Our local limit is 0.05. I believe yours is 0.8.
On the 'blow' 0.024 is the limit.
On Saturday I went to the Cape Town Castle for a parade. Afterwards I went to pub, where one of the regulars had been on the 'pop' since 4pm on Friday. Had been going til 3am, them was back at 11am Saturday. By the time we arrived he was tinkered. One of the guys at the pub is a security manager... has a breathalyser, and brought it in. The guy 'blew' 0.267. That's ELEVEN times the limit. He was still insistent he was good to drive.
After several threats of violence and/or restraint against him, he deferred to logic.
what does one do about morons like that?
|
Hi Ian.
>>what does one do about morons like that?
I dunno.
The problem is, if they were capable of absorbing your argument as to why they shouldn't drive, they wouldn't be thinking of driving in the first place.
|
I'm not good with figures, unless they are female figures. I read the court cases in my local paper every week.
Most of the DD cases are 2-3 times over the limit. I think I've seen a 4 times at some time.
To be 11 times over the DD limit, one would be comatose, surely?
Last edited by: Dog on Mon 27 Apr 15 at 13:50
|
|
Well you or I would be comatose but if you are an alcoholic you would still be functioning albeit at an impaired level.
|
|
If you are a major and regular drinker, alcohol does have less effect on the way you function. However, at that level, one is a candidate for cirrhosis of the liver and considerable shortening of one's life expectancy.
|
>> To be 11 times over the DD limit, one would be comatose, surely?
>>
Hard core alcoholics build up a surprising tolerance of alcohol.
|
>>Our local limit is 0.05. I believe yours is 0.8.
How much had you to drink when you typed that? ;>)
>>The guy 'blew' 0.267. That's ELEVEN times the limit.
Or just over three times 'our' limit of 0.08.
|
|
...and eleven times the SA breath limit of 0.024.
|
>>
>> >>The guy 'blew' 0.267. That's ELEVEN times the limit.
>>
>> Or just over three times 'our' limit of 0.08.
>>
This is big difference. On one of the UK traffic police shows I watched, a woman blew 160 - something which is 4 to 5 the drink drive limit.
OK, there probably is a difference between the blood alcohol and breath test.
In that case, your man doesn't sound like too much over the limit at all. I might have done it "once".
|
>> Hard core alcoholics build up a surprising tolerance of alcohol.
Yes. Even regular drinkers can drive all right when they oughtn't to really. Only if they can drive all right to start with though, and aren't in an emotional state.
The most dangerous drivers, drunk or sober, are those with an unconscious yearning for suicide. They risk taking others with them.
|
I will (try to) clear up the figures in this thread as orders of magnitude errors can pop up.
rUK blood limit 80mg/100ml (Scotland 50mg/100ml since Dec 2014 - same as S.Africa)
rUK breath limit 35microgrammes/100ml (Scotland 22mcg/100ml - slightly lower than 24mcg/100ml on S.African breath testing)
Ian's chappy at 267mcg/100ml breath roughly equates to around 500mg/100ml blood - enough for an occasional drinker to be completely hammered or an alcoholic to feel sober but be obviously pished to an observer. It's about 6-7 times the rUK legal limit (as traditionally reported in the press in DD cases).
500-600mg/100ml is the level risking death in most of the population - a few cases exist of chronic alcoholics recording over 1000mg/100ml and not expiring but they are quite rare (that means the blood itself is >1% alcohol).
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 27 Apr 15 at 15:12
|
If I had been drinking when I had my accident last year then, despite the fact that the incident was not my fault, I would have been in huge, life-changing poo.
Insisting one is capable of driving with skinful, albeit stupid, is only addressing one side of the risks involved.
|
>> Insisting one is capable of driving with skinful, albeit stupid, is only addressing one side of the risks involved.
Of course, however inoffensive and competent your driving, there's always the risk of being run into by someone else, having a pedestrian or cyclist walk under your car or something like that, and being breathalysed in a routine manner.
But why imagine the driver is 'insisting' and has been 'stupid'? There may be a good reason why someone drives when they have been drinking: some sort of emergency and no other driver available, for example.
All these moral and intellectual judgements make you sound a bit unpleasant, although you obviously aren't. I suppose (to be fair) some of my own posts make me sound frightening and dangerous on the road, although I'm not.
|
"There may be a good reason why someone drives when they have been drinking: some sort of emergency and no other driver available, for example."
I can't imagine that, if push came to shove, any court would accept this as a valid argument. I expect the Magistrate would take the view that cne can calls 999 for life-threatening emergencies and can call on taxis, neighbours or public transport for less urgent ones.
|
>> I can't imagine that, if push came to shove, any court would accept this as a valid argument.
Not everyone has a telephone, and the network can be out. Another pressing reason might be pure urgency, someone bleeding to death. There may be no neighbours or taxis or public transport available.
Sod the law. Needs must when the devil drives.
|
>> Sod the law. Needs must when the devil drives.
>>
When driving with drink taken, he does.
|
>> When driving with drink taken, he does.
You're missing the point though Harley. A real human emergency trumps the law, and it would take a dumb magistrate not to see it.
I would assure anyone who doubts it that I am quite law-abiding in most ways and dislike dangerous (or even very noticeable) driving.
|
>> You're missing the point though Harley. A real human emergency trumps the law, and it
>> would take a dumb magistrate not to see it.
>>
>> I would assure anyone who doubts it that I am quite law-abiding in most ways
>> and dislike dangerous (or even very noticeable) driving.
>>
I'm quite sure you're not condoning such behaviour AC. Given, however, that DUI is an absolute offence (you're either over the limit or you aren't) then it would take a very competent barrister to get you off scot-free. At the least you might get away with a fine but I suspect you'd still end up with a blot on your record, with all the expensive consequences thereof.
|
>> most dangerous drivers, drunk or sober, are those with an unconscious yearning for suicide. They risk taking others with them.
I knew one such, a successful if annoying person in advertising/market research. He had a nice yellowy-orange Porsche 911 which he deliberately drove off the road after one of many quarrels with his girl friend.
No one was hurt, not even him. The 911 suffered a bit though, cost the twozzer a few bob.
His business partner was even more annoying than he was, but a very good friend of mine over 50 years. Couldn't drive and knew absolutely nothing about cars or the road, but was always praising the Porsche owner's driving and 'placement of the car on the road'. He even had the cheek to say that Skodas weren't proper enthusiasts' cars, having perhaps seen Jasper Carrott on the box. Used to drive me up the wall, but I was sorry when he died.
One's friends are a great trial to one sometimes.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 27 Apr 15 at 17:28
|
>> His business partner was even more annoying than he was, but a very good friend of mine over 50 years. Couldn't drive and knew absolutely nothing about cars or the road,
I put it to him once that he and I could start a 'psychological research' business that would blow all the others (which tended to be boring and cautious) into the weeds with a bit of luck and management. If it went right we could have made a fortune, but it was not to be. He didn't have the bottle, and I suppose I don't really blame him.
|
|
Alcohol and calculus don't mix, so don't drink and derive
|
Legal Limit - No FM2R
