You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
before there were restrictions
Blimey, how old are you?
Err, yes, my thought too; Road Safety Act 1967, so born 1950 or before?
After the initial police conversation with Range Rover Barry ascertaining where he'd been, they are at liberty to make him wait for 30mins or so before breathalyzing him.
It's to prevent unnecessary arrests, but only if they've had a drink or cig within the timeframe because nobody wants to hang around waiting to administer a breath test: 20 mins to get rid of any mouth alcohol, 5 mins after smoking
In practice, unless you've been extremely sloppy in your searching, by the time that the evidential test has started at the police station neither of those things are a problem
The 1967 Act introduced the breathalyzer and set a legally defined alcohol limit but there were still restrictions before that, such as "incapable of controlling a vehicle while drunk"
I think CZ first started driving before 1930......the good ol' days when you didn't even need to pass a driving test!
Saw someone beating up his kids in Morrison's the other day. But I'm just letting the cosmos deal with it. 🙄
I guess we all have our own dividing line on what laws should be enforced and which ones we should just not be bothered about.
That Institute for economic affairs survey outlined above.
If the IEA has a position, the opposite position is automatically the correct one. Without paying for the article, was the author a shill for the brewing/licenced victualler industry?
Drink driving is very common in rural areas. It was a regular issue at the pub that belonged to our static campsite - quite a few locals would drive down, park on the campsite (they knew the owner), consume an afternoons quantity of beer, then drive home. It was also common for some of the residents to drive from their caravans to near the pub (on campsite) then drive back with a belly of beer.
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
Saw someone beating up his kids in Morrison's the other day. But I'm just letting the cosmos deal with it.
This is a joke, right? It's not a particularly funny one if it is.
I think the rolling eyes provide a clue that it wasn't a joke. It's obviously intended to make a point.
The Institute for Economic Affairs will not be an unbiased organisation like a lot of the “think tanks” that are trotted out with opinions from whether sugar in food should be reduced to the health implications of keeping hamsters.
They all have an ulterior motive and their funders and officials are at best, opaque but mostly well hidden. Dig deep into the above organisation and you’ll probably find they have “sponsors” or funders with links to the drinks/pub industry.
When you hear an “informed’ opinion trotted out as truth, have a dig, you will find out very little about the organisation behind it. Only Private Eye appears to have success in this direction.
lowering the limit, or lowering the limit without actual enforcement? One of the reasons for complacency around drink driving is that most of us go for years without being stopped by the police for any road traffic matter so those who have a relaxed view about drink driving start to believe they won't get caught with a few. You don't stop the persistent offenders by lowering the limit - you stop them by catching them."Its been proven that you are actually impaired at lower than the 0.35 English limit."
It has also been proved that lowering the limit from 80 to 50 does not reduce accidents.
IME most drivers that crash after drinking are well above the current UK limit.
I'm not quite convinced that is true. Most drivers that get caught drink driving after a crash may be well above the current limit [whether that is the English/Welsh/NI or Scottish limit - there is not a UK one]. Given the police don't attend most collisions, I'm not sure we know how many people were above/below the limit. Given you only get taken for an evidential sample if you fail a roadside test, we don't really have data on how often people have had a drink but were below the limit.
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.
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.
Drink drivers kill hundreds and main thousands of people every year. 2 or 3 pints does put you over the limit, your home breathalyzer was certainly faulty. If every 2 or 3 pint driver was shoped then we would have much safer roads and the police consider drink driving a high priority simply because of the number of people killed. Your idea that many in rural areas are routinely drink driving is both false and the fact you think its OK puts you 100% in the wrong
Well it’s always dangerous to assume the other drivers you are recommending should drink 3/4/5 pints
FFS here we go. Nowhere on this thread have I encouraged anyone to drink and drive. I'm talking about whether its worth reporting someone who has drank 3 pints to the cops. IMO it's not for the reasons I have explained. If people want to drink and drive then that's their choice and they run the risk of being tested and arrested, worst case scenario they injure or kill someone and they're taken to the cleaners for compensation and have their licence taken off them and possibly end up inside. Neither are worth the risk obviously, so better to be on the right side of the law.
I don't know why you're defending this. (Well, I do, but...)
Cougar you can piss off with your barely disguised accusation. I don't drink and drive, I don't need to the pub is 5 mins from my house.
BTW how many on here would report a mate they've been on a ride with for riding home from the pub after a few pints? I've seen many MTB and road riding mates riding home after far too much (ie 5 or more). I'll also admit I've done it myself (although mostly stick to offroad if I can). Should we also be grassing up our mates or expect to be grassed up ourselves?
Drunk on a bicycle is a much higher level than over the proscribed limit. also drunk cyclist don't kill folk
My guess is Alpin and Cougar. Deflection... A well known technique in addicts.
Hey now!
I may have been an amber (nectar) gambler when I was much younger, but I don't think I've actually ever driven drunk. But then, I suppose that's what all drunks would say. 😁
I don't actually drink at all now, I quit a little while back.
Your idea that many in rural areas are routinely drink driving is both false and the fact you think its OK puts you 100% in the wrong
I agree with the second point here but not the first.
Fear of getting caught is usually one of the biggest deterrents, when the only copper in the village is on the barstool next to you that's unlikely. And hey, it's a quiet drive home down a country road, no other traffic... I dated a lass in a farty village in South Wales for a while and that was absolutely the mentality, it was normalised. You couldn't get a taxi home in any case because Mike Taxi (the only taxi driver in the village) was on the barstool on the other side. My partner of the time's dad drove a Jag because "it's safer when you crash." Walking home was at least as hazardous.
BTW how many on here would report a mate they've been on a ride with for riding home from the pub after a few pints? I've seen many MTB and road riding mates riding home after far too much (ie 5 or more). I'll also admit I've done it myself (although mostly stick to offroad if I can). Should we also be grassing up our mates or expect to be grassed up ourselves?
I'd try very hard to persuade them not to. A pissed cyclist is far less of a risk to others than someone in 2 tons of steel capable of 3 figure speeds. But cycling on a public road after 5 pints? They would be placing themselves, if not others at huge risk and if they were a mate I'd be trying very, very hard to stop them. It would be a tough call, but if that failed and the only way to prevent them from dicing with traffic whilst lagered up and potentially getting flattened was reporting them I'd have to consider it.
It is a moral dilemma but faced with losing a friend because he's got the hump with me or because he's been hit by a car I hope I'd have the moral courage to choose the former. Especially as the legal consequences are far less than drink driving (no breathalyser etc.) and the most likely outcome is a police warning.
I am thankful none of my mates have ever put me in that position.
Cougar you can piss off with your barely disguised accusation. I don't drink and drive, I don't need to the pub is 5 mins from my house.
That wasn't the accusation I was making, looks like the disguise worked.
Local cops here just tell drunk cyclists to walk home, I have known them take bikes off folk and lock them up and escort the person home, I have known them let the tyres down so they have to walk
to be prosecuted for drunk cycling you have to be shown to be incapable of riding
BTW how many on here would report a mate they've been on a ride with for riding home from the pub after a few pints? I've seen many MTB and road riding mates riding home after far too much (ie 5 or more). I'll also admit I've done it myself (although mostly stick to offroad if I can). Should we also be grassing up our mates or expect to be grassed up ourselves?
I think it's worth reminding yourself the majority view here would be the minority view from those that don't spend too much of their time on STW ..
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.
This touched a nerve in me!
My father was rushed into hospital with breathing and heart problems about a week ago. When asked how much him and his wife drink they admitted that they share a bottle of wine every night. The reality is that it's more than that most nights because they are bored at home, so they'll have some wine, gin, a beer or two, but we don't know exactly how much. My father's heart condition stabilised, but he got progressively more confused and dopey. Then his wife started behaving the same, almost a dementia level of confused and then she had a mild stroke at the end of last week. Very simply, they are both suffering from alcohol withdrawal syndrome, and this has hampered my father's recovery from his actual problems and possibly contributed to his wife's stroke. Neither would ever admit to being alcoholic, but they have drunk every night since Covid and probably longer, not heavily every night and that's the point of this - it's only a few drinks every night. And everyone has an excuse if they want one - it's a lovely summer, it's long nights through the winter, it's to be sociable, it's to dull the demons in my head.
Prior to this last week I would have poured scorn on the idea of needing AWS medication for a few drinks a night, but this has changed significantly. They have both made a real mess of their health in a short space of time and are also causing all sorts of problems for other people who now need to work out how to care for them.
Totally agree with the op. You used to even get rewards for info leading to conviction.
Seems you still can!
you can receive a cash reward of up to £1,000 for reporting drink drivers through the charity Crimestoppers in the UK. You receive the reward if your information leads to an arrest and charge, with the exact amount determined on a case-by-case basis. To claim, you must ask for a reward code when you contact them or enter 'REWARD REQUEST' on their online form and create a Keep in Contact account to follow up for your code.
how many on here would report a mate they've been on a ride with for riding home from the pub after a few pints?
In the distant past we used to have a regular Wednesday night ride that finished in a pub that also had a Wednesday night lock in...
It became a common thing for the local plod to be waiting on the village green for us to leave the pub.
They would pull onto the road behind us and follow us the 5 miles to the border of the county we all lived in then give a flash of the blue light and turn around and head back to the village.
I used to love those escorted rides home, made everyone feel safe.
Well it’s always dangerous to assume the other drivers you are recommending should drink 3/4/5 pints
FFS here we go. Nowhere on this thread have I encouraged anyone to drink and drive. I'm talking about whether its worth reporting someone who has drank 3 pints to the cops. IMO it's not for the reasons I have explained. If people want to drink and drive then that's their choice and they run the risk of being tested and arrested
Well you can say that - but I'd sat these quotes:
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.
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.
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,
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).
[By the way we don't have a "zero tolerance" approach in Scotland - its tougher in most of Scandinavia for example. The Scottish breath limit is 22 ug/100mL of breath. So not actually that much less that the English rule. Some people believe you can get away with 1 pint here (but of course that takes us back to the 1 pint of what, consumed over what period of time, by who etc). Its certainly possible that if my slim daughter had a pint and nothing else she would be over the limit, whilst her chunky father would be a greedy ****er and order food too and be under the limit!]
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.
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.
But if I was the sort of person who couldn't avoid going to the pub and having 3/4/5 pints and driving it would all tell me its OK because some guy on the internet says you won't actually be over the limit. You might not intend to encourage others to do it but the subliminal message to people who probably already do is not to worry about it. If your data was based on factual, scientific evidence it wouldn't be so bad but its anecdote. When scientist do the studies accurately they see significant variability in the data between individuals even when they try to control for things like which drink, food/no-food etc. Anyone listening to you is being lured towards temptation which *might* be valid for you and your mates.
Drink driving ruins lives - not only when there is a crash - just getting caught and convicted it will show on your driving license for the next 10 years. You may lose your job. You may be unable to pay your mortgage. Your relationships may break down. Thats a lot to gamble on a guy on the internet who can't remember what the limit is says you can get away with 5 pints.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone is going to drink drive because Daz on the Singletrack forum says they’ll probably not fail a breathalyzer? Seriously?
I live not far away from Daz and know exactly where he’s coming from. As I said in an earlier post. If I sat in my local and phoned the police every time someone who was probably over the limit jumped in their Land Rover and drove off, I certainly wouldn’t be getting many articles in the economist finished. I’d be constantly on the phone.
If you live in fairly rural areas, the ‘five’n’drive’ culture is absolutely endemic with a serious chunk of the population. It’s just the way things are, and always have been.
And with understandable reason. I’d say your chances of being stopped and breathalysed round here are as close to zero as it gets, with or without phone tip offs from concerned citizens/grasses*
Your idea that many in rural areas are routinely drink driving is both false
It really isn’t!
* delete as applicable.
Your idea that many in rural areas are routinely drink driving is both false
Ah, well, it happens.
I every few months I'm in Northumberland for a few days and this always involves at least two rural pub visits to get food. Without fail there are folks who turn up in their vehicles to meet mates and have a few pints. I have no reason to believe any of them leave their vehicles there overnight and get a lift back to the pub in the morning. Indeed it is widely known in the area that due to the location of some pubs rural residents can drive home without needing to go on an A/B road.
Just yesterday after finishing a Peak Enduro I popped to the pub with our group of riders for a pint and a tray of chips. Nice little out of the way pub... being the time it was the car park was filling up with the regulars. We were there an hour and a couple of those who parked up a similar time to us were getting pint/glass three as we left.
Last time I was out in Lincolnshire for a meal in a well regarded village pub it was much the same picture. Couple rocking up in their cars and everyone drinking a fair amount. The guy who lives in the village knows the score but so far the worst that has happened is car need pulling out of hedges so the hedge or gate gets paid for and no one says anything.
Yes anecdotal evidence from a sample of one witness. But if it's common enough for me to see enough evidence it happens multiple times a year and in multiple locations then I think it's fair to say there are enough folks to count as 'many' and it happens regularly enough to be routine.
Schrödingers rural drink drivers. Apparently the reduction in the scots drink drive limit was going to ( or has) put all rural pubs out of buisness
Personally I believe cops should be allowed to do random drink drive testing not have to wait for suspicion and should be doing roadblocks near rural and urban pubs and test everyone as they now do in Aus
yes there is a hard core of drink drivers - and they regularly kill people
Personally I believe cops should be allowed to do random drink drive testing not have to wait for suspicion and should be doing roadblocks near rural and urban pubs and test everyone as they now do in Aus
You want roadblocks on rural roads to breathalyse people? Who’s paying for that then?
Right lads… I know we’ve had a lot of armed robberies lately and we’ve got massive problems with burglaries, antisocial behaviour and county lines drug dealing, but you’re all being sent out to sleepyville, to set up some roadblocks on the B3853 to catch out Barry, who we’ve been tipped off has had 3 pints.
You know that the second the police set up a roadblock on the B3853, someone would announce on the local Facebook/Whatsapp group ‘there’s a roadblock on the B3853 so you’re probably best popping round the B3854 instead’?
Or are you suggesting they put roadblocks up on ALL the local rural roads, simultaneously, to catch Barry who may or may not fail a breathalyser?
Many many years ago, (early 90s) my mates and I were staying near Applecross in Rural Scotland and were in the pub and we saw a local being helped out to his car. We asked WTF was going on and the response was if he crashed it would only be himself he hurt as all the kids are shipped out mon-fri to school and the only local cop would call ahead if he was going to be in town should anyone need him! That was an eye opener.
Apparently the reduction in the scots drink drive limit was going to ( or has) put all rural pubs out of buisness
I reckon the price rises and wage stagnation has done for a lot of pubs in Scotland. I stopped drinking in pubs regularly about 20 years ago. Partly due to boredom and too much aggro but also due to rising prices that my wages didn't keep up with.
Apparently the reduction in the scots drink drive limit was going to ( or has) put all rural pubs out of buisness
I reckon the price rises and wage stagnation has done for a lot of pubs in Scotland. I stopped drinking in pubs regularly about 20 years ago. Partly due to boredom and too much aggro but also due to rising prices that my wages didn't keep up with.
Clearly rural drink driving is a victimless crime
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg71k7ww47o.amp
To the folk that think three pints of beer doesn't affect their cognitive abilities should try drinking three pints before attempting their favourite techie mtb trails (obviously on a bike). I say attempt as you'll very likely wrap yourself around a tree.
OP, you did the right thing IMO.
Anyone defending or justifying drink driving should be forced to explain why to the family of someone who has lost a loved one. Thankfully I am not and hope never to be in that situation, but I would think anyone in that situation would find it hard to forgive
Personally I would be happy if the coppers had a tank they could drive around and flatten the drink drivers cars (with or without the driver getting out first)