How much can I drink and still drive?

How much can I drink and still drive?

Author
Discussion

grumpy52

5,565 posts

165 months

Sunday 15th May 2016
quotequote all
I can only go on what I have experience of ,I used to inspect and photograph damaged cars for a bodyshop ,albeit it was about 15yrs ago .
Talking to some of the customers they all spoke of the hidden costs ,they all maintained they were stupid to risk it for the sake of a twenty quid taxi fare .

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 15th May 2016
quotequote all
GT03ROB said:
Except ......my understanding was as stated by our resident dear departed insurance expert is that you would need to check the wording of the policy you have...... some do exclude your own losses if DD, not all do. Insurance does not always skyrocket as you state, it can be completely unchanged. Balance of your points fair enough
I agree with this.

Also the offence, due to the rehabilitation of offenders act, is spent after 5 years so insurance cannot even ask about it after then even though it's on the licence for 11.

Willy Nilly

12,511 posts

166 months

Sunday 15th May 2016
quotequote all
I don't have an issue with drinking an calling a taxi, the issue for me is the following day because I(we) have no idea if we are fit to drive or not and the consequences of getting caught out are enormous.


ashleyman

6,963 posts

98 months

Sunday 15th May 2016
quotequote all
Geekman said:
I wonder if it's maybe a regional thing: I was referring mostly to my friends in the London area which is where I'm from - thinking about it, the few I know who don't mind a glass of wine or two when driving are mostly from more rural areas.

I used to live in a little town on the south coast of France, and I've recently moved to a different little town on the south coast of France. In both cases, almost everybody I know drink drives - nobody ever talks about it but it's pretty much accepted practice.
I'm not sure. Your friends align with my friends - we're all from outer London near Surrey.

A lot of my uncles who live in Surrey on the other side of the M25 wouldn't dream of drinking and driving though. I have some Spanish friends who don't care and regularly do it back in Spain but not over here.

macp

4,058 posts

182 months

Sunday 15th May 2016
quotequote all
I will also have a pint at the very most.

fttm

3,667 posts

134 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
I run a few trucks so driving is my business , whilst I love the odd beer or six it never passes my lips when vehicles are involved .
Based in Western Canada , I'm amazed at the amount of people who still drink whilst driving .Frequently mates will have a skinful in the pub then take a "roadie" for the trip home , or if driving to the lake for example will have a case of beer for the journey , just staggers me .

TacoExcellence

62 posts

107 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Attitudes in the UK I think have come a lot way compared with North America. Even whilst at uni, I can only think of hearing about someone drunk driving once. Over here (Canada, and the US is much the same) people often seem to drive home from events after having a few drinks.

GT03ROB

13,210 posts

220 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
ashleyman said:
I have some Spanish friends who don't care and regularly do it back in Spain but not over here.
Geekman said:
I used to live in a little town on the south coast of France, and I've recently moved to a different little town on the south coast of France. In both cases, almost everybody I know drink drives - nobody ever talks about it but it's pretty much accepted practice.
It does seem to be a British obsession, that's also shared with Australia. I wonder how much of this is driven by the Anglo-Saxon inability to drink sensibly?

Certainly in my times working in the US there was no real pressure about DD & the police were fairly relaxed about it. In West Africa again having a day on the beach with beers & driving home was totally the norm, the police/military couldn't care less, generally the biggest risk being them trying to take whatever you had left for their own consumption.

So the question I would ask is if there was no law against drink driving or the punishment was a fine the size of your taxi fare, would you all have the same attitude? Is it the fear of the legal consequences that stop you having a drink & driving or is it a moral decision? This is largely a rhetorical question since for the majority, you will maintain the latter is your position.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Willy Nilly said:
I don't have an issue with drinking an calling a taxi, the issue for me is the following day because I(we) have no idea if we are fit to drive or not and the consequences of getting caught out are enormous.

I have an Alcosense breathalyser for this exact reason. Unless I'm totally clear next morning I will not get in the car.

FiF

43,965 posts

250 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Another zero candidate here.

How I got to this, bearing in mind student days were a continual party time, results from work experience. One of my early career posts was in a place where there was a distinct ex Naval officer contingent, so lunchtimes were in dining rooms allocated according to position, the one I was in very much liked to keep the wardroom atmosphere. Horse's neck as a pre lunch stiffener, drinks during, for Christ's sake the favourite afters was a rice pudding with a decent measure of gin stirred in, invented by the Health and Safety officer would you believe.

Anyway fortunately we had a few visitors who didn't get on with this, but they still wanted lunch, the only alternative being the pub. As thus meant driving the intake would be restricted to one or two if not the driver in the expectation that things would be OK by knock off time.

Noticed that on the days with a lunchtime drink would be more likely to make a mistake on the journey home, nothing major, perhaps arriving at a roundabout a bit quicker than necessary.

Made a connection, discussed it with a surgeon mate, and we decided to have a bit of an experiment, and we proved to our satisfaction that off alcohol for 24 hours before definitely made a difference. For him he still holds to that for the day before he's in theatre, and has extended it to outpatient clinics. This means he's pretty much tee total, as am I, same criteria different occupation obviously.

What it does mean that if taking any alcohol, one notices the effects very quickly, and how dreadful it makes you feel the next day. Don't miss it, at all.

OK a non statistical sample of two compared to any research, but completely happy it works for me.

Dodsy

7,172 posts

226 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Interesting post, the alcohol in your system the next day can be difficult to work out. I have a breathalyser and use it after a night out and I wont go near a car until Im blowing Zero and have had a good feed.

Two recent examples which show why its so hard to judge your state after a night out:

Went out to a bar with friends and we were on a proper mission. Got absolutely hammered to the point where I couldnt walk in a straight line. Stopped drinking at 1 am. I blew Zero at 10am the next day

Went out with friends for a social catch up - gentle drinking not really drunk just a bit tipsy as it was a steady session, finished drinking at 3AM. Blew 1.5 times the limit at 11AM the next day!

I've had a breathalyser for years and these are pretty much in line with what I have found - for me it mostly depends on when I stop drinking rather than the amount I have drunk, and being really drunk but stopping early always gives a lower reading next day than the steady late night sessions.



jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
The British attitude to alcohol is quite probably unique. We have more drunks and binge drinkers than any other country I have worked in and visited.

Reg has posted up the status quo as far as the enforcement services go, but it misses a great deal.

He said:- "4% of all injury accidents are caused by drivers who are impaired by alcohol." The instant and instinctive reaction to this is what do we do about the other 96% of stone cold sober individuals causing accidents?

My research a few years ago revealed that these figures include accidents where a driver is tested and found to be over the limit and an assumption is made that this contributed to the accident. This of course is not always the case, and therefore gives a distorted view of the actual causation of the accident and, in some cases, results in the guilty party being absolved of responsibility because the other was over the limit.

I completely disagree with the implication that even a small amount of alcohol results in significant impairment. There is substantial evidence to suggest that in many individuals it can result in a better performance under stress due to the relaxant effect, in exactly the same manner as those who legally drive and take mild sedatives or smoke to relieve their addiction.

There are however 2 main points that have always concerned me regarding the enforcement of the driving offence of drink driving, and this particularly applies to Scotland now. When the offence is prosecuted there is absolutely no proof whatever of impairment: no obligation on the Crown to prove that an accused is being pertinently prosecuted. There is simply a reading from a machine on a slip of paper. And to further compound the difficulties surrounding this, the limit on that reading is substantially different when taken in the Carlisle services as it is in Gretna just 5 miles away on the same road! This to me, is totally unacceptable.

Because the limit is so low now in Scotland it is vital that the process of detection is made as accurate as possible: this is the second problem. When detained you are required to blow into a machine at the police station designed and manufactured by an American company. There is absolutely no independent participation by other bodies in this process. You have no defence of inaccuracy against this reading . It is installed and calibrated once a year by the manufacturers and uses a calculation to assume blood alcohol level from breath.

You have no right whatsoever to a blood or urine sample being used unless you have a health condition that makes it impossible to blow a sample on the machine. If you ask for this, the arresting officer has the power to deny it to you. You have no right to this.

Before this machine was used, the breathalyser was used at the roadside to make an arrest. You were then taken back to the station and the police surgeon would take a blood or urine sample, divide it into two containers and hand you a sealed sample to enable independent analysis at a laboratory of your choice. The result of this test was a true and accurate blood alcohol level, not the result of an assumed calculation. This either resulted in corroboration of the samples or highlighted a mistake. This method was as foolproof as it gets and should never have been replaced by what is now a clearly prejudicial system.

In the States there are huge problems with these machines to the point where there is a whole university set up to train lawyers how to defend cases using these machines. In the States the prosecution also has to prove impairment, not just a reading on a machine.

Several years ago Fifth Gear did a program on drink driving involving an experiment on a test track. The results surprised them as much as the viewer. This test involved 2 highly experienced drivers; Quentin Wilson and Tiff Needell. Needell is quite simply a brilliant driver and is vastly experienced at all levels.

Wilson was kept awake for 24 hours before the test, and Needell consumed copious amounts of vodka until he was giggling drunk; I'm not talking about just over the limit here, but drunk. They both drove Range Rovers on a test track for a designated time and distance. After a short time Wilson slowly lost it, fell asleep and the car slid into the ditch at the side of the track. Needell's driving was described by the independent testers as absolutely faultless.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want for this, but they will be based either on assumption, reality or even prejudice. What I conclude is that the most important factor in driving is naked ability. Depsite the fact that Needell was inebriated, his ability overcame the effects and empowered him to complete the test. Wilson drove legally and fell asleep damaging the vehicle and, had it not been for the fact that he was on a test track, could have injured others or worse.

I believe there are 2 significant points here. The first is that there are far greater priorities than drink driving to worry about on the roads today: the standard of driving is absolutely horrendous and degrading by the week; and this in those who have no alcohol on their systems whatever.

The second is there is no evidence whatever that demonstrates those with a small amount of alcohol are involved in significant levels of RTAs. This is simply because they are not drunk, and therein lies the problem. We are prosecuting people in exactly the same way as we do with "speeders". They are over a mandatory number so they are prosecuted on the assumption that they are dangerous/irresponsible/incompetent, take your pick.

Lastly, I have always considered that those who drive whilst seriously drunk should not be convicted of a driving offence as it is a sheer waste of time. They should be treated for alcoholism; forcibly if required. As someone who lived with a drunk I can assure you that the cure for them is not prosecution, it is self recognition of the fact that they are wrecking their lives and those of others close to them due to alcohol abuse.

J

Shnozz

27,423 posts

270 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Dodsy said:
Interesting post, the alcohol in your system the next day can be difficult to work out. I have a breathalyser and use it after a night out and I wont go near a car until Im blowing Zero and have had a good feed.

Two recent examples which show why its so hard to judge your state after a night out:

Went out to a bar with friends and we were on a proper mission. Got absolutely hammered to the point where I couldnt walk in a straight line. Stopped drinking at 1 am. I blew Zero at 10am the next day

Went out with friends for a social catch up - gentle drinking not really drunk just a bit tipsy as it was a steady session, finished drinking at 3AM. Blew 1.5 times the limit at 11AM the next day!

I've had a breathalyser for years and these are pretty much in line with what I have found - for me it mostly depends on when I stop drinking rather than the amount I have drunk, and being really drunk but stopping early always gives a lower reading next day than the steady late night sessions.
I've had very similar experiences and its for that reason the breathalyser is vital IMO.

Had some late (early hours of the morning) sessions with jagerbombs and shots accompanying every pint - felt half-drunk the next morning and yet blown clear by 10am - I wouldn't have driven because I still felt p1ssed and wouldn't have thought I would be clear of alcohol having regard to the previous night's antics.

Other occasions had a slow and steady Sunday evening session, no shots, nothing mad and a couple of pints an hour max accompanied by food and followed by a glass of red - closed off before midnight and to bed. Next day I wasn't clear of alcohol until almost midday - and took a walk to get a fry up breakfast to try to speed up the process.

This is using the £60 Auto Express recommended breathalyser and not some 99p stores one so I am relatively trusting in the results too.

Shnozz

27,423 posts

270 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
ashleyman said:
Geekman said:
I wonder if it's maybe a regional thing: I was referring mostly to my friends in the London area which is where I'm from - thinking about it, the few I know who don't mind a glass of wine or two when driving are mostly from more rural areas.

I used to live in a little town on the south coast of France, and I've recently moved to a different little town on the south coast of France. In both cases, almost everybody I know drink drives - nobody ever talks about it but it's pretty much accepted practice.
I'm not sure. Your friends align with my friends - we're all from outer London near Surrey.

A lot of my uncles who live in Surrey on the other side of the M25 wouldn't dream of drinking and driving though. I have some Spanish friends who don't care and regularly do it back in Spain but not over here.
Rural France and Spain seem to be a law to themselves on the drink driving situation. The general rule in rural Spain that my family all adhered to was "its only a problem if you crash - so don't crash". The implication was you would never get a tug and a breathlyser thrust at you by the cops unless you had been involved in a collision.

I remember staying at a gorgeous B&B in a town called Bourg near Bordeaux a few years back. I had gone down there straight after Le Mans and was in the TVR. I asked the owners for a taxi number to go to dinner in the nearby town and they simply couldn't understand why I was asking for one and just kept pointing to my car outside saying, "but you have a car, why do you need a taxi?". The town didn't have any taxis in fact.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
jith said:
We have more drunks and binge drinkers than any other country I have worked in and visited.


And more . . .
The argument with regards the other 96% is facile. It has nothing to do with whether drink driving negatively affects your ability to drive.

You say ‘I completely disagree with the implication that even a small amount of alcohol results in significant impairment.’

It depends what you mean by significant. If you mean measurable . . . There is ample evidence to show that even a small amount of alcohol modifies behaviour. You even give examples, notably that alcohol relaxes drivers. This, in other words, suggests that alcohol modifies reactions.

Your argument with regards impairment not being required to be proven in quite correct. This is the reason the prescribed limit was introduced. The limit was chosen as there was significant impairment in the majority of persons tested at the prescribed limit. There was evidence to suggest that the majority of people showed impairment at a much lower, but MPs not being the most sober of people, the upper limit was felt better.

The reason that impairment failed as an offence is shown by your own post:

“In the States . . . there is a whole university set up to train lawyers how to defend cases using these machines. In the States the prosecution also has to prove impairment, not just a reading on a machine.”

Doctors were required to give expert evidence of impairment but they would be kept waiting for hours, sometimes for days, and then targeted in the box by a defence which had no hope but to confuse. With doctors refusing to be treated in that fashion, another form of evidence was required.

You criticise the substantive breath test machine. How do you think blood used to be tested? Attractive blondes in glasses, using tweezers to pull out the alcohol and weigh it? My experience is that there are attractive women in forensic labs but they all used standard machines.

You make much about drivers who blow over the limit not being drunk as if they are perfectly capable of driving as long as they don’t fall over when walking. There is always impairment at the legal limit in England/Wales.

You also make much about tiredness being a factor in driving. Well, yes. You then suggest that Needell being able to drive after drinking vodka. Proves nothing and this is not the place to discuss what is wrong with such an ad hoc test. There are hundreds of other non-scientific test which show the exact opposite. The difference is that there are many scientific tests which show it as well.

There does seem to be a corollary between one’s ability and experience as a driver and the degree of impairment from a set quantity of alcohol. So? The vast majority of people on the road haven’t Needell’s experience. On a slightly different point, I’ve seen Needell race many times and faultless is not the term that ever came to mind.

You are wrong to suggest that Wilson drove legally.

Sure, there are other priorities for the police, most of which have an offence associated with them. The police in this country put little in the way of resources into drink driving.

To suggest, as you do, that all drink drivers are alcoholics contradicts my experience.

A major problem is that drivers who are impaired often think they drive better after a ‘few drinks’. This is a nice example of the impairment in judgement that comes with alcohol. There is overwhelming evidence to show that alcohol has a detrimental affect on one’s driving ability. All scientific research is consistent in that fact.


jith

2,752 posts

214 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
jith said:
We have more drunks and binge drinkers than any other country I have worked in and visited.


And more . . .
The argument with regards the other 96% is facile. It has nothing to do with whether drink driving negatively affects your ability to drive.

You say ‘I completely disagree with the implication that even a small amount of alcohol results in significant impairment.’

It depends what you mean by significant. If you mean measurable . . . There is ample evidence to show that even a small amount of alcohol modifies behaviour. You even give examples, notably that alcohol relaxes drivers. This, in other words, suggests that alcohol modifies reactions.

Your argument with regards impairment not being required to be proven in quite correct. This is the reason the prescribed limit was introduced. The limit was chosen as there was significant impairment in the majority of persons tested at the prescribed limit. There was evidence to suggest that the majority of people showed impairment at a much lower, but MPs not being the most sober of people, the upper limit was felt better.

The reason that impairment failed as an offence is shown by your own post:

“In the States . . . there is a whole university set up to train lawyers how to defend cases using these machines. In the States the prosecution also has to prove impairment, not just a reading on a machine.”

Doctors were required to give expert evidence of impairment but they would be kept waiting for hours, sometimes for days, and then targeted in the box by a defence which had no hope but to confuse. With doctors refusing to be treated in that fashion, another form of evidence was required.

You criticise the substantive breath test machine. How do you think blood used to be tested? Attractive blondes in glasses, using tweezers to pull out the alcohol and weigh it? My experience is that there are attractive women in forensic labs but they all used standard machines.

You make much about drivers who blow over the limit not being drunk as if they are perfectly capable of driving as long as they don’t fall over when walking. There is always impairment at the legal limit in England/Wales.

You also make much about tiredness being a factor in driving. Well, yes. You then suggest that Needell being able to drive after drinking vodka. Proves nothing and this is not the place to discuss what is wrong with such an ad hoc test. There are hundreds of other non-scientific test which show the exact opposite. The difference is that there are many scientific tests which show it as well.

There does seem to be a corollary between one’s ability and experience as a driver and the degree of impairment from a set quantity of alcohol. So? The vast majority of people on the road haven’t Needell’s experience. On a slightly different point, I’ve seen Needell race many times and faultless is not the term that ever came to mind.

You are wrong to suggest that Wilson drove legally.

Sure, there are other priorities for the police, most of which have an offence associated with them. The police in this country put little in the way of resources into drink driving.

To suggest, as you do, that all drink drivers are alcoholics contradicts my experience.

A major problem is that drivers who are impaired often think they drive better after a ‘few drinks’. This is a nice example of the impairment in judgement that comes with alcohol. There is overwhelming evidence to show that alcohol has a detrimental affect on one’s driving ability. All scientific research is consistent in that fact.
Dear me, don't we have a burr under the saddle with this, eh?

I don't have time now, but I'll come back to this later to refute your clear and obvious attempts at discrediting just about everything I've stated. Please don't assume you are the last word in this matter because you were a serving police officer. From what you've written, you're not.

J

Sticks.

8,708 posts

250 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
Geekman said:
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
They are potentially the 96%.

I was really quite shocked that of all injury accidents, so relatively serious ones, only 4% had had some alcohol.

Given that, and if the largely responsible/cautious attitude on here is representative, we really ought to be looking at that 96% to see how those injuries can be reduced.

I don't think that's a facile argument, quite the reverse. Focusing only on alcohol and not the other reasons people are injured is though.

Unless we've had a thread on what causes 96% of injuries and I've missed it.

SeeFive

8,280 posts

232 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
My limit is zero.

But it sounds like I am being stupid. By being sober I have a 96% chance of a shunt? I may need to consider having a skinful before driving to be in the safer percentile.

Am I doing this statistics thing right?

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
jith said:
Dear me, don't we have a burr under the saddle with this, eh?

I don't have time now, but I'll come back to this later to refute your clear and obvious attempts at discrediting just about everything I've stated. Please don't assume you are the last word in this matter because you were a serving police officer. From what you've written, you're not.

J
Given the tone of your reply, this is probably the last I'm going to write on it. I've not intention of getting into an argument. I countered, not discredited.


XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Monday 16th May 2016
quotequote all
This is not the first time Mr Jith has warmed to this theme, if I recall correctly.