Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Got breathalysed today

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 2:07:54 PM12/13/01
to
I was quite chuffed really. I'm mid <cough> forties and I've never been
breathalysed before. It was about 2.30 in the afternoon and I was on the
back roads, avoiding the A11 roadwork's when I was flagged down in a
small village near my house.

It was part of Norfolk police's Xmas D&D campaign and I suppose they
were after those drivers who think the back roads are a safer bet after
a few drinks. I drove off after giving a negative test, feeling that I
had achieved another small ambition in life. Sad innit?

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website
http://www.britjet.co.uk

Sally

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 2:30:27 PM12/13/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> writes

>I was quite chuffed really. I'm mid <cough> forties and I've never been
>breathalysed before. It was about 2.30 in the afternoon and I was on the
>back roads, avoiding the A11 roadwork's when I was flagged down in a
>small village near my house.
>
>It was part of Norfolk police's Xmas D&D campaign and I suppose they
>were after those drivers who think the back roads are a safer bet after
>a few drinks. I drove off after giving a negative test, feeling that I
>had achieved another small ambition in life. Sad innit?
>
I'm delighted to hear that they are out and about - there is no excuse
for drinking and driving. None whatsoever. Something I feel rather
strongly about. I've come close to tipping off the police but the
practicalities of it defeated me.
--
Cheers, Sally

Andy

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 5:31:10 PM12/13/01
to

"Sally" <Sa...@btdtgtts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TNSlR3AT...@btdtgtts.co.uk...

> I've come close to tipping off the police but the
> practicalities of it defeated me.

Well, there's a cash reward now from Crimestoppers. I've thought there
could be good money in becoming an informant. I'd have no qualms about
grassing up anybody prepared to put others' lifes at risk.

Incidentally, In the un up to Christmas several years ago I was breathalised
3 times in a week once, and in neither instance had I done anything out of
the ordinary to raise suspicion. Well nothing other than driving a Triumph
GT6. It's amazing little Police attention I've since rasied since
switching to overly mundane diesel family cars.

Andy

SideValve

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 8:45:10 PM12/13/01
to
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:07:54 +0000, Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk>
astounded us by writing this:

>I was quite chuffed really. I'm mid <cough> forties and I've never
been
>breathalysed before. It was about 2.30 in the afternoon and I was on
the
>back roads, avoiding the A11 roadwork's when I was flagged down in a
>small village near my house.
>
>It was part of Norfolk police's Xmas D&D campaign and I suppose they
>were after those drivers who think the back roads are a safer bet
after
>a few drinks. I drove off after giving a negative test, feeling that
I
>had achieved another small ambition in life. Sad innit?

Sad that they pulled you over for no reason!

BTW - what is the weather likely to be doing around Cambs. the first
week of March in your area? Can we get by with woolies and light
jackets or will we need overcoats? (I know it's ALWAYS windy there -
<g>! )

TIA

SideValve

unread,
Dec 13, 2001, 8:47:00 PM12/13/01
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:47:57 +0000, Grovel Johnson
<grovel...@ukonline.co.ukANTISPAM> astounded us by writing this:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:07:54 +0000, Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk>

>wrote:


>
>>It was part of Norfolk police's Xmas D&D campaign and I suppose they
>>were after those drivers who think the back roads are a safer bet
after
>>a few drinks. I drove off after giving a negative test, feeling that
I
>>had achieved another small ambition in life. Sad innit?
>

>Did you use the old joke.
>
>Police: "Please blow into this bag please sir"
>
>You: "Why officer, are your chips too hot?"

LOL! No, ossifer, I am not as thunk as you drink I am!

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 3:07:22 AM12/14/01
to
In article <n2mi1u0bq26n17u4b...@4ax.com>, SideValve
<sabbat...@hotmail.com> writes

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:07:54 +0000, Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk>
>astounded us by writing this:
>
>>I was quite chuffed really. I'm mid <cough> forties and I've never
>been
>>breathalysed before. It was about 2.30 in the afternoon and I was on
>the
>>back roads, avoiding the A11 roadwork's when I was flagged down in a
>>small village near my house.
>>
>>It was part of Norfolk police's Xmas D&D campaign and I suppose they
>>were after those drivers who think the back roads are a safer bet
>after
>>a few drinks. I drove off after giving a negative test, feeling that
>I
>>had achieved another small ambition in life. Sad innit?
>
>Sad that they pulled you over for no reason!
>
No, they pulled me over to make sure I hadn't been drinking and that I
wasn't going to spoil some poor family's Xmas by depriving them of a
mother/father/son/daughter*

*delete as applicable.

Mark

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 6:02:06 AM12/14/01
to
In message <tKU2ohA6...@giverin.co.uk>, Paul Giverin wrote :

>No, they pulled me over to make sure I hadn't been drinking and that I
>wasn't going to spoil some poor family's Xmas by depriving them of a
>mother/father/son/daughter*
>
>*delete as applicable.
>

The point is though, TECHNICALLY they are not allowed to do that....it's
effectively random breath testing. I don't honestly see why they are not
though.

To get round it, the police usually use techniques like 'Evening, sir. I
think you've got a brake light out. Oops, my mistake, never mind. While
you're here, would you mind blowing into this bag'

Obviously they aren't quite as blatant word for word, but it's certainly
that system they use.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 7:19:56 AM12/14/01
to
Mark <fa...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>The point is though, TECHNICALLY they are not allowed to do that....it's
>effectively random breath testing. I don't honestly see why they are not
>though.

It's the same reason as they're *supposed* to put speed cameras at places
where excess speed causes problems. The aim of the police is to catch
criminals before they do damage, not to obstruct people who are doing
nothing wrong. Making it impossible for the police to set up what are
effectively breath-test road-blocks seems a reasonable stance.

>To get round it, the police usually use techniques like 'Evening, sir. I
>think you've got a brake light out. Oops, my mistake, never mind. While
>you're here, would you mind blowing into this bag'

File a complaint against them.

oldmolly

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 9:38:07 AM12/14/01
to
I like the sound of money for grassing up lowlife who drink and drive. I
know of one p1sshead who does all the time. He can barely walk and stinks of
whisky at 9am and if he ran one of my cats over whilst he was drunk I would
trash his flipping car for him one dark night. Go on, give us the number to
report him? I need the money to buy the ferrets a xmas pressie :-)

--
visit my website
www.geocities.com/fenwoman/Mollys_ark

remove YOURTEETH TO REPLY


Mollys Ark- SPECIES ENCLOSURE SANITISER.
aka head cage cleaner.

remove your teeth to reply
"Andy" <An...@fannybatter.com> wrote in message
news:9vbai0$lud$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

oldmolly

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 9:39:34 AM12/14/01
to
lighten up Ray. If one of your family had been knocked down by a drunk
driver you would be screaming for random testiing.

remove YOURTEETH TO REPLY


Mollys Ark- SPECIES ENCLOSURE SANITISER.
aka head cage cleaner.

remove your teeth to reply

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1jrjc.4...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 10:07:08 AM12/14/01
to
oldmolly <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>lighten up Ray. If one of your family had been knocked down by a drunk
>driver you would be screaming for random testiing.

Or I'd be screaming for police to stop breathalysing the blatently innocent
in the hope that they might be a couple of mg/l over and go catch the
bastards that are really drink-driving, surely?

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 11:10:46 AM12/14/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1k5cs.7...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

How? Spy cameras in pubs? Spy cameras in people's homes when they're
entertaining friends? Little *alcometers* plugged straight into everyone's
blood system? Or random breath tests, perhaps? Whaddya think?


Sally

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 12:09:55 PM12/14/01
to
Andy <An...@fannybatter.com> writes

>
>"Sally" <Sa...@btdtgtts.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TNSlR3AT...@btdtgtts.co.uk...
>
>> I've come close to tipping off the police but the
>> practicalities of it defeated me.
>
>Well, there's a cash reward now from Crimestoppers. I've thought there
>could be good money in becoming an informant. I'd have no qualms about
>grassing up anybody prepared to put others' lifes at risk.

My problem was that I was away from home and didn't know where the drink
driver was going to. The cash reward makes no difference to my
motivation to inform on someone who has been drinking and driving.


>
>Incidentally, In the un up to Christmas several years ago I was breathalised
>3 times in a week once, and in neither instance had I done anything out of
>the ordinary to raise suspicion. Well nothing other than driving a Triumph
>GT6. It's amazing little Police attention I've since rasied since
>switching to overly mundane diesel family cars.
>

It could, of course, been a complete coincidence.
--
Cheers, Sally

Tim Lamb

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 1:01:00 PM12/14/01
to
In article <Y+uXdgAj...@btdtgtts.co.uk>, Sally
<Sa...@btdtgtts.co.uk> writes

>>Incidentally, In the un up to Christmas several years ago I was breathalised
>>3 times in a week once, and in neither instance had I done anything out of
>>the ordinary to raise suspicion. Well nothing other than driving a Triumph
>>GT6. It's amazing little Police attention I've since rasied since
>>switching to overly mundane diesel family cars.
>>
>It could, of course, been a complete coincidence.

Unsubstantiated rumour has it that the police can do their Christmas
shopping while they wait for your case to be called in court:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 2:31:58 PM12/14/01
to

"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:o9oS7.2829$pb4.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> lighten up Ray. If one of your family had been knocked down by a drunk
> driver you would be screaming for random testiing.
>

Two questions...

1) It is just as well to stop people in the street at random in case they
are carrying a knife ? drugs ??
2) Would it be 'random' breath testing ?? My guess is that it'd be young
people in nice cars - not the more likely culprits, the 50s - 60s.
Sorry - I don't trust the judgement of plod on this one.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 3:40:19 PM12/14/01
to
In article <9vdk9b$iov$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Andy :) <andyps3.zapthisb
i...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:o9oS7.2829$pb4.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> lighten up Ray. If one of your family had been knocked down by a drunk
>> driver you would be screaming for random testiing.
>>
>
>Two questions...
>
>1) It is just as well to stop people in the street at random in case they
>are carrying a knife ? drugs ??

What is more common (i.e. d&d or knife carrying) and what kills more
people in this country?

>2) Would it be 'random' breath testing ?? My guess is that it'd be young
>people in nice cars - not the more likely culprits, the 50s - 60s.
>Sorry - I don't trust the judgement of plod on this one.
>

I am mid 40's, drive and your average family car. Plod was standing by
the roadside, was perfectly courteous and appeared to be stopping
everyone coming through this quiet village.

oldmolly

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 3:52:56 PM12/14/01
to
Or I'd be screaming for police to stop breathalysing the blatently innocent
in the hope that they might be a couple of mg/l over and go catch the
bastards that are really drink-driving, surely?

if you are a couple of ml over the limit you *are* a drink driver.
I,m for zero tolerance personally. If I drank a half a pint of beer I would
be incapable of walking in a straight line, yet in the eyes of the law,
still under the limit and fit to drive.
I firmly believe that if you want to go for a drink, then you should make
arrangements to get home without driving yourself. If you want to drive,
stay off alcoholic drinks. Simple isn,t it?

remove YOURTEETH TO REPLY


Mollys Ark- SPECIES ENCLOSURE SANITISER.
aka head cage cleaner.

remove your teeth to reply
"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrna1k5cs.7...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 4:04:12 PM12/14/01
to
In article <slrna1k5cs.7...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

Define "really drink-driving" please.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 4:52:41 PM12/14/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>What is more common (i.e. d&d or knife carrying) and what kills more
>people in this country?

Knife carrying is a lot more common, but I don't have the fatality figures
to hand. I'd be surprised if "death by knife wound" is even categorised
accurately as such, as it probably comes under some other offence.

>I am mid 40's, drive and your average family car. Plod was standing by the
>roadside, was perfectly courteous and appeared to be stopping everyone
>coming through this quiet village.

See! Road-blocks! Thin end of the wedge, I tell you.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 4:50:45 PM12/14/01
to
Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>How? Spy cameras in pubs? Spy cameras in people's homes when they're
>entertaining friends? Little *alcometers* plugged straight into everyone's
>blood system? Or random breath tests, perhaps? Whaddya think?

Or maybe even actually stopping the drunk/dozy buggers who are swerving all
over the road, instead of just sitting patiently behind them and waiting for
an overtaking opportunity on the A47?

Andy

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 5:25:50 PM12/14/01
to

"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sDtS7.3939$pb4.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> I,m for zero tolerance personally.

The flaw in that argument is judging how long it takes to sober up. Also,
I'd feel aggrieved at losing my license having had a bowl of trifle etc. I
am a safe driver after a pint and a half of shandy or whatever... I feel
the limit is sensible where it is.

As for being over the limit, I think the crime deserves a more harsh
sentence though... 1 month custodial seems about right to me. I've always
felt there's a disparity in sentencing drink drivers. For instance...

Scenario 1
I drink a bottle of whiskey, and completely off my trolley I set off in my
car and kill a pedestrian. What would that get me? 3 maybe 4 years in
prison?

Scenario 2
Same circumstances, though I am caught by the police before I kill anybody.
1yr ban, Ł400 fine.

To my way of thinking the only *real* difference is that in the 2nd scenario
I was lucky enough to be stopped before anything nasty happened. The
misdemeanour is equally bad, it's just bad luck that plays a part in
scenario 1.

The same applies to this guy who crashed his car at Selby. Hundreds of
drivers fall asleep at the wheel each year... I don't condone this
obviously, but I do feel this chap is being persecuted purely for having the
bad luck to finally drop off 200yds from a train line.

Andy


Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 5:39:41 PM12/14/01
to
In article <slrna1kt59.d...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>I am mid 40's, drive and your average family car. Plod was standing by the
>>roadside, was perfectly courteous and appeared to be stopping everyone
>>coming through this quiet village.
>
>See! Road-blocks! Thin end of the wedge, I tell you.
>
B*ll*x. What are they supposed to do? Phone me to make an appointment?
They were doing what I pay them to do.

joe landy

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 6:16:10 PM12/14/01
to
A friend of mine was recently stopped and asked to blow into the trusty
breathalyser bag, and the officer guided him by saying harder, harder,
harder STOP! Upon removing his mouth from the unit, my friend replied:
That's what my girlfriend shouts at me!
Joe.
"SideValve" <sabbat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j8mi1u4bmbmqmt1ar...@4ax.com...

Mark

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 6:22:06 PM12/14/01
to
In message <sDtS7.3939$pb4.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
oldmolly wrote :

>if you are a couple of ml over the limit you *are* a drink driver.
>I,m for zero tolerance personally. If I drank a half a pint of beer I
>would be incapable of walking in a straight line, yet in the eyes of the
>law, still under the limit and fit to drive.
>I firmly believe that if you want to go for a drink, then you should
>make arrangements to get home without driving yourself. If you want to
>drive, stay off alcoholic drinks. Simple isn,t it?

Molly, I couldn't agree with you more.

Drinking makes you unfit for driving...period. Limits or no limits.

Mark

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 6:23:03 PM12/14/01
to
In message <JXZv$WAMlm...@giverin.co.uk>, Paul Giverin wrote :

>Define "really drink-driving" please.

As far as I am concerned, 'really' drink driving is driving after any
alcohol at all. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. Flame away!

Mark

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 6:25:20 PM12/14/01
to
In message <VGR47IAt...@giverin.co.uk>, Paul Giverin wrote :

>B*ll*x. What are they supposed to do? Phone me to make an appointment?
>They were doing what I pay them to do.

Agreed, I'm HIGHLY critical of the police at the best of times, but on this
one they have my support.

Where I live, the problem is far more widespread than the authorities would
have us believe. The more action the police take on this, the better, IMO.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 7:49:33 PM12/14/01
to
Andy <An...@fannybatter.com> wrote:
>"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> I,m for zero tolerance personally.
>The flaw in that argument is judging how long it takes to sober up.

Another flaw is that then you criminalise a whole class of people who are
consuming medications that they have to take, just because they leave a
minute alcohol trace in the blood for a long time. "Zero tolerance" leaves
no margin for error, either.

>felt there's a disparity in sentencing drink drivers. For instance...

[...]
>The same applies to this guy who crashed his car at Selby. [...]

I agree entirely. The rabid outbursts of people on the BBC Yorks/Lincs news
bulletins has been understandable, but it's shocking that it influences the
punishment so much.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 8:04:37 PM12/14/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>Define "really drink-driving" please.

As in "dangerous", "out of control", "reckless" or any of the other ones. I
don't think prosecuting those people who you can't tell that they've drunk
anything from their driving but are a few mg/l over. OK, that would be more
of a concern if we had the lower European limit, but hey. I still think you
should have a *reason* to stop what is most probably a law-abiding citizen.
Drink-driving is already socially unacceptable, as this backlash to my
initial dodgy wording shows, so there's not really any need to make this a
police state and obstruct the innocent.

Doubtless someone will post "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've
nothing to fear", as they always do when any liberties are being eroded.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 14, 2001, 8:08:08 PM12/14/01
to
Mark <fa...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <VGR47IAt...@giverin.co.uk>, Paul Giverin wrote :
>>B*ll*x. What are they supposed to do? Phone me to make an appointment?
>>They were doing what I pay them to do.

B*ll*x. I don't pay them to obstruct me and everyone else when I'm going
about my law-abiding activities. I thought we paid them to catch criminals,
not generate revenue.

>Agreed, I'm HIGHLY critical of the police at the best of times, but on this
>one they have my support.

They don't have mine, the same as the speed cameras on straight dual
carriageways don't. I don't speed, but I hate being watched unnecesarily.

>Where I live, the problem is far more widespread than the authorities would
>have us believe. The more action the police take on this, the better, IMO.

So breathalyse the people who come out of pubs, etc, not just people driving
along a country road! The best thing I've heard so far this year has been
the Essex police riding the trains and offering to breathalyse people
returning from Xmas/office parties in London.

The worst thing is these roadblocks...

Andy

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 8:50:50 AM12/15/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

> I agree entirely.

Well, we might not see eye to eye on young drivers, but at least we're
united on this one...

Compliments of the season to you. :-)

Andy


Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 10:07:44 AM12/15/01
to
In article <slrna1l8d5.f...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>Define "really drink-driving" please.
>
>As in "dangerous", "out of control", "reckless" or any of the other ones.

Oh I see. You mean the drivers who are not good at hiding the fact that
they are unfit to drive through drink? What about the drivers who are
unfit to drive but don't outwardly display these signs until a situation
arises when they need all their faculties and they cause a fatality? Too
late then isn't it?

> I
>don't think prosecuting those people who you can't tell that they've drunk
>anything from their driving but are a few mg/l over.

So you think that we should set a limit and then give it a tolerance?
When someone gets stopped for being a couple of mg/l over that
tolerance, do we give them a bit more leeway for being "just a wee bit
over"?

Is that a tolerance in both directions BTW? Picture the scene, "Sorry
sir, you appear to be a few mg/l *under* the limit. You're nicked".

> OK, that would be more
>of a concern if we had the lower European limit, but hey. I still think you
>should have a *reason* to stop what is most probably a law-abiding citizen.
>Drink-driving is already socially unacceptable, as this backlash to my
>initial dodgy wording shows, so there's not really any need to make this a
>police state and obstruct the innocent.
>

Hardly an obstruction. the whole exercise took less than three minutes.

>Doubtless someone will post "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've
>nothing to fear", as they always do when any liberties are being eroded.

Well I'll say it and I didn't think my civil liberties were being eroded
because I'm mature enough to realise that the whole exercise was for my
benefit. If I found myself being singled out for such treatment, I might
agree with you but I was not and I don't.

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 12:22:38 PM12/15/01
to

"Paul Giverin" <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lnWkDJAz...@giverin.co.uk...

> What is more common (i.e. d&d or knife carrying) and what kills more
> people in this country?

I see where you are coming from but mugging / stabbing is still a
significant problem.
So is paedophilia but should police be allowed random computer checks for
child-porn?
The police either have the power to stamp out crime where there is no
suspicion or they don't.

> >2) Would it be 'random' breath testing ?? My guess is that it'd be young
> >people in nice cars - not the more likely culprits, the 50s - 60s.
> >Sorry - I don't trust the judgement of plod on this one.
> >
> I am mid 40's, drive and your average family car. Plod was standing by
> the roadside, was perfectly courteous and appeared to be stopping
> everyone coming through this quiet village.
>

This is *before* random breath testing is allowed.
If it is ever allowed, I stand by my opinion that certain groups would be
targetted more than others and it could become obtrusive.
It will do nothing to help relations with these groups or indeed with
motorists in general, which are at an all time low after (for example) the
mis-use of cameras that the government has had to intervene in.

Would you see breathalising an extra group of drivers as well as those that
have aroused suspicion - by eratic driving, having an accident for example -
as being good use of valuable police time ?

There are very good reasons why the government have not brought this in yet.

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 12:25:41 PM12/15/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1l7gt.f...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

>
> I agree entirely. The rabid outbursts of people on the BBC Yorks/Lincs
news
> bulletins has been understandable, but it's shocking that it influences
the
> punishment so much.
>

I can recommend uk.rec.driving for a good argument on this one ! And mine a
well.

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 12:46:39 PM12/15/01
to

"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sDtS7.3939$pb4.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> I,m for zero tolerance personally. If I drank a half a pint of beer I
would
> be incapable of walking in a straight line, yet in the eyes of the law,
> still under the limit and fit to drive
> I firmly believe that if you want to go for a drink, then you should make
> arrangements to get home without driving yourself. If you want to drive,
> stay off alcoholic drinks. Simple isn,t it?
>

Blimey, you'd be a cheap date ! ;)..........

Seriously, I can't agree with you.

There are so many variables involved in your ability to drive.
Quite apart from the huge range of natural ability there is, anyone can be
affected by...
* Stress
* Illness
* Controlling kids on the back seat
* Tiredness
* Senility
* Quality of car
etc..etc..

For the vast majority of people - myself included - the effect of a half
pint of beer would pale into insignificance against all this.
I'd say a zero limit is way too strict.

Interesting point about the relative effects alchohol have on people.
Perhaps we should go back to making people try to walk along straight lines
!

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 12:55:38 PM12/15/01
to

"Andy :)" <andyps3.z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vg2fv$kln$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Naah... Sod all that *I can drive after three pints so long as I've had a
meal* lark.
You shouldn't drink at all if you have to handle machinery that can endanger
the lives of others. Hard luck.

oldmolly

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 1:10:36 PM12/15/01
to
I was not reffering to medication containing minute traces of alcohol. If
you were incapable of driving safely after taking a spoonful of cough
medecine, you shouldn,t be on the road. The reason I,m for zero tolerance is
because nobody could then use the excuse "I thought I was under the
limit".If you drive, you should not partake in alcoholic drinks. It is a
simple as that with no crap about sherry trifle, medication and the like
which seems to be the stock whine for drink drivers and publicans who are
scared stiff of a zero limit.

remove YOURTEETH TO REPLY


Mollys Ark- SPECIES ENCLOSURE SANITISER.
aka head cage cleaner.

remove your teeth to reply

"Andy :)" <andyps3.z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9vg12u$gtc$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 8:47:27 PM12/15/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>Well I'll say it and I didn't think my civil liberties were being eroded
>because I'm mature enough to realise that the whole exercise was for my
>benefit. If I found myself being singled out for such treatment, I might
>agree with you but I was not and I don't.

How do you benefit from being delayed on your journey? How do you benefit
from wasting police time? How do you benefit from the police gaining
acceptance of random checks without suspicion or reason?

Are you sure you're not being singled out? I mean, this is persecution of
rural communities, as they'd not dare set up a roadblock like this on a
major city road, would they?

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 15, 2001, 8:52:16 PM12/15/01
to
oldmolly <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I was not reffering to medication containing minute traces of alcohol. If
>you were incapable of driving safely after taking a spoonful of cough
>medecine, you shouldn,t be on the road.

Are you incapabale of driving safely after taking a spoonful of cough mix?
(If that's really the case, please let me know what cough mix you're using
-- got to be cheaper than drinking!)

>The reason I,m for zero tolerance is because nobody could then use the
>excuse "I thought I was under the limit".

That is no defence, as I think you well know.

>If you drive, you should not partake in alcoholic drinks. It is a
>simple as that with no crap about sherry trifle, medication and the like
>which seems to be the stock whine for drink drivers and publicans who are
>scared stiff of a zero limit.

Has it not occurred to you that it is actually a valid reason espoused by
people other than the people you want to rant about? Personally, I don't
drink anything alcoholic if I'm driving (other than any prescribed and
cleared medication), but the idea of trying to get the police to reliably
enforce a zero limit is a horrific one. Zero limit is zero margin for
error. I don't believe perfection is possible.

Maybe you do? Do you support hanging too?

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:02:58 AM12/16/01
to
In article <slrna1nv9f.e...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well I'll say it and I didn't think my civil liberties were being eroded
>>because I'm mature enough to realise that the whole exercise was for my
>>benefit. If I found myself being singled out for such treatment, I might
>>agree with you but I was not and I don't.
>
>How do you benefit from being delayed on your journey?

More chance of arriving at my destination without being killed by a
drunk driver. Better arriving late for an appointment in this world than
early for one in the next.

> How do you benefit
>from wasting police time?

I pay them to enforce the law. They were doing that. I don't consider
that to be a waste.

> How do you benefit from the police gaining
>acceptance of random checks without suspicion or reason?
>

Perhaps because I am not as paranoid as you are?

>Are you sure you're not being singled out?

Yes. They didn't know I was coming. In fact I didn't make the decision
to take that road home until 5 minutes previous.

> I mean, this is persecution of
>rural communities,

Again, that sounds rather paranoid. Many drunk drivers may think it
safer to use country because generally there is less of police presence
there. If fact wasn't that a major gripe at the time of the Tony Martin
case. Now when you do see a policeman in the rural community, it is seen
as persecution. You can't have it both ways.

I can't be 100% certain but I'm fairly sure that one of the policemen
that stopped me for the breath check was the designated "rural
policeman" for that village.



>as they'd not dare set up a roadblock like this on a
>major city road, would they?

I think they would. Its not a road block as such as they only stop one
motorist at a time, allowing others to pass.

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 5:23:54 AM12/16/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1nv9f.e...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

> ....they'd not dare set up a roadblock like this on a major city road,
would they?

It's just an idle thought, but I don't suppose you've ever lived in Belfast?
I remember shopping there: on the way to the carpark having the car
checked over by police with armed, nervous young soldiers fidgeting in
the background; having to walk through a customs-type wooden hut
surrounded in barbed wire just to get into the city centre; and then to
have my bags searched again and again on entry to the larger shops.
But I didn't mind when I considered the alternative - which was to get
bits of me blown off by a bomb. What I'm alluding to is that it's all
very well bemoaning a loss of civil liberties when the Police do a job
*in your face*, but you have to consider the worst scenario - in the
present case thousands of drunk drivers *just nipping down the back
roads*, but possibly losing control of their vehicle before squashing
the life out of someone's father/son, mother/daughter, pet, whatever.
It is not acceptable behaviour. Just as there are rules about littering,
waste disposal, spitting, etc., the needs of the majority sometimes
have to outweigh the wishes of the individual. I can understand how
this must rankle in a society that tries to convince everyone that they
are individuals (altogether now..."we are all individuals"), but the truth
is a little more prosaic. If you want to play, you have to learn the rules.
I hate being stopped by the police in my car, it makes my blood boil,
but I accept it as a minor price to pay if the roads are made safer for
both drivers and pedestrians.

Oh yes, and "Freedom For Tooting!"

Right on, comrade!
Gilbert


MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 8:04:26 AM12/16/01
to
Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>It's just an idle thought, but I don't suppose you've ever lived in Belfast?

No, I visited, but after the start of the peace process. The "merry go
round" of cars at the ferry port because they couldn't stop was amusing, but
surely futile if someone "hit the button" at the right moment?

>[...] What I'm alluding to is that it's all


>very well bemoaning a loss of civil liberties when the Police do a job

>*in your face*, but you have to consider the worst scenario [...]

And the burglaries in the fens because of a lack of police isn't a bad
enough scenario? Are these road blocks about saving rural lives, or
catching the local inhabitants?

Oh well. Today I'm only marked as "paranoid". Better than some.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 8:00:29 AM12/16/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>How do you benefit from being delayed on your journey?
>More chance of arriving at my destination without being killed by a
>drunk driver. Better arriving late for an appointment in this world than
>early for one in the next.

That reduction in risk is relatively minor. If they could get the drink
drivers off the roads, heaviest first, it would reduce the risk more. I
don't see how this activity targets the heaviest first.

>> How do you benefit from wasting police time?
>I pay them to enforce the law. They were doing that. I don't consider
>that to be a waste.

There are more efficient ways of enforcing it than blocking random roads.

>> How do you benefit from the police gaining acceptance of random checks
>>without suspicion or reason?
>Perhaps because I am not as paranoid as you are?

I'm not paranoid. I just don't see why they can't do the obvious efficient
steps first. They tell us that they couldn't police this area properly
because they are short of officers, then they go waste the ones they have
got on inefficient obstructions like this.

>>Are you sure you're not being singled out?
>Yes. They didn't know I was coming. In fact I didn't make the decision
>to take that road home until 5 minutes previous.

Does "singled out" mean that it has to be *you* specifically and not a group
that you belong to?

>> I mean, this is persecution of rural communities,
>Again, that sounds rather paranoid. Many drunk drivers may think it
>safer to use country because generally there is less of police presence
>there.

"may", "generally". I'm surpised there isn't a "broadly speaking" too.

>If fact wasn't that a major gripe at the time of the Tony Martin case. Now
>when you do see a policeman in the rural community, it is seen as
>persecution. You can't have it both ways.

No, the charge is that they don't protect the rural community and I don't
see why stopping all people at a road-block is better protection than what
the towns get without road-blocks.

>>as they'd not dare set up a roadblock like this on a major city road,
>>would they?
>I think they would. Its not a road block as such as they only stop one
>motorist at a time, allowing others to pass.

So were other motorists passing while you were tested? Sorry, that sounds
rather different to the image I originally created from your description.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 8:40:42 AM12/16/01
to
In article <slrna1p6nd.2...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>>How do you benefit from being delayed on your journey?
>>More chance of arriving at my destination without being killed by a
>>drunk driver. Better arriving late for an appointment in this world than
>>early for one in the next.
>
>That reduction in risk is relatively minor. If they could get the drink
>drivers off the roads, heaviest first, it would reduce the risk more. I
>don't see how this activity targets the heaviest first.
>
I'm sorry but you are losing this one. I don't accept your assertion
that they should get the heaviest offenders first. If you are over the
limit then that's it!

>>> How do you benefit from wasting police time?
>>I pay them to enforce the law. They were doing that. I don't consider
>>that to be a waste.
>
>There are more efficient ways of enforcing it than blocking random roads.
>

How? A policeman in every pub car park? One in every home? One at every
office party?

>>> How do you benefit from the police gaining acceptance of random checks
>>>without suspicion or reason?
>>Perhaps because I am not as paranoid as you are?
>
>I'm not paranoid. I just don't see why they can't do the obvious efficient
>steps first. They tell us that they couldn't police this area properly
>because they are short of officers, then they go waste the ones they have
>got on inefficient obstructions like this.
>

It wasn't inefficient and it wasn't an obstruction.

>>>Are you sure you're not being singled out?
>>Yes. They didn't know I was coming. In fact I didn't make the decision
>>to take that road home until 5 minutes previous.
>
>Does "singled out" mean that it has to be *you* specifically and not a group
>that you belong to?
>

That's how I understand the term.

>>> I mean, this is persecution of rural communities,
>>Again, that sounds rather paranoid. Many drunk drivers may think it
>>safer to use country because generally there is less of police presence
>>there.
>
>"may", "generally". I'm surpised there isn't a "broadly speaking" too.
>

You are clutching at grammatical straws.



>>If fact wasn't that a major gripe at the time of the Tony Martin case. Now
>>when you do see a policeman in the rural community, it is seen as
>>persecution. You can't have it both ways.
>
>No, the charge is that they don't protect the rural community and I don't
>see why stopping all people at a road-block is better protection than what
>the towns get without road-blocks.
>

What do the towns get? Do you want a police presence in the countryside
or not? I'm sure I've seen the same police officer patrolling down the
street I live in, which is part of the village I was stopped in.

>>>as they'd not dare set up a roadblock like this on a major city road,
>>>would they?
>>I think they would. Its not a road block as such as they only stop one
>>motorist at a time, allowing others to pass.
>
>So were other motorists passing while you were tested? Sorry, that sounds
>rather different to the image I originally created from your description.

Then I apologise for giving that impression. In the short space of time
I was stationary, there may have been one other vehicle which passed by.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 8:54:37 AM12/16/01
to

"Paul Giverin" <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bdi8XAa...@giverin.co.uk...

> In article <slrna1p6nd.2...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
> <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>How do you benefit from being delayed on your journey?
> >>More chance of arriving at my destination without being killed by a
> >>drunk driver. Better arriving late for an appointment in this world than
> >>early for one in the next.
> >
> >That reduction in risk is relatively minor. If they could get the drink
> >drivers off the roads, heaviest first, it would reduce the risk more. I
> >don't see how this activity targets the heaviest first.
> >
> I'm sorry but you are losing this one. I don't accept your assertion
> that they should get the heaviest offenders first. If you are over the
> limit then that's it!

Absolutely.

Zero tolerance for any prat stupid enough to drink, then drive.

It's not a civil liberties issue, it's about the stupid *calling* it a civil
liberties issue to cover their cluelessness and lack of consideration for
others.
--
Brian


Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 8:58:56 AM12/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 01:52:16 GMT, MJ Ray put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>Has it not occurred to you that it is actually a valid reason espoused by
>people other than the people you want to rant about? Personally, I don't
>drink anything alcoholic if I'm driving (other than any prescribed and
>cleared medication), but the idea of trying to get the police to reliably
>enforce a zero limit is a horrific one. Zero limit is zero margin for
>error. I don't believe perfection is possible.

Apparently, people with a small amount of alcohol in their blood are
actually less likely to have an accident than those with none. If you
plot a graph of accident probability against blood/alcohol level, the
graph dips a bit with a small intake of acohol, then starts to rise,
going back up to the normal level at around 40mg, continues steadily
upwards to around 80mg and then rockets skywards thereafter.

The current legal limit isn't arbitrary, it's based on the practical
point at which an accident is significantly more likely. At 80mg (the
legal limit), you're 50% more likely to have an accident. At 120mg,
it's just under 600% more likely. At 140mg, your risk has gone up by
1000%, and at 160mg (which is only twice the legal limit, and where a
regular drinker will not even have much of a hangover the next day)
the loading is well over 2000%.

Percentages tend not to mean much at these levels, so another way of
looking at it is to apply them to real figures, such as money. Assume,
for the sake of argument, that you're paying 365 quid a year for
insurance, which works out (conviently!) at a pound a day. If, instead
of there being a ban on drinking and driving, the law said that you
had to pay an insurance loading equivalent to the increased risk, then
this is what the various levels would cost you:

Sober: 1.00 per day
40mg: 1.00 per day
80mg: 1.50 per day (the legal limit)
100mg: 3.00 per day
120mg: 6.00 per day
140mg: 10.00 per day
160mg: 21.00 per day

The various studies that have provided these figures include some
interesting observations. At mid-range over-limit alcohol levels,
heavy traffic increases the risk. At higher levels, people are likely
to have accidents even on pefectly empty roads. Also, the ability of a
person to hold their drink dooesn't correlate with their ability to
drive safely. While regular or heavy drinkers are somewhat safer at
low levels (up to around 80mg) than people who only drink
occasionally, this doesn't make them safer at higher levels. In fact,
most accidents that are caused by excessive alcohol happen to regular
or heavy drinkers - because they feel OK, at a point when other people
would already have their heads down the toilet or be asleep in bed.

Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 9:28:51 AM12/16/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1p6uq.2...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

> Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>
> >[...] What I'm alluding to is that it's all
> >very well bemoaning a loss of civil liberties when the Police do a job
> >*in your face*, but you have to consider the worst scenario [...]
>
> And the burglaries in the fens because of a lack of police isn't a bad
> enough scenario? Are these road blocks about saving rural lives, or
> catching the local inhabitants?
>

I would think it wrong to assume there is a pot of money marked *police*
which gets shared out between stop and search, crime detection, community
policing and the like. But perhaps one of the problems lies in the Thatcher
years, when the police were given huge pay rises which we can no longer
afford (that is, according to the *man down the pub* philosophy of less
taxes and better public services). Unfortunately, for dolts, nerds and
newsgroupers alike, more police means more money. And if you really believe
that the pre-Christmas, high-profile, drink/driving roadblock is a waste of
money because they should be *off catching real criminals*, perhaps you
could tell us which type of anti-social behaviour carries a higher
priority - killing or burglary?

Cheers!
Burglar Bill


oldmolly

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 10:01:20 AM12/16/01
to
I don,t take cough medicine and what has my opinion on hanging got to do
with drink driving?
Actually I am opposed to hanging as it is violent and barbaric. I am very
much *for* lethal injection.
The fact that you seem to be violently opposed to a zero limit, random
checks etc leads me to believe that you have reason to fear them.
Either you are very paranoid, or you regularly drink and drive.
I bet you are opposed to I.D. cards too.

remove YOURTEETH TO REPLY


Mollys Ark- SPECIES ENCLOSURE SANITISER.
aka head cage cleaner.

remove your teeth to reply

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrna1nvig.e...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 12:39:48 PM12/16/01
to

"Gilbert" <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote in message
news:9vg2qr$kv2$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "Andy :)" <andyps3.z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > For the vast majority of people - myself included - the effect of a half
> > pint of beer would pale into insignificance against all this.
> > I'd say a zero limit is way too strict.
> >
> > Interesting point about the relative effects alchohol have on people.
> > Perhaps we should go back to making people try to walk along straight
> lines
>
> Naah... Sod all that *I can drive after three pints so long as I've had a
> meal* lark.
> You shouldn't drink at all if you have to handle machinery that can
endanger
> the lives of others. Hard luck.
>

You've missed the point of my argument.
My point was very clearly about a small amount of alcohol, not the 3 pints
to which you refer.
And my point is that in comparison to other factors, the effect of half a
pint of alcohol is totally insignificant for most.

But I've said this already and you did not address this point in your reply.

(I wish I had the stats given in a lower post to back this up at the time
BTW.)

The final part was made in jist by the way as I hoped the "!" in the
original post showed.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 12:48:38 PM12/16/01
to

"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nk7p1u4g0qs425pf4...@4ax.com...

> Apparently, people with a small amount of alcohol in their blood are
> actually less likely to have an accident than those with none.

(Quote source, please - that sounds like bollocks)

However ... "and people casually driving at just over the legal speed limit
may be marginally less likely to knock people over than people who are
over-attentive to staying just within the limit."

However, the margins involved are so slight that generally common sense
should prevail.

--
Brian


Andy :)

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 1:10:59 PM12/16/01
to
How would the police know whether the alchohol came from mediaction or not ?
What about having a 'trace' of alchohol in the bloodstream the morning after
a few drinks?
WIth a *zero* limit, these would both be an offence.
Yet in neither circumstance would the risk warrant this.

The argument for a lower limit may be more credible.

Not sure if anybody knows the answer to this, but if somebody is incapable
of walking in a straight line after half a pint, are they as likely to be
over the blood/alchohol limit as somebody who is 'just' unable to walk in a
straight line after 5 or 6 ??

"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:elMS7.6017$pU3.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 9:22:07 AM12/16/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm sorry but you are losing this one. I don't accept your assertion
>that they should get the heaviest offenders first. If you are over the
>limit then that's it!

If you accept that drink-drivers are a risk and arresting them reduces the
risk, why not accept that the more drunk you are, the bigger risk you are
and support reducing the risk by eliminating the biggest first?

>>There are more efficient ways of enforcing it than blocking random roads.

>How? A policeman in every pub car park? [...]

Basically, yes. It's still less than one on every road.

>[...] I'm sure I've seen the same police officer patrolling down the


>street I live in, which is part of the village I was stopped in.

Sorry, that wasn't the impression you gave. It sounded like traffic police
setting up random breath-test roadblocks, which is a nasty idea.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 9:24:03 AM12/16/01
to
Brian Watson <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Zero tolerance for any prat stupid enough to drink, then drive.

I agree that they should be arrested. I do not agree with "zero limit",
though, which is a different thing that some participants in this
conversation are attempting to pass off as "zero tolerance".

>It's not a civil liberties issue, it's about the stupid *calling* it a civil
>liberties issue to cover their cluelessness and lack of consideration for
>others.

Introduction of road-blocks is a restriction of liberty. Calling it
otherwise is at attempt to cover cluelessness and a lack of consideration.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 1:45:04 PM12/16/01
to
In article <slrna1pbgf.4...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm sorry but you are losing this one. I don't accept your assertion
>>that they should get the heaviest offenders first. If you are over the
>>limit then that's it!
>
>If you accept that drink-drivers are a risk and arresting them reduces the
>risk, why not accept that the more drunk you are, the bigger risk you are

OK I accept that.

>and support reducing the risk by eliminating the biggest first?
>

ATM there is no way of establishing the level of intoxication without
actually stopping the driver. Once you have stopped him/her and they are
over the limit, even by a small amount then they should be prosecuted.
There's no point in saying, "oh this one's just over, we'll let him go
and see if we can find one that's really pissed".

>>>There are more efficient ways of enforcing it than blocking random roads.
>>How? A policeman in every pub car park? [...]
>
>Basically, yes. It's still less than one on every road.
>
>>[...] I'm sure I've seen the same police officer patrolling down the
>>street I live in, which is part of the village I was stopped in.
>
>Sorry, that wasn't the impression you gave. It sounded like traffic police
>setting up random breath-test roadblocks, which is a nasty idea.

I would accurately describe what I came across as a random breath test
check-point rather than a road block.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 2:03:44 PM12/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 17:48:38 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>


>"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:nk7p1u4g0qs425pf4...@4ax.com...
>
>> Apparently, people with a small amount of alcohol in their blood are
>> actually less likely to have an accident than those with none.
>
>(Quote source, please - that sounds like bollocks)

Quoted in the Sunday Times today. It's online at
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9017-2001581058,00.html, but
you'll need to register. I was surprised by it, so I looked up a few
sources via Google, which confirmed it. Here are a couple of relevent
qotes:

The study’s most surprising finding was that there is
actually a decrease in the risk of suffering a serious
or fatal accident with a low level of alcohol in the
blood (up to 40mg per 100ml of blood — the UK limit is
80mg).
(Sunday Times)

For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
(Quoted from research carried out by the University of
Wuerzburg, Germany)

The original data refered to in both the ST and UW quotes is from
"The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents" by R F
Borkenstein et al. This is the definitive research into drinking and
driving, and has been confirmed as accurate by subsequent studies.
Unfortunately, I can't find an online copy of the original, but I did
find http://members.tripod.co.uk/ukdd/danger.html which quotes some of
Borkenstein's figures.

>However ... "and people casually driving at just over the legal speed limit
>may be marginally less likely to knock people over than people who are
>over-attentive to staying just within the limit."

Indeed, and much the same factors are possibly responsible for the
"Borkenstein Dip" - the fact that drivers with a small amount of
alcohol are likely to be taking more care about their driving in order
to compensate for their perceived impaired ability. Even small amounts
of alcohol in the blood (under 40mg) impair reaction times, but
there's more to being a safe driver than pure mental quickness. At
lower alcohol levels, the relatively minor impairment in reaction time
can easily be overruled by other factors. The danger comes at higher
levels, when drivers may be under the mistaken impression that they
can continue to compensate for their impaired ability.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 2:05:38 PM12/16/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1pbk3.4...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

> Brian Watson <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Zero tolerance for any prat stupid enough to drink, then drive.
>
> I agree that they should be arrested. I do not agree with "zero limit",
> though, which is a different thing that some participants in this
> conversation are attempting to pass off as "zero tolerance".

Not me. Different thing entirely.

> >It's not a civil liberties issue, it's about the stupid *calling* it a
civil
> >liberties issue to cover their cluelessness and lack of consideration for
> >others.
>
> Introduction of road-blocks is a restriction of liberty. Calling it
> otherwise is at attempt to cover cluelessness and a lack of consideration.

On a balance of nuisance (stopping "on spec") vs letting the pissed go free
until they hit somebody/thing, I'm in favour of the former.

--
Brian

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 2:14:47 PM12/16/01
to

"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6dpp1ukq4o894km2e...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 17:48:38 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >
> >"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:nk7p1u4g0qs425pf4...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Apparently, people with a small amount of alcohol in their blood are
> >> actually less likely to have an accident than those with none.
> >
> >(Quote source, please - that sounds like bollocks)
>
> Quoted in the Sunday Times today. It's online at
> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9017-2001581058,00.html, but
> you'll need to register. I was surprised by it, so I looked up a few
> sources via Google, which confirmed it. Here are a couple of relevent
> qotes:
>
> The study's most surprising finding was that there is
> actually a decrease in the risk of suffering a serious
> or fatal accident with a low level of alcohol in the
> blood (up to 40mg per 100ml of blood - the UK limit is

> 80mg).
> (Sunday Times)
>
> For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
> to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
> identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
> (Quoted from research carried out by the University of
> Wuerzburg, Germany)

Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.

:-)

I suppose the research wasn't sponsored by the drinks industry by any
chance, was it?

(clutching at straws, now)

--
Brian


Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 2:15:17 PM12/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:10:59 -0000, Andy :) put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>How would the police know whether the alchohol came from mediaction or not ?


>What about having a 'trace' of alchohol in the bloodstream the morning after
>a few drinks?
>WIth a *zero* limit, these would both be an offence.
>Yet in neither circumstance would the risk warrant this.

Indeed.

>The argument for a lower limit may be more credible.

Not really. 80mg is pretty much the lowest level at which increased
risk becomes statistically significant.

>Not sure if anybody knows the answer to this, but if somebody is incapable
>of walking in a straight line after half a pint, are they as likely to be
>over the blood/alchohol limit as somebody who is 'just' unable to walk in a
>straight line after 5 or 6 ??

The blood/alcohol level is solely a factor of the amount of alcohol in
the body. It has nothing to do with how well the individual can
compensate for it. If two people of the same height/weight and under
the circumstances drink at the same rate, then they will both be under
the legal limit at two pints and over it at four. But the one who is
not used to alcohol will be considerably more affected by it than the
regular drinker.

But - and it's a big "but" - the ability of the regular drinker to
hold his drink isn't matched by an ability to maintain unimpaired
driving skills. Most accidents that are caused by excessive alcohol
happen to regular or heavy drinkers, because they feel OK at a point
when other people would already have their heads down the toilet.
Because an occasional drinker feels lightheaded or tipsy after a small
amount of alcohol, they are less likely to take risks. As long as
someone's perception of their impairment is equal to or greater than
their actual impairment, they're not going to drive when unsafe
(unless they're just plain stupid). The real danger comes from people
who think that because they can walk a straight line after five pints,
they can handle a moving car as well.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 3:03:56 PM12/16/01
to
In article <62sp1ucj0mh3k6jui...@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> writes

>
>The blood/alcohol level is solely a factor of the amount of alcohol in
>the body. It has nothing to do with how well the individual can
>compensate for it. If two people of the same height/weight and under
>the circumstances drink at the same rate, then they will both be under
>the legal limit at two pints and over it at four. But the one who is
>not used to alcohol will be considerably more affected by it than the
>regular drinker.
>
Indeed. In my motorcycling youth, I would allow myself one pint if I was
riding. When I traded my small bike for a heavy 750cc 130mph superbike,
I didn't feel capable of riding it after that one pint, even though I
would have been under the legal limit. I reduced my own limit to 1/2
pint after that and nowadays like to have one hour elapse for every unit
of alcohol consumed to make sure.

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 3:35:27 PM12/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:14:47 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:6dpp1ukq4o894km2e...@4ax.com...


>>
>> For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
>> to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
>> identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
>> (Quoted from research carried out by the University of
>> Wuerzburg, Germany)
>
>Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.

Don't we all!

>:-)
>
>I suppose the research wasn't sponsored by the drinks industry by any
>chance, was it?

No. In fact, the original research by Borkenstein (back in 1964) was
what led to the introduction of drink-driving laws based on
blood/alcohol levels, as he demonstrated that accident risk correlated
very well with an easily measurable test. Until then, it was widely
believed that someone was safe to drive if they could walk a straight
line, or whatever[1]. In fact, muscle/motor skills (the abilities
needed to walk straight, touch the tip of your nose with your eyes
closed, etc) are not the main issue. The real killer on the roads, at
least in the mid-range of alcohol levels, is the impaired reaction
time caused by alcohol. And this isn't something that improves that
much with alcohol habituation - a regular heavy drinker will be more
able to appear to a visible test to be unaffected by alcohol, but
their reaction times will still be affected and hence their accident
risk will still be increased.

Mark
[1] A myth that's still believed by a hard core of drivers who simply
ignore the drink-drive laws.

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 3:37:47 PM12/16/01
to

"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1008529928.24515....@news.demon.co.uk...

> "Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6dpp1ukq4o894km2e...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The study's most surprising finding was that there is
> > actually a decrease in the risk of suffering a serious
> > or fatal accident with a low level of alcohol in the
> > blood (up to 40mg per 100ml of blood - the UK limit is
> > 80mg).
> > (Sunday Times)
> >
> > For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
> > to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
> > identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
> > (Quoted from research carried out by the University of
> > Wuerzburg, Germany)
>
> Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.

The suggestion would seem to be that either none or a very small amount of
alcohol would be found in the blood of drivers who suffered *serious or
fatal accidents*
How quintessentially *academic* - i.e. devoid of any understanding of
behaviour in the real world. In general (and not in the lab), those who sit
in the pub and have a couple of pints with a packet of crisps are already
far beyond *Borkenstein's Dip* - and I don't include someone who's had a
mouthful of sherry trifle or sipped an Irish coffee two nights before.
Figures show that about 3,500 people die in road-related deaths annually -
(see http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/8/80700.pdf)
and according to the DETR (latest figures relate to 1998) 15% of road deaths
are alcohol related. So a drink-driving crackdown could save over 525
deaths.
http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics_uk.htm
...and that's where I begin to lose interest, considering the amount of
money wasted on hospitalising people who have smoked all their lives.
Right, where's me snake bite with a drop of Malibu on the side? I bet the
wife's snaffled it while I've been writing this twaddle...

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:32:33 PM12/16/01
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:37:47 -0000, Gilbert put finger to keyboard and
typed:


>How quintessentially *academic* - i.e. devoid of any understanding of
>behaviour in the real world. In general (and not in the lab), those who sit
>in the pub and have a couple of pints with a packet of crisps are already
>far beyond *Borkenstein's Dip* - and I don't include someone who's had a
>mouthful of sherry trifle or sipped an Irish coffee two nights before.

That's true. The point is not that small amounts of alcohol are a good
thing, the point is that lowering the isn't going to help.

>Figures show that about 3,500 people die in road-related deaths annually -
>(see http://www.transtat.dtlr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb00/8/80700.pdf)
>and according to the DETR (latest figures relate to 1998) 15% of road deaths
>are alcohol related. So a drink-driving crackdown could save over 525
>deaths.

Indeed. The problem is that there is still a hard core of drivers who
choose to ignore the drink-drive laws and go out on the roads having
consumed too much of the stuff. Ideally, the police would stop and
breathalyse them before they have an accident, but unless you stop
every driver on the roads that's going to be difficult.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:19:21 PM12/16/01
to
oldmolly <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I don,t take cough medicine and what has my opinion on hanging got to do
>with drink driving? Actually I am opposed to hanging as it is violent and
>barbaric. I am very much *for* lethal injection.

I thought you were the sort of person who mistakenly believed in the
perfection of our legal system. Thank you for the confirmation.

>The fact that you seem to be violently opposed to a zero limit, random
>checks etc leads me to believe that you have reason to fear them.

Do you always put two and two together to make five? I do not believe that
our law enforcement and legal systems are infallible, that is all.

>Either you are very paranoid, or you regularly drink and drive.
>I bet you are opposed to I.D. cards too.

The trouble with I.D. cards is that we have so many of them already.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:22:34 PM12/16/01
to
Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>I would think it wrong to assume there is a pot of money marked *police*
>which gets shared out between stop and search, crime detection, community
>policing and the like. [...]

But that is what the nice glossy PR leaflets with our tax bills lead us to
believe, isn't it?

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:24:25 PM12/16/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>and support reducing the risk by eliminating the biggest first?
>ATM there is no way of establishing the level of intoxication without
>actually stopping the driver. Once you have stopped him/her and they are
>over the limit, even by a small amount then they should be prosecuted.
>There's no point in saying, "oh this one's just over, we'll let him go
>and see if we can find one that's really pissed".

That's not at all what I'm saying. As someone who has done a few years
examining random samples etc, I don't think random breath-tests are a
particularly effective use of police, while they are a very effective
restriction of liberties, punishing us all, even the innocent.

Sally

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 4:36:22 PM12/16/01
to
MJ Ray <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm sorry but you are losing this one. I don't accept your assertion
>>that they should get the heaviest offenders first. If you are over the
>>limit then that's it!
>
>If you accept that drink-drivers are a risk and arresting them reduces the
>risk, why not accept that the more drunk you are, the bigger risk you are
>and support reducing the risk by eliminating the biggest first?
>
So how do you suggest doing this?
--
Cheers, Sally

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 5:07:25 PM12/16/01
to
In article <slrna1q489.j...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

Well as this thread his demonstrated, not all of us think of this as a
restriction of our liberties while you still have not come up with an
alternative method catching *and* deterring drunk drivers.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 7:01:55 PM12/16/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>Well as this thread his demonstrated, not all of us think of this as a
>restriction of our liberties

You are insane, then.

>while you still have not come up with an alternative method catching

I have: targetted testing. Were you not listening?

>*and* deterring drunk drivers.

The deterrent is about as strong as it can get. Short of killing them as
soon as they fail the test, I don't think you can do much more in that way.
Penalties are no good as long as people don't think they'll get caught and
the current methods are like a lottery.

What is good is the move by some police forces to encourage use of voluntary
breath-tests by high-risk groups rather than "chancing it" because they
think they're probably safe and there's not much chance of getting caught,
as I said earlier, in the post you ignored.

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 16, 2001, 7:02:26 PM12/16/01
to
Sally <Sa...@btdtgtts.co.uk> wrote:
>So how do you suggest doing this?

Test them where you're more likely to find them near the start of their
journeys.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 2:58:12 AM12/17/01
to
In article <slrna1qdfj.3...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well as this thread his demonstrated, not all of us think of this as a
>>restriction of our liberties
>
>You are insane, then.
>
I don't think so. You however seem to be in a very small minority and
come across as being paranoid.

>>while you still have not come up with an alternative method catching
>
>I have: targetted testing. Were you not listening?
>

Are you referring to your "policeman in every pub car park" suggestion
or your "wait to you see them swerving all over the road" suggestion?

The first would take phenomenal resources and still miss those drinking
elsewhere. The second still allows drivers with dangerous levels of
alcohol to drive up to the point when they start swerving about. Its too
late by then!



>>*and* deterring drunk drivers.
>
>The deterrent is about as strong as it can get. Short of killing them as
>soon as they fail the test, I don't think you can do much more in that way.
>Penalties are no good as long as people don't think they'll get caught and
>the current methods are like a lottery.
>
>What is good is the move by some police forces to encourage use of voluntary
>breath-tests by high-risk groups rather than "chancing it" because they
>think they're probably safe and there's not much chance of getting caught,
>as I said earlier, in the post you ignored.

--

Sally

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 12:28:34 PM12/17/01
to
MJ Ray <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

I look forward to greeting a policeman outside my door at 8pm in the
evening then, when I've had a few T&Ts.

As Paul says, this idea isn't very practical.
--
Cheers, Sally

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 6:09:30 PM12/17/01
to

"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7g0q1u8ik1hf30m7t...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:14:47 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >
> >"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6dpp1ukq4o894km2e...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
> >> to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
> >> identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
> >> (Quoted from research carried out by the University of
> >> Wuerzburg, Germany)
> >
> >Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.
>
> Don't we all!
>
> >:-)
> >
> >I suppose the research wasn't sponsored by the drinks industry by any
> >chance, was it?
>
> No. In fact, the original research by Borkenstein (back in 1964)

Not Holsten (1776)?

--
Brian


Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 6:12:17 PM12/17/01
to

"Gilbert" <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote in message
news:9vj0mm$hbs$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.
>
> The suggestion would seem to be that either none or a very small amount of
> alcohol would be found in the blood of drivers who suffered *serious or
> fatal accidents*
> How quintessentially *academic* - i.e. devoid of any understanding of
> behaviour in the real world.

I think I've got it now - if most people injured or killed in motor
accidents have little or no alcohol in their blood, one is statistically
safer to drive pissed out of one's head.

--
Brian


Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 6:14:14 PM12/17/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1qdfj.3...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

> Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well as this thread his demonstrated, not all of us think of this as a
> >restriction of our liberties
>
> You are insane, then.

Deeply unsatisfactory logic, and not provable either clinically or legally.
--
Brian


MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 17, 2001, 6:54:53 PM12/17/01
to
Sally <Sa...@btdtgtts.co.uk> wrote:
>As Paul says, this idea isn't very practical.

Why is testing people in residential and leisure/entertainment areas any
less practical than testing random samples in areas where you are less
likely to find drink-drivers?

I actually saw my first set of breath-testers today. Quite a lot (at least
4) of them on the side of an A road in a built-up area, stopping traffic
from an area with only two pubs going *towards* the town centre. This
prompts a lot of questions in my mind:
1. Surely they're not going to catch many drink-drivers there?
2. Surely it doesn't take 4 and a car to do breathtests?
3. Why did I only see them stop "hot hatches"?

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 2:55:03 AM12/18/01
to
In article <1008633037.11855....@news.demon.co.uk>, Brian
Watson <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> writes

Thank you very much Brian.
--
Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel
(Silly party)

:)

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 4:52:21 AM12/18/01
to
MJ Ray wrote:
>
> I actually saw my first set of breath-testers today. Quite a lot (at least
> 4) of them on the side of an A road in a built-up area, stopping traffic
> from an area with only two pubs going *towards* the town centre. This
> prompts a lot of questions in my mind:
> 1. Surely they're not going to catch many drink-drivers there?

Depends on the time of day. If it was the morning, they may have been
after people who were still over the limit from the night before.

> 2. Surely it doesn't take 4 and a car to do breathtests?

Well, they needed a car to get there in the first place :-). But, also,
drink-drivers are more likely than most to try and avoid being stopped -
for a start, if they're pissed then they're not necessarily thinking
straight and also they're probably well aware that being stopped means
the end of their licence.

> 3. Why did I only see them stop "hot hatches"?

Targetting the most likely offenders.

Mark
--
This .sig deliberately left blank

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 4:54:03 AM12/18/01
to
Brian Watson wrote:
>
> "Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7g0q1u8ik1hf30m7t...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:14:47 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
> > keyboard and typed:
> >
> > >I suppose the research wasn't sponsored by the drinks industry by any
> > >chance, was it?
> >
> > No. In fact, the original research by Borkenstein (back in 1964)
>
> Not Holsten (1776)?

No, but I understand that they drew on a lot of input from Lowenbrau
(1664) :-)

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 4:57:14 AM12/18/01
to
In article <3C1F123B...@good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge <mark@good-
stuff.co.uk> writes

I think you will find that was actually Kronenbourg (1664)

;)

MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 6:58:22 AM12/18/01
to
Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>> You are insane, then.
>>Deeply unsatisfactory logic, and not provable either clinically or legally.
>Thank you very much Brian.

Is drink-posting an offence yet?

>Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel
>(Silly party)

Did we really need the parenthesis? ;-)

Mark Goodge

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 8:18:20 AM12/18/01
to

Aaargh! However, I take refuge in the fact that I'm a real ale man, not
one of these nancy-boy lager drinkers.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 9:07:11 AM12/18/01
to
In article <slrna1ubqu.r...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

>Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> You are insane, then.
>>>Deeply unsatisfactory logic, and not provable either clinically or legally.
>>Thank you very much Brian.
>
>Is drink-posting an offence yet?
>
Don't think so. Some would say it helps :)

>>Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel
>>(Silly party)
>
>Did we really need the parenthesis? ;-)

It was to help the "post-python" generation.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 9:11:26 AM12/18/01
to
In article <3C1F421C...@good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge <mark@good-
Right!! You and me outside NOW!!! Just cos I identified a brand of lager
(and that's because I see it in the French supermarkets all the time),
doesn't make me a NBLD. Are you trying to get be barred from the Fat Cat
or what?


--
Paul Giverin (certified real ale man)

Tim

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 12:25:03 PM12/18/01
to
A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
thus:

>>>Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuit-Barrel
>>>(Silly party)
>>
>>Did we really need the parenthesis? ;-)
>
>It was to help the "post-python" generation.

IIRC the man said in a loud and clear voice "Tarquin ... Barrel",
<intake of breath> and then more quietly "Silly Party" so the () was
quite appropriate. IMHO.
--
Tim - Boring Sig V1.0.0.1

Tim

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 12:26:43 PM12/18/01
to
A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
thus:

>Paul Giverin (certified real ale man [Revoked] )

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 1:07:58 PM12/18/01
to

"Tim" <t...@helena62.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:epuu1u09mg57l3t3u...@4ax.com...

and it should be parentheses, surely? I don't know, come here with their
high-falutin' ways, don't know their plurals...


Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 1:09:47 PM12/18/01
to
In article <epuu1u09mg57l3t3u...@4ax.com>, Tim
<t...@helena62.demon.co.uk> writes

You are indeed correct.

Paul Giverin

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 1:12:41 PM12/18/01
to
In article <90vu1u0ccnmhjrrip...@4ax.com>, Tim
<t...@helena62.demon.co.uk> writes

>A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
>thus:
>
>>Paul Giverin (certified real ale man [Revoked] )

<enfield>
Oi, Davies, NO!
</enfield>

--
Paul Giverin

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 5:00:22 PM12/18/01
to

"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7g0q1u8ik1hf30m7t...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 19:14:47 -0000, Brian Watson put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >
> >"Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6dpp1ukq4o894km2e...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up
> >> to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly
> >> identical to or even less than that for sober drivers.
> >> (Quoted from research carried out by the University of
> >> Wuerzburg, Germany)
> >
> >Bugger. I hate being contradicted by facts.
>
> Don't we all!
>
> >:-)
> >
> >I suppose the research wasn't sponsored by the drinks industry by any
> >chance, was it?
>
> No. In fact, the original research by Borkenstein (back in 1964) was
> what led to the introduction of drink-driving laws based on
> blood/alcohol levels, as he demonstrated that accident risk correlated
> very well with an easily measurable test. Until then, it was widely
> believed that someone was safe to drive if they could walk a straight
> line, or whatever[1]. In fact, muscle/motor skills (the abilities
> needed to walk straight, touch the tip of your nose with your eyes
> closed, etc) are not the main issue. The real killer on the roads, at
> least in the mid-range of alcohol levels, is the impaired reaction
> time caused by alcohol. And this isn't something that improves that
> much with alcohol habituation - a regular heavy drinker will be more
> able to appear to a visible test to be unaffected by alcohol, but
> their reaction times will still be affected and hence their accident
> risk will still be increased.
>
> Mark
> [1] A myth that's still believed by a hard core of drivers who simply
> ignore the drink-drive laws.
> --
> Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/

Thanks.
I've learnt something here.

Andy :)

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 5:03:38 PM12/18/01
to

"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1008633033.11855....@news.demon.co.uk...

Similarly, 90% of people who drown can swim.


MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 18, 2001, 6:16:31 PM12/18/01
to
>> A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
>> >It was to help the "post-python" generation.

Have we had one yet?

Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>and it should be parentheses, surely? I don't know, come here with their
>high-falutin' ways, don't know their plurals...

Typo. Sometimes the synapses fire finger 2 of the wrong hand... nowhere
near as funny as the stuff where rge rufgt gabd us ibe jet iyr.

Gilbert

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 2:20:42 AM12/19/01
to

"MJ Ray" <markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrna1vjif.1...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk...

>
> Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
> >and it should be parentheses, surely? I don't know, come here with their
> >high-falutin' ways, don't know their plurals...
>
> Typo. Sometimes the synapses fire finger 2 of the wrong hand... nowhere
> near as funny as the stuff where rge rufgt gabd us ibe jet iyr.

Typi? (only kidding) but if you're already having problems minding the
synaptic
gap, perhaps it's time to forego your early morning Red Bull?
:O)


Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 4:23:25 AM12/19/01
to

"Paul Giverin" <pa...@giverin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ggFVyJA6...@giverin.co.uk...

> In article <3C1F123B...@good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge <mark@good-
> stuff.co.uk> writes
> >Brian Watson wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mark Goodge" <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:7g0q1u8ik1hf30m7t...@4ax.com...

> >> > No. In fact, the original research by Borkenstein (back in 1964)


> >>
> >> Not Holsten (1776)?
> >
> >No, but I understand that they drew on a lot of input from Lowenbrau
> >(1664) :-)
> >
>
> I think you will find that was actually Kronenbourg (1664)
>
> ;)

OK, I'll own up to a third of a bottle of Scotch prior to posting my
version.

Anyone else?

--
Brian


MJ Ray

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 5:13:42 AM12/19/01
to
Gilbert <gil...@gilbert.con> wrote:
>Typi? (only kidding) but if you're already having problems minding the
>synaptic gap, perhaps it's time to forego your early morning Red Bull?
>:O)

Ohhhhh, you really don't want to see my allergy to that stuff. I'm not
saying that I become a bit erratic, but I would not drive after drinking
that, despite being perfectly legal to do so.

David Simpson

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 6:47:32 AM12/19/01
to
In article <slrna20q2m.2...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk>, MJ Ray
<markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes

We had a hell of an evening drinking jugs of Vodka/Red Bull in The
Falcon in BSE, we strengthened it with extra bottles of Polish vodka (1
bottle of 'English' Vodka to 4 cans of Red Bull didn't seem enough). It
was all over by about 7.30pm, we started drinking at 2.30 just before
the rugby on the big TV and then about 6.00 we went into a time warp and
then it was next morning. I was put into a taxi and dropped off
somewhere in the village and managed to crawl home, the 01/2 heard a
scratching at the door and found me on all fours trying to put my key
into a keyhole about 18" from the ground. I can remember absolutely
nothing of that evening but didn't even have a hangover.

--
David Simpson

Tim

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 6:48:37 AM12/19/01
to
A brief recap from markj...@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk (MJ Ray) who
gibbered thus:

>>> A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
>>> >It was to help the "post-python" generation.
>
>Have we had one yet?

Errmm! The Larch!

I'd have thought that is one brewing given that IFAIR BBC1/2 haven't
repeated it recently and nobody watches BBC Choice etc

Tim

unread,
Dec 19, 2001, 7:45:37 AM12/19/01
to
A brief recap from Paul Giverin <pa...@giverin.co.uk> who gibbered
thus:

>I was quite chuffed really.

Huh! Alright for some! I got breathalysed[1] and charged with being
drunk in charge of a pavement!

[1] By O1/2

0 new messages