news to me.
This is news to me.
Never seen or heard of it before. 😀
Rendel Harris wrote:
There is random breath testing in Germany – and none in Ireland and Luxembourg (plus Malta as you say).
However, its academic really. In the UK, you can be asked to give a breath sample if you’ve been in an accident, committed a traffic offence, or – “if an officer thinks you’ve been drinking” (in other words, whenever they feel like asking for a test), and it was like this even before random breath testing was introduced. The issue is, there are no road policing unit traffic patrols to speak of, so there is little or no deterrent for the type of people who think it’s OK to drink and drive. Apart from the laughable July & December month-long high profile blitz that some forces do, the only way people are caught is if they’ve been in an accident.
Definitely no deterrent for
Definitely no deterrent for these two…
https://youtu.be/hw071PAofHQ
Correct.
Correct.
And in the UK traffic police have been cut by 75% in numbers since 2000.
Our drink drive limits are so high that drunk drivers 50% over the limit anywhere else in Europe (except Malta) are legal to drive in England and Wales.
They do it Australia. I’ve
They do it Australia. I’ve been RBT’d a couple of times when driving a car there. They just set up a road block, stop every car and every driver has to do a breathalyzer. Good system IMHO.
In Queensland probably quite
In Queensland probably quite often, though its a big place, 7 times larger than the UK, but the hire car places warn tourists not to drive at night, to avoid hitting the wildlife, but also the drink drivers.
Watch out because (chief)
Watch out because (chief) inspector Kevin Smith of this parish is out tonight
“Will be out there tonight on the front lines making sure people have a safe Friday before Christmas. Obviously some drivers will end up being breathalysed so I hope they are intending for to remain on the good list. After all, there only 3 more sleeps ‘til Christmas.”
I live in one of the more
I live in one of the more southern states and not in Queensland. I would suggest that there target for this new law is riders of scooters and ebikes which can cause a bit of damage in a collision with a pedestrian, which is becoming an issue anyway even without a rider being drunk.
It is fairly common that when a driver looses there licence, for speeding and/or drinking they get an ebike or scooter to get around.
Also there a lot of tourists in Queensland that my hire scooters and ebikes rather than a car to get around and of course when on holidays you may have a drink or 3.
BTW having random breath tests, as well as drug tests (via a saliva swab) have been a fact of life in Australia for many years. I now live in the countryside and don’t do a lot of driving in a private vehicle but would go through a random breath test at least 3 – 4 times a year. Also the police at a ‘booze bus’ will also check licence plates for unregistered vehicles and possibly unlicensed drivers.
Many of the comments seem to
Many of the comments seem to miss the real point about driver/rider control legislation; many drivers and riders consider themselves absolutely entitled, rather than conditionally priveledged, if they could only honestly consider they need to be absolutely responsible. Laws only attempt to force us to be responsible in a world where irresponsibility is ‘cool’; expletive deleted! Drink driving/riding, like other law breaking, only proves you an irresponsible idiot, accept that once and for all!