Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That can change. In the meantime, I’m happy that whatever can be done to reduce fatalities is being done. Happy days.



What a bizarre attitude.

It's a bizarre law, that's for sure.

flasher0030

I got the beginning of this thread, and the last few pages. Haven’t trawled through all at the beginning, so forgive me if this is covered.
The opening poster’s initial point was about the checkpoints in the morning after. And what is people’s opinion. That’s the part that I think is completely wrong. There are various posts on about 3 or 4 pints and right or wrong to drive. We all know that driving impairs the concentration, reaction etc. I can’t see any justification for someone who knows they are going drinking, and decides to drive home. I would have no problem with the rules as they are. There are options available for people – taxi, car pooling, being collected etc.
But it’s the morning after thing that gets me. I think it is just a cheapshot by the authorities – trying to bring up their arrest numbers, easy money in etc. I know it was said already but there is an enormous difference between someone driving home straight after drinking, and (in most cases) driving the next day. This depends on factors but I’m taking the average night drinking – say 7 pints, bed at 12.30. Breakfast at 8 next morning. Driving at 8.30. More than likely, in that scenario, the driver would fail if pulled over up to say 10am. This is the part that I feel is wrong in the rules. That driver would probably be in a better state to drive than say a parent of a sick new-born who might have got about 3 hours sleep. Or anyone else exhausted. For many years, I’d play soccer games, GAA games back home, and then drive 170 miles in the evening time back to Dublin for work. Legs practically seized up. Hardly able to stay awake. I’m not saying 2 wrongs make it right. But it’s wrong to tarnish the whole drink-driving culture as one big demon, as long as this morning-after scenario exists. It was said already, take them all out and flog them. Ridiculas.
And there were silly comments like don’t drive the next day. Some situations like weddings or any big session, you’d know not to drive the next morning. But in the real world, you will have many nights which can put you on the border the next day. You could be planning on going out for 2 hours, meet old friends, have another drink, turns into another one. Then all of a sudden it’s 1 am. Wake up the next morning and remember you need to bring the kids to training. What do you do? You will generally take the chance. You feel grand. But if you’re breathalysed and fail, you’re pitched into the shameful minority with killer-like status.
I’m sure there are people who will come back with holier than thou type rubbish – don’t drink at all, should have thought of the kids etc. But these type of scenarios happen every Saturday, Sunday mornings in villages and towns around Ireland. And I think something should be done to distinguish between driving immediately after alcohol and the morning after situations. But I know there are a whole raft of problems in doing that.

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

Luckily the law doesn't care about your personal opinion either

But honestly do you think somebody with 2-3 pints is highly dangerous on the roads?

Graces7

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

The argument is the limit should be set at a reasonable level not the crazy and pointless low limit we have. The old limit wasn't too bad you would more than likely be safe to drive after 3 pints and you also had a fair crack of the whip in the morning after a night out.

There is zero benefit in reducing the limit and its a major cause of hassle and inconvenience for a lot of people.

:rolleyes:

CIARAN_BOYLE

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But honestly do you think somebody with 2-3 pints is highly dangerous on the roads?

I recently did reaction tests stone cold sober and an hour after 2 pints.

There was a noticeable difference.

I would imagine it would translate to drivers. What would you propose as an alternative? A lower speed limit for people who have had a small amount of alcohol to give them extra reaction time?

Huntergonzo

flasher0030 wrote: »

I got the beginning of this thread, and the last few pages. Haven’t trawled through all at the beginning, so forgive me if this is covered.
The opening poster’s initial point was about the checkpoints in the morning after. And what is people’s opinion. That’s the part that I think is completely wrong. There are various posts on about 3 or 4 pints and right or wrong to drive. We all know that driving impairs the concentration, reaction etc. I can’t see any justification for someone who knows they are going drinking, and decides to drive home. I would have no problem with the rules as they are. There are options available for people – taxi, car pooling, being collected etc.
But it’s the morning after thing that gets me. I think it is just a cheapshot by the authorities – trying to bring up their arrest numbers, easy money in etc. I know it was said already but there is an enormous difference between someone driving home straight after drinking, and (in most cases) driving the next day. This depends on factors but I’m taking the average night drinking – say 7 pints, bed at 12.30. Breakfast at 8 next morning. Driving at 8.30. More than likely, in that scenario, the driver would fail if pulled over up to say 10am. This is the part that I feel is wrong in the rules. That driver would probably be in a better state to drive than say a parent of a sick new-born who might have got about 3 hours sleep. Or anyone else exhausted. For many years, I’d play soccer games, GAA games back home, and then drive 170 miles in the evening time back to Dublin for work. Legs practically seized up. Hardly able to stay awake. I’m not saying 2 wrongs make it right. But it’s wrong to tarnish the whole drink-driving culture as one big demon, as long as this morning-after scenario exists. It was said already, take them all out and flog them. Ridiculas.
And there were silly comments like don’t drive the next day. Some situations like weddings or any big session, you’d know not to drive the next morning. But in the real world, you will have many nights which can put you on the border the next day. You could be planning on going out for 2 hours, meet old friends, have another drink, turns into another one. Then all of a sudden it’s 1 am. Wake up the next morning and remember you need to bring the kids to training. What do you do? You will generally take the chance. You feel grand. But if you’re breathalysed and fail, you’re pitched into the shameful minority with killer-like status.
I’m sure there are people who will come back with holier than thou type rubbish – don’t drink at all, should have thought of the kids etc. But these type of scenarios happen every Saturday, Sunday mornings in villages and towns around Ireland. And I think something should be done to distinguish between driving immediately after alcohol and the morning after situations. But I know there are a whole raft of problems in doing that.

That's my big issue to, the law dumps people who might be just slightly over the limit in the same boat as some idiot who takes to the car locked, it's a farce.

Allinall

Huntergonzo wrote: »

That's my big issue to, the law dumps people who might be just slightly over the limit in the same boat as some idiot who takes to the car locked, it's a farce.

But the law doesn't do that.

There are graduated penalties.

And if you are involved in an accident whilst "locked", you can reasonably expect to lose your licence for a long period, with a possible prison sentence thrown in.

Huntergonzo

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I recently did reaction tests stone cold sober and an hour after 2 pints.

There was a noticeable difference.

I would imagine it would translate to drivers. What would you propose as an alternative? A lower speed limit for people who have had a small amount of alcohol to give them extra reaction time?

Interesting, what were the tests/controls? who carried them out? what exactly were the results? What did you have to drink? What is your height and weight? (I ask because generally larger people take longer to get intoxicated) What did you eat if anything before the test?

I am genuinely interested in this test, who does them and what are the proceedures.

I suggest not drinking before driving, ain't worth it these days.

Feisar

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html

I'm going to play this over the next few days to get to a consistent level. Saturday night I'll start drinking and playing. Say five games after each pint and record my results.

Will report back on Sunday.

Huntergonzo

Allinall wrote: »

But the law doesn't do that.

There are graduated penalties.

And if you are involved in an accident whilst "locked", you can reasonably expect to lose your licence for a long period, with a possible prison sentence thrown in.

Still penalties where there possibly shouldn't be.

I agree 100% with your second point, that's not up for debate.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But honestly do you think somebody with 2-3 pints is highly dangerous on the roads?

Potentially ya. That's my point. You can't expect the law to work around individual people in specific situations. So even if you're the super reliable driver you suggest that won't be effected by 2 pints most days, there's people out there that aren't and there's days 2 pints will effect you more than other days. You probably wouldn't even realise it's one of those days until after you have an accident.

Edit: You seem to think it should be accepted until after an accident happens and then you can get in trouble. Considering that accident could cost you or other people your life, do you not think it's better to try and prevent it ever happening?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I recently did reaction tests stone cold sober and an hour after 2 pints.

There was a noticeable difference.

I would imagine it would translate to drivers. What would you propose as an alternative? A lower speed limit for people who have had a small amount of alcohol to give them extra reaction time?

That’s interesting! What was the context of the tests? Were you surprised by your lower reaction times?

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

Potentially ya. That's my point. You can't expect the law to work around individual people in specific situations. So even if you're the super reliable driver you suggest that won't be effected by 2 pints most days, there's people out there that aren't and there's days 2 pints will effect you more than other days. You probably wouldn't even realise it's one of those days until after you have an accident.

Simply put I disagree. 2 pints does not turn anybody I know into a dangerous individual incapable of driving.

xckjoo wrote: »

Edit: You seem to think it should be accepted until after an accident happens and then you can get in trouble. Considering that accident could cost you or other people your life, do you not think it's better to try and prevent it ever happening?

You've just flat out made that up I'm afraid. Please stay on point rather than inventing arguments for me.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Simply put I disagree. 2 pints does not turn anybody I know into a dangerous individual incapable of driving.

You're a big on the false equivalences. It's not about being "incapable of driving". It's about reduced capacity to drive. Lets be honest, there's a large number of terrible drivers out there even when they aren't impaired in any way. Consciously making themselves less capable is not a good thing. Some people also have barely any tolerance to alcohol. The law isn't personal to you.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You've just flat out made that up I'm afraid. Please stay on point rather than inventing arguments for me.

Apologies. It was the impression I got from your posts. Edited the original.

I guess my question is how do you pre-emptively determine your abilities at any given time? It's only after the fact that it become apparent. Ever wake up the next day and realise you were a lot drunker than you realised the night before?
Edit. Never mind that question. It's moving away from the basic point that the law is not specific to the individual

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Simply put I disagree. 2 pints does not turn anybody I know into a dangerous individual incapable of driving.



You've just flat out made that up I'm afraid. Please stay on point rather than inventing arguments for me.

You ask for all kinds of data from Ciaran Boyle on the reaction tests he took then come out with wishy washy stuff like the bold text? And I should hope two pints doesn’t turn anyone into a “dangerous individual”! :eek:

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

You're a big on the false equivalences. It's not about being "incapable of driving". It's about reduced capacity to drive. Lets be honest, there's a large number of terrible drivers out there even when they aren't impaired in any way. Consciously making themselves less capable is not a good thing. Some people also have barely any tolerance to alcohol. The law isn't personal to you.

But again a lot of things reduce the capacity to drive, the argument then becomes to what degree does it reduce your capacity and when should it become illegal.

For me 2 pints (for example) would not sufficiently reduce the capacity of the average person to drive safely, provided of course they are safe drivers to begin with. There's plenty of people out there who should have their licences taken off them because they are absolute weapons at the best of times and I'm sure we've all seen them!

xckjoo wrote: »

Apologies. It was the impression I got from your posts. Edited the original.

I guess my question is how do you pre-emptively determine your abilities at any given time? It's only after the fact that it become apparent. Ever wake up the next day and realise you were a lot drunker than you realised the night before?
Edit. Never mind that question. It's moving away from the basic point that the law is not specific to the individual

No bother.

ArrBee

xckjoo wrote: »

Yup. And we don't make laws for the individual. Or are you proposing each person gets assigned an acceptable level of blood alcohol level when they do their driving test? Should it be based on what the person reckons they could handle? How do you propose addressing the fact that an individual may process it at different rates on different days?

I'm not actually making a proposal. But I think you know that already.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You ask for all kinds of data from Ciaran Boyle on the reaction tests he took then come out with wishy washy stuff like the bold text? And I should hope two pints doesn’t turn anyone into a “dangerous individual”! :eek:

You call it wishy washy yet you agree, that's interesting.

Ps, if he said he done a test am I allowed to ask about it or is it only those who apparently support zero tolerance that are allowed to ask questions?

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But again a lot of things reduce the capacity to drive, the argument then becomes to what degree does it reduce your capacity and when should it become illegal.

For me 2 pints (for example) would not sufficiently reduce the capacity of the average person to drive safely, provided of course they are safe drivers to begin with. There's plenty of people out there who should have their licences taken off them because they are absolute weapons at the best of times and I'm sure we've all seen them!

Ya well there is a whole bigger issue with terrible driving in general. Some people shouldn't be allowed look at a car let alone drive one .

But that doesn't mean we should ignore all things that make people worse. We should be glad there's any kind of attempt to put a limit on at least one of the things that reduces capacity.

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

I'm not actually making a proposal. But I think you know that already.

Yup. Just highlighting the pointlessness of your original statement. But I think you already know that

walshb

Bobtheman wrote: »

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints.

This is just insane, and also a very idiotic and dangerous view to espouse.

Can I ask what the distance has to do with anything, other than the chances of crashing are probably less, because you are not travelling as far, hence less time to crash.

Isn't the issue still that you are in charge of a vehicle whilst not being free of a substance that has proven to impair judgment, both physically and mentally.

walshb

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Insurance cost are steep enough without people driving around with three pints in them.

Brilliant!

BarryD2

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But again a lot of things reduce the capacity to drive, the argument then becomes to what degree does it reduce your capacity and when should it become illegal.

Agreed, I think most people rarely drive with near 100% awareness. There are many things going on in peoples lives, momentary distractions, tiredness and so on. So that is the point, you don't have to be at the peak of capacity to drive safely most of the time. Having your capacity reduced slightly by a couple of pints over a couple of hours is no better or worse that having your capacity reduced by a passenger distraction when stone cold sober.

The thing is that the state can measure the former and give a ban based on the results whereas many of the other equally distracting factors are subjective and measureless. They only come to light in the case of an accident, mostly they go with no consequences.

The ever reducing alcohol limits for driving are driven by two factors 1) the need of bodies like the RSA to keep improving their figures and 2) the fact that they can be measured.

Unfortunately the policy is now getting to the stage that the limits are so low that a driver may take the view that they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Whereas people would observe a limit like 2 pints, now they think they may as well have more as the chances of being caught are small. So ordinarily modest drinkers are being penalised whilst for those who get locked, it's water off a ducks back. They get banned too but it often means little to them and they're behind the wheel again in no time. All you need to do is read the court cases in the local newspapers to see that again & again.

Huntergonzo

BarryD2 wrote: »

Agreed, I think most people rarely drive with near 100% awareness. There are many things going on in peoples lives, momentary distractions, tiredness and so on. So that is the point, you don't have to be at the peak of capacity to drive safely most of the time. Having your capacity reduced slightly by a couple of pints over a couple of hours is no better or worse that having your capacity reduced by a passenger distraction when stone cold sober.

The thing is that the state can measure the former and give a ban based on the results whereas many of the other equally distracting factors are subjective and measureless. They only come to light in the case of an accident, mostly they go with no consequences.

The ever reducing alcohol limits for driving are driven by two factors 1) the need of bodies like the RSA to keep improving their figures and 2) the fact that they can be measured.

Unfortunately the policy is now getting to the stage that the limits are so low that a driver may take the view that they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Whereas people would observe a limit like 2 pints, now they think they may as well have more as the chances of being caught are small. So ordinarily modest drinkers are being penalised whilst for those who get locked, it's water off a ducks back. They get banned too but it often means little to them and they're behind the wheel again in no time. All you need to do is read the court cases in the local newspapers to see that again & again.

Absolutely, it's going after the easy targets and then patting themselves on the backs, claiming that they've made the world a better/safer place, it's ridiculous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BarryD2 wrote: »

Agreed, I think most people rarely drive with near 100% awareness. There are many things going on in peoples lives, momentary distractions, tiredness and so on. So that is the point, you don't have to be at the peak of capacity to drive safely most of the time. Having your capacity reduced slightly by a couple of pints over a couple of hours is no better or worse that having your capacity reduced by a passenger distraction when stone cold sober.

The thing is that the state can measure the former and give a ban based on the results whereas many of the other equally distracting factors are subjective and measureless. They only come to light in the case of an accident, mostly they go with no consequences.

The ever reducing alcohol limits for driving are driven by two factors 1) the need of bodies like the RSA to keep improving their figures and 2) the fact that they can be measured.

Unfortunately the policy is now getting to the stage that the limits are so low that a driver may take the view that they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Whereas people would observe a limit like 2 pints, now they think they may as well have more as the chances of being caught are small. So ordinarily modest drinkers are being penalised whilst for those who get locked, it's water off a ducks back. They get banned too but it often means little to them and they're behind the wheel again in no time. All you need to do is read the court cases in the local newspapers to see that again & again.

Someone upthread said there is a scale, that someone who is heavily over the limit will be punished more severely than someone just over it. If that IS the case, the bolded bit seems unlikely.

As for the RSA wanting to improve their figures - do you mean, see a downward trend in fatalities drop?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Absolutely, it's going after the easy targets and then patting themselves on the backs, claiming that they've made the world a better/safer place, it's ridiculous.

Have you seen how road fatalities have plummeted in Ireland over the last twenty years? I’m sure the reasons are many but can you say that the increased stigmatisation of drink-driving by society hasn’t played a part?

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Have you seen how road fatalities have plummeted in Ireland over the last twenty years? I’m sure the reasons are many but can you say that the increased stigmatisation of drink-driving by society hasn’t played a part?

I don't know the exact figures but I'd say it certainly has helped, it's stopped many people from taking to the car drunk which was flat out wrong and should never be tolerated.

But the over stigmatisation of people socially drinking 2-3 pints and heading home has also had a damaging effect on many people, particularly isolated people in rural Ireland.

But sure look, they don't matter anyway.

xckjoo

BarryD2 wrote: »

Agreed, I think most people rarely drive with near 100% awareness. There are many things going on in peoples lives, momentary distractions, tiredness and so on. So that is the point, you don't have to be at the peak of capacity to drive safely most of the time. Having your capacity reduced slightly by a couple of pints over a couple of hours is no better or worse that having your capacity reduced by a passenger distraction when stone cold sober.

The thing is that the state can measure the former and give a ban based on the results whereas many of the other equally distracting factors are subjective and measureless. They only come to light in the case of an accident, mostly they go with no consequences.

The ever reducing alcohol limits for driving are driven by two factors 1) the need of bodies like the RSA to keep improving their figures and 2) the fact that they can be measured.

Unfortunately the policy is now getting to the stage that the limits are so low that a driver may take the view that they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Whereas people would observe a limit like 2 pints, now they think they may as well have more as the chances of being caught are small. So ordinarily modest drinkers are being penalised whilst for those who get locked, it's water off a ducks back. They get banned too but it often means little to them and they're behind the wheel again in no time. All you need to do is read the court cases in the local newspapers to see that again & again.

If you believe that people rarely drive at full awareness, how do you think it's fine to add in something proven to reduce it further? The baseline awareness doesn't suddenly jump up to 100.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture. But I do agree there's an issue with repeat offenders and weak enforcement.

bladespin

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But the over stigmatisation of people socially drinking 2-3 pints and heading home has also had a damaging effect on many people, particularly isolated people in rural Ireland.

But sure look, they don't matter anyway.

Honestly never understood the link between drinking and socializing, it's as if there's the view that to be social here you need to have a drink in your hand, gombeenism of the highest order.

The social scene here has evolved, people don't just wander from home to pub, there's a multitude of other avenues for being social now, even if you do end up in the pub why do you have to have a pint???

Huntergonzo

bladespin wrote: »

Honestly never understood the link between drinking and socializing, it's as if there's the view that to be social here you need to have a drink in your hand, gombeenism of the highest order.

The social scene here has evolved, people don't just wander from home to pub, there's a multitude of other avenues for being social now, even if you do end up in the pub why do you have to have a pint???

I know, there's all sorts of things you can do, I'm aware of that. But why are people who like a few pints gombeens? Don't think anybody was ever won over by being called a gombeen, maybe I've been doing things wrong though.

Faugheen

It's not people who have a few pints.

It's people who have a few pints and think they have a divine right to get in the car afterwards. They're the gombeens.

Huntergonzo

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not people who have a few pints.

It's people who have a few pints and think they have a divine right to get in the car afterwards. They're the gombeens.

That's not the point he made.

And if they're impaired then yes they shouldn't get behind the wheel, nobody has said otherwise.

alan partridge aha

We have got to deal with what we have. Forget about reaction times etc.

The limit for non professional drivers is 0.50. That's not going to change no matter how much lobbying is done. So if you like a jar and are concerned about driving at night or the next morning buy the freaking alco tester, it takes the worry away. You would be surprised how much you can drink without going over.

The reason I bought one was I had to do a 10 mile round trip one morning after a skinful. I thought I might be close but if I had the tester it would have confirmed it one way or the other.

recedite

Huntergonzo wrote: »

If those are my only 2 options then option 2.

How would you rank the below drivers from most to least dangerous:

1. Someone who is exhausted tired
2. Someone who drank 2 pints
3. Someone who is constantly looking down at their phone
4. Someone who drives well above the speed limit. Say at least 20km/hr above.

Could a mod turn this thread into a poll for those choices?

bladespin

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But why are people who like a few pints gombeens? Don't think anybody was ever won over by being called a gombeen, maybe I've been doing things wrong though.

Where did I say liking a pint makes you a gombeen?

I love my pints btw but I can socialize happily without one, it's the association that's gombeenish: believing you can't socialize without alcohol.

Huntergonzo

bladespin wrote: »

Where did I say liking a pint makes you a gombeen?

I love my pints btw but I can socialize happily without one, it's the association that's gombeenish: believing you can't socialize without alcohol.

I'd possibly call it more alcoholism than gombeenism if drinking is your only form of entertainment.

Anyway none of that is really on topic, so let's move on.

ArrBee

xckjoo wrote: »

Yup. Just highlighting the pointlessness of your original statement. But I think you already know that

I'm sorry that you find it pointless. I was replying to something you said earlier that seemed to indicate you have the opinion that alcohol impairs the same way for everyone.

Subsequent posts from you indicate the opposite so I apologise for taking you wrong.

FWIW I do agree that you can't effectively have a law that applies differently to different people. Not yet anyway.
And perhaps the solution is in the future where there may be a different measure which is more reliable at gauging how impaired someone actually is.
But then again, autonomous vehicles will likely solve this problem 1st.

recedite

ArrBee wrote: »

But then again, autonomous vehicles will likely solve this problem 1st.

Looking forward to when cars of the future have a big red button on the dashboard that means "take me home Jeeves, I'm pi$$ed"

ArrBee

recedite wrote: »

Looking forward to when cars of the future have a big red button on the dashboard that means "take me home Jeeves, I'm pi$$ed"

Amen!

Farce

recedite wrote: »

Could a mod turn this thread into a poll for those choices?

Drug Driving is worse by far Drink Driving is similar

Huntergonzo

recedite wrote: »

Looking forward to when cars of the future have a big red button on the dashboard that means "take me home Jeeves, I'm pi$$ed"

Haha, ye but you'd need to program it to stop off at chipper on the way home aswell.

Can't be going home starving.

Graces7

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't know the exact figures but I'd say it certainly has helped, it's stopped many people from taking to the car drunk which was flat out wrong and should never be tolerated.

But the over stigmatisation of people socially drinking 2-3 pints and heading home has also had a damaging effect on many people, particularly isolated people in rural Ireland.

But sure look, they don't matter anyway.

So now many places are organising free drives home to facilitate this.

Very easy to do.

And nothing to do with any kind of stigmatisation , simply safety.

alan partridge aha

Out at a birthday party Sat. night. Got some finger food at it as I had not eaten much that day. Had 7 pints of Guinness between 10pm-1am.

Measured myself around 1:30am and read 1.30. So way over, limit is 0.50. Got up to go to loo at 6:30 am and had dropped to 0.61. Measured again around 9:30am and was down to 0.31.

Got breakfast and measured again at 10:30 and read less than 0.11 or 0 alcohol. It doesn't read less than 0.11.

Huntergonzo

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Out at a birthday party Sat. night. Got some finger food at it as I had not eaten much that day. Had 7 pints of Guinness between 10pm-1am.

Measured myself around 1:30am and read 1.30. So way over, limit is 0.50. Got up to go to loo at 6:30 am and had dropped to 0.61. Measured again around 9:30am and was down to 0.31.

Got breakfast and measured again at 10:30 and read less than 0.11 or 0 alcohol. It doesn't read less than 0.11.

Measured 1.30 at 1.30am? sure you weren't just looking at the time by mistake, you were probably fine to drive :-)

Ah no, might actually get one of those things myself, handy for the next morning.

Graces7

recedite wrote: »

Looking forward to when cars of the future have a big red button on the dashboard that means "take me home Jeeves, I'm pi$$ed"

There are already cars that refuse to start if you are drunk. Story on the news this week of a woman in the US who shot her car when it refused.

tayto lover

Graces7 wrote: »

There are already cars that refuse to start if you are drunk. Story on the news this week of a woman in the US who shot her car when it refused.

She must have been mad drunk.

ArrBee

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Out at a birthday party Sat. night. Got some finger food at it as I had not eaten much that day. Had 7 pints of Guinness between 10pm-1am.

Measured myself around 1:30am and read 1.30. So way over, limit is 0.50. Got up to go to loo at 6:30 am and had dropped to 0.61. Measured again around 9:30am and was down to 0.31.

Got breakfast and measured again at 10:30 and read less than 0.11 or 0 alcohol. It doesn't read less than 0.11.

This sort of information/product review is interesting and helpful, thanks.

Huntergonzo

Graces7 wrote: »

There are already cars that refuse to start if you are drunk. Story on the news this week of a woman in the US who shot her car when it refused.

Haha proper order, car should have beem more reasonable.

Ash.J.Williams

Heard of a few people banned lately from morning check points

recedite

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha proper order, car should have been more reasonable.

Probably a German car.
Sticklers for the rules, they are.