Shocked (Breathalyzers)

L1011

Ciaran500 wrote: »

3 pints is 6 units, that wouldn't be out of your system in 5.5 hours.

I thought your body could metabolise about 1 'unit' an hour, e.g. 6 units would be near as well out in 5.5 hours?

I've been under the limit on an Alcologic and felt entirely unsafe to drive - although that could also have been tiredness seeing as it was 3:30am at the time.

oleras

jaffa20 wrote: »

Oh der 50euro on ebay too. Well 59euro if you if can't wait

http://cgi.ebay.ie/Alcologic-Personal-Breathalyser_W0QQitemZ190277078546QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Gadgets?hash=item190277078546&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Was supposed to get one of these before xmas, forgot. Thanks for reminding me. I will get some data for ye in the next week or two. :pac:

Caliden

I can see something like this happening:

http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/print/the_famous_sush.phtml

Run_to_da_hills

You are playing russian roulette with any of the cheaper models You need to purchase the exact same model that the Gardai use.

drunkdaz

unkel wrote: »

some people just metabolise alcohol quicker than others

I thought medical opinion (Well I've definitely seen this on TV a few times, so its got to be true......:rolleyes:) was that the rate at which people metabolise alcohol is fairly constant, as it is a process of the liver alone.
That is while you could possibly have a "fit" liver (giving at most a negible difference), your weight or size will have no effect. Up to a point you can drink (absrob) more if you have a higher body water content to dilute the alcohol (weight, more muscle versus fat), but once you are full you are full..... Then you are relying on your liver.

That means everybody will need the same amount of sleep to process the alochol.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

3 pints is 6 units, that wouldn't be out of your system in 5.5 hours.

Before I could serve alcohol in NSW I had to take a government education course. It taught that a man could drink 2 standard drinks in the first hour, and then one standard drink for every susequent hour, and remain under their lower drink driving limit (.05). I think theres 1.5 standard drinks in a pint of Guiness, so he had 9. NSW says you could have had 7 standard drinks in that time, so if you're big enough to absorb a bit more, you probably would be under our higher limit.... If you should drive though is a totally differnt thing tho...

I remember finding it an interesting approach, more pragmatic then that in Europe. That said I suppose its difficult to hail a cab in the outback....

Guy:Incognito

eoin wrote: »

. Unless you are just being pedantic?

I think he very much is.

Darragh29

unkel wrote: »

The limits you read about in the media should be valid for everyone, so they are very safe limits

In practice, the blood alcohol level depends on many factors such as your weight and your sex and some people just metabolise alcohol quicker than others

I've seen indications that those Alcologic breathalyzers are fairly accurate, anyone got any links?

DISCLAIMER: the only way you know for sure you are not over the limit is by not drinking!

If you think about this for a minute, an across the board limit, clearly favours some people and doesn't favour others. I'd probably be in the same situation as the OP, well built and carrrying a few extra pounds. I did this experiment before years ago when I was a student, there used to be this machine on the pub wall and you could throw in 1 pound and get a reading and at the time I remembered being fairly drunk and being under the limit at the time...

If I have 3 pints over say 2-3 hours, I'm noticibly giddier, merrier, and defo shouldn't be driving a car, but I'm probably under the limit.

If a 9 stone girl has the same amount of alcohol within the same timeframe, she is probably in the same situation as myself, maybe somewhat more drunk than I am...

The thing is, both of us are unfit to drive but only one of us is probably in breach of the law. If the two of us got into two separate car and were breathalyzed and I passed and she failed, you could well understand her being aggrived, leaving aside for a moment, the obvious argument that neither of us should have been driving in the first place, and lets face it, if we all respected that logic, there would be no need for breathalyzers and a legal alcohol limit.

The limit should be expressed as a function of body weight, like: 0.8 g/alcohol per 10Kg mass of body weight. Then you would have to weigh a person before breathalyzing them but I do think it would be more fair and would also effectively lower the limit for folks like myself who could drink 4-5 pints over the night and be under the limit.

unkel

drunkdaz wrote: »

I thought medical opinion (Well I've definitely seen this on TV a few times, so its got to be true......:rolleyes:) was that the rate at which people metabolise alcohol is fairly constant, as it is a process of the liver alone.

It is fairly standard and only a function of time. But some people just metabolise quicker or slower than the norm (which applies to most people independent of weight or sex). At least that's what I've read a few times.

unkel

S.I.R wrote: »

i can put 4 pints away in 3 hours and still be under the limit, wouldn't drive still

Just as well you wouldn't drive because you are 16 and you don't have a driving license.

Steve

Darragh29 wrote: »

The limit should be expressed as a function of body weight, like: 0.8 g/alcohol per 10Kg mass of body weight. Then you would have to weigh a person before breathalyzing them but I do think it would be more fair and would also effectively lower the limit for folks like myself who could drink 4-5 pints over the night and be under the limit.

I don't agree with that. The level of alcohol in your bloodstream is what affects your ability to drive.
IMO, a person with a bigger mass has more storage space for the alcohol in their body and therefore it will be more diluted than in the smaller person.
The metabolism rate will still be the same as the liver will filter the alcohol at the same rate.
Think of it like mixing paint: If you get a 5 litre and a 10 litre bucket of white paint and pour the same measure of blue paint into each, it will have a lesser effect on the colour of the larger tub. In this case, the darker the colour the less you are able to drive.
Does that make sense?

mumblin deaf ro

Darragh29 wrote: »

If you think about this for a minute, an across the board limit, clearly favours some people and doesn't favour others. I'd probably be in the same situation as the OP, well built and carrrying a few extra pounds. I did this experiment before years ago when I was a student, there used to be this machine on the pub wall and you could throw in 1 pound and get a reading and at the time I remembered being fairly drunk and being under the limit at the time...

If I have 3 pints over say 2-3 hours, I'm noticibly giddier, merrier, and defo shouldn't be driving a car, but I'm probably under the limit.

If a 9 stone girl has the same amount of alcohol within the same timeframe, she is probably in the same situation as myself, maybe somewhat more drunk than I am...

The thing is, both of us are unfit to drive but only one of us is probably in breach of the law. If the two of us got into two separate car and were breathalyzed and I passed and she failed, you could well understand her being aggrived, leaving aside for a moment, the obvious argument that neither of us should have been driving in the first place, and lets face it, if we all respected that logic, there would be no need for breathalyzers and a legal alcohol limit.

The limit should be expressed as a function of body weight, like: 0.8 g/alcohol per 10Kg mass of body weight. Then you would have to weigh a person before breathalyzing them but I do think it would be more fair and would also effectively lower the limit for folks like myself who could drink 4-5 pints over the night and be under the limit.

Your weight/tolerance will determine the rate at which you metabolize the alcohol and therefore the concentration of alcohol relative to blood in your system. The 'acceptable no of pints' or whatever you want to call it is just a rule of thumb and not a reliable guide. Strictly speaking, the important thing is not how much alcohol you consume but how much is in your system when you get behind the wheel. In your example, you would be able to get behind the wheel sooner than the girl as you are larger and more experienced at metabolizing alcohol.

I never drink alcohol if I am driving later that day and generally follow the adage '12 hours between bottle and throttle' when deciding when to drive the next day, making allowances for the amount consumed of course.

Eoin

unkel wrote: »

Just as well you wouldn't drive because you are 16 and you don't have a driving license.

So, shouldn't even be drinking at all!