Drink Drive

[Lady Whistledown]

In answer to an earlier question, the police don't need to suspect alcohol to require a breath test off you. It could also be because you've committed a traffic offence (speeding, red lights, brake light out etc), or because you've been involved in an accident.

That said, it might not be the smell of alcohol that gives you away and makes a copper think you've had a few. People who know they might be in trouble when they're stopped give all sorts of signals. Don't ever think eating a pack of Extra Strong Mints or having a shower, or spraying the inside of your car with half a can of Lynx from your overnight bag will prevent suspicion (frankly I'd say that is actually likely to increase it).

 

[jameswestport]

kept at it till i was caught, no more,

 

[atfc village]

TBF living out in the sticks anyone driving around after Midnight will get a tug by a patrol car whether they are driving erratically or not.No matter what the punishment people will still do it.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I read somewhere it takes an average strength pint of lager 4 hours to be completely out of your system

going by that if you drank 4 pints and stopped at 10 o'clock

then back on the road at say 6/7 o'clock as most are,you'll still be over the limit,I reckon

obviously all this dépends on alot of different factors sex,weight and so on

best thing is take no risk at all

1 unit per hour. You would have to be over 3-4 units to test over the limit. A 14% bottle of Red 10 units, go to bed at 12 drive at 8 am , 2 units left = ok. It all depends on alcohol tolerance, effectiveness of liver, body size etc, all in all if you have had a session, say 6 pints of premium lager at 16 units and drive the next morning you are risking it.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

1 unit per hour. You would have to be over 3-4 units to test over the limit. A 14% bottle of Red 10 units, go to bed at 12 drive at 8 am , 2 units left = ok. It all depends on alcohol tolerance, effectiveness of liver, body size etc

No offence, but you have no idea how many units you'd have to consume to be over the limit.

You are correct in saying that it depends on other factors too, but you cannot conclusively state how many units is a problem. If it was that simple, many people would never take the risk.

 

[Durlston]

I don't drink (reformed alcoholic) and don't drive so it doesn't affect me.

Anybody that gets behind the wheel after more than two pints is a f*ck*ng idiot.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

No offence, but you have no idea how many units you'd have to consume to be over the limit.

You are correct in saying that it depends on other factors too, but you cannot conclusively state how many units is a problem. If it was that simple, many people would never take the risk.

No but for most people it would be 3-4 units. It also makes a huge difference if you have eaten or not. A lot of factors and not worth taking any risks if you are unsure.

 

[Bozza]

The sad thing is the perceived risk of drink driving is getting caught. If people think they won't get caught they are more likely to do it.

There's not too many folk who actually think of the risk of hurting/killing themselves and/or other people.

 

[Garage_Doors]

I don't drink (reformed alcoholic) and don't drive so it doesn't affect me.

Anybody that gets behind the wheel after more than two pints is a f*ck*ng idiot.

Anyone driving having consumed two pints is a f*ck*ng idiot.

 

[Eksman]

If I'm gonna drive I don't drink even a sip, its not about wether or not its legal but for me even a pint can change my attitude to more relaxed or maybe more confident. 100% sober only or I walk, I drive for a living and I see accidents happening daily which ill do anything to avoid any possibilities of me ever being in a wreckage.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I did an audit in A and E concerning alcohol and head injuries which meant I had a police issue lion alcometer in my possession. One night, for a laugh, in the pub I got it out to show the lads and lasses that they can't beat the breathalyser...it turns out you can. Big fat blokes can drink heroic amounts and blow under, hyperventilating can alter a reading from positive to clear...the whole system stinks because the measurement device will produce different results for different subjects. It is a blunt instrument ( hence the need for blood tests and more accurate intoximeters at the nick)

The lesson kids? You can beat it but don't bet on it. Just don't drink and drive.

 

[tgretton87]

How accurate are those breath tests. I only ask because on NYE I had 2 pints at around 10ish and then drove to Brighton to pick a friend up at 1am. I was pulled over and asked to provide a breath sample (yes I was bricking it) and the test read ZERO!. Then I was pulled over at 1.49am in Lancing I told the OB already been done but he said that he wanted to test me again this time it read 1.6 or something still under the limit but an hour had passed since the first which had said zero.

Then a week later watching football in the Cricks Southwick I had 1 pint and drove 45mins later was pulled over by unmarked police car because I was doing 33 in a 30 zone and they breath tested me and it read Zero.

Now I was with my mate in Worthing a few years back and over the day he must have drunk 5-6 pints from 10am in the morning. We had had a big dinner and he had not drunk anything for 6 hours when he decided to jump in his car at 3 in the morning he got pulled breath tested and was OVER the limit he was taken to Worthing Police station where he had to blow into the big machine. I didnt really know what to do so I phoned his Dad and he came down. It turns out that I did not need to do this as the machine at the station put him under the limit and he was free to go His Dad was not happy though.



I obviously know that they work but from my experience not that accurate on lower levels of alcohol. Would be interested in what Edna has to say about this.

 

[saafend_seagull]

When I worked in Luxembourg it was the norm for people to drink about 8 pints go clubbing and drive home.

Loads of people got caught but all you get is a 3 month ban and about a 500e fine.

I'd say 20% of people I worked with did this.

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

the French are still very blasé about this,unfortunately

most I have met would think nothing of drinking 3 or 4 glasses of wine,then drive home

always with a meal,over a period of time,but still,very dangerous

 

[bassking]

How accurate are those breath tests. I only ask because on NYE I had 2 pints at around 10ish and then drove to Brighton to pick a friend up at 1am. I was pulled over and asked to provide a breath sample (yes I was bricking it) and the test read ZERO!. Then I was pulled over at 1.49am in Lancing I told the OB already been done but he said that he wanted to test me again this time it read 1.6 or something still under the limit but an hour had passed since the first which had said zero.

Then a week later watching football in the Cricks Southwick I had 1 pint and drove 45mins later was pulled over by unmarked police car because I was doing 33 in a 30 zone and they breath tested me and it read Zero.

Now I was with my mate in Worthing a few years back and over the day he must have drunk 5-6 pints from 10am in the morning. We had had a big dinner and he had not drunk anything for 6 hours when he decided to jump in his car at 3 in the morning he got pulled breath tested and was OVER the limit he was taken to Worthing Police station where he had to blow into the big machine. I didnt really know what to do so I phoned his Dad and he came down. It turns out that I did not need to do this as the machine at the station put him under the limit and he was free to go His Dad was not happy though.



I obviously know that they work but from my experience not that accurate on lower levels of alcohol. Would be interested in what Edna has to say about this.

I had a similar experience, id had pint and a half got pulled over and didnt register,another time got pulled over same amount of cider it did register but was still under would not go anymore than that

 

[Sam-]

I may be wrong and feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
But I believe that if you have been drinking (even if its only half a pint) and cause an accident. Then things become very sticky for you.
Not saying you will retrospectively be charged with drink driving or anything, but if you are involved in an accident and you have been drinking. Then it may effect where blame is placed within the incident.

However, I do occasionally have a 330ml lager at the start of a meal (mid/during starter) then drive after. But I don't feel comfortable.
People don't always realise that a 1 tonne car can do serious damage if someone looses control.

 

[Seagull Stew]

No offence, but you have no idea how many units you'd have to consume to be over the limit.

You are correct in saying that it depends on other factors too, but you cannot conclusively state how many units is a problem. If it was that simple, many people would never take the risk.

This is something about the crime of drink driving that I have always found interesting. Maybe a legal beagle can explain.

Person A and person B both drink X no. of units at the same time and same pace as each other. They both get into their car at the same time as each other and are both stopped by the police at exactly the same time. Person A comes under the limit whereas person B is over. Both have acted exactly the same way, but because of different body mechanisms to each other, person B is now a criminal, whereas person A is not. If crime is determined by an action (or non-action) then how, in legal terms can person B be more guilty than person A? Has this argument ever been used to challenge a conviction?

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not an advocate of drink driving, and things are way too lapse here in NZ for my liking, it's just a legal argument that's always fascinated me.

 

[Kazenga <3]

This is something about the crime of drink driving that I have always found interesting. Maybe a legal beagle can explain.

Person A and person B both drink X no. of units at the same time and same pace as each other. They both get into their car at the same time as each other and are both stopped by the police at exactly the same time. Person A comes under the limit whereas person B is over. Both have acted exactly the same way, but because of different body mechanisms to each other, person B is now a criminal, whereas person A is not. If crime is determined by an action (or non-action) then how, in legal terms can person B be more guilty than person A? Has this argument ever been used to challenge a conviction?

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not an advocate of drink driving, and things are way too lapse here in NZ for my liking, it's just a legal argument that's always fascinated me.

Not an expert by any means so someone feel free to shoot me down, but isn't drink driving a strict liability offence- ie you only have to fulfil the action to be guilty with no intention required.

So even though the two people have drunk the same amount and therefore both have the same intention/recklessness to drink drive, because the offence is one of strict liability the law isn't concerned by this and is only concerned with which of the two has fulfilled the action. May seem unfair in some regards I suppose.

Guess it basically boils down to people being aware of what their limits are, as would you not agree that a person with a low alcohol tolerance getting steaming drunk after 3 pints is acting more irresponsibly than the seasoned drinker who has had twice as much but is still sober?

 

[Seagull Stew]

Not an expert by any means so someone feel free to shoot me down, but isn't drink driving a strict liability offence- ie you only have to fulfil the action to be guilty with no intention required.

So even though the two people have drunk the same amount and therefore both have the same intention/recklessness to drink drive, because the offence is one of strict liability the law isn't concerned by this and is only concerned with which of the two has fulfilled the action. May seem unfair in some regards I suppose.

Guess it basically boils down to people being aware of what their limits are, as would you not agree that a person with a low alcohol tolerance getting steaming drunk after 3 pints is acting more irresponsibly than the seasoned drinker who has had twice as much but is still sober?

I do agree, Like I said, I in no way condone drink driving, BUT the "action" is exactly the same by both persons.

Put it another way, person A could drink 3 pints and drive home that night and not be over the limit, whereas person B could drink 3 pints, get a taxi home, and then drive the next morning and be over the limit. Person B has acted more responsibly than person A, but is the one who has commited the crime.

 

[Kazenga <3]

I do agree, Like I said, I in no way condone drink driving, BUT the "action" is exactly the same by both persons.

Put it another way, person A could drink 3 pints and drive home that night and not be over the limit, whereas person B could drink 3 pints, get a taxi home, and then drive the next morning and be over the limit. Person B has acted more responsibly than person A, but is the one who has commited the crime.

I suppose person B could be considered unfortunate in comparison to person A there, as though they have both drunk the same only one would fulfil the actus reus of the crime. Though its obviously impossible to create law that tailors itself to each individual's body, therefore you just need to be careful that you aware of what you are drinking and keep a self-breathalyser or something.

However I suppose also if the blood alcohol level is higher in person B then they are 'guiltier' as such than person A as they are driving in a more intoxicated state irrelevant of whether they have consumed the same amount.

Need someone with a proper legal understanding to clarify it, I'm only really speculating based on limited knowledge and what sounds fair to me.