Shot across the bows....A Warning to heed

Thermo · 2 May 2005

not much in the way of discretion with it really. the laws been worked to death on this one and tightened up so theres very few loopholes or ways out of it if you are caught. The one you blow into at the roadside is just a screening device and gives a fairly accurate reading, but not accurate enough for court proceedings. Having said that there have been times in the past when the machine showed amber, but it was obvious from the way the person was that they were ratarsed, so i used to nick them anyway.
Once you get to the station, your put on a machine to analyse your breath and that is extremly accurate. If you are just over the limit you are usually given a warning letter and sent on your way. If you are within a certain threshold you then have blood (usually blood) or a urine sample taken (you dont get to choose) and that is ent for analysis. Anything above that and you are charged.
The alcohol can stay in your system for a long while so its perfectly possible to be nicked the morning or even the afternoon after. Even if you get stopped and it shows an amber light you could get stopped half an hour later and it could be red or green depending on how your body deals with it.
Jasys right dont bother. There are so many imponderable factors that effect the level in your body that there is no hard and fast rule, even for one indivdual

felix · 2 May 2005

If you're trying to work out how much is too much then this might help.

The legal limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood. That's one part alcohol in 1250 by volume. Now alcohol, being a small molecule, doesn't stay in your blood but distributes itself throughout your body fluid and a vet once told me (yes I did say vet) that your body mass is about two thirds water.

From this information you can see that your worst case alcohol limit is just over half a millilitre per kilogram of body mass. It's a worst case because in practice the stuff is not absorbed instantly and your liver starts breaking it down as soon as it arrives but lets keep that as a safety margin.

The final part of the jigsaw is knowing how much alcohol is going in. This is not a problem since all drinks must state their percentage alcohol content - and if you can't do the sums you've drunk to much already!

Example: You weigh 75 kg so your safe limit is 37.5 mils. You're drinking Carlsberg Special at 9% alcohol so you can have just over 400 mils which is not quite one can. If you prefer to work in alcohol units you can have three of them. Of course no engineer wants to operate right on the limit (though contracts engineers often do) so lets reduce that to two units or one pint of average beer.

And what about the morning after? Your alcohol intake can be calculated in exactly the same way but no too livers are the same. A reasonable average breakdown rate to work on is about one unit per hour. You can probably work out from past experience whether eight hours is enough time to recover from four pints at two units each.

Big-all is right about zero tolerance being a non-starter - ethyl alcohol is a natural body chemical - but some countries are a lot less tolerant than the UK. Last time I was in Norway I was told that their limit was only a quarter of ours and the penalty was an automatic three months in jail!

jasy · 2 May 2005

big-all said:
jasy said:

1 Pint is TOO much. It should be ZERO tolerance!

Click to expand...

problem with zero tolerence is your body produces its own alcahol plus you have 3 pints have six hours sleep no breakfast you could be over the zero level

Like i said zero tolerance if other countries are less taking into account the bodies natural production of alcohol then why cannot our system do the same

mildmanneredjanitor · 2 May 2005

So what about someone who has a pint of John Smiths with his steak and mushroom pie at lunchtime and drives home at 5:30?

Should he still be prosecuted the same as someone who has had 5 pints and driven home from the pub?

I think zero tolerance is unrealistic and unworkable.

For a start most country pubs would cease to be able to operate! Why do pubs have car parks???

I think it's a shame that pubs rip you off on soft drinks, it grieves me to pay the same for a fizzy drink than for a pint!

ninebob · 3 May 2005

You all know my history by now, and that drink driving is something I will never do again. So in theory I should be in support of "Zero tolerance".

However, I don't see how it can be enforcable. A zero limit only serves to "move the goalposts", it stops being an issue of how much you can drink and becomes an issue of how long you have to leave it before you drive.

Take my grandmother for example. She was as cross as anyone when I lost my license, and rightly so. If you asked her if she would drink 2 glasses of wine and drive home, she'd say no.

But if a zero limit was introduced, the question would be - when do you get back to zero? In those circumstances, if Grandma had two glasses of wine on a Monday, she'd probably not drive until at least Thursday! Given that Grandad can't drive any more, that would severely limit their life.

There needs to be a degree of sense in this. I think that the current limit is about right - I fell foul of that and quite rightly I was held accountable for it. But I think a zero limit would cause a lot of confusion.

pipme · 3 May 2005

Next time you are driving take a look around .. watch 'sober' drivers race into roundabouts, only prepared to give way to traffic on their right ... Ignoring a 'give way line' in respect of traffic already on the roundabout, blindly beleiving anything on their left should give way to them.
Drive the dual carriageway, some cameras 50 mph restricted ... note how many pass you when driving 55 mph... some at twice that.
Drink driving is a small but well publicised misdemeanour .. there is worse going on all day every day ....
My driving world has shifted since having the trip computer ... watch the average speed per tank of fuel in the 20's mph .... I guess pugnacious driving is not about getting somewhere quickly enough to save useful time .. it is entirely something else.
Simple maths show the trivial gains in time between 40 and 60 mph on a journey of say 10 miles non MoWay (if you could maintain 60 for 10 miles today) 5 minutes is the time involved, and probably less.. is it ever worth the fuel and angst !!
60 / your speed = time in minutes per mile

mildmanneredjanitor · 3 May 2005

I wonder how technology will be in the future...?

Maybe implants that are programmed with our drivers licence details that act like immobilisers? They could detect whether we are allowed to drive certain vehicles, whether we have had to much to drink, or are to tired? Preventing the car/truck/bike to start???

I know that some cars have a staggering array of technology built into them already. A friend of mine has an Audi cabriolet and told me about some of the safety features. If the car detects that the car is about to roll over, the rollbar snaps into position, the seatbelt pre-tensioners take up the slack of the seat belts, umpteen airbags inflate to cushion the blow, the fuel pump is stopped, the doors unlock and the hazzard lights are turned on and the interior courtesy lights are also turned on to aide your escape. I'm sure there was more, but can't remember! Probably contacts an approved repairer to arrange collection too! (or a no-win-no-fee insurance company!)

pipme · 3 May 2005

I bet it checks if about to roll onto some nicely placed concrete posts, the ones which miss roll bars and punch holes in seats !! ... If so, opens special compartment holding will and last testament complete with large size body bag ....

mildmanneredjanitor · 3 May 2005

pipme said:
I bet it checks if about to roll onto some nicely placed concrete posts, the ones which miss roll bars and punch holes in seats !! ... If so, opens special compartment holding will and last testament complete with large size body bag ....

That's just being silly!

It pages the local organ donor transplant team!

felix · 3 May 2005

Maybe implants that are programmed with our drivers licence details that act like immobilisers? They could detect whether we are allowed to drive certain vehicles, whether we have had to much to drink, or are to tired? Preventing the car/truck/bike to start???

I'm not sure what you mean by implant. Will this be in the car or the driver? Let's assume you mean the car.

Many years ago I saw something on a Tomorrow's World type programme about a car with a built in breathalyser. You had to blow into the tube and the car wouldn't start if you were over the limit. It never caught on, possibly because you could always fool it by getting your sober passenger to do the blowing. This is a shame because there must be some way of making it foolproof. Ideas anybody?

Here's another one. You put something into the car's engine management computer which detects the use of a mobile phone from the driver's seat and reduces the speed smoothly to zero.

I agree that drunks are not the only menace on the road. One classic example from Police Camera Action had a maniac speeding down the fast lane, phone in one hand, pen in the other, taking notes while he steered with his elbows! Give me a drunk any time. At least they mostly drive real slow and careful because they don't want to get stopped.

mildmanneredjanitor · 3 May 2005

Hi Felix,

I did mean implanted in the person. The thought of this kind of technology fills people with horror, now. But in the future I think that this sort of thing will be just a matter of course, to prevent fraud etc. No signatures, trying to type in your pin number without that greasy scumbag looking over your shoulder. No passports/licences to lose or forge. It could also contain medical notes Donor information etc. (handy if you drive an Audi!

)

The technology exists today (for dogs etc.) but we squirmish humans aren't ready for it yet (I don't like the thought of it). But then, with anything - there will be ways and means of beating the system!

2scoops0406 · 3 May 2005

felix said:
If you're trying to work out how much is too much then this might help.

The legal limit is 80mg per 100ml of blood. That's one part alcohol in 1250 by volume. Now alcohol, being a small molecule, doesn't stay in your blood but distributes itself throughout your body fluid and a vet once told me (yes I did say vet) that your body mass is about two thirds water.

From this information you can see that your worst case alcohol limit is just over half a millilitre per kilogram of body mass. It's a worst case because in practice the stuff is not absorbed instantly and your liver starts breaking it down as soon as it arrives but lets keep that as a safety margin.

The final part of the jigsaw is knowing how much alcohol is going in. This is not a problem since all drinks must state their percentage alcohol content - and if you can't do the sums you've drunk to much already!

Example: You weigh 75 kg so your safe limit is 37.5 mils. You're drinking Carlsberg Special at 9% alcohol so you can have just over 400 mils which is not quite one can. If you prefer to work in alcohol units you can have three of them. Of course no engineer wants to operate right on the limit (though contracts engineers often do) so lets reduce that to two units or one pint of average beer.

And what about the morning after? Your alcohol intake can be calculated in exactly the same way but no too livers are the same. A reasonable average breakdown rate to work on is about one unit per hour. You can probably work out from past experience whether eight hours is enough time to recover from four pints at two units each.

Big-all is right about zero tolerance being a non-starter - ethyl alcohol is a natural body chemical - but some countries are a lot less tolerant than the UK. Last time I was in Norway I was told that their limit was only a quarter of ours and the penalty was an automatic three months in jail!

Calculations like this are simply not worth doing. Yes the figures quoted seem about right (I don't pretend to know exactly what they are) but the important point almost made, is that no two people are the same. Metabolic rates are different, and change as well depending on how much is consumed, yes 2 units may take 2 hours to metabolise, but 10 units, may take significantly longer than 10 hours to metabolise. Conversely it might take considerably less time. The sensible approach, is if possible, consider it an effective zero. I'm lucky, when the wife and I go out, we share the driving. I drive there, she drives back !!!! She doesn't drink

jasy · 3 May 2005

mildmanneredjanitor said:
So what about someone who has a pint of John Smiths with his steak and mushroom pie at lunchtime and drives home at 5:30?

Should he still be prosecuted the same as someone who has had 5 pints and driven home from the pub?

I think zero tolerance is unrealistic and unworkable.

!

If you know you are going to drive why drink in the first place?? Why risk the one just don't bother. Is it that difficult for people to understand

pipme · 3 May 2005

Eddie M said:
felix said:

See above

Click to expand...

........ consider it an effective zero. I'm lucky, when the wife and I go out, we share the driving. I drive there, she drives back !!!! She doesn't drink

Ooooer and that's lucky is it ?

keyplayer · 3 May 2005

Eddie M said:
I'm lucky, when the wife and I go out, we share the driving. I drive there, she drives back !!!! She doesn't drink

And while you're lying in a pool of your own vomit, she's shagging the hitchhiker.

Shot across the bows....A Warning to heed

2scoops0406

Similar threads