Forum menu
OP - you are going to have to go there next week and see if he turns up and what he has to say…
It would a long walk for him if he did get pulled.... From what I overheard he lives about ten miles away. And even if he were to say something I'll tell him that he's a prick for getting in his motor after three pints.
Even if he was caught he can keep driving until his court date, and if he pleads not guilty it could be well into 2026 before that comes to trial. The writers of the road traffic offenders act did not have the foresight that court backlogs would mean these things are not dealt with quickly.
I think it was a term which was popularised in medical/social work/justice circles to break the belief that if you could hold down a job and muddle on through life you probably weren't alcoholic / alcohol dependent.On a slight tangent, when did the phrase “high functioning alcoholic” become part of the conversation about alcohol dependent people?
I class myself as previously alcoholic, (sober over 18 months now), I never knowingly drove whilst under the influence, however, I’m functioning a lot better since I stopped!Perhaps it’s a phrase dreamt up in some think tank to make middle class alcoholism sound better?
“Still stumbling, almost coherent alcohol dependent” doesn’t sound quite as nice?
Perhaps it’s a phrase dreamt up in some think tank to make middle class alcoholism sound better?
Nah, it's just a description for someone who's a very heavy drinker who can function normally in other areas of their life. The phrase 'alcoholic' comes with all sorts of stigma and prejudices attached which don't apply to most drinkers. We're not all wife-beating paralytically legless idiots drowning in our own vomit. Someone said to me the other day that whilst they always see me drinking in my local pub they've never seen me pissed. I took that as a compliment. 😀
And as for grassing up someone who's drank 3 pints, whilst it might make the OP feel like he's done the world a major service, all they probably did is either waste police time or more likely cause a chuckle down the station among the cops wondering why the hell someone would call them about someone who's almost certainly under the limit. It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
Right thing to do OP, if it did actually happen.
although I do find the term ‘flash range rover’ as irritating as the grass comments
Too true. It's a tossers tank.
It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
I presume that was under controlled circumstances, waiting 30mins after each pint & with police issue breathalyser? Because I'm finding that very hard to believe.
Edit - ah that's the blood limit... or old limit? Either way quite confusing...
Some intersting info here. Seems to match my own experiments with a breath testing machine. Next time OP maybe wait til your offending person has had at least 5 pints. 🙂
If he was a sandal wearing free spirit who regaled you with stories of his epic travels in his 1970s VW bus would you have still dobbed him in?
Someone said to me the other day that whilst they always see me drinking in my local pub they've never seen me pissed. I took that as a compliment.
You would probably be better off to see it as a problem 💡
I presume that was under controlled circumstances, waiting 30mins after each pint & with police issue breathalyser? Because I'm finding that very hard to believe.
Not a police issue breath testing machine, a higher sensitivity machine used by professionals in the drug/alcohol support field (my mrs was a drug and alcholo support worker who had to breath test clients before prescribing certain meds). Wasn't exactly scientific, me and my mates were trying it out one night when sat around drinking. We tested it regularly througout the night, and it didn't start testing positive consistently until we'd had a least the equivalent of 5-6 pints. One of my mates got to 7 before he tested positive, but we worked out that was because he'd been smoking.
You would probably be better off to see it as a problem
Appreciate the concern Ernie but if the alternative is sitting around at home watching telly on my own then I think I prefer the risk associated with having a few pints every day. I enjoy drinking beer, I enjoy going down the pub and having a chat with my mates, and yes I enjoy the inebriating effects which relieve my sober state of crushing social anxiety. I'm not recommending it to anyone else, but it works just fine for me. If at any point it stops doing that, I'll be sure to do something about it 😀.
Was thinking about this last night, and OP I'm curious what actually happened here.
So you saw this bloke neck 3 pints and go back outside to his car (did you see or assume?). You then rang... 999? 111? to say "yes ossifer I saw a man have a drink and get in his car, it was a blue Mondeo, please put out an APB within a 5 mile radius of [pub]"? And they then set up roadblocks within... what, 2 hours, given the response time of the average plod right now?
I think in principle I agree that it's the right thing to do - although I'd be too chicken/ lazy to actually do it, and resent that - but how does one actually go about it??
And as for grassing up someone who's drank 3 pints, whilst it might make the OP feel like he's done the world a major service, all they probably did is either waste police time or more likely cause a chuckle down the station among the cops wondering why the hell someone would call them about someone who's almost certainly under the limit. It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
Eh? You aren't under the limit after 3 pints? My mate got done after 2 up here in scotland.
how does one actually go about it??
Our local force have an online form : https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/form/drink-drug-driving-reporting-form
I suspect it's likely that some people get reported more than once. There's often a repeated pattern of behaviour to someone driving to a pub, necking a few, and then driving off. It's unlikely to be a one off occurrence. Without multiple people "snitching", at some point the driver (or others) are going to lose big at this "karma" game.
although I'd be too chicken/ lazy to actually do it
Same here. This thread has got me thinking if I should change my thinking/actions though. I've been very much about not drink driving myself (and making sure people I'm with don't), and leaving others to look after themselves. That's probably not enough.
I think in principle I agree that it's the right thing to do
It's not the right thing to do. There's a reason cops don't sit outside pubs waiting for Mr 3 pints to leave and drive home, because they wouldn't be able to do anything else. That and it's pointless anyway cos they probably wouldn't fail a breath test. Also in the grand scheme of things a random bloke drinking 3 pints isn't going to cause an enormous (or any) amount of danger which requires an active response by the cops, taking them away from other duties which are probably more important. All the OP did in this case was (probably) give the cops a good laugh at the ridiculousness of someone calling them for such a trivial issue.
Eh? You aren't under the limit after 3 pints? My mate got done after 2 up here in scotland.
See the link above. It's all subjective of course, but drinking 2 or 3 pints almost certainly doesn't put you above the 35ug limit. Also your mate was in Scotland where they have a zero tolerance approach (5ug IIRC).
But why be a snitchy Karen? Mind your own and let the cosmos deal with it.
The cosmos did deal with it, by way of someone choosing to report a drink driver.
As a road user, if a motorist is habitually driving while under the influence it is my business.
Drink driving is something that you are either against or you condone. Telling someone to mind their own business when they witness drink driving is absolutely condoning drink driving.
Err, yes, my thought too; Road Safety Act 1967, so born 1950 or before?
And google tells me Grolsch first arrived as a brand in the UK in 1978.....11 years after the drink drive limits came into force.
Times and attitudes have changed though thankfully. When I first started driving in the late 80s, 'just the one' was the social norm of a responsible citizen with very few abstaining totally. I was definitely in the one pint gang as a 17/18yr old driving mates to pubs. I guess it varies from group/area/age/social demographic, but my perception is that none is the default for most now. Especially in Scotland.
All the OP did in this case was (probably) give the cops a good laugh at the ridiculousness of someone calling them for such a trivial issue.
That's just the "don't be snitch, people are laughing at you" line... it's up to the police to deal with reports as they fit, not for you to try and pressure people into not reporting at all.
Also curious. This guy drives into I presume the car park if this miniature pub, rolls in, hammers 3 pints while talking politics and mentioning he lives 10 miles away.
OP then phones the police and I assume gives the VRN of the vehicle in question. Meanwhile the perpetrator is home in bed with no evidence a crime has been committed.
I smell clickbait
it's up to the police to deal with reports as they fit, not for you to try and pressure people into not reporting at all.
Here in rural areas if every 2 or 3 pint driver was grassed up* the local station would be deluged with calls every day. In any case the cops probably know who they are anyway, round here pretty much everyone knows everyone else. They don't do anything because they have concluded it's not a major problem and they have other more important stuff to deal with.
*there's nothing to grass up in any case. As the link above explains, 2 or 3 pints probably doesn't put you over the limit. It would be different if we had a Scotland approach, but we don't.
I know someone who was a call handler / dispatcher (or whatever the right term is) for Police Scotland who reports no such compacency amongst them - cops think very badly of drink drivers leaving the pub because its entirely discretionary and they pick up the pieces. They may have more sympathy for "morning after" drivers who may genuinely not realise (which is a sad indictment on our education system!)And as for grassing up someone who's drank 3 pints, whilst it might make the OP feel like he's done the world a major service, all they probably did is either waste police time or more likely cause a chuckle down the station among the cops wondering why the hell someone would call them about someone who's almost certainly under the limit.
It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
It is indeed not as easy to fail the test as some people expect, but 3 pints of 5% beer (85 mL ethanol = 67 g) would put most people over the English limit, depending exactly on the timing of the test, their build and gender, their tolerance to alcohol etc.
Were you actually doing the test right? The limit has never been 80mg in breath. The limit in E&W is (and always has been since the limit as set up) 35 ug/100mL of breath, 80 mg/100mL blood, 107 mg/100mL urine. To do a breathalyser properly requires a gap (usually 20 mins) after drinking which means sequential drinking (drink, test, drink, test, drink, test) studies have an unrealistic consumption pattern so usually scientific results are based on blood measurements which don't need the pause. Most of those studies would have someone consuming 67g of ethanol over the limit, although large men might skirt under if they paced themselves, had food to slow absorption etc. The idea that you could manage it with 5 pints seems fanciful.
It's not the right thing to do. There's a reason cops don't sit outside pubs waiting for Mr 3 pints to leave and drive home,
Well that's the only time I've been breathalysed, they gave the reason for stopping me as driving out the pub on my own - I'd had two pints of the weakest beer shandy.
I'd also be wary of taking advice about drink driving from a law firm that seem to specialise in defending people who've been accused of drink driving. I'm pretty much your average man build & 5 pints in four hours would have me struggling for sure.
I've tried getting on my bike on rollers the next morning after a similar amount the night before & failed a few times before getting my balance.
35 ug/100mL of breath, 80 mg/100mL blood
Yes you're right, I'm confusing the breath/blood limits. The breathalyser I was using was set at the legal driving limit which would have been 35/40ug. My mrs set it up when we were messing around with it so assume she set it at the right level.
The idea that you could manage it with 5 pints seems fanciful.
Yeah we were all very surprised too. Obviously I've never been tempted to put this 'research' into action in the real world, but I know mates who have passed police breath tests despite having drank 4-5 pints. They were smokers though, which has quite a lot of impact I believe.
but 3 pints of 5% beer
NB the figures in that link I posted were for 3.6% beer not 5%, which is a huge difference. I wouldn't drive after 3 pints of 5% beer, 3.6% maybe (with food), although it's irrelevant in my case as I almost always ride my bike or walk to the pub.
It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
It does sound like a fundamental misunderstanding if you thought you were looking for 80 as the magic number on the screen of a breathalyser.
80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. So on a breathalyser you are looking for 35....or 22 north of the border.
80 would be about right for 6 pints though for a man as a guesstimate.
Well I can confirm the police use to sit at the top of the road from my golf club, and woukd regularly pull folks over to randomly breathalise them. And many failed.
And on a recent lads trip away I bought a couple of those home breathaliser tests to check I wasn't over the limit the morning after. They come in packs of 2, so I tested one out of curiority during our evening sesh to check they worked. I blew a positive after 3 cans. Obviously it depends on a person's size and physiology, but I struggle to believe anyone could drink 6 pints and not fail a roadside test
Regardless, calling the op a snitch for reporting a drink driver is pathetic. You'd think differently if a loved one had been mowed down by a drunk driver for sure
Without paying for the article, was the author a shill for the brewing/licenced victualler industry?
The paywalled 'survey' is a cherry-picked soundbite from a longer article, which can be found at https://thecritic.co.uk/the-pointlessness-of-pintlessness/
I think you've posted that in the wrong thread @Cougar ?
Edit: Sorry, you haven't. It's just that THE CRITIC came up in another thread last night/this morning, hence my confusion. 😁
Flame ON
I've done it to a drink drink no regrets at all.
Sat having my lunch and a old boy pulls next to me to go into the cafe opens his boot and swings a huge gulp of Jonny walkers. The eats mints out of his pocket.
Rang 999 and they came and waited for him to get back into his car they popped up and tested him very over the limit and already banned.
No real loss to the roads of Oxford.
Bit disappointed to find anyone here using The Critic as a source... why not go the whole hog and read the Daily Heil?
On a slight tangent, when did the phrase “high functioning alcoholic” become part of the conversation about alcohol dependent people?
I think the point is, as with most drugs you build up a tolerance. Long-term alcohol (ab)use alters your brain chemistry (it increases something, or decreases something else, I forget exactly). In practical terms, three pints of Large of an evening would render a non-drinker paralytic and leave them with a "never again" 2-day hangover, whereas in a seasoned drinker it would be just getting started and they'd feel perfectly fine (or if you like, "high functioning") the next morning.
Compare and contrast, I used to work with an alcoholic - sorry, "alcohol-dependent." We once found him in his car in the car park one lunchtime, asleep, after polishing off a half bottle of vodka in an hour. I wouldn't say that was particularly high-functioning.
in a seasoned drinker it would be just getting started and they'd feel perfectly fine (or if you like, "high functioning") the next morning.
Great if the issue is how an individual feels when drinking and next morning. However if we're talking driving ability and likelihood of an accident, the mechanisms whereby alcohol disrupts information processing and slows reaction times apply identically in experienced drinkers whether they're aware of it or not. Just have a Google for some actual evidence.
And as for grassing up someone who's drank 3 pints, whilst it might make the OP feel like he's done the world a major service, all they probably did is either waste police time or more likely cause a chuckle down the station among the cops wondering why the hell someone would call them about someone who's almost certainly under the limit.
He's probably mildly impaired, perhaps no worse than driving when a bit tired. But he's almost certainly over the limit.
In any case, it doesn't matter. The OP has reported a suspected offence, it's then up to the police to decide whether one has been committed or not. If the report is "I've just seen a bloke drink three pints of 5% beer then get in his car" and they decide it's in their interests to attend then surely any wasting of police time is on them. Wasting police time would be if he had in fact downed three pints of water, the OP just didn't like the cut of his gammony jib and wanted to cause him a bit of bother.
I'd wager that if you asked any traffic cop then they'd tell you they'd rather attend a hundred false positive 'under the influence' (of whatever) reports than one major RTC where they're towing Range Rover Barry out of a dry stone wall and cleaning a cyclist off the road with a spatula.
It takes quite a lot to fail a breath test, I experimented with one once and didn't go over the old 80mg limit until I'd drank 6 pints.
I believe the limit in England these days is 35. How's your maths?
Surely everyone knows that the correct limit for alcohol is not quite two drinks?
35 ug/100mL of breath, 80 mg/100mL blood
Yes you're right, I'm confusing the breath/blood limits. The breathalyser I was using was set at the legal driving limit which would have been 35/40ug. My mrs set it up when we were messing around with it so assume she set it at the right level.
The idea that you could manage it with 5 pints seems fanciful.
Yeah we were all very surprised too. Obviously I've never been tempted to put this 'research' into action in the real world, but I know mates who have passed police breath tests despite having drank 4-5 pints. They were smokers though, which has quite a lot of impact I believe.
but 3 pints of 5% beer
NB the figures in that link I posted were for 3.6% beer not 5%, which is a huge difference. I wouldn't drive after 3 pints of 5% beer, 3.6% maybe (with food), although it's irrelevant in my case as I almost always ride my bike or walk to the pub.
Well it’s always dangerous to assume the other drivers you are recommending should drink 3/4/5 pints and be under the limit are talking about the same weak beer you are. Same if you are at home - where “pints” are often 500 mL not 568 mL. Then as the article you posted says there’s the consumption period - drinking 3 pints between 6pm and 11pm accompanied by food will have very different consequences to knocking back 3 in your lunch hour as a substitute for food! The article rightly talks about the elimination rate but it didn’t seem to mention the initial absorption kinetics - we all know if you have equivalent quantity of alc in a shot and in a beer that the shot “hits” quicker - you can’t start eliminating until it’s actually in your blood so I think the article may have been a bit optimistic.
Everytime someone says it’s ok to drink X pints because I did a very unscientific experiment with my wife’s breathylser (surely for her use the limit is set much lower?) and I passed, that information is received by someone who thinks “five and drive” is a recommendation and it reinforces their view that it’s ok. Then they become full pints of proper beer, and there’s not much difference to cider, eh?
Morning after “stories” and back of fag packet calculations also spread better if the numbers are what people want to hear.
Hypothetical question.
If you are hit by a driver that the police verify was drink, does it then invalidate his insurance? Meaning you've been hit by a driver without insurance effectively?
Just curious really.
Bit disappointed to find anyone here using The Critic as a source... why not go the whole hog and read the Daily Heil?
Someone posted a link to an article by the "Institute for economic affairs" (whatever that is). It's behind a paywall, so I bypassed the block. Their 'full' article is the first two paragraphs lifted from an article in The Critic (whatever that is).
I wasn't citing sources, just enabling people to read what others were referring to
Also in the grand scheme of things a random bloke drinking 3 pints isn't going to cause an enormous (or any) amount of danger which requires an active response by the cops, taking them away from other duties which are probably more important. All the OP did in this case was (probably) give the cops a good laugh at the ridiculousness of someone calling them for such a trivial issue.
I don't know why you're defending this. (Well, I do, but...)
The police force isn't stupid. If they're going looking for RRB on a Slow Police Day then that's a better use of their time than sitting at the roadside eating chips. If something more important comes along then they will be diverted by Control to go and attend to that instead, they're not going to doggedly pursue some gimmer who may be over the limit when they're TPAC-trained and there's a stolen vehicle laden with drugs doing 90 through a residential area.
.
It'll invalidate parts of the insurance. You'll get paid out if a drunk driver hits you though.
If you are hit by a driver that the police verify was drink, does it then invalidate his insurance? Meaning you've been hit by a driver without insurance effectively?
Sort of. The Road Traffic Act means that your damage and injuries will be dealt with by the third party insurer. Having paid out, that insurer will/may then pursue the third party driver for their costs. Which as you can appreciate might be significant (which is why the insurer may not bother). The third party also has to cover their own damage.
It's important that the drink driving does not have to be proven by the police for this to happen. As the insurer works on civil law (balance of probabilities) rather than criminal law (beyond all reasonable doubt). If they think you were boozing, they'll invoke this. There are times when someone blows >35 at the roadside, then the blood test fails, so there may be no conviction. But the insurer can still turn the claim down.
So, motor policy wordings have clauses in them which exclude cover for things caused by being under the influence of alcohol. The wordings also exclude cover if you fail to give a sample to the police.
Remember that the third party cover still must operate under the RTA.
If a driver isn't identified (legs it?) or isn't insured, then potentially you're in the remit of the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
This is one of those situations where it's really important to have Comprehensive insurance - your policy pays out to fix your car, then goes after whomever it can for the money. It's also important to have a decent insurance company that is NotShit(tm).
If you are hit by a driver that the police verify was drink, does it then invalidate his insurance? Meaning you've been hit by a driver without insurance effectively?
You the third party would get paid out. Insurance company would then go after range rover Barry for his assets to the tune of the claim as he is not insured.
Compare and contrast, I used to work with an alcoholic - sorry, "alcohol-dependent." We once found him in his car in the car park one lunchtime, asleep, after polishing off a half bottle of vodka in an hour. I wouldn't say that was particularly high-functioning.
The thing is that someone who is a "functioning" alcoholic will ultimately become non-functioning, either because the drinking increases (as in the pandemic, with loss of structure of going to work) or because they develop chronic liver disease.
Hypothetically, if you were forced to bet who on STW was most likely to be a drink driver IRL, I reckon your odds of a correct guess would improve massively after a casual read of his thread.
Well done OP and Cougar and anyone else who has "snitched" on would be death by drink driving enablers.
Hypothetically, if you were forced to bet who on STW was most likely to be a drink driver IRL, I reckon your odds of a correct guess would improve massively after a casual read of his thread.
My guess is Alpin and Cougar. Deflection... A well known technique in addicts.
You the third party would get paid out. Insurance company would then go after range rover Barry for his assets to the tune of the claim as he is not insured.
No i think technically they ARE insured. An the IC goes after them for breach of contract. They are uninsured (and possibly uninsurable) once the company realises whats going on and informs them they are no longer insured.