# Drink drive limits



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Scotland has introduced a 0.05% BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) limit for driving. Most of Europe is 0.05% and the rest of the UK is 0.08% with North America 0.10%. Will things change and should they? Let's try and have an objective look.










Barbara Castle introduced limits in UK legislation in the Road Safety Act 1967 and the phrase "drink driving" started to replace the phrase "drunk driving". Certainly at that time there was a need for legislation to introduce a limit above which it was illegal to drive but below which it is legal to drive - to stop "drunks" getting behind a wheel and to introduce more civilised behaviour and save lives.

The human body has not changed and 47 years later there are no plans at present for England and Wales to introduce the lower limit for a number of reasons. One argument is that two thirds of motorists killed exceeding the legal limit are over twice the alcohol limit - so the limit is not so important as enforcement. Drinking responsibly it's argued is not the problem but messages are put out not to drink at all but without force of law. The effects on the pub trade and economy is also an issue as is the effectiveness of any measure in the balance.

There are certainly mixed messages being sent by campaign phrases such as "Dont drink and drive" but it being perfectly legal to drink and drive whilst under the limit.

Affecting social attitudes to influence the extreme members of society whilst at the same time having a sense of proportion and practicality are obvious reasons - but how far do you go? A zero limit argued by some is prone to catching out the innocent and more so given that the body can produce its own alcohol methanol - diabetes.

Going too far may have many knock on effects and what level of risk is the real issue here?

Here's a graph from Wikipedia showing the relative risk of an accident against BAC concentration:










WHO published data giving more detail at lower BAC.










The high end of the graph clearly shows the danger but at the lower end of the graph it is unclear whether the risk is increased or deceased below 0.05% BAC. One study actually shows a reduction of risk up to 0.04% BAC, possibly because drivers were more cautious.

In any case the smaller increase in risk compares with many other things that increase risk - e.g. driving twice as much, driving experience, being tired, using a hands free mobile phone, having distracting children, being in a hurry, having a headache, time of day, weather etc etc. At that end of the graph you need a sense of proportion it can be argued and that a small amount of alcohol is lost in a sea of noise of other risks.

Given far more people are killed on the road in accidents unrelated to alcohol, a reduction of traffic as a goal may have a more marked effect and if saving lives is purely an aim why do we allow other unrelated but important risk factors - smoking for example? There is a quality of life balance in the round to be had along with a sense of proportion it can be argued.

*How much alcohol am I allowed?*

The UK, or more correctly now, England Wales and Northern Ireland, limits are 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, and 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine.

The BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) is a direct measurement of the amount of alcohol dissolved and dispersed into the water content of the body as it does not dissolve into bone or fat. Indirect measurements of breath or urine are closely related to BAC.

Given the water content of the human body (48 ±6% for women and 58 ±8% water for men), your weight, the metabolisation of alcohol by the liver and elapsed time, it is possible to calculate with reasonable accuracy the BAC level.

Stomach content can delay absorption as can drinking slowly but importantly a given amount of alcohol will define the possible peak BAC as it's a simple ratio of alcohol to water. To save you the trouble - here's an on-line calculator:

http://celtickane.com/projects/blood-al ... alculator/

You may be surprised at the results. A 175 lb male for example, even quickly drinking two pints of 4.5% beer, will always be under the 0.08% limit and only have to wait 0.5 hours to reach the 0.05% limit. After 3.5 hours they will be at zero - even less if a frequent drinker.

Although the peak BAC level has a margin of error dependent on water content, the metabolisation rate can vary more, so obviously leaving things until well on the side of safety is important.









*BAC (%) vs. Time (hours) for 175 lb male drinking 2 x 4.5% pints of beer*

So, does reducing the limit make sense? Or does it just catch out more moderate drinkers who perhaps cross the border into Scotland? In France it is now compulsory to take a BAC measuring device with you in the car but does that make you drink up to the limit? Or will people use it to make sure they are well under? Then again if the limit is lower it's less of a risk and are the people two or three times over the limit not the real problem?

An interesting perspective...

Some reference material:

http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/public ... ng_Law.pdf

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Facts ... 202013.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_ ... _influence


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

I believe it's inevitable that England will follow suit and does as the rest of Europe does.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Interestingly France (and others with a lower limit) also has different penalties.

0.05% or 0.02% for bus drivers (€135 fine and 6 demerit points on the driver's license, which can be suspended for 3 years maximum), it's only at 0.08% that the penalty increases to license suspension for 3 years, €4500 fine, and up to 2 years imprisonment.

Looks like the Scots have been shafted again, but we always apply EU laws differently to rest of EU.

Not that I am in any way in favour of drink driving, but....


----------



## Lollypop86 (Oct 26, 2013)

I think England should follow suit, no matter how much you have to drink you could make wrong decisions and endanger someone, I dont go anywhere near my keys if I've drunk, dont mind being the loser drinking a soft drink but driving responsibly.

My sister "claims" she only had a pint a few years back, the police watched her walk out the pub, get in her car, drive out the car park, pulled her over and nicked her, she got a 2 year ban reduced to 18 months if she did the drink driving awareness course and I'm glad they did because since she got her licence back she doesnt even have one if she knows she needs to get in the car

J
xx


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Can't see it making any difference, people who cause accidents due to the alcohol in their system tend to be smashed, they are the type that go to the pub, drink 10 pints and drive home. No reduction in drink driving limits will stop this happening.

Morning After drivers who have responsibly left the car in the town only to be slightly over the limit the following afternoon when they pick up the car will be the looser here.

I for one won't be taking any chances, I'm buying a breathalyser from halfrauds on Saturday.


----------



## samgilding (Feb 5, 2014)

Suppose it can only be a good thing but most people who drink drive know they are doing it anyway and will still do it with the lower limit. And there are a lot worse things than being slightly over the legal limit, which they is no test for.


----------



## gogs (Dec 22, 2010)

Simples, if you drink alcohol at all you don't drive 

Easy for me to say being a non drinker


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

This phrase "drink drive" is used to describe offenders over the limit but it is not illegal to drink and drive.

Those drinking and driving under the limit perfectly legally are in danger of being included in the same categorisation by use this phrase in that way.

Perhaps that is deliberate but perhaps "drunk driving" would be more accurate?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> This phrase "drink drive" is used to describe offenders over the limit but it is not illegal to drink and drive.
> 
> Those drinking and driving under the limit perfectly legally are in danger of being included in the same categorisation by use this phrase in that way.
> 
> Perhaps that is deliberate but perhaps "drunk driving" would be more accurate?


What does it matter what it's called?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > This phrase "drink drive" is used to describe offenders over the limit but it is not illegal to drink and drive.
> ...


Which? Those driving under the limit or over the limit?

When I hear on the news that someone has been convicted of "drink driving", perhaps I'm being pedantic but as there is no offence of "drink driving" because drinking and driving is not illegal, it sounds wrong.

If someone is convicted of "fraud" or "burglary" for example then at least the word describes the offence. "Drunk driving" would be a better label would you not agree?

Heck, we argue on here about the correct use of the apostrophe and grammar to improve communication ...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Drunk driving isn't accurate - the word 'drunk is commonly used to describe someone who is visibly affected by alcohol in a very obvious way and that is clearly not a good description of the offence. Drink driving on the other hand is more accurate, as you must have been drinking to reach the legal limit. Now, I understand the point you're trying to make about the ambiguity of 'drink driving', but you're inventing a confusion that doesn't exist. Everyone knows that drink driving in the context of the law refers to being over the limit.

I think the actual charge is something like, "being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the prescribed limit" so it's reasonable that it gets abbreviated or changed to something more simple to say, even if it's inevitably not as accurate as the full charge.

Oh, and to answer your first question, those driving under the limit aren't called anything. They're just 'driving'.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Breaking it down, I don't agree that "drink" defines impairment better than "drunk". "Drink" is simply the act of imbibing and you can do that with water or orange juice. Here's a dictionary definition of "drunk":



> *drunk*
> drʌŋk/
> adjective
> 1.
> ...


The example of "so drunk" is clearly an emphasis on extent of "drunk" more akin to your "visibly obvious" description of intoxication but then I wasn't suggesting the phrase should be "so drunk driving"

I maintain that "drunk driving" is more accurate and more importantly does not consciously or subconsciously imply that drinking and driving is an offence (unless over the limit and defined as too impaired to drive i.e. drunk.)

Perhaps you are correct to say that the phrase "drink driving" means the same to a lot of people - heck, even my autocorrect does! I'm suggesting it's incorrect though and misleading even if only subconsciously. I do wonder if somewhere down the line someone coined the phrase deliberately to make other comments like "I drink and drive" socially unacceptable when there is no law broken - an attempt at social manipulation by making the terminology deliberately ambiguous.

I do agree with you that people who drink and drive under the limit are just "driving".


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It's a pointless thing to argue about. Everyone knows what it means, and that's all that's required.

I get the feeling this is more about the fact that you want to drink up to the limit without feeling that what you're doing is socially unacceptable. Well, I can't help you there as I don't think it is particularly acceptable. There's a difference between moral and legal obligations and whilst I understand why the legal limit allows for some necessary flexibility, I think morally I can't justify the increased risk for the sake of one drink. I'd also rather other people didn't do it either although that is, of course, up to them.

My comment about people under the limit being just 'drivers' was purely to illustrate that 'drink driving' now universally refers to the offence, not just the act of drinking and driving. It was not meant to imply that I thought there was nothing wrong with having a drink and then driving as long as you stay under the legal limit.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

You asked what I meant about the definition of the phrase and then argued that the phrase "drink driving" was better than "drunk driving" and when I point out that the dictionary does not agree you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing and then go on the attack about morality and try and imply I personally want to drive up to the limit when that's not what I've said nor what I do as I would always be well under both limits when driving. And there was me thinking you would debate nicely :wink:

Interesting though - if you can't morally justify "one drink" due to the "increased risk " (despite the effect on your driving likely being undetectable) then I presume you never drive unnecessarily for pleasure as that risk is real and unnecessary whereas it would be zero if you stayed at home.

A friend took me out for a drink once and I had a very nice beer so I offered him a taste. He refused even a sip because he said he was driving and there was a principal concerned :roll:

I think the one thing you need in life is a sense of proportion and a proper perspective. Some people smoke and buy lottery tickets - I always thought the assessment of probability there was a bit suspect.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)




----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> You asked what I meant about the definition of the phrase and then argued that the phrase "drink driving" was better than "drunk driving" and when I point out that the dictionary does not agree you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing and then go on the attack about morality and try and imply I personally want to drive up to the limit when that's not what I've said nor what I do as I would always be well under both limits when driving. And there was me thinking you would debate nicely :wink:


No, you mentioned a few times that the use of the phrase 'drink driving' was misleading or innacurate so I asked why it mattered. I then explained clearly why I don't believe it matters. I thought the dictionary actually agreed with me - to be "affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour" certainly sounds like being "visibly affected by alcohol in a very obvious way", but regardless, you certainly don't have to meet the dictionary definition of being drunk in order to be over the legal limit, so 'drunk driving' is not accurate.



John-H said:


> Interesting though - if you can't morally justify "one drink" due to the "increased risk " (despite the effect on your driving likely being undetectable) then I presume you never drive unnecessarily for pleasure as that risk is real and unnecessary whereas it would be zero if you stayed at home.


Well, I don't drive unnecessarily for pleasure, no. I do enjoy driving when I do it, but I only drive when I need to. Regardless, I didn't say that I refuse point blank to do anything unnecessary that increases risk. I just think you should consider the implications of your actions for others and weigh up the risks and benefits before deciding what to do. For me this is a very one sided equation when it comes to one alcoholic drink.



John-H said:


> A friend took me out for a drink once and I had a very nice beer so I offered him a taste. He refused even a sip because he said he was driving and there was a principal concerned :roll:
> 
> I think the one thing you need in life is a sense of proportion and a proper perspective. Some people smoke and buy lottery tickets - I always thought the assessment of probability there was a bit suspect.


The sense of proportion should apply to both sides of that equation though. You just want to apply a sense of proportion to the risk element because that lets you justify that drink or two.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Perhaps you should have asked someone who *wasnt* famous for arguing on here to post that for you... Might have seemed less ironic.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Perhaps you should have asked someone who *wasnt* famous for arguing on here to post that for you... Might have seemed less ironic.


When it comes to arguing with anything and everything, Spandex my man.....

I can't hold a fu***ng candle to you :lol: :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Also spandex, there is a difference between how most people argue (debate) on here and how you do it, most people get into random debates normally within a thread they are already contributing to. You however seem to trawl the forum looking for people to correct, when they argue back you simply hang on like a starving dog with a bone till they give up, get bored or conceded defeat.

I'm also not convinced you are very knowledgeable at all, only good with Google and applying logic....

Toodles


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > You asked what I meant about the definition of the phrase and then argued that the phrase "drink driving" was better than "drunk driving" and when I point out that the dictionary does not agree you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing and then go on the attack about morality and try and imply I personally want to drive up to the limit when that's not what I've said nor what I do as I would always be well under both limits when driving. And there was me thinking you would debate nicely :wink:
> ...


But the dictionary definition of "drink" is to do with the action of consuming any liquid and makes no reference to intoxication. You'd argue black was white. Beware of zebra crossings :wink:



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting though - if you can't morally justify "one drink" due to the "increased risk " (despite the effect on your driving likely being undetectable) then I presume you never drive unnecessarily for pleasure as that risk is real and unnecessary whereas it would be zero if you stayed at home.
> ...


I'm sure you do drive in relation to your own pleasure, whether that is going to the cinema, visiting a friend or relative or popping to the shops for a forgotten ingredient. So you weigh up your pleasures and needs and put others at risk by the use of your motor car. Infinitely more risk from you than if you stayed at home. Don't feel guilty or bad about admitting it though, we all do it. It's all part of life. You just need a sense of proportion.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > A friend took me out for a drink once and I had a very nice beer so I offered him a taste. He refused even a sip because he said he was driving and there was a principal concerned :roll:
> ...


Let's assess your "one drink" "unacceptable" risk. I'm guessing you are a 175 lb male drinking one 4.5% pint of beer whilst visiting a friend for a couple of hours. You'll peak at 0.03% and when you wave goodbye in a couple of hours you'll be at zero - no added risk.

That's a scientific perspective with no added moral zeal.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

brian1978 said:


> Also spandex, there is a difference between how most people argue (debate) on here and how you do it, most people get into random debates normally within a thread they are already contributing to. You however seem to trawl the forum looking for people to correct, when they argue back you simply hang on like a starving dog with a bone till they give up, get bored or conceded defeat.
> 
> I'm also not convinced you are very knowledgeable at all, only good with Google and applying logic....
> 
> Toodles


Don't be too hard on Spandex Brian. He is always up for a good debate and is always entertaining. Without him half the threads on here would be nowhere near as good :wink:

I thought your picture was hilarious by the way :lol: Where did you get it?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Where did you get it?


Brian didn't realise he had a sense of humour till they invented meme generators... :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> But the dictionary definition of "drink" is to do with the action of consuming any liquid and makes no reference to intoxication. You'd argue black was white. Beware of zebra crossings :wink:


Sigh... The dictionary definition of 'drink' refers to alcohol consumption, which seems to fit well enough to me. Regardless, everyone in the country, including yourself, knows what the phrase 'drink driving' means. There is no confusion, so what exactly are you arguing about? You want to convince everyone there's a dangerous ambiguity even though that ambiguity hasn't led to any misunderstanding whatsoever?? And I'm the argumentative one? :?



John-H said:


> I'm sure you do drive in relation to your own pleasure, whether that is going to the cinema, visiting a friend or relative or popping to the shops for a forgotten ingredient. So you weigh up your pleasures and needs and put others at risk by the use of your motor car. Infinitely more risk from you than if you stayed at home. Don't feel guilty or bad about admitting it though, we all do it. It's all part of life. You just need a sense of proportion.


As I said, I don't drive unnecessarily. I try to walk locally as its good for my dodgy back. As I also aid though, just because I don't feel I can justify the increased risk of having a drink and driving, doesn't mean I never do anything that increases risk. It just means, as I've said a number of times, the equation doesn't add up for me.



John-H said:


> Let's assess your "one drink" "unacceptable" risk. I'm guessing you are a 175 lb male drinking one 4.5% pint of beer whilst visiting a friend for a couple of hours. You'll peak at 0.03% and when you wave goodbye in a couple of hours you'll be at zero - no added risk.
> 
> That's a scientific perspective with no added moral zeal.


Yes, two hours later I'll potentially be fine. Ten hours later I'd be fine after two beers, I imagine. I could probably have eight pints and be fine to drive three months later too. But, we're not talking about drinking, then waiting till your blood alcohol level is 0% before driving, are we? We're talking about driving up to, but not over the limit.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > But the dictionary definition of "drink" is to do with the action of consuming any liquid and makes no reference to intoxication. You'd argue black was white. Beware of zebra crossings :wink:
> ...


Even bigger sigh ...



> *drink*
> /drɪŋk/
> verb
> 1.
> ...


... and you think that's better? Would you like me to create a poll and see which version other people think is better?
I'm not saying anything is now "dangerously misleading". Any effect of confusion has already happened - I'm simply suggesting "drunk driving" is a better form of words for describing being over the limit when driving than "drink driving". "Drunk" is even an _adjective_ rather than the _verb_ "drink" which fits better with naming an attribute of the _noun_ "driving" too. Unlike you to defend the ungrammatical.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you do drive in relation to your own pleasure, whether that is going to the cinema, visiting a friend or relative or popping to the shops for a forgotten ingredient. So you weigh up your pleasures and needs and put others at risk by the use of your motor car. Infinitely more risk from you than if you stayed at home. Don't feel guilty or bad about admitting it though, we all do it. It's all part of life. You just need a sense of proportion.
> ...


So you admit you do some things that increase risk (I take that includes to other people and related to your pleasure and needs). Hooray we got there in the end. That's part of the sea of noise of risk I'm on about that we all contribute to.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Let's assess your "one drink" "unacceptable" risk. I'm guessing you are a 175 lb male drinking one 4.5% pint of beer whilst visiting a friend for a couple of hours. You'll peak at 0.03% and when you wave goodbye in a couple of hours you'll be at zero - no added risk.
> ...


No. I tailored the example to fit your "one drink" scenario. Two pints by the way would have your BAC at zero in 3.5 hours not 10. So that could be an evening out with a meal etc. Eight pints would be a bit of a heavy session! That would take you way over the limit but back to zero in just over 13 hours after you slept it off.

No we are not talking about "driving up to the limit", or at least I'm not as you keep trying to imply - I'm illustrating to you how you could have a drink or two and then be back at zero by the time you get back into your car. Adding zero to your risk equation will make no difference now will it? Even if you left a bit earlier you'd still be way under both the 0.08% and 0.05% limits and adding that small risk (being 0.01% or 0.02% BAC) will be lost in the sea of noise of other risks and the effect on your driving will not be measurable. As it says on the BAC chart *0.00 - 0.03% Normal behaviour, no impairment*.


----------



## samgilding (Feb 5, 2014)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

From Merriam Webster:



> transitive verb
> : swallow, imbibe <drink liquid>
> intransitive verb
> 1
> ...


Collins has a similar entry.

But seriously, are we actually having this argument??


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

And to address your meandering point about how alcohol leaves your system over time (a shock to us all, I'm sure) why didn't you list what the BAC chart says about levels between 0.03 and the UK legal limit? These levels must be in the range we're discussing?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> From Merriam Webster:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol: a poll can be arranged if you like 



Spandex said:


> And to address your meandering point about how alcohol leaves your system over time (a shock to us all, I'm sure) why didn't you list what the BAC chart says about levels between 0.03 and the UK legal limit? These levels must be in the range we're discussing?


No, because I wasn't suggesting you bolt down two pints and drive off Le Mans style - be serious :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > From Merriam Webster:
> ...


Not required. Just give your sources.


John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > And to address your meandering point about how alcohol leaves your system over time (a shock to us all, I'm sure) why didn't you list what the BAC chart says about levels between 0.03 and the UK legal limit? These levels must be in the range we're discussing?
> ...


No, but you weren't suggesting bolting two pints down then waiting 4 hours either. We're both talking about somewhere in between, so why don't you list the BAC chart descriptions up to the legal limit rather than just listing the lowest values in the hope it will make your point and no one will notice your deliberate omission.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

is Spandex still going  , Christ. he is like the fekkin Duracell bunny of arguments :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> is Spandex still going  , Christ. he is like the fekkin Duracell bunny of arguments :lol: :lol: :lol:


Are you also surprised John is still going? Are you equally surprised that you're still chipping in snide comments despite not having anything constructive to add to the discussion?

Ok, fair enough, that last one isn't surprising... :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > is Spandex still going  , Christ. he is like the fekkin Duracell bunny of arguments :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


no im not surprised about John, he is just holding his own. but I have more respect for you as you are currently arguing to the grim death on multiple threads with several different people


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > brian1978 said:
> ...


I'm not arguing with anyone on any other threads at the moment... I didn't really understand Sams question, but I have a feeling he's going to be disappointed. I suspect he thinks I just blindly defend the Police, so has cunningly asked my opinion on a situation where their behaviour has been indefensible. He can't disect me with those blunt tools... :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you also surprised John is still going? Are you equally surprised that you're still chipping in snide comments despite not having anything constructive to add to the discussion?
> ...


ive seen you on 3 or 4 threads at once in the past....

wait. you don't own a TT.... one has to wonder if you do it on multiple car forums too.... I can just see you arguing the colour of sh**e on the Lada Riva enthusiasts club.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: a poll can be arranged if you like
> ...


I don't need to. Firstly preferring a word with ambiguity where the first use contradicts you is putting you in a weak position and secondly it's a verb so doesn't fit the use you are advocating whereas an adjective would. Frightened of polls hey? :wink:



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > No, because I wasn't suggesting you bolt down two pints and drive off Le Mans style - be serious :lol:
> ...


You are still at it :roll: . I tailored the examples for you as you wanted zero BAC as an end result it seemed and it was 3.5 hours I was suggesting not four or 10 like you first said. If you want to play out different scenarios then calculate them but don't exaggerate or make out I'm saying things I'm not. It's up to everyone to be responsible with the available data and use it appropriately and assess their own risk. Just as it is for any other decisions to do with driving.



brian1978 said:


> ...
> ive seen you on 3 or 4 threads at once in the past....
> 
> wait. you don't own a TT.... one has to wonder if you do it on multiple car forums too.... I can just see you arguing the colour of sh**e on the Lada Riva enthusiasts club.


Actually Brian you may have a point. I can imagive Spandex with hands held behind his back slowly walking in between rows of computer monitors, occasionally stooping to rattle off some reposte accompanied by a maniacal chuckle. Do you think he has a pointy beard? :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I hacked into one of his monitor's web cams and captured this


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> I hacked into one of his monitor's web cams and captured this


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I don't need to. Firstly preferring a word with ambiguity where the first use contradicts you is putting you in a weak position and secondly it's a verb so doesn't fit the use you are advocating whereas an adjective would. Frightened of polls hey? :wink:


Frightened of polls? Stop being a tit. You started the mind numbing dictionary definitions in the first place, and now when they don't agree with you, you want a fecking poll of all things instead. Idiotic.



John-H said:


> You are still at it :roll: . I tailored the examples for you as you wanted zero BAC as an end result it seemed and it was 3.5 hours I was suggesting not four or 10 like you first said. If you want to play out different scenarios then calculate them but don't exaggerate or make out I'm saying things I'm not. It's up to everyone to be responsible with the available data and use it appropriately and assess their own risk. Just as it is for any other decisions to do with driving.


Why on earth would I want examples of 0% BAC?? It might surprise you to learn, but I'm actually capable of looking up the same formulas you're using to work out BAC over time, so I wasn't actually looking for you to shout percentages at me while I invented scenarios. What I wanted was for you to explain how it's acceptable to drive when you're below the limit, but still have a reasonable amount of alcohol in your system.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need to. Firstly preferring a word with ambiguity where the first use contradicts you is putting you in a weak position and secondly it's a verb so doesn't fit the use you are advocating whereas an adjective would. Frightened of polls hey? :wink:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I'm in tears and my stomach muscles hurt :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

and what's worse I haven't touched a drop! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> I'm in tears and my stomach muscles hurt :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Stop it Brian! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Christ, it's turned into a bit of a love-in here.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Christ, it's turned into a bit of a love-in here.


who the F*** are you?

don't you have a bone to chew


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

As soon as the shops open today I'm going to buy a pair of special 'argument trousers' so I can join in this one safely


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Shug750S said:


> As soon as the shops open today I'm going to buy a pair of special 'argument trousers' so I can join in this one safely


:lol: :lol: :lol: Don't you start me off laughing again - I'm still in pain from last night :lol:


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

John-H said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as the shops open today I'm going to buy a pair of special 'argument trousers' so I can join in this one safely
> ...


didn't Pugwash buy them for fighting with his brambles.... or was that action trousers


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

Some special spandex ones !


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

:lol:


----------



## Azreal (Mar 7, 2013)

Just my 2 pence worth but isn't it possible to be over the "drink" drive limit but not drunk? In which case calling the offence "drunk driving" isn't acccurate either.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well neither is entirely correct or is ambiguous but which is more appropriate to describe the offence? The attribute of "driving" being described? Which is a grammatically correct phrase? The media I've heard use both. Perhaps there's a better one "intoxicated driving" perhaps?

It's interesting. Thesaurus.com defines "Drunk driving" as _"Driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol."
_
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/drunk%20driving

They have no entry for "Drink driving".

Wikipedia recognise "Drunk driving" and it's interesting to see the cited WHO studies on the assessment of risk with it being unclear if low levels of alcohol up to 0.05% BAC increases or decreases risk. One study shows a reduction of risk up to 0.04% BAC possibly because drivers are more cautious.










http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_ ... _influence


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> It's interesting. Thesaurus.com defines "Drunk driving" as _"Driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol."
> _
> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/drunk%20driving
> 
> They have no entry for "Drink driving".


That's an American site. In America, drunk driving is still the term used.



John-H said:


> Wikipedia recognise "Drunk driving"


And they recognise "drink driving". Both redirect to the same page. Makes sense seeing as both terms are used internationally.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Correct. As I originally said, the UK has departed to some extent from the term "Drunk driving". It also depends which dictionary you use. The British Collins for example defines:



> *drink-driving
> *
> Definitions
> noun
> ...





> *drunk driving* (drʌŋk ˈdraɪvɪŋ)
> 
> Definitions
> noun
> ...


Grammatically "Drink driving" is not correct as this on line grammar checker shows:

http://www.reverso.net/spell-checker/en ... g-grammar/

If you type in "He was drink driving" you get "drink" corrected to "drunk".


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Right, so we agree that the UK refer to it as drink driving and the US refer to it as drunk driving. We also agree that neither are without ambiguity.

However, given the penalties and dangers involved I think ambiguity which makes people over cautious is better than ambiguity which gives people a false sense of security.


----------



## Tonny_B (May 4, 2012)

Here in Norway , we have a limit on 0,02%. If you are over the limit , then you loose youre driver license for 2 years (minimum) , and prison time for 14 days minimum , depends on the alcohol result. Plus a big bill waiting for you in the postbox . I think it is far too mild punishment, considering that alcohol may be a cause of many accidents. I myself dont drink at all.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Tonny_B said:


> Here in Norway , we have a limit on 0,02%. If you are over the limit , then you loose youre driver license for 2 years (minimum) , and prison time for 14 days minimum , depends on the alcohol result. Plus a big bill waiting for you in the postbox . I think it is far too mild punishment, considering that alcohol may be a cause of many accidents. I myself dont drink at all.


but research shows you are not impaired below 0.04% and may actually become safer... what research in Norway has shown that this tiny amount "may be the cause of many accidents?"

its a horrendous punishment for no real reason.... :?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> Right, so we agree that the UK refer to it as drink driving and the US refer to it as drunk driving. We also agree that neither are without ambiguity.


I generally agree. You do hear both phrases here in the UK on the media though and whereas I generally agree with UK versions of words and spellings because they often came first and I live here, grammatically and meaningfully I think the now US version, which is what used to be the UK version, is better but both are understood.



Spandex said:


> However, given the penalties and dangers involved I think ambiguity which makes people over cautious is better than ambiguity which gives people a false sense of security.


That's a personal choice and I agree that if you are unsure of the situation it is best to err on the side of caution.

If the situation is known however i.e. you know the amount you've drunk, it's not going to take you anywhere near over the limit because it couldn't possibly given your weight, sex, etc. and/or you leave it long enough to ensure it's low/even lower when you drive, then that would also be acting responsibly - just from a position of knowledge rather than the lack of it.

Given that the available evidence says that for up to 0.04% BAC the risk increase is either too small to make a measurable difference or possibly even beneficial, then it's not worth worrying about.

Indeed, consider a journey from A to B, that involves a certain risk R. If you repeat the journey the risk will be 2R in total clearly. We are all free to repeat a journey and nobody makes any moral judgements of us doing so even if the journey is unnecessary and perhaps just for pleasure. Yet from the available data and looking further into the risk graph, where the numbers are arguably more obvious, to increase your risk of having an accident by a factor of x2 you'd need a BAC of 0.07% or 0.08%.

So, one journey at just under the UK limit is equivalent to two equivalent journeys with no alcohol. Now, let me make it absolutely clear that I am not suggesting anyone does that but am merely trying to give perspective on risk. The main point being, as I've said before and is clearly backed up by the available evidence, the effect of small levels of alcohol are lost in a sea of noise of other risk factors due to the decisions we make.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The situation is known in an abstract way, but few people have the knowledge or even the inclination to make any genuine calculations regarding their blood alcohol level as it changes over time, not to mention the fact that the formulas online are guidlines only, as an accurate calculation involves variables that you simply cannot know. The only truly accurate reading is from a breathaliser.

I don't think the 'signal to noise' analogy is particularly useful when considering risk. Risk is down to probability, so it's always cumulative. A huge number of small risks can give the same overall risk as one significant one, so there is no such thing as a risk 'noise floor' below which you don't need to worry.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Knowing how much you've had to drink is hardly abstract and your maximum possible peak BAC is known within a reasonable percent from your body weight.

Metabolisation can vary but not infinitely and you could measure it as you say or just pay safe on that part as you responsibly choose.

I also wasn't making a signal to noise argument - the point was that the data for risk below 0.04% BAC is not significantly different than x1. It's a factor it's not additive. It doesn't matter if it's obscured or not.

I was simply saying there are more significant things to worry about.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Knowing how much you've had to drink is hardly abstract and your maximum possible peak BAC is known within a reasonable few percent from your body weight.
> 
> Metabolisation can vary but not infinitely and you could measure it as you say or just pay safe on that part as you responsibly choose.
> 
> ...


knowing how much you've drunk isn't abstract (as long as you know the AbV of what you're drinking), but what I meant was the situation regarding the level of alcohol in your blood at a given time, which is the pertinent fact.

Metabolism can vary infinitely, which is one of the issues. Of course it can't vary _to infinity_, which is what I think you were trying to say. But, there are other factors(such as the water content in your body, the speed with which you consumed the alcohol, the amount you've eaten that day, etc) which all impact the effect of the alcohol and this makes it a complex calculation. Without a breathalyser of some sort, all you can do is make a best guess whilst erring heavily on the side of caution.

You've mentioned noise/noise floors a number of times, so I was simply pointing out that the effects are very different, so it's a misleading analogy. Risk is additive - in the same way that buying two lottery tickets gives twice the probability of winning, having two risk factors will create a cumulative risk level equal to the two risk levels added together, unless for some reason the two are inversely connected.

I wonder if an inverse connection exists between BAC and risk of serious injury? Maybe for certain levels of drunkness the chances of having an accident increase whilst the chances of being injured in an accident decrease as you're so relaxed you just 'rag doll' around inside the car and climb out the wreckage with a bit of a sore head, complaining that you spilled your drink.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing how much you've had to drink is hardly abstract and your maximum possible peak BAC is known within a reasonable few percent from your body weight.
> ...


Yes, quite, I wasn't really suggesting the equation should be used on the knife edge of legality as it's too prone to fail but it is useful to understand. More realistically, someone knowing the basics can indeed simply use a big safety margin - e.g. a 175 lb. male having a pint of 4.5% beer at lunchtime is no risk even immediately as he could only reach 0.03% BAC (±8%) on the water content part. The food would only slow absorption down like drinking slowly which lowers and spreads out the peak. Interestingly, as the liver metabolises alcohol at a constant rate, the tail end of the graph is the same for drinking fast or slow providing BAC does not drop to zero part way.



Spandex said:


> You've mentioned noise/noise floors a number of times, so I was simply pointing out that the effects are very different, so it's a misleading analogy. Risk is additive - in the same way that buying two lottery tickets gives twice the probability of winning, having two risk factors will create a cumulative risk level equal to the two risk levels added together, unless for some reason the two are inversely connected.


Well, I was mainly pointing out that up to 0.04% BAC is around x1 risk factor as is 0% BAC i.e. no change of risk. Things like doing two journeys etc. of course would add to the total risk.



Spandex said:


> I wonder if an inverse connection exists between BAC and risk of serious injury? Maybe for certain levels of drunkness the chances of having an accident increase whilst the chances of being injured in an accident decrease as you're so relaxed you just 'rag doll' around inside the car and climb out the wreckage with a bit of a sore head, complaining that you spilled your drink.


You may be right there although I don't think I'd like to test out that idea :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Yes, quite, I wasn't really suggesting the equation should be used on the knife edge of legality as it's too prone to fail but it is useful to understand. More realistically, someone knowing the basics can indeed simply use a big safety margin - e.g. a 175 lb. male having a pint of 4.5% beer at lunchtime is no risk even immediately as he could only reach 0.03% BAC (±8%) on the water content part. The food would only slow absorption down like drinking slowly which lowers and spreads out the peak. Interestingly, as the liver metabolises alcohol at a constant rate, the tail end of the graph is the same for drinking fast or slow providing BAC does not drop to zero part way.


The food would slow absorption, but is your calculation based on an empty stomach or a full one(does the formula you're using actually specify)? As for speed, the BAC levels over time would differ if you necked your drink at the start of your hours lunch to if you sipped it for an hour, then necked it at the end. This is what the calculators get wrong -you tell them you're drinking a pint over an hour then driving home and they assume you drink at a uniform speed over the hour.



John-H said:


> Well, I was mainly pointing out that up to 0.04% BAC is around x1 risk factor as is 0% BAC i.e. no change of risk. Things like doing two journeys etc. of course would add to the total risk.


But the real point is that every tiny risk increase (and I know you're claiming there is no increase, but there are conflicting studies about risk at lower BAC levels and obviously you're only believing the ones that suit your position) adds to the overall risk, so anything, even a tiny risk might be enough to cross the threshold of what you feel is acceptable. Which is why it makes sense that some people may want to avoid that tiny risk by not drinking at all before driving, even though the risk is very small.



John-H said:


> You may be right there although I don't think I'd like to test out that idea :lol:


Science is nothing without experimentation.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> I wonder if an inverse connection exists between BAC and risk of serious injury? Maybe for certain levels of drunkness the chances of having an accident increase whilst the chances of being injured in an accident decrease as you're so relaxed you just 'rag doll' around inside the car and climb out the wreckage with a bit of a sore head, complaining that you spilled your drink.


I can maybe shed an unscientific light on this. i have fallen down the same set of stairs 3 times (dont ask) twice paralytic and once sober....

when sober I hurt myself quite badly. when drunk.... just a bruise or two


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, quite, I wasn't really suggesting the equation should be used on the knife edge of legality as it's too prone to fail but it is useful to understand. More realistically, someone knowing the basics can indeed simply use a big safety margin - e.g. a 175 lb. male having a pint of 4.5% beer at lunchtime is no risk even immediately as he could only reach 0.03% BAC (±8%) on the water content part. The food would only slow absorption down like drinking slowly which lowers and spreads out the peak. Interestingly, as the liver metabolises alcohol at a constant rate, the tail end of the graph is the same for drinking fast or slow providing BAC does not drop to zero part way.
> ...


No, as far as I'm aware the liver works at a fairly constant rate relentlessly until the alcohol has gone - it's not exponential and proportional to loading in the normal range we are talking about, so that's why the calculator shows a straight line and shows a worse case peak as if you absorbed the alcohol straight way. It makes no difference to the tail end of the graph whether you drink at the start or throughout the period as long, as I said, the BAC doesn't go to zero. Imagine a tube you poured a pint into, so the pint came 10" up the tube, then you immediately started to drain it at 1" per minute. When it was down to 1" (after nine minutes) you poured another pint in and it came up to 11" then takes 11 more minutes to drain. Total time 20 minutes to reach zero. You could have poured the two pints in at the start (20") or dribbled 1" worth in per minute for the whole 20 minutes - same thing - 20 minutes to depletion. That's how it's modelled - deliberately giving you a worse case peak at the start. The only way it would take longer at the tail end is to let the tube empty (zero BAC) half way through and then fill again - but then you are really creating two separate sessions.

As regards risk I'm using a graph from a World Health Organisation published report cited in the references for the studies by Moskowitz and Borkenstein, the latter of which shows a reduction in risk for sub 0.04% BAC at odds with the very small increase with the former, making the overall change unclear in direction but otherwise very small. If you have contradictory evidence please present it but that seems to be the summary. I still maintain that there are other more significant risks to worry about but whether one worries about the one from a very small issue instead is a personal choice.

Oh and well done Brian!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

yes, but creating 'two separate sessions' is probably not that far-fetched where people are having a long meal, with a drink here and there. The problem is if they attempt to calculate their BAC there is no way to take into account the speed and timing of their drinking - you just stick the overall time and alcohol consumption in and get a best guess based on an incorrect assumption of uniform drinking speed.

The two main studies are the ones listed in your first post, and one shows a tiny increase, which I believe we're my exact words. There are indeed greater risks to worry about, but that's not a particularly good reason to ignore the smaller risks. It's also not not sensible to only deal with risks in order of severity. To me it's about low hanging fruits. Having a drink or two before driving is a small risk increase (and by 'before driving' I mean directly before, not waiting till your BAC is zero again) but it's so easily avoided that it seems silly to me to do it. The benefits don't outweigh the risk, tiny as it is.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

brian1978 said:


> I can maybe shed an unscientific light on this. i have fallen down the same set of stairs 3 times (dont ask) twice paralytic and once sober....
> 
> when sober I hurt myself quite badly. when drunk.... just a bruise or two


Useful data, but three times isn't enough. We're going to have to ask you to fall down those stairs another, let's say, 20 times. 10 drunk and 10 sober.

Some drunk people turn falling into an art form. I remember in uni a friend and I were on our way back into our halls after stopping for food on the way home. Both of us were paralytic. There were about 4 steps down after going through the main gate and my friend stumbled at the top and as he fell past me he actually handed me his burger. That was a man who had his priorities straight...


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> yes, but creating 'two separate sessions' is probably not that far-fetched where people are having a long meal, with a drink here and there. The problem is if they attempt to calculate their BAC there is no way to take into account the speed and timing of their drinking - you just stick the overall time and alcohol consumption in and get a best guess based on an incorrect assumption of uniform drinking speed.


Well if you had a long meal and managed to reach zero BAC in the middle somewhere and create two separate sessions then your second session is the only one that matters so that's the 0.03% BAC peak again for the 175 lb man at lunchtime scenario.



Spandex said:


> The two main studies are the ones listed in your first post, and one shows a tiny increase, which I believe we're my exact words. There are indeed greater risks to worry about, but that's not a particularly good reason to ignore the smaller risks. It's also not not sensible to only deal with risks in order of severity. To me it's about low hanging fruits. Having a drink or two before driving is a small risk increase (and by 'before driving' I mean directly before, not waiting till your BAC is zero again) but it's so easily avoided that it seems silly to me to do it. The benefits don't outweigh the risk, tiny as it is.


To take a tiny possible risk increase or avoid it is a personal choice and I suppose depends how much you enjoy a drink. Taking the car journey in the first place is the bigger risk though. Perhaps it's best to walk if it's not too far :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Well if you had a long meal and managed to reach zero BAC in the middle somewhere and create two separate sessions then your second session is the only one that matters so that's the 0.03% BAC peak again for the 175 lb man at lunchtime scenario.


I understand that, but the BAC calculator doesn't, so it relys on the person entering the data to work out what to do. I get the feeling you're trying to explain to me how to do the calculation in each scenario, but that's not the point - what I'm trying to say is that for complex situations, people *won't* calculate correctly even if it's technically possible to do so. The average person has no clue how to calculate any of this, and if they looked up an online calculator, because they don't understand the assumptions made, they're likely to get inaccurate results.



John-H said:


> To take a tiny possible risk increase or avoid it is a personal choice and I suppose depends how much you enjoy a drink. Taking the car journey in the first place is the bigger risk though. Perhaps it's best to walk if it's not too far :wink:


I do walk if it's not too far, but once again you're approaching this from the point of view that if you don't address the larger risks, it's stupid to address the smaller ones. This doesn't make sense, and doesn't take into account the 'reward' side of the equation, or the ease of mitigation.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

You really are trying hard to over complicate this. It's really quite simple. You only need to play with the calculator once to gain a sense of proportion. That's the point. After you see how much % BAC a drink or two gives you, how long it takes to go away and how big a safety margin you've got by limiting yourself to a certain amount you're done. You then know if you only drink X you'll be nowhere near the limit and after that it's common sense. There's no need to get the calculator out and compute things to the nth degree each time.

If you really want to confirm it buy yourself a breathalyser as they are only cheap but you don't need to use it in practice If you are sensible and give yourself big safety margins by limiting yourself wisely.

At the same time you also know your risk factor is still only x1.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> You really are trying hard to over complicate this. It's really quite simple. You only need to play with the calculator once to gain a sense of proportion. That's the point. After you see how much % BAC a drink or two gives you, how long it takes to go away and how big a safety margin you've got by limiting yourself to a certain amount you're done. You then know if you only drink X you'll be nowhere near the limit and after that it's common sense. There's no need to get the calculator out and compute things to the nth degree each time.
> 
> If you really want to confirm it buy yourself a breathalyser as they are only cheap but you don't need to use it in practice If you are sensible and give yourself big safety margins by limiting yourself wisely.
> 
> At the same time you also know your risk factor is still only x1.


I'm actually trying to simplify it, by saying that you can avoid the calculator nonsense completely. My 'method' couldn't be any simpler.

I'm not even talking about avoiding being over the limit, which I think would be difficult to do 'accidentally' (and by accidentally, I mean a sensible person having one or two drinks in an evening, or over lunch). I've been in the situation where I've had a beer after work, thinking that we'd be in the pub a few hours, and I'd move onto soft drinks after the first one. Then, plans changed and straight after my beer I'm driving somewhere else. Now, I know I could not possibly have been anywhere near the limit, so I wasn't taking a legal risk, but over that short drive it was very very clear to me that even one beer was enough to affect my reaction times and judgement. I didn't feel safe, and that's not a situation I'm going to put myself in for the sake of one paltry drink. Unfortunately it is a situation other people put themselves in every day because they focus on the legal aspect rather than the risk.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

But we know that the risk from one drink is unmeasurable. I think we are going round in circles here.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> But we know that the risk from one drink is unmeasurable. I think we are going round in circles here.


I think maybe you need to think about what that risk calculation means in real life. It certainly doesn't mean that every person has the same level of risk increase (or decrease) after one drink. It's an average.

I've personally experienced being on both sides of that average, and as I have no way of predicting in advance where I'll fall on the spectrum, I do the sensible thing and remove that particular element of chance.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well I suppose a little person would have a different perspective and BAC calculation but generally a person will know if they change size unexpectedly. It may be a problem for some :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Well I suppose a little person would have a different perspective but generally a person will know if they change size unexpectedly. It may be a problem for some


Change size? Do you actually think that your reaction to alcohol is identical every time you drink? You do realise your brains response to alcohol is the important factor, not your livers. No wonder you've convinced yourself the risk is worth it if you think it's that predictable.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Well I suppose a little person would have a different perspective but generally a person will know if they change size unexpectedly. It may be a problem for some
> ...


Well sometimes when I get out of the bath quick I can feel a bit dizzy but I can't say I've ever experienced a significantly unexpected reaction from a known small quantity of alcohol. The taste can vary quite a bit sometimes but that can be good 

So, we've shown that being sensible with one or two drinks is not going to take a 175 lb. male in our example anywhere near the limit and that there is no significant risk effect under 0.04% BAC. Despite that you are now claiming that alcohol has some as yet unmentioned random effect which is now going to completely trump everything we've established so far? I think in all fairness if you are going to make that claim you need to produce some quantifiable scientific evidence with some numbers so we can consider it objectively and assess if it is significant.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> So, we've shown that being sensible with one or two drinks is not going to take a 175 lb. male in our example anywhere near the limit and that there is no significant risk effect under 0.04% BAC. Despite that you are now claiming that alcohol has some as yet unmentioned random effect which is now going to completely trump everything we've established so far? I think in all fairness if you are going to make that claim you need to produce some quantifiable scientific evidence with some numbers so we can consider it objectively and assess if it is significant.


Ok, firstly the 'no significant risk under 0.04%' is just the combined grouping. I'm guessing you've not tried to look at the actual reports you've quoted, but there is, as you'd expect, a variation across age groups. For example, did you know that the under 21 age group has the same probability of having a crash at 0% BAC as the 45-55 group at 0.08% BAC? So, an 'insignificant' increase for them may not be quite so insignificant compared to the average risk.

I thought it was common knowledge that alcohol had a fairly unpredictable effect on individuals. Anyone who's drunk alcohol regularly will have experienced a different severity of effect without any means of understanding why, and therefore with no way to predict it. It's the same with any drug. I don't have links to any papers to explain this (yet), although it's well documented that even something as abstract as your mood can change how you absorb alcohol, so the idea that varying levels of chemicals in your brain can have an effect doesn't seem so far fetched.


----------



## TomBorehamUK (Feb 2, 2014)

I bet you two are fun at parties [smiley=freak.gif] :lol:


----------



## ReTTro fit (Nov 9, 2014)

TomBorehamUK said:


> I bet you two are fun at parties [smiley=freak.gif] :lol:


Especially if there driving ! [FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY][FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

TomBorehamUK said:


> I bet you two are fun at parties [smiley=freak.gif] :lol:


I can't speak for John, but I'm exceptionally tedious.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

You know, it's at times like this I really wish I'd listened to what my mother used to say.


----------



## OeTT (Nov 10, 2007)

after reading through this I have had to have a drink ! [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

I've hit the _'Unsubscribe Topic'_ button :?


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

A3DFU said:


> I've hit the _'Unsubscribe Topic'_ button :?


Have your really though?


----------

