# Breathalysed and over limit next day



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

My mother was telling me about a friend's daughter who visited a mate one friday evening, had a good few drinks and stayed the night. She got up the following morning and had a big cooked breakfast and, at about one o'clock in the afternoon drove home. She was stopped by a guard on the way, breathalysed and was over the limit. She's now lost her licence for a year, although she needs the car for work.
I know the law is the law and no one should drink and drive. But it just seems very harsh in this situation where the girl must have been absolutely sure she was okay and had done all the right things. Stayed the night where she was, eaten a substantial amount of food and left it until the afternoon to drive. Yet she was treated in exactly the same way as someone who had a load of pints and knowingly got into their car and drove.
I just wonder, if there's a lot of cases like this, will it dilute people's attitude to the point where they feel might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and just not bother to leave the car and walk home and collect it the next day or whatever.
And I'm not, in anyway, defending drink driving, just wondering if its fair to treat everyone as harshly, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Guest116 (15 Sep 2009)

When did she have her last drink, if it was 5am for example then that is 7-8 hours after stopping which might be cutting it fine.

It is harsh but the rules are the rules. She most have drank a lot in fairness to be over the limit by 1pm the next day.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Sep 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> She most have drank a lot in fairness to be over the limit by 1pm the next day.


 
Id agree with this, one must allow time for the body to metabolise the alcohol, she must have consumed a huge amount (or continued to drink til the early hours of the morning) to have still been over the limit the next afternoon.


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

I don't think it could have been that late, as the friend had to get up and go to work the following morning.

I agree, I don't know how much she had to drink or exactly what time she stopped but I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.

I suppose my concern is that people will just lose respect for the whole process if it seems to be more based on getting 'results' than on actually trying to catch the really dangerous drivers.


----------



## Caveat (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> ... I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.


 
But the person having 1 or 2 and getting into their car could think that they are OK too?  If they are both over the limit by the same amount for example I don't see much difference TBH.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2009)

The fact is that her ability to drive was just as impaired as someone who got straight  into the car after drinking but had the same blood alcohol level.


----------



## Sylvester3 (15 Sep 2009)

A good rule of thumb is to allow one hour per unit of alcohol - counting from when you finish your last drink. So if you have a pint then you will be clear 2 hours after you drink it, etc etc. I've used this rule since I learnt it at Uni back when I was 18 - it means you have to cadge a lift/get a taxi in the morning sometimes, but at least you aren't putting yourself or others at risk.

BTW, having a cooked meal would have no impact on existing blood alcohol levels. Only time can do anything about that.


----------



## Guest116 (15 Sep 2009)

A year off the road probably reflects the less serious aspect of this case, I thought most get put off the road for 2 years?


----------



## shanegl (15 Sep 2009)

> I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.



What is the difference? Blood alcohol level is blood alcohol level.


----------



## Guest116 (15 Sep 2009)

How about people who work nights, should they be let off with a caution just because it is in the afternoon when they are caught drink driving?


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

Caveat said:


> But the person having 1 or 2 and getting into their car could think that they are OK too? If they are both over the limit by the same amount for example I don't see much difference TBH.


 

I see what you mean. I suppose what I'm saying is that it wouldn't have even occurred to her that she could still be over the limit the following afternoon and there was absolutely no question of deliberately 'taking a chance' and hoping she wouldn't be stopped and that maybe a caution the first time, as an educational measure, would have been enough. Obviously, if it happened a second time she would have no excuse as she would be well aware that she might be dangerous behind a wheel.


----------



## mathepac (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> ... Yet she was treated in exactly the same way as someone who had a load of pints and knowingly got into their car and drove...


That's because she did exactly what they do -  she drove while her blood-alcohol level was elevated above the maximum permitted legal limit.

Given our remove from the information about the young woman who was breathalyzed, now 5th or 6th hand, its difficult to make any informed comment on all the circumstances.

The  medico-scientific area of measuring blood-alcohol levels is much more technical and complex than most people appreciate. Speculation about what she ate, how long (or if) she slept, when she last drank, how long she drank for and so on is pointless because the key information is that apparently, when measured, she was "over the limit".


liaconn said:


> ...  but I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this....


But there is none because the law makes no differentiation.


liaconn said:


> ... I would have thought a caution would suffice...


For the Guards on the side of the road once drink-driving is suspected / indicated, there is no discretion, they cannot issue a caution they must take the driver off the road.

In court the judge can listen to arguments and evidence, but again I don't believe there is the option to issue a caution on conviction.


liaconn said:


> ...  I suppose my concern is that people will just lose respect for the whole process if it seems to be more based on getting 'results' than on actually trying to catch the really dangerous drivers.


I haven't seen any evidence  that the process the lady got herself involved in through her dangerous drunken-driving episode was oriented towards anything other than road safety or preventing drunks from driving with impunity. The only person, so far, who  seems to 'lose respect for the whole process' is yourself.

Roll on the ability to do road-side tests  for drug-impaired driving.


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

mathepac said:


> /  The only person, so far, who seems to 'lose respect for the whole process' is yourself.


 
I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.



But if that happened, wouldn't everyone be practicing their deeply shocked reaction?  Besides, I'd heard the one about people being breathalysed on the way to work being caught years ago, doesn't it happen regularly around Christmas?  Haven't you heard of it before?


----------



## truthseeker (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.


 
If someone over the limit was given a caution and then next time they mowed down some innocent the country would be up in arms that they werent taken off the road first time round.

I know its harsh, but I think the zero tolerance approach to drink driving is the correct one.

I fail to understand how the person in question could be uneducated on drink driving/blood alcohol levels etc... unless theyd been living in an egg for the past 20 years - media coverage and news reports are available almost daily citing yet another case of drink driving or the latest crack down etc...

Besides, a year off the road will surely be an education in itself and no doubt this person will be a safer driver because of it. 
A year is nothing in the scheme of things.


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

_But if that happened, wouldn't everyone be practicing their deeply shocked reaction? Besides, I'd heard the one about people being breathalysed on the way to work being caught years ago, doesn't it happen regularly around Christmas? Haven't you heard of it before?_ 




Hi, yes I know they're out on Sat and Sun mornings and I and my friends would always be careful about driving if we'd been drinking the night before . Just didn't realise Sat afternoon would be a problem. Also, I suppose I was thinking of the amount I would drink which is probably nothing like what this girl had.

However, as you said, if you leave loopholes people will crawl through them.

Just, on an individual level, I feel sorry for that girl.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> Just, on an individual level, I feel sorry for that girl.


 
Well I agree with you on that, unfortunately you cant judge situations like this at an individual level because then every gurrier in the country would be drink driving and producing 50 character witnesses to say theyd never done it before, hadnt a clue about blood alcohol levels, had waited a number of hours etc, were going to lose their job and family etc...you knwo what I mean?


----------



## Vanilla (15 Sep 2009)

Bit unusual to be breathalysed on a Sat afternoon unless the guard had some reason for doing so.


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Well I agree with you on that, unfortunately you cant judge situations like this at an individual level because then every gurrier in the country would be drink driving and producing 50 character witnesses to say theyd never done it before, hadnt a clue about blood alcohol levels, had waited a number of hours etc, were going to lose their job and family etc...you knwo what I mean?


 
Yeah, I know. I suppose if I read about it in the paper and didn't hear about it from someone who knows her I would leave the human angle out and just think 'God, she must have drunk a skinfull. Serves her right'.

Good point also, Vanilla.


----------



## mathepac (15 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I haven't lost respect for the process, ...


But you seem to want to change the existing process, which indicates you find it deficient in some way, which to me doesn't smack of respect.


liaconn said:


> ...  if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ...


Maybe you could help by describing how such a system would work in practice as I can't seem to envision it.

One possible solution I have is that if someone isn't smart enough in this day and age to know how to gauge their own fitness to drive, then maybe taking the driving-licence off them for good is an appropriate solution.


liaconn said:


> ... is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more...


There is no need for uninformed speculation about "taking the correct procedures" - apart from other obvious measure, personal alcohol-level measuring devices for example, are readily available; let drinkers buy them and use them, otherwise either stop drinking or stop driving.

IMHO there is no excuse these days for being shocked and surprised about an excess blood-alcohol level after the event, and stupidity or laziness don't count as excuses.

Current education just doesn't seem to be reaching the target audience, or the audience members are choosing to ignore it. The ads say "If you drink, don't drive", the ads do not say "If you drink, drive when you think you are safe based on what some idiot on a bar-stool told you was a fool-proof way of measuring / guaranteeing your sobriety".


----------



## liaconn (15 Sep 2009)

Yes, alright Mathepac. As I said, I can see the loopholes, and have already ceded (if you've read my last post) that taking the human angle/sympathetic view into account can be abused, so you can get off the moral high ground.

I presume though, from the tone of your last post, that you never ever get it wrong or make a genuine, albeit stupid, mistake.


----------



## Sylvester3 (15 Sep 2009)

mathepac said:


> Current education just doesn't seem to be reaching the target audience, or the audience members are choosing to ignore it. The ads say "If you drink, don't drive", the ads do not say "If you drink, drive when you think you are safe based on what some idiot on a bar-stool told you was a fool-proof way of measuring / guaranteeing your sobriety".



Out of interest, how would you determine when it is safe to drive after having a drink (or three). "If you drink, don't drive" could mean you never drive again after having a drink. That is obviously not the case, so you need some sort of objective measure to know when you are safe to drive again. If you drive and are not a member of the league of temperance, you need something, surely?

The advice I was handed is to give myself an hour for every unit of alcohol imbibed, counting from the end of the last drink, which would appear to be a conservative yet useful tool. For example three pints by midnight would be your limit if you intended to drive the next morning (giving yourself 6 hours plus change). A 10 drink bender (which I've never had) would mean you shouldn't drive the next day at all. I've never considered that to be idiotic advice.


----------



## Seagull (15 Sep 2009)

Sylvester3 said:


> Out of interest, how would you determine when it is safe to drive after having a drink (or three.


Buy yourself a breathalyser.


----------



## Sylvester3 (15 Sep 2009)

Oh ok, will do thanks.


----------



## Maximus152 (15 Sep 2009)

Eh no, you drink and drive your basically pointing a gun at innocent people. Why should people have to pick up the pieces after some weakling had not got the strenght and will power to leave the car. She must have had a savage amount of drink to be over at 1 O'Clock in the afternoon next day and after a "substantial breakfast". Unless she arose at 12 O' Clock, she is setting a record there or at the very least I would have my motabilism checked out asap.


----------



## mathepac (15 Sep 2009)

Sylvester3 said:


> Out of interest, how would you determine when it is safe to drive after having a drink (or three). "If you drink, don't drive" could mean you never drive again after having a drink. That is obviously not the case, so you need some sort of objective measure to know when you are safe to drive again. If you drive and are not a member of the league of temperance, you need something, surely? ...


As we're in LOS, I'll let that one pass.  


Sylvester3 said:


> ...  The advice I was handed is to give myself an hour for every unit of alcohol imbibed, counting from the end of the last drink, which would appear to be a conservative yet useful tool. For example three pints by midnight would be your limit if you intended to drive the next morning (giving yourself 6 hours plus change). ...


This is the exactly the kind of simplistic rubbish that causes problems.

There is a rule of thumb that says a normal healthy adult, who is well rested, well nourished, emotionally stable, not on any medication, with a normal body-fat content, who is not dehydrated, has not imbibed alcohol the previous day, has a normally functioning liver and kidneys, drinking at a normal pace, etc, etc. has the ability to metabolise a single unit of beverage alcohol per hour on a given day (the hour starts when the last of the drink is taken). On a different day with any of the variables changed, that ability may change, upwards or downwards.

Gulping a two-unit drink and waiting two hours may not work; the liver has to work that bit harder to metabolise the additional beverage alcohol, so two hours may not be enough to do the job. As the effects on the liver tend to be cumulative, both short and long term, after three such drinks the metabolic efficiency of the liver is any one's guess.

Anyone acting on such ill-founded advice is behaving irresponsibly.


Sylvester3 said:


> ...   A 10 drink bender (which I've never had) would mean you shouldn't drive the next day at all. I've never considered that to be idiotic advice.


Very sensible - whether a "10 drink bender" consists of 10,15, 20 or more units units of alcohol, it ties in with the adage "If you drink, don't drive".

Even if all of the metabolites that indicate the presence and level of alcohol in a person's blood-stream and therefore brain have gone, post-bender, there are other issues to be considered such as :


Level of tiredness
Dehydration
Ability to concentrate
Emotional state (anxiety, worry, regret, anger, etc.) 
Physical state (sweats, shakes, headache, dodgy tummy, etc.)
all of which may effect a person's ability to drive, cycle, roller-skate or maybe even walk safely.


----------



## starlite68 (15 Sep 2009)

its a joke really,most of the gaurds i know..one of which is my cousin! drive around nearly all the time over the limit..makes a bit of a farce of things, then again who is going to brethalise them!


----------



## Vanilla (15 Sep 2009)

starlite68 said:


> its a joke really,most of the gaurds i know..one of which is my cousin! drive around nearly all the time over the limit..makes a bit of a farce of things, then again who is going to brethalise them!


 
Don't worry, karma will get them.


----------



## Sylvester3 (15 Sep 2009)

mathepac said:


> There is a rule of thumb that says a normal healthy adult, who is well rested, well nourished, emotionally stable, not on any medication, with a normal body-fat content, who is not dehydrated, has not imbibed alcohol the previous day, has a normally functioning liver and kidneys, drinking at a normal pace, etc, etc. has the ability to metabolise a single unit of beverage alcohol per hour on a given day (the hour starts when the last of the drink is taken). On a different day with any of the variables changed, that ability may change, upwards or downwards.
> 
> 
> Even if all of the metabolites that indicate the presence and level of alcohol in a person's blood-stream and therefore brain have gone, post-bender, there are other issues to be considered such as :
> ...




You talk sense and I don't, which I realised earlier today, so I give in. I'm not that much of a drinker anyway so it doesn't make any odds for me, but I realise it probably wouldn't be a wise idea to take my rule-of-thumb as gospel. Play safe kids, mkay!


----------



## micmclo (15 Sep 2009)

aristotle25 said:


> A year off the road probably reflects the less serious aspect of this case, I thought most get put off the road for 2 years?



I was thinking the same
For the first offense is it not a two year ban and you can apply for your license back after one year?

As for the OP's friend, the limit is the limit!
It doesn't matter if it's 1pm in the afternoon or 3am coming home from a nightclub.
The limit is the same and this person failed


----------



## gebbel (16 Sep 2009)

Maximus152 said:


> She must have had a savage amount of drink to be over at 1 O'Clock in the afternoon next day and after a "substantial breakfast".


 
Agreed. Probably an all night bender, but that's just my opinion. She has paid a heavy price for irresponsible behaviour, harsh and all as that may sound. I feel sorry for her, as the OP has stated (like most people) she needs the car for work. She must also possibly endure the ignominy of the court case and local newspaper report. It is a serious punishment to lose your licence, and the freedom and independence that a car gives. But it is also a necessary one in a country like ours where drink driving has killed so many, but has until recently been considered a bit of a laugh.


----------

