Drink Driving Dilema

[PermitToTravel]

If I recall rightly (ages ago) I was just (but only just, and needing to take into account breathalyser accuracy) under the *English* limit. It appears for me, one pint does next to nothing to my breath alcohol level (0.02 whatever-it-is where the limit is 0.08, at most, but often zero), but a second bumps it right up.

This tallies quite well with how intoxicated I feel. Unless heavily dehydrated (e.g. a pint straight after doing sport) I feel almost no effect from one, but noticeably intoxicated after two.

(This is assuming normal strength cider, i.e. around 4%)

Edit: Worth noting that I'm on the big side - 6' 4" and just under 18 stone, so there's a lot of me to soak it up!

Neil

The sharp bump up might be due to the time taken for the alcohol to be absorbed into your body, rather than sitting in your stomach. I suspect that if you took one pint, waited, and tried with your breathaliser, it would show roughly half what it would with two points.

It's very unlikely that such a device, unless you've spent as much on buying and calibrating it as the police do, is going to be able to tell you your BrAC anywhere near reliably enough to let you know whether or not it's safe to drive. Your own judgement of whether or not you are impaired might well actually be better.

 

[St Rollox]

Fair play to the Scottish Goverment regarding the new drink/driving laws.
Any risk takers out there can now stick to "coke".

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sharp bump up might be due to the time taken for the alcohol to be absorbed into your body, rather than sitting in your stomach. I suspect that if you took one pint, waited, and tried with your breathaliser, it would show roughly half what it would with two points.

Done that, and it seems to top out at 0.02 on the first pint, but only in some circumstances e.g. me being quite dehydrated. The recommended time to test is half an hour after the drink, by the way.

There is some logic to this - the body starts processing alcohol out of the system as soon as it gets it, not with some kind of delayed effect based on when you stop drinking. It processes roughly one unit an hour. This being the case, if you consumed one unit of alcohol (half a pint of standard beer, say) over one hour you should not end up with more than a trace in your bloodstream. So what you get if you drink 1 pint an hour is slightly more than half of it left after the hour. If you drink two pints in an hour, you'd get just over one and a half left.

It's very unlikely that such a device, unless you've spent as much on buying and calibrating it as the police do, is going to be able to tell you your BrAC anywhere near reliably enough to let you know whether or not it's safe to drive. Your own judgement of whether or not you are impaired might well actually be better.

There is a specified accuracy which is normally +/- 0.025 or thereabouts with the digital devices. So fine for showing that you are well under, but not much use if you're on the line. I've played with a few devices and the French chemical type.

Neil

 

[Butts]

Exactly right. This is an essential move in order to get away from this type of thinking. There are still too many people who think they will be fine having x amount of drinks, and we need to have a more of a sensible mindset as stated by quite a few people in this thread, of it not being OK to have an alcoholic drink at all if you have a vehicle with you.

That's why I'd like to see the limit come down further, though a zero limit is impractical.

Blimey that's "pure Chapel" thinking :cry:

It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - people who just have one drink which does not affect their driving capabilities are going to risk being banned in what is a vindictive measure.

Next they will be banning smoking whilst at the wheel - one hand for your can the other your fag and steer with your knees

 

[St Rollox]

Back in the mid 1970s i worked in the now long gone Tinto Firs hotel on the southern edge of Glasgow and nearby Giffnock.
The then last orders in a Glasgow pub were 10pm but being a hotel the "guests" could drink all night if the wished.
The place was full after 10pm any night of the week with off duty and maybe not off duty cops, firemen and cab drivers etc.
And everyone of them drove a car.
Who was ever going to stop police in a traffic patrol car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Next they will be banning smoking whilst at the wheel - one hand for your can the other your fag and steer with your knees

Not that I would suggest anyone try it, but provided you're below the limit I'm not aware of it being any more or less illegal to consume alcohol while driving than it is to consume a can of Coke.

Neil

 

[455driver]

I like the way the Australians do it with 3 stages of drink driving, somebody who is just above the limit will never be as dangerous as somebody who is 3 sheets to the wind!

A drink drive conviction in this Country is the same no matter how rat arsed you are and that cant be right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The drink drive limit is too high- two pints of beer has the same alcohol content as four shots of vodka and nobody would drive after that. But the trouble is that there's no grading in the offences here. European countries have a limit of 50mg but they don't throw the book at you for that, they only throw the book at you for higher offences. It should be the same here but, for whatever reason, it isn't.

 

[tbtc]

Obviously alcohol impacts people in different ways (and drivers have differing abilities in the first place), but there needs to be a simple quantifiable limit with no grey areas, so I think that a "x milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood" approach is correct and that the Scottish number sounds better than the English one.

However, I think that the best way of deterring people from drink driving would be to focus on the sentences for those convicted of it. For all the attention that Ched Evans got (for wanting to play football after serving time in prison for rape) there were hardly any headlines about Luke McCormick playing for Plymouth Argyle after killing two children.

McCormick killed them when drunk behind the wheel but went back to playing football after spending under four years in prison (i.e. less than two years per life taken).

Focussing on sentencing more, so that people understood that any crime committed when drunk behind the wheel would carry the same penalty as if they'd committed that crime otherwise... that'd make people think twice about the risk that they are taking.

Then again, some drivers are pretty arrogant and genuinely believe that they don't have a drink problem, that they can handle their drink, that their driving won't be impaired, that their driving is better than average in the first place, that they run little chance of getting caught, that they can focus on their driving... that the law doesn't apply to them. So I don't know how you can deter people who are the greatest risk, just how you can try to stop the next generation from falling into the trap of thinking that they are invincible/ untouchable.

It's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - people who just have one drink which does not affect their driving capabilities are going to risk being banned in what is a vindictive measure

This is the problem with the subject - a significant number of drivers think that they are so superior that they are capable of driving perfectly well without alcohol having much impact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the problem with the subject - a significant number of drivers think that they are so superior that they are capable of driving perfectly well without alcohol having much impact.

That does actually depend on...
a) How much alcohol
b) How fast it is consumed
c) How fast that person's body processes alcohol

For an average person, they will be at zero a couple of hours after finishing consuming a pint of average beer, for instance. Quite possibly well before that.

Those who say "I don't drive after alcohol" are clearly not telling the truth, unless they (a) don't drive or (b) are teetotal. However they leave an amount of time after drinking before they drive (often overnight). That amount of time is in itself a judgement call unless you use a breathalyser to check.

Neil

 

[Butts]

I like the way the Australians do it with 3 stages of drink driving, somebody who is just above the limit will never be as dangerous as somebody who is 3 sheets to the wind!

A drink drive conviction in this Country is the same no matter how rat arsed you are and that cant be right.

Totally agree with the above

 

[Oswyntail]

... somebody who is just above the limit will never be as dangerous as somebody who is 3 sheets to the wind!....

Except that the "just above the limit" driver may not be aware of the slight impairment of judgement, thinks he's driving normally, until....

 

[Antman]

As from December 5th Scotland's limit has been reduced from the 80ml per whatever that applies in England to 50ml.

This means you could be breathalysed in Carlisle and pass, carry on across the border and theoretically fail in Gretna.

Quite frankly this seems a ridiculous situation , they should both be the same.

Can you imagine Scottish drivers in the Borders area being chased to the line and crossing into possible sanctuary in England.

As a matter of interest will you still be safe with "one pint" on the new 50ml limit ?

I think we are just splitting hairs here and this "safe with one pint" theory is a myth, just don't drink any alcohol at all when driving. I like a beer as much as anybody else but I wouldn't even have a half if I'm driving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I like the way the Australians do it with 3 stages of drink driving, somebody who is just above the limit will never be as dangerous as somebody who is 3 sheets to the wind!

A drink drive conviction in this Country is the same no matter how rat arsed you are and that cant be right.

I'm not sure that's correct, if you are slightly over the limit in this country (I can't recall the exact figure) you recieve a police caution and nothing more. On the other hand courts are likely to throw the proverbial book at somebody who is well over the limit, some people would refuse to take the breath test so that the court wouldn't know how far over the limit they were but I believe courts now throw books at those trying that trick.

 

[Greenback]

I think we are just splitting hairs here and this "safe with one pint" theory is a myth, just don't drink any alcohol at all when driving. I like a beer as much as anybody else but I wouldn't even have a half if I'm driving.

I agree. The myth simply encourages people to think they are safe to drive when even a small amount of alcohol can impair judgement and reaction times. As it is, at the moment, people think in terms of whether they are legal rather than whether they are safe.

Things have to change.

 

[Antman]

Except that the "just above the limit" driver may not be aware of the slight impairment of judgement, thinks he's driving normally, until....

This is part of the problem, a lot of people think they can drive perfectly well after consuming alcohol, they think they are driving normally but it's the driver behind who can see them veering all over the road.

Just try playing a computer game that involves driving after a few beers and see how it affects your reactions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. The myth simply encourages people to think they are safe to drive when even a small amount of alcohol can impair judgement and reaction times. As it is, at the moment, people think in terms of whether they are legal rather than whether they are safe.

Things have to change.

Those two should, to a reasonable level, be the same thing. Which is a case for reducing the limit, but how much needs to be defined by careful analysis of accident statistics. There's plenty of data.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

Those two should, to a reasonable level, be the same thing. Which is a case for reducing the limit, but how much needs to be defined by careful analysis of accident statistics. There's plenty of data.

Neil

They should, but they haven't been. I used to travel with a colleague who very much liked a lunchtime pint, and would think nothing of stopping for one on a business journey when he was driving down the M4 to London. He'd then have another drink on the outskirts of London before we continued to our hotel. He always used to say he was fine to drive, and I used to argue with him that he was probably legal (he was a big chap and used to alcohol) but that didn't make him fine.

That is the mindset that needs to change, although I must admit he never had an accident when I was with him.

 

[Kristofferson]

Just try playing a computer game that involves driving after a few beers and see how it affects your reactions

In real life, I never drink if I know I'm driving later, and never drive if I've been drinking, but my laptimes/drift scores on Gran Turismo are always better after a few beers!

 

[Yew]

This will just increase the number of deaths due to drink driving...

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the mindset that needs to change, although I must admit he never had an accident when I was with him.

Might that be because he *actually was* fine to any reasonable level?

Did his driving noticeably deteriorate?

One pint will have very little effect on a non-dehydrated "brick outhouse". A half is likely to have no perceivable effect on anyone, I'd say, except someone who has an alcohol metabolism problem.

Neil

 

[Oswyntail]

This will just increase the number of deaths due to drink driving...

Explain, please

Might that be because he *actually was* fine to any reasonable level?

....I don't think anyone is denying there will be some people who are "fine". I think the point is, though, that assessment is impaired by alcohol, including the assessment of whether you are fine or not. Sadly, you have to make laws for the "weakest link" in such areas.

A half is likely to have no perceivable effect on anyone, I'd say, except someone who has an alcohol metabolism problem.

Like me (see above). But how many people know they have such an issue - until they find out the hard way?
What we should consider is that it is not the safety of the drinking driver that is being protected, but the safety of those around them. To my mind, that justifies the trivial restrictions on liberty involved in setting a low limit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What we should consider is that it is not the safety of the drinking driver that is being protected, but the safety of those around them. To my mind, that justifies the trivial restrictions on liberty involved in setting a low limit.

And we have years of accident statistics which can be analysed to establish if that is necessary to protect the safety of those around them or not, and to what extent it is necessary. It is not sensible to impose any law based on an ideal, only based on facts.

And that must take into account that road transport is not without risks. Driving, cycling and pedestrianism are three of the most dangerous activities engaged in by most of the population on a daily basis, whether involving alcohol or not.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

I think we need a definition of fine too. I always took my colleagues use of the word to eman that the alcohol would have no adverse effect on him. I used the word in a different way, to express the fact that having a pint would have an effect, maybe not discernible but enough that in certain situations that thankfully he never encountered when I was there, may have resulted in a different outcome compared ot if he was stone cold sober.

I don't believe that there is any scientific test that can prove, one way or the other, that a person might have reacted faster or seen a hazard earlier if they had not drunk any alcohol compared to having a drink or two. Given that, and the danger of using the road that Neil has highlighted, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and make driving after having had an alcoholic drink illegal and socially unacceptable.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't believe that there is any scientific test that can prove, one way or the other, that a person might have reacted faster or seen a hazard earlier if they had not drunk any alcohol compared to having a drink or two.

And if there was, then surely it would only be fair to compare the effects of half a pint or a pint with say the effects of not sleeping the night before, or or chatting to your mates in the car instead of properly concentrating, or whatever.

 

[gordonthemoron]

have had a blood test after 8 pints, i was just over double the limit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
i hadn't been driving

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if there was, then surely it would only be fair to compare the effects of half a pint or a pint with say the effects of not sleeping the night before, or or chatting to your mates in the car instead of properly concentrating, or whatever.

I'm sure if tiredness was testable, it would be illegal to drive tired.

Which could lead elsewhere...is there an argument to say that if tachographs are required for lorry drivers they should perhaps be required, with the same limits, for *all* drivers?

Neil

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm sure if tiredness was testable, it would be illegal to drive tired.

It would be more enforceable, but it is still illegal to drive tired. Just ask Gary Hart.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be more enforceable, but it is still illegal to drive tired. Just ask Gary Hart.

Not specifically. He got a dangerous driving charge, didn't he?

It's also unenforceable except in case of an accident, unlike drink-driving.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

Tiredness, speaking on a hands free mobile, smoking a fag, eating, chatting to other occupants of the car can all distract a driver. I can't argue with that. But this thread is about alcohol and driving, and specifically the change in the limits for Scotland.

Blood alcohol levels are a measurable and enforceable way in which this drink driving can be dealt with. The other issues, while relevant to driving safety, aren't really that connected to this topic, in my view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Blood alcohol levels are a measurable and enforceable way in which this drink driving can be dealt with. The other issues, while relevant to driving safety, aren't really that connected to this topic, in my view.

I think I'd disagree, as all these things are things that make driving less safe, and as enforcement/legislation has costs[1] they all need to be considered against their benefits.

[1] Including in this case loss of alcohol taxes. Yes, it's relevant, callous though it sounds. Similarly, the loss of fuel taxation revenue is often considered when considering a public transport enhancement.

Neil