Another ****** Lee gem

Did you know that as long as you are actually capable of riding a bike - you
cannot be declared too drunk for the riding of the bike to be illegal.

precedent is that if you /can/ ride a bike, you aren't drunk enough for it to be illegal.


I wonder if he is selling his advice to all those people who have actually been
caught and done for riding a push-bike whilst ****ed: "drunk in charge of a
pedal cycle"

Extra milk in that please.

On Jan 26, 10:29*pm, Judith wrote:
Did you know that as long as you are actually capable of riding a bike - you
cannot be declared too drunk for the riding of the bike to be illegal.

precedent is that if you /can/ ride a bike, you aren't drunk enough for it to be illegal.

I wonder if he is selling his advice to all those people who have actually been
caught and done for riding a push-bike whilst ****ed: "drunk in charge of a
pedal cycle"

Extra milk in that please.

I saw that and shook my head as well. See also "As such, the fact that
he had ridden safely for at least several miles, including a fast
descent to the viaduct itself, was clear evidence that any actual
impairment was minimal, whatever the actual BAC".

Doesn't do himself any favours, does he? I'm a cyclist myself but am
entirely mystified at his "logic". I wonder if it applies also to
drivers?