You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Zero limit is pretty much impossible – that would put you over 12 hours after a single pint.
Where are you getting your TJ facts from today?
If you are suggesting it takes 12hrs to breakdown a single pint, then I would have died from severe alcohol poisoning on a number of occasions.
Or if your a member of the school of advanced motorists.
Do you have a personal problem with people seeking to improve their driving standards - that is very strange!!!
Do you have a personal problem with people seeking to improve their driving standards – that is very strange!!!
No, why would I? I do have a problem with people claiming you can't criticise drink drivers unless you've done an advanced motoring course.
no i suspect he has an issue with someone assertively trying to say that if you don't hold paid for paperwork then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
which is compounded when you know what he does for a day job and has probably seen first hand the results to form an opinion on drink driving.
gobuchal. Driunk elimination from the body follows a "half life" pattern. Ie half of it is gone every period of time. afterr 12 hours the amount of alcohol in your blood would be minimal but detecable.
IIRC the half life with alcohol is around 4 hrs. so after 12 hours you have 1/16th of the level. Not zero
Hmm, a bit of confusion here. By far the biggest killer on the roads is not speed, not drink, it's bad judgement and poor observation. These things can be HUGELY improved with additional training.
Therefore it's just plain strange that people seem very concerned whether someone should be allowed 0.5 or 0.8mg of alcohol in their system yet they themselves don't seem to care enough about the biggest killer on the roads to do anything personally about it and get some additional driver training!
Kananga - check out offences DR20 and DR 50. Neither require any fixed levels of drink merely that you are under the influence. Its very unlikely you would be prosecuted if you pas a breath test but possible.
Kananga - cite please? Drink driving is responsbible for 300+ deaths a year.
Its well proven that even below the limits your chances of crashing are increased. Well proven. 60 people a year killed like this by drink drivers below the limit.
at a level 0f 0.8 your chances of crashing are much much higher.,
you keep drawing it back to irrelevant arguement . no one disagrees that people not paying attention(and extra training wont stop peoples mind wandering - driving is a boring mind numbing repetitive task its easy to see why minds wander ) is a huge killer. But its a different discussion to the thread title.
Never mind soon our automatic electric self driving car will be able to take us home from the pub paralytic.
Hmm, a bit of confusion here. By far the biggest killer on the roads is not speed, not drink, it’s bad judgement and poor observation. These things can be HUGELY improved with additional training.
Therefore it’s just plain strange that people seem very concerned whether someone should be allowed 0.5 or 0.8mg of alcohol in their system yet they themselves don’t seem to care enough about the biggest killer on the roads to do anything personally about it and get some additional driver training!
No, you believe that others aren't concerned but the subject of bad driver habits causing accidents is often mentioned on here and I can't recall anyone saying it isn't an issue. That does not mean we should ignore changes to drink driving regulations, I'd even say they go hand in hand.
What is plane strange is that you seem to think your beliefs that no one cares is right.
Kananga – check out offences DR20 and DR 50. Neither require any fixed levels of drink merely that you are under the influence. Its very unlikely you would be prosecuted if you pas a breath test but possible.
TJ both of those require evidence of impairment to be established by the result of a blood or urine analysis, which if it was below the legal limit would not be illegal.
gobuchal. Driunk elimination from the body follows a “half life” pattern. Ie half of it is gone every period of time. afterr 12 hours the amount of alcohol in your blood would be minimal but detecable.
How does that work?
Please show me your numbers.
Everything I can find states the liver can typically process an amount of alcohol an hour. Nothing about "half life" type situations.
I am aware it is possible to detect evidence of alcohol metabolism in urine and blood, after the liver has dealt with the alcohol but not actual alcohol.
More than happy to be proved incorrect.
self driving car will be able to take us home from the pub paralytic.
I can imagine it already; The car turns up, tries to grab a handful of your missus, when the car door opens it spews vomit onto your shoes, and insists on playing Club Tropicana very loudly all the way home, then it tells you your it's best mate and falls asleep in the garage....
Kananga – cite please?
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_drivingwhileunfit.php
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php
NO they do not. Seriously go check some law. This is why there is two separate offences. "driving under the influence" which does not require physiological testing and "Driving over the prescribed limit" which does
The prosecution would have to show you were impaired but do not have to establish what your alcohol level actually is. ~Seriously- stop talking out of your hat.
a DR20 with the evidence you describe as required would be a DR10 .....
Your link proves my point
unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
No, you believe that others aren’t concerned but the subject of bad driver habits causing accidents is often mentioned on here and I can’t recall anyone saying it isn’t an issue.
Yes but an issue no one can be bothered to do anything about themselves. Easy to have a rant online about drink drive limits - much harder to get off your own arse and do something to improve your own driving standards to make everyone else safer.
Yes but an issue no one can be bothered to do anything about themselves. Easy to have a rant online about drink drive limits – much harder to get off your own arse and do something to improve your own driving standards to make everyone else safer.
Are you saying eveyone on here who has an issue with drink drivers are crap drivers? Yeah you're talking bollocks. Are you drunk?
Your link proves my point
unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
No it doesn't -
Evidence is required to show:
- unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
- presence of drink or drugs in the body: evidence of impairment can be established by the result of a blood or urine analysis
- unfitness to drive was caused by drink or drugs.
Evidence is require to show all three of the above if unfitness to drive is related to drink.
you can have a presence of the alcohol without being over the limit
Are you saying eveyone on here who has an issue with drink drivers are crap drivers? Yeah you’re talking bollocks. Are you drunk?
No drink drivers (over the limit) are idiots. What I'm saying that if you really cared about road safety you'd get off your arse and get some extra training. The fact that people can't be bothered to make improvements to their own driving speaks volumes.
I know I really shouldn't but this zero tolerance and slight amounts of alcohol in the system = significant impairment is going to signal the end of the continental breakfast as we know it! What with some breads and fruit juices having a higher alcohol content than some low alcohol beers ..hic!
What I’m saying that if you really cared about road safety you’d get off your arse and get some extra training.
It's a nice addition but not a requirement needed by everyone.
The fact that people can’t be bothered to make improvements to their own driving speaks volumes.
Which is a sperate discussion altogether and still does not justify why you think people should have an advanced driving licence in order to talk about drink driving.
Everything I can find states the liver can typically process an amount of alcohol an hour. Nothing about “half life” type situations.
To my knowledge from my (GP) mum - above a certain level, it's linear - your liver can process X units of alcohol an hour. Below a level, it becomes more like a half-life.
An additional complication to this would be that many every day products may contain traces of alcohol, not just alcoholic puddings but anything where yeast may have respired anaerobically.
So whilst TJ is wrong on a number of counts, he is correct that a zero alcohol limit would be impractical.
60 people a year killed like this by drink drivers below the limit.
The thing with statistics like this how do you know the drink was responsible for the accident ? Even if the driver was deemed responsible how is it possible to say the small amount of alchol involved was the deciding factor.
I'm very much against people driving "drunk" but I do think a person can get home safely after drinking 2-3 units. I'd leave the DD limits where they are.
Which is a sperate discussion altogether and still does not justify why you think people should have an advanced driving licence in order to talk about drink driving.
Because advanced drivers have 30-50% fewer accidents, whereas reducing the alcohol limit would have a very marginal effect on those who are already frequent drink drivers. It's like having a heated (pardon the pun) debate about how you should put out a candle, when the whole room around you is on fire.
One unit over an evening. That’s my absolute geeky rule. So a small glass of wine over an hour, or a half pint of a nice 5% beer. Since the body metabolises about one unit per hour (depending on body weight and past drinking history), this implies that after an hour one will have no impairment. Over a prolonged dinner, I may push the limit to a add a small half a glass of wine to taste after an hour.
The 80 mg/dL limit is pretty generous. A lower limit would help people think about what they drink much more.
Two pints of modest strength beer is five units. Taken over an hour would lead to about four units on board as you leave the pub. This dilutes into about 38.5 litres (55% of 70 litres). A unit is 10 mL or 8 g (density is 0.8). That’s 8000 mg of drug per unit! So blood concentration will be about 32000(mg)/385(dL) = 83 mg/dL.
Please don’t, there is little margin for error. Try the sum for what you might drink. And remember that wine servings have become larger and beers are stronger. A 125 cl glass of 12 percent wine has 15 mL of ethanol, 1.5 units or 12000 mg.
Guess my day job 😉
Kananga -just ttry reading that again. It is 100% that you do not need to estabilish a blood alcohol level toprove that someone was driving under the influence
- unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
- presence of drink or drugs in the body: evidence of impairment [size=20]<span style="text-decoration: underline;">can [/size]</span>be established by the result of a blood or urine analysis
- unfitness to drive was caused by drink or drugs.
Because advanced drivers have 30-50% fewer accidents, whereas reducing the alcohol limit would have a very marginal effect on those who are already frequent drink drivers. It’s like having a heated (pardon the pun) debate about how you should put out a candle, when the whole room around you is on fire.
Nope you've still not justified your reason just spouted out some numbers.
I'm genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes on this thread, I thought drink driving attitudes moved on in the 80s
I think it is fair to say that anyone who thinks they are as good, or better, a driver with a couple of pints in their system is arrogant and ignorant, subsequently likely to be dangerous behind the wheel. I don't care if you have done IAM training or some workplace driving course, your attitude is scary.
Because advanced drivers have 30-50% fewer accidents
This maybe true.
I have no doubt, further training in any potentially hazardous activity is good. However, the type of person who would go IAM training is more likely to be the type of person who has fewer accidents than average anyway. They probably maintain their vehicles well, check tyre pressures regularly, keep the glass perfectly clean and never run out of screenwash.
I don't want to stereotype but...
Kananga -just ttry reading that again. It is 100% that you do not need to estabilish a blood alcohol level toprove that someone was driving under the influence
Yes you do - how can you otherwise prove influence of alcohol? Just because someone thought you looked drunk?
Like me saying that I saw someone who looked like he could be shoplifter. No the shoplifter has to be found with stolen goods on his possession to secure a conviction.
the type of person who would go IAM training is more likely to be the type of person who has fewer accidents than average anyway.
100%. Statistics can be usefull but the rarely include every variable.
Basically yes Kanaga. There are a range of tests done - physical tests along the walking along lines thing and also stuff like getting them to follow a point moving from side to side with their eyes only. not moving their head. Its perfectly possible to be found to be "under the influence" without a breath or blood test. The eye movement one is particularly telling. The way the eyes respond is differnt "under the influence" Its an obviuous measure, its well accepted.
You see I have worked a little alongside the police and seen this done.
See the word "CAN" in those statements. You CAN prove someone is driving under the influence by witness statement OR you CAN prove it by blood alcohol levels
Nope you’ve still not justified your reason just spouted out some numbers.
It's pretty hypocritical to try to lecture to others about improving their road safety when you yourself haven't made any effort to improve your own level of driving skill since passing your test. Just like people who have a drink, by not keeping your driving skill and knowledge up to date you are choosing to deliberately endanger the lives of others in a needless fashion. You are choosing through your inaction or laziness to pose an increased risk to other road users. Yet this is deemed as acceptable by many, however the odd pint blow the legal limit is not! People in glass houses and all that.
But you have absolutely no idea what anyone on here has done, improving your driving does not just need a IAM.
Basically yes Kanaga. There are a range of tests done – physical tests along the walking along lines thing and also stuff like getting them to follow a point moving from side to side with their eyes only. not moving their head. Its perfectly possible to be found to be “under the influence” without a breath or blood test. The eye movement one is particularly telling. The way the eyes respond is differnt “under the influence” Its an obviuous measure, its well accepted.
Nope, sorry you are wrong. Those laws apply to the US and in the UK the tests you describe are only authorised for cannabis and cocaine (drink driving law was amended in 2015). For alcohol then you either need a positive breath or a blood/urine test to prove driving whilst unfit through drink.
But you have absolutely no idea what anyone on here has done, improving your driving does not just need a IAM.
That's why I asked and only one person has come forward so far with what they have done extra training wise.
If you haven’t then you’re a total hypocrite and don’t have any right to comment on what others can and can’t do.
Asked or not that there still utter bollocks.
Asked or not that there still utter bollocks.
Smooth!!!!
Like the hallmark of an expert.
Bejesus you lot are enough to make people drink!!!!!!!!
Bejesus you lot are enough to make people drink!!!!!!!!
I hope you're a member of CAMRA.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">kananga
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
So come on then how many of you who claim to care about road safety have been bothered to take any further driving training since passing your test? If you haven’t then you’re a total hypocrite and don’t have any right to comment on what others can and can’t do.
I have- police roadsafe and and CTC. And then another learning-and-test cycle for different vehicles. But it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to this thread.
</div>
Still, if not doing further training means people aren't allowed to comment on others, does that mean doing further training means you are? Bonzer. Using my newfound authority I hereby order you to slow down.
Using my newfound authority I hereby order you to slow down.
The power of advanced motorists compels you.
Passed my Advances Driving Test at 18, since you asked Having a father die in a road accident at 29 due to excess speed tends to focus the mind. I’m probably only a little better than an average driver though, Nil points in 30 years, but have had a slow speed skid into a bollard on thick ice.
Curiously, just back from a holiday in France. I’m sure their driving standards were better than ours. I wasn’t in Paris.
Its perfectly possible to be found to be “under the influence” without a breath or blood test.
Can you find ANY successful prosecutions where this has actually happened ?
Where not being able to walk along a line and someone saying that a driver “looked drunk” was enough to secure a conviction despite the driver being under the legal limit ?
Because if not, then it’s just a pointless hypothetical “technicality” for the sake of an argument isn’t it ?
"Its perfectly possible to be found to be “under the influence” without a breath or blood test"
No, it isn't. There are three elements:
Unfit to drive...e.g. witness evidence of the manner of driving
The presence of alcohol or drug...breath or blood test (can be under the prescribed limit, which is usually the point)
A causal link that the alcohol or drug caused the driver to be unfit to drive, i.e. not a health condition...exam by a doctor
I don't get it. Are some folk so dependant on alcohol that they simply MUST have a drink, even if they are subsequently driving?
What he said. I think the drinking culture in the UK is a massive problem. Boasting about being hammered etc, badgering people who are happy not having a drink, like there's something wrong with you. I was stopped by the police a few years ago, one of the ones that are more frequent around Christmas and New Year. I was asked if I'd had a drink and I said I couldn't remember when I'd last had a drink. The Polis man said "that's a shame", or words to that effect. Why's that a shame?
Scotroutes - I believe it is arrogance, selfishness and a sense of entitlement. These guys are the problem and they are in denial
<div>Research evidence consistently demonstrates that</div>
<div>the risk of having an accident increases exponentially as more alcohol is</div>
<div>consumed. Drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of between 20</div>
<div>mg/100 ml and 50 mg/100 ml have at least a three times greater risk of dying</div>
<div>in a vehicle crash than those drivers who have no alcohol in their blood. This</div>
<div>risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 50 mg/100 ml and</div>
<div>80 mg/100 ml, a</div>
<div>So Postierich - your level of drink driving is increasing your chance of crashing by 6 times. Still think its OK?</div>
<div></div>
<div>I am sorry but those who have exposed themselves as drink drivers on here while brave have gone right down in my estimation.</div>
Read the north report. Learn something and change your dangerous and criminal behaviour.
Can you find ANY successful prosecutions where this has actually happened ?
Where not being able to walk along a line and someone saying that a driver “looked drunk” was enough to secure a conviction despite the driver being under the legal limit ?
Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?
As you are calling people who drive whilst under the legal limit “dangerous criminals” I guess you must have ?
Also depends on your size and metabolism. A teetotal law for drivers? Probably a good idea or a decent test device you can use yourself?
I thought drink driving attitudes moved on in the 80s
There seems to have been a flip back recently. Still hold outs from the older generation but seems to have creeped back in again after those who started driving in the 90s.
If people cant be arsed with all the evidence and want to go for anecdotal evidence being mountain bikers there is a fun way to test how alcohol impairs ability, Find a nice offroad section, preferably where a mistake wont be too painful eg no 100ft drops on one side, and repeat whilst continuing to drink. In terms of pure speed I think there is a goldilocks zone where inhibitions are relaxed but ability is only partially reduced so if the risks taken work out can do well. However if they dont then its crash time. More beers that are taken the more the odds are tipped. Its one of the things that made me go for a zero tolerance approach. Its fun when young and quick healing and its just me who would get hurt but when driving and risking others I would give it a miss. This might be influenced by the fact I have the scars from when a drunk driver hit the car I was in when I was 8.
As for the whataboutery about being ill/tired etc. Thats why when driving there are often signs saying "tired take a break?" and so on. Problem is its harder to test against without serious police time spent on it. The bloke who caused the Great Heck train accident was done for dangerous driving using the evidence he was sleep deprived but that will have taken a decent amount of police time to provide evidence.
Drink driving is one of those things, like speeding, which is fairly easy to test for and so target.
I call anyone who puts other people in danger dangerous criminal. anyone who drives under the influence is exactly that.
Look at the data - even under the limit you have increased your chances of dying in a crash by 6 times.
On the driving under the influence. The links I posted make it very clear. You don't want to believe it fine. Nothing I say will change your mind. Its a provision in the law that is there.
unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
Now that is the governments website.
In a sobering pre-Christmas message, police are warning drivers they can still be prosecuted even if they are under the drink-drive limit.
Devon and Cornwall Police is also stepping up road-side tests at the launch of its annual Christmas road safety campaign against driving under the influence of drink or drugs.
Roads Policing Inspector Richard McLellan said that being ‘under the limit’ for a breath test does not necessarily mean that a driver’s judgement and abilities are not impaired.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/police-warn-drivers-can-prosecuted-886185
that good enough? direct quote from a senior cop?
Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?
Not taking sides in your argument but..........
One of the regulars in my local fell foul of just that. He was ( he's dead now) a lorry driver, and partial to a drink. One day he was involved in an accident, it wasn't his fault and nobody was hurt but he was breathalised. His reading was under the limit but showed alchol. His tachograph showed when he started driving and it was calculated that he would have been over the limit when he started driving. Big court case but he was convicted and banned. Appealed ect, ect but the conviction was upheld.
"Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?"
There will be plenty out there, but without trawling through local newspapers they won't be easy to quote. Scottish FOI request, many will be drugs only, but many will involve alcohol under the prescribed limit. An element that's worth noting is that alcohol and drugs are frequently used together and a combination involving a low alcohol reading can have some terrible effects. A test for alcohol is simpler and cheaper (alcohol is alcohol) than for "drugs", which involves several tests, and the s4 procedure would be used
Over the prescribed limit is more commonly used because it's simpler to prove, doesn't necessarily involve calling out a doctor and doesn't use resources and time until the doctor attends; s4 unfit through drink or drugs could still be used if the evidential breath test was below the prescribed limit, but have a look at the three elements that I posted above ^^
Back-calcs are frequently used in accident investigations where a driver is found later and under the limit, but again are more complex than a simple machine says, "Yes"
"unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition"
Yes, but see above; to prove the s4 offence three separate elements must be satisfied, that is only one
More also needs to be done to catch/stop those who think it’s ok to smoke weed and drive, annecdotal but everyday I smell weed coming from a car at some point
Is this the same force that has only 4 offices looking after Hayle down to Lands End around to Penzance?
Devon and Cornwall Police is also stepping up road-side tests at the launch of its annual Christmas road safety campaign against driving under the influence of drink or drugs
Timba - you do seem to know this stuff but my reading of the way those three things are written is its any one of not all three. YOur expertise? I am just a geeky layman that likes to read up on this stuff
I think that quote from a policeman has more weight than folk on here - and that is unequivocal in that you can be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol below the limit.
Anyway - one of my life lessons from here is to try to make my point and move on not get bogged down in the minutiae of debate so that is what I will do
I think investing in a breatherlyser would be a good idea, removes any doubt about where you are.
"YOur expertise?"
Quite a bit 😉 Did a course when evidential breath machines were introduced to the UK and another day with Lion Intoxilysers in SWales for hand-held devices
ta
"I think investing in a breatherlyser would be a good idea, removes any doubt about where you are"
No, it won't. Alcohol has to get from your stomach into your blood to be measured either in breath (blood circulates through your lungs) or blood (and of course urine, but that's a rarely used option)
This takes an unknown amount of time dependent on food (slower), fizzy drinks (they get out of the stomach faster), and you. Men and women are also different. So you/Mrs W could be below in the pub but above when you drive home, and you could in any case be impaired below the limit.
And that's assuming that the machine is accurate, the police calibrate theirs regularly. So, save your money, drink non-alcoholic, job's a good'un
I have- police roadsafe and and CTC.
What are these?
Passed my Advances Driving Test at 18, since you asked
The RoSPA one that lasts for three years? So 27+yrs ago?
I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes on this thread, I thought drink driving attitudes moved on in the 80s
I'm not sure they have. The main difference these days is that drivers who drink tend not to talk or be honest about it for fear of being labelled irresponsible potential child killers. As someone like postierich who is perfectly comfortable having a couple of post-ride beers then driving home, being lectured by the 1 pint is too many brigade gets a bit boring so you don't advertise the fact. I've said a few times on these sort of threads that I know for a fact I can go quite a bit over 2 pints before I test positive at the 80mg level. Does that mean I do? No. Would I drive after 2 pints if I though my driving was impaired to the point of being a danger to others? No. Do I think the limit should be lowered? Probably. For some it should, for others not, but you'd have to consider the lowest common denominator so difficult to oppose it. Would it stop me having 2 pints? I don't know, it would depend on the circumstances, such as location, the length of the drive home and time of day. In any case the chances of being caught are negligible so in many cases probably not.
And how does lowering the limit address the significant numbers of people who still drink 5 or 6 then get in the car and don't give a **** about it? I think that's a much bigger problem but then again being an irresponsible 2-pint driver I would say that wouldn't I?
Flame away....
dazh - at 2 pints ( probably between 50 and 80 levels you are 6 times more likely to crash. thats the science. anyone who thinks drinking any amount then driving is OK is wrong. Even at 1 pint ie levels probably between 20 and 50 your chances of crashing are 3 times higher
The only reason people thik a ouple of pints is OK is beause they lack the self awareness to understand how much their driving is impaired. Thats a function of how alcohol affects you. anyone who claims they are not imparied at a level of 50 is deluded
Having never crashed in 30 years of driving it seems like an increased risk of 3 times (perhaps a broadly reasonable estimate at the 1 pint level based on ti's links) still leaves me safe enough to not worry too much about it.
exactly the sort of deluded thinking that leads to drink driving. If anyone could have shown exactly how people think about drink driving you and postie have shown it. completely deluded as to the risk, in complete denial that their behaviour is wrong.
I'd only require one for morning after duties as I don't see the point in having one beer if I can't have more...
Keeping it in perspective, why demonise driving with one pint while driving while carrying on a hands free telephone call is acceptable to most people but more dangerous than driving at the drink drive limit by some measures.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2077-cellphones-worse-than-drink-driving/
Nothing is absolutely safe. Judging by danger per mile the first thing needing banned is motorbikes.
Yeah we did that several pages back.
Oh I demonise folk who use their phones while driving. I have got out of a taxi and refused to pay halfway home because the driver took a call on his mobile. I also regularly shout at idiots I see on their phones in cars. Its highly amusing to watch them drop the phone with a guilty start .
I also regularly shout at idiots I see on their phones in cars. Its highly amusing to watch them drop the phone with a guilty start .
Serious question TJ. Do you spend your life going from confrontation to another?
How many times have you been knocked on your arse?
What's the baseline risk of crashing with no alcohol? I'm perfectly happy to accept that it's 6 times higher after a couple of pints if that's what the science says but if it's 6 times a tiny number then I'm not overly concerned. I could buy six lottery tickets to increase my chances of winning by 6 times, doesn't mean I think I'm going to win.