Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Driving Drunk?
How much alcohol is too much, for the average man, for him to be safe to drive?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Marijn. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
any alcohol - there should be a zero tolerance policy, imho. i know that is not your question and i am sensitive to anything to do with drink driving. my cousin was killed by his best friend drunk driving.....his car ploughed into my cousin's bike over the brow of a hill and his pillion passenger was killed as well. and people react to alcohol in different ways, so no amount should be compared, really x
I don't think you can set a safe level by number of drinks or units.
In my twenties I drank enough for a lifetime. I wouldn't notice the effects of the first few.
Now in my fifties I hardly touch a drop - sometimes nothing for three or four months.
I can have a drink which is legally well below the limit, but I can feel the effect and know I would not be safe driving.
In my twenties I drank enough for a lifetime. I wouldn't notice the effects of the first few.
Now in my fifties I hardly touch a drop - sometimes nothing for three or four months.
I can have a drink which is legally well below the limit, but I can feel the effect and know I would not be safe driving.
hi, notafish. you would have to work out body mass, alcohol units and rate of elimination. i really can't be bothered to do that at this time of night. but remember - body mass and excreting alcohol will be different for each person....although plenty of men i know use the 1 pint rule. i think that would put you over the limit about an hour after, though x
-- answer removed --
When I was working on the railways we had to study lots of facts and figures about drinking and driving (and drinking and working).
As a VERY rough guide:
1 unit of alcohol won't put a driver 'over the limit' but it will produce a measurable (but small) impairment in his reaction times.
2 units results in a far more significant impairment but still doesn't put him 'over the limit'.
3 units puts most drivers very close to the limit, with some drivers actually being over the limit.
4 units puts nearly all drivers over the limit.
When counting units, it's often said that a half pint of beer contains 1 unit but that fails to take into account the strength of the beer. I'm drinking 500ml bottles of a 6% beer at the moment, so a single bottle contains 3 units and probably puts me over the limit.
When calculating whether it's safe (and legal) to drive on the morning after drinking, a ROUGH guide is to count up the units consumed, add 1 and then use the resulting figure to count how many hours must pass (from drinking the last drop) before driving.
Incidentally, the legal limit for running a railway station is less than half of that for driving
As a VERY rough guide:
1 unit of alcohol won't put a driver 'over the limit' but it will produce a measurable (but small) impairment in his reaction times.
2 units results in a far more significant impairment but still doesn't put him 'over the limit'.
3 units puts most drivers very close to the limit, with some drivers actually being over the limit.
4 units puts nearly all drivers over the limit.
When counting units, it's often said that a half pint of beer contains 1 unit but that fails to take into account the strength of the beer. I'm drinking 500ml bottles of a 6% beer at the moment, so a single bottle contains 3 units and probably puts me over the limit.
When calculating whether it's safe (and legal) to drive on the morning after drinking, a ROUGH guide is to count up the units consumed, add 1 and then use the resulting figure to count how many hours must pass (from drinking the last drop) before driving.
Incidentally, the legal limit for running a railway station is less than half of that for driving
You asked "I wondered as far as the law goes, what is the correct answer?"
The law does not provide a "correct answer" in terms of units, pints or glasses of wine. It says that you must not consume so much alcohol so that the proportion in your breath (or blood or urine) does not exceed the prscribed limits. (These are 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath; 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; 107 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine).
It is impossible to say how much alcohol must be consumed by any individual to reach this limit. The amount needed for any individual to reach the limit will vary according to many factors, such as food consumed, time of day etc.
For this reason the advice given in earlier answers (to consume no alcohol before driving) is the most appropriate. You may consume two pints one day and remain under the limit; you may consume one pint the next and be over the top.
The law does not provide a "correct answer" in terms of units, pints or glasses of wine. It says that you must not consume so much alcohol so that the proportion in your breath (or blood or urine) does not exceed the prscribed limits. (These are 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath; 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood; 107 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine).
It is impossible to say how much alcohol must be consumed by any individual to reach this limit. The amount needed for any individual to reach the limit will vary according to many factors, such as food consumed, time of day etc.
For this reason the advice given in earlier answers (to consume no alcohol before driving) is the most appropriate. You may consume two pints one day and remain under the limit; you may consume one pint the next and be over the top.
While I fully agree with he contents of New Judge's post, it does serve to illustrate a problem with those who are tasked with trying to get road safety messages across to the public. They tend to shy away from 'giving guideline figures' on the grounds that:
(a) the variations mentioned by New Judge can occur; and
(b) it might encourage people to 'drink to the limit', with a risk of them then actually going over it.
However some form of guidance IS needed. I've served a group of guys in a pub who genuinely believed that they weren't over the limit. They'd each had 4 pints of premium strength lager (Stella Artois) but they were genuinely under the impression that it would take at least 6 pints to take them close to the limit (despite the fact that they were all undoubtedly at least twice over the limit, and possibly three times it, already). Unless the sort of information in my previous post is more widely disseminated, people will continue to drive illegally (and, more important, unsafely) while believing that they're not.
(a) the variations mentioned by New Judge can occur; and
(b) it might encourage people to 'drink to the limit', with a risk of them then actually going over it.
However some form of guidance IS needed. I've served a group of guys in a pub who genuinely believed that they weren't over the limit. They'd each had 4 pints of premium strength lager (Stella Artois) but they were genuinely under the impression that it would take at least 6 pints to take them close to the limit (despite the fact that they were all undoubtedly at least twice over the limit, and possibly three times it, already). Unless the sort of information in my previous post is more widely disseminated, people will continue to drive illegally (and, more important, unsafely) while believing that they're not.
-- answer removed --
Yes you are quite right Chris.
It is quite unrealistic to assume that all the drivers who wish to obey the law will adopt a "nil alcohol" approach (which is the only one sure to be a success). The problem with all the "guideline amounts" is that, as you point out, they are very rough and ready and will vary even for a single individual at different times. This can lead to drivers having a false sense of security and they may drive when they are above the limit. In connection with some of the work that I do I see a number of drivers convicted of drink-driving. It is not at all unusual to hear them explain what they had drunk (a statement that would be of no benefit to them to falsify) and that they were flabbergasted to find themselves failing the test.
Personally for various reasons a criminal conviction would have a profound effect on me and I probably take greater steps than most people to avoid one. For this reason (and I that do not want to endanger others or myself) I adopt a "no alcohol" approach to driving. If I drink I don't drive and vice versa. There is, of course, the "morning after" problem and this is an issue for me a few times each year (as it will be next Tuesday morning). I do make the calculation you mention but recently have taken to using the breath test kits which are now mandatory to carry when driving in France. They're quite cheap and said to be reasonably reliable.
As you mention, there are limits for various professions (railways and aircrew spring to mind) which are considerably lower than the UK driving limit. People in those jobs manage perfectly well. Despite being an avid real ale drinker and enjoying most other drinks, I manage perfectly well. (In fact I now prefer no booze at all rather than do what I used to some years ago - have one or two, leave wishing I could have more, and drive home constantly fretting that I may get pulled over).
It can be done. It's just a matter of how you approach the problem.
It is quite unrealistic to assume that all the drivers who wish to obey the law will adopt a "nil alcohol" approach (which is the only one sure to be a success). The problem with all the "guideline amounts" is that, as you point out, they are very rough and ready and will vary even for a single individual at different times. This can lead to drivers having a false sense of security and they may drive when they are above the limit. In connection with some of the work that I do I see a number of drivers convicted of drink-driving. It is not at all unusual to hear them explain what they had drunk (a statement that would be of no benefit to them to falsify) and that they were flabbergasted to find themselves failing the test.
Personally for various reasons a criminal conviction would have a profound effect on me and I probably take greater steps than most people to avoid one. For this reason (and I that do not want to endanger others or myself) I adopt a "no alcohol" approach to driving. If I drink I don't drive and vice versa. There is, of course, the "morning after" problem and this is an issue for me a few times each year (as it will be next Tuesday morning). I do make the calculation you mention but recently have taken to using the breath test kits which are now mandatory to carry when driving in France. They're quite cheap and said to be reasonably reliable.
As you mention, there are limits for various professions (railways and aircrew spring to mind) which are considerably lower than the UK driving limit. People in those jobs manage perfectly well. Despite being an avid real ale drinker and enjoying most other drinks, I manage perfectly well. (In fact I now prefer no booze at all rather than do what I used to some years ago - have one or two, leave wishing I could have more, and drive home constantly fretting that I may get pulled over).
It can be done. It's just a matter of how you approach the problem.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
Crosswords237 mins ago
ChatterBank256 mins ago
ChatterBank265 mins ago
Crosswords340 mins ago
