The drink-drive war is won!

[Owl]

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.

But no way would I have thought I was fit to drive

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I'd be able to see after 3 large bottles, let alone drive. My limit is 2 handles.

[scumdog]

yea there is that plus I guess the biggest prob is a straight line in the sand doesn't really work as half the people on the road nowadays are worse drivers sober than I would be shitfaced yet they're still allowed on the road let alone the same drink limit as me

Probaly true with some drivers - but Iguess there's no quick-easy way to test somebody who has been drinking to see how 'safe' they are.

And from experience I've seen people who had the best of intentions of driving straight home from the pub (when a tad pissed) who later ended up cruising around then getting into a bit of a show-off/race and it all went tits-up at that stage, - reflexes and judgement just weren't as sharp as they should have been. (and I'm including the decision to race as judgement too, not just motor-skills)

[Usarka]

MY non-conclusive unscientific test using ME as the subject?
Three quart bottles of beer (none of this boyish 'stubbie' crap, - pfft, were they invented for limp-wristed people that didn't have the strength to hold a proper bottle up to their mouth?) in just over an hour and a half, waited 30 minutes, tested myself and then blew 363.

Bastard, I drunk 2 steinies after work (had no lunch) and wasn't too far under the limit when stopped on the way home at 5:30.

[oldrider]

So where does it stop?

At what point do you, personally, draw the line where you say it is no business of the state to detain you ?

I'm genuinely curious

As long as there is drink available people will drink and drive, I for one hope they never stop their check points ... "ever"!

[superman]

RE the new legislation?
My GUESS is that the new legislation will be that you MAY well fail the roadside screening test, ( I'm not talking about the 'say your name into the device sir' bit, THAT bit would show 'fail' from any alcohol on your person or just about from fumes in the car, hence the screening test!) and would then have to go back for an evidential test at the station or wherever, just like at present.

And then the evidential test device would be calibrated to show zero (and that's my GUESS bit) UNLESS you give a reading in excess of XXX amount which would be an amount that would indicate you had actually drunk some alcohol in a bigger amount than a sip of cough mixture etc.

Oh, and unless you blew in excess of 650 you would have to go to Court before anybody said 'that's a loss of licence'.

Chill out
Cheer up
Grow up.

So your theory is if I have any trace of alcohol I'll get screened out, then sent to a police station where they can be sneaky and allow me to blow a zero even with a bit of alcohol in me (oh aren't they soooo kind). So pretty much wasting my fucking time, wasting the tax payers money, and not making anything any safer.

I get it, typical policing buillshit.

[scumdog]

So your theory is if I have any trace of alcohol I'll get screened out, then sent to a police station where they can be sneaky and allow me to blow a zero even with a bit of alcohol in me (oh aren't they soooo kind). So pretty much wasting my fucking time, wasting the tax payers money, and not making anything any safer.

I get it, typical policing buillshit.

NO YOU WON"T GET FUCKIN 'SCREENED OUT" WITH ANY TRACE OF ALCOHOL!! You're 'theory' is retarded.

Man, I forgot what it's like to be young and stupid....can't remember being THAT stupid.

or THAT angry...

Cheer up. you'll at least be old one day if you live long enough.

[MSTRS:Me]

Come on, SD. He falls in the bracket of those that will be affected by this change of legislation, and he's right to feel worried.
ZERO means nothing, zilch, nada...no trace detected. But if a trace is detected, he's off for an EBA at least. And what constitutes a trace? One sip of beer 2 minutes before the test? Or 24 hours before the test? Ingestion of some foods (as has been mentioned) or a squirt of breath freshener/mouthwash is also a concern. And if the machine/s are calibrated to ignore those, then ZERO doesn't mean what most of us were taught at school.

[superman]

NO YOU WON"T GET FUCKIN 'SCREENED OUT" WITH ANY TRACE OF ALCOHOL!! You're 'theory' is retarded.

Man, I forgot what it's like to be young and stupid....can't remember being THAT stupid.

or THAT angry...

Cheer up. you'll at least be old one day if you live long enough.

Obviously the police view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive.

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

[bogan]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

[scumdog]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

Hmm, somebody seems to have a sensible take to all this....

[FJRider]

Obviously the police view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive.

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

It's not the Police view ( they wanted it tougher ) you need be concerned about ... They enforce policy ... not make it ...

The Goverment changed the rules ... bitch at them ... and if you're old enough to vote ... vote them out in the next election ...

A zero tolerance will be a dead cert ... for those that fail the "attitude test" ...

[scumdog]

Obviously the GOVERNMENTS view is I won't live if I drink 1 beer and drive.

Why market it as "zero tolerance" if that's a lie, to make the media loving public happy?

Fixed it for you.

and market 'ZERO' tolerance?...now there's an idea that could be applied to speeds and...good idea young one.

[bogan]

Hmm, somebody seems to have a sensible take to all this....

sorry officer, it wont happen again

[MSTRS:Me]

sounds to me like the 0 (rounded to) refers to the drinks you can have, if your cough syrup contains more than half a beers worth of alcohol, you're fucked (on th plus side it's probly good cough syrup though).

Sounds about right.
Roadside sniffers and EBA detect alcohol being breathed out. I guess it has to come from 'boiling off' blood as it circulates through your lungs? Consumed in food or cough medicine, your blood wouldn't net enough to read. Conversely, mouthwashes and breath fresheners do little more than apply a coating to the mouth and trachea - any alcohol would boil off and be exhaled almost immediately.

[superman]

The thing is I understand the drink driving issue. But the age thing is just fucked up and it's fucking annoying how legislation is always wrote against young people.

The point of this under 20 driving limit is what really, lower limits for inexperienced. Then why not make it a limit for those who have had their full for less than 2 years, or 3 years. It means if a 20 year old gets his learners he can instantly drink a good few beers and not be over the limit, which is fucked up.

Just like if you're over 25 you can skip through the 1.5 year restricted time and get it down to a quarter of a year, when the least time I can spend is 1 year on a restricted. It's completely unfounded nonsense just to appease the majority of the population, which surprise surprise isn't affected by the legislation at all.