Yeah but the thing is, how long does it stay in your system?

I will go on a night out and get absolutely smashed. I'll wake up after 4/5 hours sleep and feel fine. Walking/talking fine, clear head and in perfect working order. I'll feel a bit weak (probably just because of tiredness), but apart from that everything's fine and I'm able to drive safely. But it seems pretty obvious to me that I'm still gunna have some alcohol in my system, but how much? And for how long?

It depends on how much you have drunk, but I would say I wouldn't drive for between 12 and 24 hours after a heavy drinking session.

If I drink one or two beers with my girlfriend in the evening, go to bed around 10, then I'd say I'd be fine for driving to work the next morning. If I had a party and drank heavily, then I'd plan to not drive the next day...

It is a rather inexact calculation as there are a lot of factors that play a part. However the rule one unit per hour not counting the first hour is not a bad guide.

So IF a pint is two units.

One pint = 1 x 2 + 1 = 3 hours
Two pints = 2 x 2 + 1 = 5 hours
Three pints = 3 x 2 + 1 = 7 hours

This is a rough idea of how long it takes to completely clear the system.

Of course it can only be a rough guide. The time starts from when you begin drinking.

If you drink 5 pints you should be completely clear by the time you drive to work eleven hours later.

IF CC. IF. Most pints aren't. And some booze types are absorbed/broken down faster/slower than others.

As the advert says, you can't calculate it so don't try.

unless your drinking a premium beer at 5% then 5 beers would make you still under the influence at 11 hours.

An imprecise science. If in doubt, don't drink at all before driving.

No, I don't think it should be banned.
After 21 years of knowing my Dad, I know he can have a single pint and safely drive us home. After knowing some of my friends, they know they can't have a pint and then drive, they know it, so they don't try.

I wonder what percentage of the figures are for idiots who are definitely drunk and then those people who have had a beer or two and gone down the shops to get a multi-pack of crisps and dip. Further, was it the fault of the person who had only had a beer or two, or was it some other idiot on the road?

Should we tar everyone with the same brush? Surely that's discriminating? And isn't that wrong?

No. Discrimination is about behaving badly towards someone because of what they are - i.e. the colour of their skin, where they come from etc - not because of what they do. The consequences of our own actions are not discrimination against us.

And besides which, 'tarring everyone with the same brush' is by definition not discrimination, because if you're treating everyone the same way, who are you discriminating against?

It may be draconian, if the people who abuse something are a sufficiently small percentage of the population. But I'm not sure the number of people who drink when they're not sure if they're under the limit or not is that small.

Jon

A lot of arrests for drink driving are made in the morning after a night out already.

Personally, I don't drink anything if I'm driving, that's my choice.

I detest the notion that things should be banned, we're not children.

Do they sell cheap disposable breath tests?
People could use them to solve the "driving the morning after" question.

Manufacturers were looking at putting breath sampling devices in cars, so that the ignition won't start if the driver has alcohol on his breath - some governments were looking at making it a mandatory addition to vehicles for people who have been banned previously for drink driving.

This is of course true. However it is a starting place. It does for example show that anyone who drinks more than five pretty standard pints should not be driving the next morning. If you are on premium drinks then maybe three or four will keep you closer to keeping your licence safe.

There is a case for home breathalizer kits for those who are in any doubt about the matter.

As much as I detest drink driving, I can't agree to making a ZERO alcohol limit. Small amounts of alcohol are found in medicines, foods and essentially non-alcoholic drinks.

I know that a portion of my mother in law's sherry trifle would easily put me over the limit.

Making it ZERO would penalise the ordinary individual whilst still not addressing the real problem of persistent drink drivers. This would offer no benefit to the community at large and would probably make things worse.

Imagine that you take your mum home on Christmas night. You haven't drunk anything more than an average glass of wine at lunch time- hours ago and had a portion of sherry trifle in the evening. There is NOTHING wrong with your driving. You get hit by another car and the driver is steaming. You are breathalysed and there is the tiniest amount of alcohol in your system. You are arrested and treated just as bad as he is. You are banned, lose your job and who knows what as a consequence- your wife and kids for example. You then take to the drink with a vengeance and end up an alcoholic with all the attendant issues.

Where does that benefit anyone or anything?

This is my point, because you can only really guess if you are under the limit, guessing should be taken out of the mix. Don't drink anything at all or have a unit based system.

I'm not against people having a drink and driving, but it's that you have to guess if you are under the limit.

I see your point. Though I only agree in part.

Sure you can't know for certain but you usually have a bloody good idea. If you have been "hitting the sauce" the night before, then don't drive. If you have had a shandy or two the night before then feel free to drive me home.

If in doubt don't.

CC