The morning after, the night before, strikes again
Discussion
How much danger are we in during the morning commute to work from drink drivers;
Man appears on drink drive charge
A man who drove at almost 100 mph on the M1 while more than twice the alcohol limit has escaped jail.
Martin Clavin, 48, of Bowling Green Croft, was fined and banned from driving for two years by Wakefield Magistrates Court.
He pleaded guilty to driving at 99mph near Wakefield while over the drink drive limit.
David Ward, defending, said Clavin had miscalculated how much alcohol he had drunk the previous night.
Street
Man appears on drink drive charge
A man who drove at almost 100 mph on the M1 while more than twice the alcohol limit has escaped jail.
Martin Clavin, 48, of Bowling Green Croft, was fined and banned from driving for two years by Wakefield Magistrates Court.
He pleaded guilty to driving at 99mph near Wakefield while over the drink drive limit.
David Ward, defending, said Clavin had miscalculated how much alcohol he had drunk the previous night.
Street
I think the saying is along the lines of, "there for the grace of god go I".
Many people have done this, 99.9% unintentionally.
Even those who wouldn't "drive home from the pub", but it wouldn't surprise me if there was still alcohol the following day. I now have a breathalyser gizmo.
Many people have done this, 99.9% unintentionally.
Even those who wouldn't "drive home from the pub", but it wouldn't surprise me if there was still alcohol the following day. I now have a breathalyser gizmo.
Streetcop said:
How much danger are we in during the morning commute to work from drink drivers;
Man appears on drink drive charge
A man who drove at almost 100 mph on the M1 while more than twice the alcohol limit has escaped jail.
Martin Clavin, 48, of Bowling Green Croft, was fined and banned from driving for two years by Wakefield Magistrates Court.
He pleaded guilty to driving at 99mph near Wakefield while over the drink drive limit.
David Ward, defending, said Clavin had miscalculated how much alcohol he had drunk the previous night.
Street
I'd never defend drivers who are impaired by alcohol, but how many of these morning after "drunks" are impaired?
Do we know?
safespeed said:
but how many of these morning after "drunks" are impaired?
Do we know?
Very few.
Over the limit, but alcohol level falling = frequently not impaired.
The invincibility thing has gone, but reactions might still be dulled......but still sharper than an old codger sans alcohol.
Much injustice here.
An ambulance officer lost his licence/job in such circumstances....thought the traffic queue was an accident and walked up the line to help. Plod asked if he'd been drinking in the last x hours.......
If you dig around bogush's site, you'll find some techy stuff to explain it.
A case in Germany shows how it should be done. Motorist evades trained traffic cops at high speed for several hours. They eventually stop him and he's over the limit. At Court the judge throws the case out, on the grounds that if the driver had managed to evade trained police pursuit drivers for hours and not crashed or had any 'moments' his driving was definitely not impaired by his blood alcohol level. Common sense, but no chance of it over here. Blood alcohol level has such a different effect on different people at different times, it is patently unfair and unrelated to safety (but very easy) to set a limit and enforce it rigidly. Did somebody mention speed limits?
If you look at the Borkenstein Grand Rapids research that was most influential in setting the UK's blood alcohol limit, there's a statistical reduction in accident risk for very low blood alcohol levels, showing that the teetotal approach isn't the safest. This was such a threat to the pc zero limit brigade that the best statisticians money can buy (!!) have spent hundreds of hours trying to explain it away.
If you look at the Borkenstein Grand Rapids research that was most influential in setting the UK's blood alcohol limit, there's a statistical reduction in accident risk for very low blood alcohol levels, showing that the teetotal approach isn't the safest. This was such a threat to the pc zero limit brigade that the best statisticians money can buy (!!) have spent hundreds of hours trying to explain it away.
turbobloke said:
A case in Germany shows how it should be done. Motorist evades trained traffic cops at high speed for several hours. They eventually stop him and he's over the limit. At Court the judge throws the case out, on the grounds that if the driver had managed to evade trained police pursuit drivers for hours and not crashed or had any 'moments' his driving was definitely not impaired by his blood alcohol level. Common sense, but no chance of it over here. Blood alcohol level has such a different effect on different people at different times, it is patently unfair and unrelated to safety (but very easy) to set a limit and enforce it rigidly. Did somebody mention speed limits?
If you look at the Borkenstein Grand Rapids research that was most influential in setting the UK's blood alcohol limit, there's a statistical reduction in accident risk for very low blood alcohol levels, showing that the teetotal approach isn't the safest. This was such a threat to the pc zero limit brigade that the best statisticians money can buy (!!) have spent hundreds of hours trying to explain it away.
with 1 unit of alcohol drunk you are 0.87 times more likely to crash than with no alcohol: D
This is true, but again we are talking limits which differ from person to person.
If I was to drink 2 1/2 pints of beer, and my MIL (Love her) were to drink 1 small glass of wine and we asked who wanted a lift home, I know for certain that anyone who had been a passenger with me and the MIL would choose me. She is a danger on the road sober and is p1ssed after 1 small glass of wine, yet probably legal and me not.
It seems another law made of nonesense averages.
If I was to drink 2 1/2 pints of beer, and my MIL (Love her) were to drink 1 small glass of wine and we asked who wanted a lift home, I know for certain that anyone who had been a passenger with me and the MIL would choose me. She is a danger on the road sober and is p1ssed after 1 small glass of wine, yet probably legal and me not.
It seems another law made of nonesense averages.
Hmmm Mellanby Effect - aka "return to sobriety...."
Could be case with the German bloke....which is how come he did not collide with anything. Also may be seasoned drinker as well. So possibly living with some alcohol in blood stream all the time.
You can still have 80 mg alcohol in blood, and thus have the increased self- confidence etc, which alcohol induces. But Mellanby Effect is reason why not deemed right to reduce to 50 mg as elsewhere in some parts of Europe.
Basically - not going into great detail here - but average human excretes booz at 10 mg per hour. Metabolism slows whilst you sleep as well so this excretion could take longer. Alcolhol taken with fizzy drink as well - not a good idea as this enables the alcohol to enter blood stream much more quickly.
Basically - 4-5 pints, wee dram and packet of crisps taken at 11- 11.30 p.m. could mean you are still above limit at 8.45 a.m and even still above limit at lunch time dependent upon your weight and individual metabolism.
In nutshell - when alcohol hits your brain - it affects the cognitive and motor skills - affecting the neurons and nerves up there which carry the impulse which control muscles and movements. Vision and ability to perceive danger and react are impaired - hence drunks are more likely to have accident than sober blokes!
That is why drinking and driving are a
- and I would urge people not to drink after 11 p.m. - and never to drink on empty stomach either. Food helps your body excrete alcohol more effectively - besides preventing you from getting well bladdered too quickly...
>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Thursday 14th October 23:55
Could be case with the German bloke....which is how come he did not collide with anything. Also may be seasoned drinker as well. So possibly living with some alcohol in blood stream all the time.
You can still have 80 mg alcohol in blood, and thus have the increased self- confidence etc, which alcohol induces. But Mellanby Effect is reason why not deemed right to reduce to 50 mg as elsewhere in some parts of Europe.
Basically - not going into great detail here - but average human excretes booz at 10 mg per hour. Metabolism slows whilst you sleep as well so this excretion could take longer. Alcolhol taken with fizzy drink as well - not a good idea
as this enables the alcohol to enter blood stream much more quickly. Basically - 4-5 pints, wee dram and packet of crisps taken at 11- 11.30 p.m. could mean you are still above limit at 8.45 a.m and even still above limit at lunch time dependent upon your weight and individual metabolism.
In nutshell - when alcohol hits your brain - it affects the cognitive and motor skills - affecting the neurons and nerves up there which carry the impulse which control muscles and movements. Vision and ability to perceive danger and react are impaired - hence drunks are more likely to have accident than sober blokes!
That is why drinking and driving are a
- and I would urge people not to drink after 11 p.m. - and never to drink on empty stomach either. Food helps your body excrete alcohol more effectively - besides preventing you from getting well bladdered too quickly... >> Edited by Mad Moggie on Thursday 14th October 23:55
Mad Moggie said:Well, being at the wheel while your driving is impaired by alcohol or anything else is a no-no, but what we have here - - as with most failures of policy in UK road safety - - is the easy option of making important what can be easily measured (blood alcohol level) instead of measuring what's really important (the level of impairment present). Speed is easy to measure too. This increasing liking for proxy indicators over the real deal, is why there were more road deaths this year than last, and why the future of road safety in this country is bleak as long as the current bunch of muppets are in charge of the show.
That is why drinking and driving are a
Mog
I agree that in general DD should be avoided but this is because I believe that what form that alcohol was taken in (beer, spirits, wine etc), over what period it was taken in, who was taking it, what effect it has on the person taking it, how much the person taking it had eaten, drank (non alcoholic), if that person was on medication etc etc etc has an effect on their ability to drive -
there are too many variables to decide that x amount of alcohol makes you a dangerous driver, if I am dangerous on the roads, do me, if I have no licence, no mot, am DUI then do me a hell of a lot more - put me away and throw away the key.
If I am not being danerous then leave me alone. That seems fair to me.
Cheers
Paul
edited due to extreme muppetry and a realisation that in light of this thread it is good that I am working from home tommorrow!
>> Edited by gopher on Friday 15th October 00:16
I agree that in general DD should be avoided but this is because I believe that what form that alcohol was taken in (beer, spirits, wine etc), over what period it was taken in, who was taking it, what effect it has on the person taking it, how much the person taking it had eaten, drank (non alcoholic), if that person was on medication etc etc etc has an effect on their ability to drive -
there are too many variables to decide that x amount of alcohol makes you a dangerous driver, if I am dangerous on the roads, do me, if I have no licence, no mot, am DUI then do me a hell of a lot more - put me away and throw away the key.
If I am not being danerous then leave me alone. That seems fair to me.
Cheers
Paul
edited due to extreme muppetry and a realisation that in light of this thread it is good that I am working from home tommorrow!
>> Edited by gopher on Friday 15th October 00:16
turbobloke said:
I'll drink to that
Er, not so fast.
Does that mean that with one unit of alcohol drunk we are 1.87 as likely to crash when compared with no alcohol?
Best wishes all,
Dave - a bit fussy about numbers.
TripleS said:
nonegreen said:
I'll drink to that
Er, not so fast.
Does that mean that with one unit of alcohol drunk we are 1.87 as likely to crash when compared with no alcohol?
Best wishes all,
Dave - a bit fussy about numbers.
No, he said 0.87, not 1.87. Less likely.
(I thought the figure was about 0.96... i.e. very small reduction).
Size Nine Elm said:
turbobloke said:
nonegreen said:
I'll drink to that
Er, not so fast.
Does that mean that with one unit of alcohol drunk we are 1.87 as likely to crash when compared with no alcohol?
Best wishes all,
Dave - a bit fussy about numbers.
No, he said 0.87, not 1.87. Less likely.
(I thought the figure was about 0.96... i.e. very small reduction).
Yes, I know what he said, but I don't think the two versions are the same. Perhaps it seems too fussy, but I think 'as likely' and 'more likely' are different in meaning. I think 'as likely' is what was actually meant. Sorry to be difficult.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Ok, be gentle with me.. long time lurker, first time poster and all that..
I've always been a bit worried about the whole 'morning after' thing.. I know first hand that when I have plenty on a 'school night' that I don't feel right all the next day, probably long after I'm clinically ok to drive. How does this affect my driving? Well, I try not to let it, getting the train if I've been on a bender, but how do you know where the line is? I could get a breathalyser thingy, but that would only tell me when my body was under the legal limit, not when my brain was operating 100% for the road.
To complicate things more, what about Bob, who doesn't drink at all but only got 3 hours sleep last night due to his newborn son, or Bill, who's been off work with a bad cold for a couple of days, but feels 'OK to come into work' today. OK to sit at his desk checking emails perhaps, but OK to do <insert busy motorway here> at 80?
Sorry, not sure I have a point, just throwing a first time comment in the ring I suppose..
Paul
I've always been a bit worried about the whole 'morning after' thing.. I know first hand that when I have plenty on a 'school night' that I don't feel right all the next day, probably long after I'm clinically ok to drive. How does this affect my driving? Well, I try not to let it, getting the train if I've been on a bender, but how do you know where the line is? I could get a breathalyser thingy, but that would only tell me when my body was under the legal limit, not when my brain was operating 100% for the road.
To complicate things more, what about Bob, who doesn't drink at all but only got 3 hours sleep last night due to his newborn son, or Bill, who's been off work with a bad cold for a couple of days, but feels 'OK to come into work' today. OK to sit at his desk checking emails perhaps, but OK to do <insert busy motorway here> at 80?
Sorry, not sure I have a point, just throwing a first time comment in the ring I suppose..
Paul
gopher and turbobloke
Of course - there are variables - I posted a fair bit about DD on Paulie's site a bit back from medical stance. IG (Wildy's BiB cousin did to cop bit and Wildy herself posted (under my profile - as we felt it relevant as a one -off) on dangers of prescribed drugs. Another medic in the family gave insight into effects of illegal drugs on that site as well.
DD is an absolute offence - but unlike speeding - you can at least support the dangers with medical evidence which admittedly is effect upon an average human rather than individual cases.
Personally - I choose not to have one drink if I know I am driving - as does Wildy - but that is our choice - because we know our human machines and the internal mechanics....we know what and how much affects the central control unit here...
A tipsy Wildy is a lot worse than a pregnant one - believe me! 
But posted the above to alert people to potential dangers - as forewarned is forearmed.... and just to advise care when imbibing the amber nectar
Of course - there are variables - I posted a fair bit about DD on Paulie's site a bit back from medical stance. IG (Wildy's BiB cousin did to cop bit and Wildy herself posted (under my profile - as we felt it relevant as a one -off) on dangers of prescribed drugs. Another medic in the family gave insight into effects of illegal drugs on that site as well.
DD is an absolute offence - but unlike speeding - you can at least support the dangers with medical evidence which admittedly is effect upon an average human rather than individual cases.
Personally - I choose not to have one drink if I know I am driving - as does Wildy - but that is our choice - because we know our human machines and the internal mechanics....we know what and how much affects the central control unit here...
A tipsy Wildy is a lot worse than a pregnant one - believe me! But posted the above to alert people to potential dangers - as forewarned is forearmed.... and just to advise care when imbibing the amber nectar
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff