BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?

Subject: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:57 PM

Ok, so here I am full of Cider and Stout. I am lucky. I don't need to drive tomrrow. But, if I did...

I could be breathalised and fail. I am not sure if that is a good thing or not? Surely having a hangover is no worse than having a cold or flu?

Could we not have some way of determining if we are fit to drive or not? If having had a dozen units or so the previous night precludes you from driving surely sneezing 10 times a minute must be as bad? Or being angry? Or wondring what dress to wear?

They have now said speaking on a handheld mobile phone is illegal. Surely eating your lunch or putting on your makeup must be as bad?

I'm not sure what I am getting at but someone out there must know why driving 8 hours after you have had a few is worse than driving while you are depressed or under chemotherapy or taking insulin?

Know what I mean?

Hope you can help:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:03 PM

Or when you're tired, or when you haven't had anything to eat for too long and your blood sugar is low, or when you are engaged in a quarrel.   

And in fact it's always illegal to drive when you are unfit to drive, for any reason, it's just that with alcohol it's particularly easy to lay down a specific limit and enforce it. I think there'd be a good case for having checks on some of the other things too. "Don't Diet and Drive..."

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Morticia
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:05 PM

you can get doodads that check your blood alcohol level before you drive.....in Boots, I think. Best idea, just don't, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:10 PM

Sorry Morty Best idea, just don't, IMO.

Don't do what?

Drive when you are pissed (obviously)?

Drive whan you are emotional?

Drive whan you are wet? Tired? Singing?

See what I mean?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:13 PM

How long does it take to actually get rid of any trace of alcohol in one's system? I know that commercial pilots are forbidden to drink for a certain number of hours before they take the stick. Surely it's not the hangover the ordinance is addressing?

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:20 PM

Aparantly it is 1 unit per hour. So, if you drink a 75cl bottle of wine at 12% ABV we are talking 9 units. Go to bed at 11pm and you should be Ok by 8am. But...

Whavtabout your metabolism? What if you started at 12 noon? What if you drink 2 bottles a day? What if you have never drunk before?

Eeeeeh? See what I mean?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:53 PM

DtG: never mind that, they give details for the average adult. The level below which you are considered 'safe to drive' (in the UK) is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
Thus the standard idea of 4 'Units' = 2 pints of beer or 2 double scotches is based on the average person.
An average 'folkie' is probably noticeably heavier *BG* than the average 'normal person' and so will have a greater amount of blood in which to dilute the alcohol!
The use of the term 'lightweight' to describe a person incapable of holding their booze is probably surprisingly accurate.
Although most people have dificulty judging their own level of sobriety, an interesting experiment is to judge how you feel after a given number of your favourite tipple on succesive nights. Usually you will find that there is a point at which you can notice the effect on your speech or your actions. (If you can't see it, stop drinking now!!). Compare this standard (once noticed) with the level at which you get the same reaction after giving a blood donation. Your tolerance drops because there is more alcohol per unit of blood than would be usual at the same stage.

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Midchuck
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 09:00 PM

So, if you drink a 75cl bottle of wine at 12% ABV we are talking 9 units. Go to bed at 11pm and you should be Ok by 8am.

If I did that, I'd probably be sober by 8:00 am the next day, but it'd be a couple of days before I was okay.

But then, I'm getting kinda long in the tooth and my recuprative powers may have declined some.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 09:02 PM

Here's the straight dope on UK requirements & system of policing

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:18 AM

Morty has the right solution. If you are in any doubt at all, don't drive, whether it be alcohol, medication or just plain knackeredness, don't do it.

If you want to know why, read Jed Marum's 'Hit and Run' thread.

The drink/driving laws have been amended to include 'under the influence of drugs' and for the rest of the activities mentioned in the first post, that is covered by driving 'without due care and attention'. The new 'mobile phone' law was brought into play because it was considered that the 'due care' law wasn't quite strong enough.

If you still can't decide, go to any casualty/ER unit on a Friday night about midnight and see the results there.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:54 AM

A friend of mine was driving back from a folk evening when the car in front of him made an emergency stop. My friend was observing a safe stopping distance and manage to pull up safely, only to be rear-ended by the car behind him. The police breath-tested him and the driver who had crashed into him and my friend was one or two percent over the limit. To his utter disbelief, he was not only charged with this, but also blamed for the accident and had to face a careless driving charge as well. The police never claimed that the circumstances were anything but what he claimed, but the court held that in his state he must take the blame. It still seems very unfair that after stopping perfectly in an emergency he should be penalised, while a sober driver (who presumeably drove like that all the while) should be let off the hook just because he was lucky enough to hit somebody who was over the limit.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Beverley Barton
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:57 AM

Don't any of you people have ChAuffers? Goodness, you must be poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 07:02 AM

Hmmmm. I think what we need is a measure of fitness to drive rather than anything else. Surely it is not rocket science is it? If such a thing was introduced it could help eliminate congestion as well. After all half the people on the roads are not fit to drive under ANY circumstances;-)

I just re-read Kevin's post btw. I did not realise it already was illegal to drive while unfit. How do they measure that already then? Can that measure not be appled in all cases?

That realy would answer my question and Dave B's point.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 07:17 AM

Two coppers stop a car late at night which is proceeding cautiously along the road, and assume the man has been drinking.
"Would you mind providing a breath specimen, by blowing into this bag?"
"Sorry officer,I'm asthmatic, I can't do that"
"O.k. we'll just take you back to the station!"
At the station the man is unable to provide a urine sample, so the oficer suggests a blood sample.
"Sorry officer, I can't do that, I'm a haemophiliac!"
At this stage the officer is getting a little exasperated, and consults his sergeant (a relic of a bygone era).
"RIGHT!" says the sergeant, drawing a chalk line along the floor of the station. "Just walk along that line, and no excuses"
"Sorry officer, I can't do that, I'm pissed!"

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:09 PM

Very roughly, after stopping drinking you go down 10 mg of alcohol per 100 ml blood per hour.

How long does it take to actually get rid of any trace of alcohol in one's system?

The alcohol lever never will be nil in healthy persons. Alcohol in very small doses is in bread, in fruits, in fruit juices, in kefir and so on. Ripe bananas always have a tiny bit of alcohol in them. You just can't eat enough to get noticeably pissed.

There always has to be a lower limit under which a person has to be considered sober. 'No trace' is not a sensible idea in a time in which ultra small traces can be found.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:11 AM

"I could be breathalised and fail. I am not sure if that is a good thing or not? Surely having a hangover is no worse than having a cold or flu?"

You will not be prosecuted for driving while hung-over, you will be prosecuted for driving under the influence of alchol. After a heavy session the night before you are not just hung-over - you are in fact still pissed.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:09 AM

After a heavy session the night before you are not just hung-over - you are in fact still pissed

Not realy, Guest. Medical research shows that over time your body gets accustomed to many different drugs, including alcohol. Over the course of a nights sleep the effects of the alcohol, as well as the quantity of course, decrease greatly. So, immediately after consuming alcohol it's effects are far greater than than 8 hours later! Cannabis is another example. Traces of cannabis can be found days after it's use but it's effects are over in a matter of hours. So I am told of course...;-)

So, what am I on about...

Oh yes. The measuremnt of alcohol in the blood stream in the morning may be an easy option but it does not provide a fair measure of a persons fitness to drive.

Please don't get me wrong here - I am very much against drinking and driving and would never condone it. What I reckon though is that the 'easy option' of mg of alcohol in the blood may not always be the most accurate measure of fitness to drive!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:34 PM

mg of alcohol in the blood may not always be the most accurate measure of fitness to drive!

I'm curious, Dave. Which measure is more accurate?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:59 PM

Don't forget your body starts dealing with alcohol about 20 minutes after you start drinking so if you have the bottle of wine mentionned earlier unless you drink it in a minute then you will have dealt with the alcohol in your blood a lot sooner. Eg if you start drinking it at 8pm and finish at 11pm then your system will be clear around 5.30am and legal to drive at least an hour or two before that

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:06 PM

Driving whilst hungover can be just as dangerous. Particularly if you decide to throw up over your steering wheel.

And yes, to my lasting regret, I've been in a car when that has happened - not, thank the Lord, me throwing up, but the driver suddenly upchucking over the steering wheel and dash. Twice.

I do a lot of the driving now.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:26 PM

I'm curious, Dave. Which measure is more accurate?

Wolfgang

Pupil reaction can be very accurate apparantly but they need to iron out difficulties with people with eye problems.

This is the point I am making, realy. Surely it must be feasible to provide an accurate method of fitness to drive rather than a easy, but flawed, measure of alcohol?

Or am I wrong?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:31 PM

Basically

Dont !

It's your licencse.

It may be somebody elses life.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:35 AM

Sounds a bit draconian, Gareth! Dont drive if you are...

Ill?
Tired?
Hungry?
Pregnant?
Wearing new shoes?

Just where do you draw the line?

I will try to explain again. Perhaps it is me not putting my point across very well...

I support any legislation that makes our roads a safer place. What I am getting is, after all these years, there must be a better way of determining if you are fit to drive or not. Testing the blood for alcohol will NOT show up any of the above. More importantly It will not show if you have recently taken drugs either and, apparantly, by the time they get round to a drugs test some drugs (cocaine for instance) could have left your system!

I am left feeling that alcohol testing is being used simply because it is easy and it is what the authorities are used to.

From what I am reading about testing of pupil reaction time this seems like a possibility. Your eyes react to light far more slowly if you are under the influence of drink, drugs or simply under the weather! Surely this would address at least some of the points we have been discussing.

Anyone out there from the medical or law enforcement field care to comment? Could it work? Could it be automated so, for instance, your car would not start unless you pass the test?

Worth investigation surely.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Willie-O
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:25 AM

I see a couple of differences between the UK approach and Canada, or at least Ontario (it differs from province to province).

The legal alcohol level is point zero eight here as well--but below that, you are not considered safe to drive, you are just probably not committing a felony. If you test between .05 and .08 police here can issue you a 24-hour licence suspension on the spot, you park your car and find another way home unless you have a sober passenger (and you are a dope for not letting them drive in the first place.) Not a bad deal really, you don't even get a fine.

As often seen on TV, police can and often do ask you to perform some coordination tests (in addition to the breathalyser) to see if, in their judgment, your coordination is impaired enough to make you an unsafe driver.

We had a case last spring where a fellow who had a medical marijuana permit was stopped while smoking a joint. He was charged with impaired driving based on swerving all over the road. He was a retired lawyer as it happened, and defended himself. Believe it or not, he successfully argued that he was swerving not because he was stoned, but because of his multiple sclerosis...a known condition to the licence bureau.   

Technically, you have a point about alcohol levels, maybe. There is no single ultimately-accurate test that will determine your fitness to drive if you are in a borderline condition. I seriously don't think pupil-dilation is one either--it's just a simple physical response test which needs to be taken in context with other signs and tests. Doesn't really tell enough on its own.

Don't know about UK, but the typical impaired driving charge here is issued to someone who is way over the limit, two to three times the legal. Someone with multiple convictions who has regained their licence may have one of those breathalyser devices attached to the ignition of their vehicle, and have to blow into it and pass before the car will start. Most failures to pass these checks do in fact occur the morning after.

I understand what you are getting at and in one sense I would agree that you have a point--but ultimately I think the response would be that we all have an obligation to be as responsible as possible in regards to avoiding behaviour that would make us less than the best drivers we can be. That would however be draconian and unenforceable in law, so ultimately there are going to be arbitrary measures, which in good enforcement are combined with coordination tests and reasonable judgment on the part of the police, so they don't waste their time booking someone who has had two beers while a truly loaded guy is lurching along the same road five minutes later.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 09:45 AM

Dave,

pupil reaction time is considered and studied, but I think it has not been found to be a reliable indicator for this reason:

Unlike the alcohol in blood level (how much is normal without voluntary alcohol intake is known and is very similar between person), there is a large interpersonal variance of the normal level of pupil reaction time. It varies with age, time of the day etc.

What they consistently find is that the pupil reaction time increases with a lot of substances (and states like sleepiness) know to impair driving ability. So far so good. But how are they to know which your personal pupil reaction time under normal conditions would be? My normal pupil reaction time could be larger than someone else's impaired.

So I think at this time the consensus is that pupilometry is a good indicator and a promising idea but a blood test should be made even after a failure of the pupil test.

But I'm not an expert here and I also would appreciate any input from someone knowing this field.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 10:49 AM

Perhaps it would be fairer to have some sort of reaction speed test as well as the breath one - it might cover many of the other reasons for bad driving - tiredness - medication etc. Perhaps failing this test should be dealt with a licence suspension as mentioned by Willie-O.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 12:05 PM

Problem with all above is that, as was demonstrated by the anecdote of the driver who was the only one to react safely at an accident, some people are just unfit drivers sober or drunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 12:13 PM

Would it be such a bad thing if they were kept off the road then ?

Subject: RE: BS: Driving the 'Morning After'?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:31 PM

:-) Dave B! Good point. Easy way to do it. Just take out all white vans, private hire cabs and BMW's. Remove most of the unfit drivers and reduce congestion at a stroke.

Not that I like to be contentious...

Cheers

DtG