I've seen a guy crack into a 5th on the 1 hour train ride home before, he goes to the stop before me and I hope to God he doesn't drive afterwards.
I’m still amazed that people even contemplate having any alcohol when driving now.
Agreed - I like to have a beer or three to *feel* the effects of alcohol - and if I can feel the effects of the alcohol then I can't possibly be in a fit state to drive.
Why? Within the limit it’s perfectly legal to do so.
The problem is, there is no clear limit - what some 20st Geordie bricky could put away and be 'under' the limit would be way different to what I could have (being a 10.5st midget). It's easier just not to drink at all and take away any doubt.
For those who say its unsafe to drive with any alcohol, do you never drive while tired, dehydrated, hungry, distracted by music, radio, conversation, eating etc?
Agreed – I like to have a beer or three to *feel* the effects of alcohol
And in that case of course driving should be out of the question. However I, and many others have grown up a bit and also like to drink a beer or glass of wine for its taste. Often slowly, and with a meal.
Depends Chris Froome could have 30 and be under the limit!
Whilst I realise that's joke, it's a relevant point. If I'd just ridden 100 miles, one beer would probably make me feel pretty tipsy, but I might need 3 or 4 for the same effect when well-hydrated. I wonder if BAC correlates with this sensation. I would guess not.
However I, and many others have grown up a bit and also like to drink a beer or glass of wine for its taste. Often slowly, and with a meal.
But it's still alcohol and therefore still a risk. Not sure how you think you have 'grown up a bit' yet still think it's okay to drink then drive.
We don’t have 100L of blood in our bodies – it’s more like 5!
You obviously didn't read what I said, which was not that we have 100 liters of blood. Alcohol is metabolized in different parts of the body, which means that it must be dispersed around the body. It doesn't just stay in the blood and then get excreted. If it just stayed in the blood, then a single drink would put any human way over the legal limit.
As a ballpark figure, for an average male, the alcohol cannot be dispersed through more than about 50 kgs of watery tissue. That's an upper limit, so from that, you can estimate that drinking more than a couple of cans of that drink before driving is not a good idea.
But it’s still alcohol and therefore still a risk. Not sure how you think you have ‘grown up a bit’ yet still think it’s okay to drink then drive.
Try reading my other posts on this thread for context, then have another go, eh?
Try reading my other posts on this thread for context, then have another go, eh?
I have read your comments and all you seem to argue is that it is okay to drink if you don't drink too much because other people cause accidents even though they haven't been drinking because they are ****s so why criminalise having a small drink?
But no-one is criminalising having a drink and staying under the limits, although some on hear are pointing out that it could be argued that avoiding alcohol completely is a more sensible option than risking it and having a small glass of wine slowly over a meal. And remember that all the potential factors aren't exclusive - there could be tired **** drivers behind the wheel after that one small glass of red.
Why on earth would you want to drink that anyway? That’s the question we should be asking?
i suggest you have a manly pint of lager, craft ale, or a bottle of single malt instead.
Out of interest, does anyone here that has a zero alcohol policy also never drive tired?
Or stressed, or distracted.
The number of things that make your driving "as bad as being over the drink drive limit" is shocking, and the number of other factors beyond them is numerous. If a mate said he'd be fine after having 4 pints over the course of an evening, I'd tell him he was wrong and advise him against it. If he'd had 1 pint with dinner early in the night and several hours later was thinking of driving I wouldn't be upset.
There are no absolutes, there's still a baseline risk, and people will still die on the roads even if we get autonomous vehicles on them. And yes any tragedy is a tragedy, but face it - having a drink is fun and social. It's not like stopping everyone ever having a drink would be a zero cost even if it did save huge numbers of lives (and if we're talking about staying under the drink drive limit, it wouldn't really save huge numbers of lives)
Furthermore, even if we switched to perfect non fatal autonomous vehicles tomorrow, there are several times more people killed by the pollution from cars than from RTAs, it's just less obvious as they die from other underlying conditions that are exacerbated by the pollution.
If I wanted to be sure to be under the limit, I'd buy a breathalyzer of my own. But we did have some handed out in the office a couple of years ago, and I managed to "pass" a breath test at the end of the staff Christmas do, after which there is no way I would have got in a car and driven. Not sure if it was because I'd googled how to get a low reading or whether it was a cheapo duff breath test, or just because my liver is better than I imagined at removing booze from my system, or a combination of the three.
And zero tolerance as others have said would outlaw a lot of puddings, even many things that might ferment a little tiny bit before you eat or drink them. The level in Scotland is to give the message that you shouldn't have a drink and then drive - I would be interested to see if it had an effect on people that drink drive anyway (including the morning after) - from observing driving around Christmas time, I suspect not much of an effect.
To the OP, probably 2. 5% is reasonably strong, and an hour is too short to rely on any alcohol coming out of the system.
For those who say its unsafe to drive with any alcohol, do you never drive while tired, dehydrated, hungry, distracted by music, radio, conversation, eating etc?
Where are you going with this? What's the goal here?
What’s the goal here?
A more holistic and less neurotic approach to road safety, I’d had thought. But you keep on believing zero alcohol will do more to reduce road casualties than addressing most of the other factors mentioned
Where are you going with this? What’s the goal here?
Internet points.
plyphon, the point I was seeking to draw out seems to have already been covered.
It's a bit like the helmet debate - focus on one and only one factor and the others get ignored => "reasonable and intelligent" people think everything is covered, when that is in fact bollocks.
Thanks (most of you, anyway!)
Safe to say that four of them would probably be over the limit, then? Factoring in the end of the day, hydration etc, it certainly sounds like too much.
Might just be having a chat with the local police peeps...
Safe to say that four of them would probably be over the limit, then? Factoring in the end of the day, hydration etc, it certainly sounds like too much.
And playing the radio.
https://sussex.police.uk/news/how-many-units-of-alcohol-will-make-you-over-the-drink-drive-limit/
Safe to say that four of them would probably be over the limit, then? Factoring in the end of the day, hydration etc, it certainly sounds like too much.
Yes, definitely
Safe to say that four of them would probably be over the limit, then?
I doubt it.
it certainly sounds like too much.
That's because it is too much.
Do people actually believe this is correct ?
Nope. It's probably higher. I once experimented with a digital breathalyser (issued to Mrs Daz as part of her work testing drug users for alcohol consumption) which are much more accurate than the ones the cops have. It didn't go over the legal limit til I drank 4 pints, and even then it only did so 50% of the time. It didn't consistently read above the limit until I'd had 6 pints. I'd never obviously test that in real life, but pretty confident 2 pints is fine if the being under the limit is all you're bothered about. Of course what you should really be considering is your ability to drive safely, and that is a much more subjective matter.
What was your blood results DazH?
How do you know the breathalyser your wife has is better and more accurate then the Police ones?
A more holistic and less neurotic approach to road safety, I’d had thought. But you keep on believing zero alcohol will do more to reduce road casualties than addressing most of the other factors mentioned
-----------
plyphon, the point I was seeking to draw out seems to have already been covered.
It’s a bit like the helmet debate – focus on one and only one factor and the others get ignored => “reasonable and intelligent” people think everything is covered, when that is in fact bollocks.
I'm not sure anyone on this thread is saying that as long as we all don't drink road traffic accidents will be reduced to 0.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that, at all.
The Gods invented taxis, trains and buses for a reason.
Who can be arsed with one or 2 drinks anyhow?
Get rattled my friends, to hell with driving! 😆
The level in Scotland is to give the message that you shouldn’t have a drink and then drive – I would be interested to see if it had an effect on people that drink drive anyway (including the morning after) – from observing driving around Christmas time, I suspect not much of an effect.
Yes - the reduction is only about 1/3rd of the English limit but generally the marketing message not to drink at all seem to have been reasonably effective.
I don't have the stats to hand, and they need taken with a heap of scepticism as the detection rate is not necessarily correlated to the offending rate but the initial feedback was certainly that the detection rate dropped with the new limits (i.e. it seems fewer people were drinking and driving). As I recall the "morning after" rate was not so good - that is a harder message to get over, especially as there is not clear cut 100% robust rule to know if you are over the next day -- although obviously everyone who was caught "only had a few pints, the night before, and was in bed at midnight".
I would be interested to see if it had an effect on people that drink drive anyway
Dunno about people that drink and drive over the limit, but it had a massive affect on the 2 pinter population. People basically don't drink anything and drive anymore, least in my circle. I know that only anecdotal, but I think it'll be common.
God invented bicycles, taxis, trains and buses for a reason.
fify 😉
true, nothing funnier than trying to cycle up the road after 8 pints! 😆
God invented bicycles, taxis, trains and buses for a reason.
fify
That actually raises an interesting point. Some countries make no distinction between bikes and cars when it comes to drinking then riding/driving.
you can be hauled in front of the beak here for being drunk in charge of a bicycle but it's rarely enforce and you have to be monumentally pissed.
And drunk in charge of a horse.
I like a couple of beers before and even whilst driving. It relaxes me, makes me a better driver.
What I'm mainly getting from this is no-one really knows with so many variables... but there is a common sense verdict of "drink none would be your best bet".
If it just stayed in the blood, then a single drink would put any human way over the legal limit
and yet they'd be totally sober !
you can be hauled in front of the beak here for being drunk in charge of a bicycle but it’s rarely enforce and you have to be monumentally pissed.
Yes, in the UK. In other countries they’ve made the judgement that riding over the limit carries the same penalty as driving. Doubtless there are many people in those countries who would defend those laws on the basis of the mess a drunk cyclist makes if they wobble in front of a car, or force one to swerve and hit someone else.
Luckily there's no limit for cycling, horses or walking when pissed. I think this is reasonable, particularly for cycling and walking, given the vastly reduced risk to others from these activities.
A more holistic and less neurotic approach to road safety,
That's about it.
but there is a common sense verdict of “drink none would be your best bet”.
Well there is amongst most but others seem to think otherwise, the think why should this be the case when you be tired and drive.
"...which are much more accurate than the ones the cops have."
The early ones worked on a traffic light system, red, red and amber, green and accuracy would be difficult to compare. Later ones are accurate with a numbered result like this one
For reference limit (in breath) is: E&W 35, Scotland 22, train drivers and pilots 9. EWS limits are too high IMHO
Impairment starts well under the English limit
I swear it depends on the type of alcohol as well as the ABV % written on the label.
Old Mout cider I'm convinced has a typo. Should read 0.4% not 4.0%. Has practically no impairment effect whatsoever compared to drinking beer (and probably that precanned GnT) that claims to be around the same %.
Would be interested to do a breath and blood test and a reaction test before and after drinking both as an experiment.
Type of alcohol...umm nope . Alcohol by Volume is he government regulated wa y of declaring the amount of alchol in a beverage. For Beers this should be within .1% abv although can be .2 or .3% if is a cask conditioned real ale , and thats either under or over.
As for these tins of G&T. 1.25 units , so 1 1/4hr for the body to flush the alcohol out the system. If matey on the train is drinking 5 on his way home then he has 4 in his system. So he is probably over the limit. If he is a big drinker then he might not know or feel the efffects of a few G and T's
What was your blood results DazH?
I played around a with breathalyser, not blood tests. Obviously after drinking 6 pints I'd have been over the blood limit. I have known people though who have failed breath tests and then passed the subsequent blood test. Mrs Daz was a drug worker. She had to breathalyse clients before prescribing them drugs which could kill them if they'd been drinking, which is why she had better kit. I'm not going to say how but these things are so easy to fool that any hardened drink drivers are unlikely to fail because they know the tricks. It's pretty scary and one of the reasons I assume anyone driving late at night on a weekend is pissed.
"I have known people though who have failed breath tests and then passed the subsequent blood test."
This could happen for two (three) reasons: Their blood-alcohol had peaked at the roadside and is then being reduced naturally by their body. A delay in getting the blood sample reduces this further, e.g. booking into custody, calling a doctor out, etc. Blood sample analysis has a tolerance in the clients' favour. And a combination of the first two
"I’m not going to say how but these things are so easy to fool that any hardened drink drivers are unlikely to fail because they know the tricks."
Tend to doubt that. The device detects air flow pressure (no sucking or low pressure blowing) and discards the first 1 1/2 litres of breath to get a decent quality sample
She had to breathalyse clients before prescribing them drugs which could kill them if they’d been drinking, which is why she had better kit.
😂😂
I’m not sure anyone on this thread is saying that as long as we all don’t drink road traffic accidents will be reduced to 0.
Im not saying that anyone is.
I don’t understand drinking on trains. Of all the places to have a drink public transport is the worst.
That's why one needs a drink!
Of all the places to have a drink public transport is the worst.
Iran is worst.