Re: The law and drink driving
 

You're bang on. There is a difference in how impaired you are for a given blood/alcohol level depending on whether you're on the way up or the way down.

You're less impaired the morning after than you were the night before at the same blood/alcohol level. Jokes are also less funny and people are much less attractive. :p

Re: The law and drink driving
 

Really? Based on what? Surely the baseline measure is being totally sober, and not comparing to the night before you slept licked.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

I'm not going to dispute the suggestion that you feel less impaired for a given alcohol level on the morning after, rather than the night before, it may well even be true. The bottom line is that you are still feeling the effects of the alcohol, just in a different way, and that effect is still sufficient to impact on your ability to drive safely.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

RH I'm not disagreeing with you, you're probably 100% right, but I'm just trying to get across about reactions etc are different IMO, whether these are still below standard for driving is a possibility.

The original point I was trying to make was if they lowered the limit, morning after breath tests would be, IMO, unfair without a sobriety test as well, as I don't think the limit would impair our driving at as much or even at all.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

Many years ago, I failed a roadside breath test.

I was gobsmacked, no way. I knew I was under. but the man said "Oh dear sir your nicked" and off I went in the car.

Fortunately, for some reason the intoximeter was out of order and the police surgeon was summoned to extract some blood from my alcohol system. After about 5 months I got the letter though the door I had been dreading.

My blood alcohol was below that... and no further action would be taken. No apology for wasting my time, for locking me in a cell overnight, for putting me through 5 months of torment would I have a job etc.

A breath test is not a reliable method of establishing accurately how much somebody has drunk. It just indicates you have been in the vicinity of alcohol.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

Out of interest how much had you drunk?

Re: The law and drink driving
 

I had drunk less than a pint of weak bitter shandy. I knew I was driving and had resolved to only have 2 pints of shandy, but I was not enjoying it and had decided to leave and go to a pub near home after dumping the car. trust me to overtake an unmarked police car in my hurry to make last orders.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

For the record, I don't think the current procedures should be changed and I definately don't think they should get rid of blood/urine samples however, that last sentence is utter tosh.

The intoximeters in the stations have been shown to be very accurate and they are designed (in laymans terms) to take the breath from bottom of your lungs. Being in the vicinity of alcohol or even a mouthful will not affect the machines unless you have had the mouthful within 20 minutes, at which time the machine will read the "mouth alcohol" as opposed to "breath alcohol". This is why you should be asked if you have had a drink within the past 20 mins. I have breathlysed someone who was stinking of drink and they blew a pass.

The limits are changed so that 35 microgrammes in 100ml of breath matches the same amount of alcohol in your blood at 80 and 107 in urine.

I have even had a case where the guy blew 42 so went to blood and as his body had longer to process the alcohol he had consumed, it ended up quite a high reading when the blood came back!

Re: The law and drink driving
 

It might be tosh, but my evidence is that I failed a roadside breath test after less than a pint of shandy. The breath test was not an accurate reflection of my blood alcohol level.

Re: The law and drink driving
 

I've passed the breath test about an hour after a pint of cider, the policeman seemed really pi$$ed off that it came back negative.