OT: Breathalysers

Someone who has three pints of beer is a "drunk"?

Drunk in a very general sense. Americans use a better term: "On the influence".

In terms of being in charge of a motor vehicle, - most definitely.

And where is this term "a drunk" defined in terms of being in charge of a motor vehicle? This same definition covers "not knowing his limitations" does it?

Sanctimonious balderdash. There's a huge gap between being over the alcohol limit for driving and being an alcoholic.

Road Traffic Act 1988 s11 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prescribed Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 reg2

I'm not entirely sure that "a drunk" and "an alcoholic" are synonymous.

Grow up.

Does either of those use the term?

(Rhetorical question - I'm not ploughing through them, but i'll bet a fiver they don't)

No, but "a drunk" implies a hell of a lot more than someone who's just drunk three pints of beer - which is what the thread was about.

Were we discussing alcoholism? I think that anyone who gets in a car to drive after 3 pints nowadays deserves to lose his or her licence.

Yes, I did it a couple of times after 4 pints 50 years ago, but there was much less traffic on the roads, and no legal limit, you had to be caught driving badly to be nicked.

That's my feeling about it, but getting back on topic it's a very bad idea to use a personal breathalyser to make you feel safe to drive after alcohol.

Interesting. Just how did you divine this snippet of nonsense?

A bit like my mum really.

Tim

Who said anything about safe? The question is about one's legality to drive.

Tim

Not sure you are.

Plenty don?t, particularly with parking.

Some do and drive accordingly, sometimes much slower than usual, which sees them get caught doing that.

The original question used the word "safe".

No, but they most certainly do define the maximum amount of alcohol allowed for being in charge of a motor vehicle.

The Oxford dictionary defines "drunk" (adj) as "affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one?s faculties or behaviour", which doesn't seem a million miles away from the reason for having a maximum amount of alcohol allowable for being in charge of a motor vehicle...

The definition of "a drunk" (n) is "a person who is drunk". So, if "drunk", in the context, means somebody with too much alcohol on board to be allowed to drive legally, then that person must be "a drunk". Right...?

And of course there's the matter of getting into "someone else's accident and the other driver hasn't been drinking...

And how many 'barely legal' drivers do we want on the road.

Well, no. It does seem a million miles away to me.

Three pints in an hour was the statement. That would put most people over the limit. Marginally over. I certainly wouldn't drive after that. But I wouldn't call myself "a drunk" after that, nor would I fail to know my limitations.

And the time is important. Three pints in four or five hours wouldn't get you anywhere near the legal limit.

I suspect it would put me well over (although I don't actually know). I certainly wouldn't choose to drive and I know my judgement would be very significantly impaired at that level.

Tim