OT: Breathalysers

As drinking doesn't have a drop of the cliff effect there is no safe limit. There is a range depending on what you are doing and the risks increase as you drink. The current drink drive limit is probably about twice the risk for most people due to the increasingly poorer judgement people have as they drink.

First useless reply. Thank you.

Tim

Yes it also depends on what you ate and when, what you did since you drank, and all sorts of thther things. I believe that soon, with the better tech around now that lower limits will be set, as for example Females are often drunker on lower levels than some men.

Its the wrong way to look at it as safe limits, you need to look on it as a sliding scale that can vary for anyone on a given day, and the point is, don't drink and drive, fly planes operate dangerous machinery etc, at all. Brian

Assuming you live a normal diurnal lifestyle, do you ever drive in the afternoon or evening?

We all do of course, even knowing our judgment is impaired compared to the morning.

Tim doesn't disclose if he's talking about road safety, or safety from prosecution.

The recent consumer tests showed that all of them are very inaccurate.

What recent consumer tests - or should that be Which?

Brian Gaff wrote

Yes, but there isn't any other feasible alternative legally.

I don?t, essentially because its just not feasible to do in legislation, regardless of what is technically possible.

True, but how do you legally specify which men will be allowed to have higher blood alcohol levels ?

Yes, but that just isn't feasible with a field test, let alone how anyone would know when they are legal and when they aren't.

Yes there is.

No need, just perform a sobriety test on the individual. That gives a better indication of the ability to drive, through indicating judgement and self control.

That's also true of being over the limit.

I find it a lot easier to simply not drink at all when I'm driving. I'm not preaching at you, I'm just saying that I find it easier and less worrying. I can't be arsed with just drinking a little bit and then wishing I could drink some more. There's lots of extremely palatable non-alcoholic drinks to put in your glass at a social occasion. It's just easier to not drink at all. And it's a joy when you get stopped and breathalysed.

Another thing is that after a long evening if you haven't been drinking when you get out in the fresh air you feel dead sharp, and your driving is good.

Bill

Fredxxx wrote

Fraid not.

Not feasible to have buses with that sort of response testing machine in them with all those drivers queued up waiting to do the test on the machine in the bus.

Let alone how an individual is going to know as they leave their house whether they would pass the test if they do get pulled over while driving and forced to do the test on the machine in the bus.

Yes, but just isn't practical as a field test.

No, there is nothing to stop you having your own breathalyser if you want to do more than say just know that if you don?t drink more than say one standard drink an hour on a empty stomach you will be fine legally.

Bill Wright wrote

That's just not practical for me. It basically means that I wouldn?t be able to go out in the evening after the main meal of the day which is in the evening for me. And it means that I can't drink anything alcoholic if I go out somewhere and can't drink any alcohol at say a farewell or some for of celebration at work like the office xmas pissup etc.

I find it a lot easier to keep to one standard drink per hour and be confident that I won't be over the legal limit.

I don?t normally want to drink much more than sees me drinking more than a standard drink per hour.

I normally have 375ml of standard strength beer before dinner and one with dinner and that is well within the legal limit.

I normally drink at about that rate when out at a pissup as well.

I don?t like any of those enough to drink them.

I prefer to just drink at my normal rate and might at most drink mid strength beer instead of full strength beer.

Easier, sure, but I prefer to drink at my normal rate.

I find it a nuisance even when I haven't been drinking at all.

Ours do a lot of testing first thing in the morning, trying to catch those who got blotto the night before and I never drink any alcohol before lunchtime and only then at a farewell or celebration etc.

I don?t, essentially because I prefer to go to bed relatively early and get up very early indeed.

I doubt it is if you actually measure it at the end of a long day.

I can see why Tim prefers to be able to check his blood alcohol level and test when its legally fine to drive. The main problem with that approach is that reliable breathalysers are very expensive.

That's because you got a weak mind Wodders. But then we all knew that.

harryagain wrote

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

Get one to help you before posting again.

If anyone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

I tend to only have a "half" if driving soon after - that has no effect on me.

A pint is almost certainly still legal, but as I can feel the effects I would not drive unless it's something trivial like reparking the car.

If I had 2 pints, I usually assume I will be over the limit - or pretty close to being so.

ITYM "legal limit", rather than safe.

I'm not going near the question of how safe and legal relate to each other, but one thing's for sure - there isn't a 100% "79=safe,

Not a problem in my van. I have TWO can holders. That makes it possible to drink snakebite without a glass to mix the drinks:-)

That's pretty much my assessment too but rather than guess it would seem sensible to actually be a little scientific about it if possible. In particular, to study the effects of eating and time on blood alcohol.

Tim

Link?

Tim

I hope that is a Guinness snakebite...