Breathalysed and over limit next day

My mother was telling me about a friend's daughter who visited a mate one friday evening, had a good few drinks and stayed the night. She got up the following morning and had a big cooked breakfast and, at about one o'clock in the afternoon drove home. She was stopped by a guard on the way, breathalysed and was over the limit. She's now lost her licence for a year, although she needs the car for work.
I know the law is the law and no one should drink and drive. But it just seems very harsh in this situation where the girl must have been absolutely sure she was okay and had done all the right things. Stayed the night where she was, eaten a substantial amount of food and left it until the afternoon to drive. Yet she was treated in exactly the same way as someone who had a load of pints and knowingly got into their car and drove.
I just wonder, if there's a lot of cases like this, will it dilute people's attitude to the point where they feel might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and just not bother to leave the car and walk home and collect it the next day or whatever.
And I'm not, in anyway, defending drink driving, just wondering if its fair to treat everyone as harshly, regardless of the circumstances.

When did she have her last drink, if it was 5am for example then that is 7-8 hours after stopping which might be cutting it fine.

It is harsh but the rules are the rules. She most have drank a lot in fairness to be over the limit by 1pm the next day.

aristotle25 said:

She most have drank a lot in fairness to be over the limit by 1pm the next day.

Click to expand...

Id agree with this, one must allow time for the body to metabolise the alcohol, she must have consumed a huge amount (or continued to drink til the early hours of the morning) to have still been over the limit the next afternoon.

I don't think it could have been that late, as the friend had to get up and go to work the following morning.

I agree, I don't know how much she had to drink or exactly what time she stopped but I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.

I suppose my concern is that people will just lose respect for the whole process if it seems to be more based on getting 'results' than on actually trying to catch the really dangerous drivers.

liaconn said:

... I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.

Click to expand...

But the person having 1 or 2 and getting into their car could think that they are OK too? If they are both over the limit by the same amount for example I don't see much difference TBH.

The fact is that her ability to drive was just as impaired as someone who got straight into the car after drinking but had the same blood alcohol level.

A good rule of thumb is to allow one hour per unit of alcohol - counting from when you finish your last drink. So if you have a pint then you will be clear 2 hours after you drink it, etc etc. I've used this rule since I learnt it at Uni back when I was 18 - it means you have to cadge a lift/get a taxi in the morning sometimes, but at least you aren't putting yourself or others at risk.

BTW, having a cooked meal would have no impact on existing blood alcohol levels. Only time can do anything about that.

A year off the road probably reflects the less serious aspect of this case, I thought most get put off the road for 2 years?

I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this. I would have thought a caution would suffice.

Click to expand...

What is the difference? Blood alcohol level is blood alcohol level.

How about people who work nights, should they be let off with a caution just because it is in the afternoon when they are caught drink driving?

Caveat said:

But the person having 1 or 2 and getting into their car could think that they are OK too? If they are both over the limit by the same amount for example I don't see much difference TBH.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. I suppose what I'm saying is that it wouldn't have even occurred to her that she could still be over the limit the following afternoon and there was absolutely no question of deliberately 'taking a chance' and hoping she wouldn't be stopped and that maybe a caution the first time, as an educational measure, would have been enough. Obviously, if it happened a second time she would have no excuse as she would be well aware that she might be dangerous behind a wheel.

liaconn said:

... Yet she was treated in exactly the same way as someone who had a load of pints and knowingly got into their car and drove...

Click to expand...

That's because she did exactly what they do - she drove while her blood-alcohol level was elevated above the maximum permitted legal limit.

Given our remove from the information about the young woman who was breathalyzed, now 5th or 6th hand, its difficult to make any informed comment on all the circumstances.

The medico-scientific area of measuring blood-alcohol levels is much more technical and complex than most people appreciate. Speculation about what she ate, how long (or if) she slept, when she last drank, how long she drank for and so on is pointless because the key information is that apparently, when measured, she was "over the limit".

liaconn said:

... but I just think there's a difference between someone who gets straight into their car after a few drinks and someone who genuinely thought they were okay and had no previous record of anything like this....

Click to expand...

But there is none because the law makes no differentiation.

liaconn said:

... I would have thought a caution would suffice...

Click to expand...

For the Guards on the side of the road once drink-driving is suspected / indicated, there is no discretion, they cannot issue a caution they must take the driver off the road.

In court the judge can listen to arguments and evidence, but again I don't believe there is the option to issue a caution on conviction.

liaconn said:

... I suppose my concern is that people will just lose respect for the whole process if it seems to be more based on getting 'results' than on actually trying to catch the really dangerous drivers.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any evidence that the process the lady got herself involved in through her dangerous drunken-driving episode was oriented towards anything other than road safety or preventing drunks from driving with impunity. The only person, so far, who seems to 'lose respect for the whole process' is yourself.

Roll on the ability to do road-side tests for drug-impaired driving.

mathepac said:

/ The only person, so far, who seems to 'lose respect for the whole process' is yourself.

Click to expand...

I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.

liaconn said:

I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.

Click to expand...

But if that happened, wouldn't everyone be practicing their deeply shocked reaction? Besides, I'd heard the one about people being breathalysed on the way to work being caught years ago, doesn't it happen regularly around Christmas? Haven't you heard of it before?

liaconn said:

I haven't lost respect for the process, I just wonder if a system where a caution can't be given, if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ,is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more. Anyway, just my view on the matter.

Click to expand...

If someone over the limit was given a caution and then next time they mowed down some innocent the country would be up in arms that they werent taken off the road first time round.

I know its harsh, but I think the zero tolerance approach to drink driving is the correct one.

I fail to understand how the person in question could be uneducated on drink driving/blood alcohol levels etc... unless theyd been living in an egg for the past 20 years - media coverage and news reports are available almost daily citing yet another case of drink driving or the latest crack down etc...

Besides, a year off the road will surely be an education in itself and no doubt this person will be a safer driver because of it.
A year is nothing in the scheme of things.

But if that happened, wouldn't everyone be practicing their deeply shocked reaction? Besides, I'd heard the one about people being breathalysed on the way to work being caught years ago, doesn't it happen regularly around Christmas? Haven't you heard of it before?




Hi, yes I know they're out on Sat and Sun mornings and I and my friends would always be careful about driving if we'd been drinking the night before . Just didn't realise Sat afternoon would be a problem. Also, I suppose I was thinking of the amount I would drink which is probably nothing like what this girl had.

However, as you said, if you leave loopholes people will crawl through them.

Just, on an individual level, I feel sorry for that girl.

liaconn said:

Just, on an individual level, I feel sorry for that girl.

Click to expand...

Well I agree with you on that, unfortunately you cant judge situations like this at an individual level because then every gurrier in the country would be drink driving and producing 50 character witnesses to say theyd never done it before, hadnt a clue about blood alcohol levels, had waited a number of hours etc, were going to lose their job and family etc...you knwo what I mean?

Bit unusual to be breathalysed on a Sat afternoon unless the guard had some reason for doing so.

truthseeker said:

Well I agree with you on that, unfortunately you cant judge situations like this at an individual level because then every gurrier in the country would be drink driving and producing 50 character witnesses to say theyd never done it before, hadnt a clue about blood alcohol levels, had waited a number of hours etc, were going to lose their job and family etc...you knwo what I mean?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I suppose if I read about it in the paper and didn't hear about it from someone who knows her I would leave the human angle out and just think 'God, she must have drunk a skinfull. Serves her right'.

Good point also, Vanilla.

liaconn said:

I haven't lost respect for the process, ...

Click to expand...

But you seem to want to change the existing process, which indicates you find it deficient in some way, which to me doesn't smack of respect.

liaconn said:

... if it is clear that the person themselves had no idea they were over the limit and is deeply shocked at the result ...

Click to expand...

Maybe you could help by describing how such a system would work in practice as I can't seem to envision it.

One possible solution I have is that if someone isn't smart enough in this day and age to know how to gauge their own fitness to drive, then maybe taking the driving-licence off them for good is an appropriate solution.

liaconn said:

... is anymore educational than allowing persons who genuinely thought they'd taken the correct procedures to ensure they were safe to drive, to get one warning and no more...

Click to expand...

There is no need for uninformed speculation about "taking the correct procedures" - apart from other obvious measure, personal alcohol-level measuring devices for example, are readily available; let drinkers buy them and use them, otherwise either stop drinking or stop driving.

IMHO there is no excuse these days for being shocked and surprised about an excess blood-alcohol level after the event, and stupidity or laziness don't count as excuses.

Current education just doesn't seem to be reaching the target audience, or the audience members are choosing to ignore it. The ads say "If you drink, don't drive", the ads do not say "If you drink, drive when you think you are safe based on what some idiot on a bar-stool told you was a fool-proof way of measuring / guaranteeing your sobriety".