Are you sober if you have no hangover?

No it doesn't (depending on how much you've drunk) and if you're breathalised you could be found to be over the limit and prosecuted - well in the UK anyway.

Same in the US but I think a large percentage of drinkers do it anyway.

http://www.legalwins.com/michigan_drunk_driving_laws.php

This is a website that gives some formula's for alcohol dissipation rates.

I certainly didn't feel alcohol impaired.

I stidnt freel as prunk as deople think I'm was....

The time you think you are safe to drive is the time to worry.

So, you've never drank, went to sleep and got up and drove.

If you didnt want an answer...Why ask the question?

My response merely implied that one should question ones fitness regardless of how you feel....

Which is surely exactly what you asked?

If that was too complex try the short answer.

Q. Can you be drunk if you have no hangover?

A. YES

Sorry Del, I was looking for someone to expand the discussion towards more serious concerns.

DDK

No prob, fair enough!

When I was a kid I drove like a nutter, but generally on 2 wheels so I was only likely to kill myself... (didn't we all?)

As I've grown older I've become more patient and less agressivea driver. Having taught 2 kids to drive helps!

(I can do serious too if pressed.... )

Del

Ok..

To be fai,r I'll answer your second question ... not that it has any relavence to anything.

Of course I have done .... I'm old enough to have done many stupid things in my lfe and fortunate enough not to have hurt anyone in the process.

Del

Hangovers are caused by the impurities in the distilled beverage more than from the alcohol. Cheap booze = worse hangover. So, it's perfectly possible to be drunk, and have no hangover in the morning.

Why, are you planning on going into space?

I was wondering when somebody would tie this into the drunken astronaut story.

I think that the limited discussion could be expanded if we start to bring in other concerns. I know of 2 different instances that pilots have flown planes after a night of drinking. Or the Valdez?

What about bus drivers? Cops? train or trolley operators?

You're right. Drinks for everyone!

Define sober, define hangover- identify your body mass- your rate of intake of the nectar- your metabolism- the STATE OF YOUR LIVER @ MANY<MANY YEARS OF drinking till unconscious- your intake of food before & during this self indulgent, repetitive daily & night addiction you should be ashamed of yourself!.(scuse me- glugug- burp).

The chart you link to seems to be a fairly good way of determining how intoxicated somebody is, though I bet a lawyer could (and would) argue some form of medical mitigating factors.

In the UK alcoholic content is frequently defined in 'Units'. 1 Unit being equivalent to a glass of Wine or 1/2 pint of Beer. From a long term health point of view, the public are advised on how many Units/Week is safe. The entire method is a nonsense. Sizes of Wine glass vary hugely, as does the strength of wine and beer. To be more exact, the 'Unit' being referred to is Qty (litres) x Alcohol %. For example, a 440mm can of 5% lager = 2.2 Units. A 70cl bottle of 11% Wine = 7.7 Units. You would be hard pressed to find a UK Doctor who could tell you that conversion, let alone the average punter. The UK has one of the worst teenage drinking cultures in Europe, and I doubt that many of them could get anywhere close to estimating how much they drink on an average night out. The simple expedient of marking bottles/cans with the number of Units alcohol they contain seems to be too much for our Government to tackle. Doing so would probably not change the nature of British drinking culture, but at least people might be more aware of exactly how p****** they were getting. I've enjoyed many a night trashing myself, though I always arrange things so I don't need to drive. All my excuses for the next morning are likewise planned. All that leaves me free to shoot pool, swap 'shaggy-dog-stories' (it's a Brit thing/phrase) and stagger home via the Kebab shop (again, a Brit thing for which there is no explanation or translation that I know of). Sunday lunch with my (mainly female) in-laws is an entirely different situation, in which getting mildly bladdered is a medical necessity. I enjoy lively and interesting conversation, but I do have tolerance limits. As you will surmise, it is early Sunday morning and I am as sober as a judge (insert word of choice), having abstained last night in anticipation of a nice meal coupled with several hours of inane chatter later on today.

Having addresses the last part of the OP at length, I can only answer 'probably not' to the specific question and retire for some late kip. Goodnight to all 22 members currently logged on.

zzzzzzzzzz

If your wife and kids had been killed by some slob who thought he was sober you might have a different view of it all.

A little blunt davah, but well said. On second thoughts, perhaps it does need to be said that way.

No you are not sober if you have no hangover- seasoned drinkers know that the hangover only occurs when you are sobering up- that is why experienced drinkers will delay the hangover by having a hair of the dog that bit you- as to blind drunk drivers, they deserve all they get- if you are not in control of your motor vehicle JUDGED BY PERFORMANCE, not arbitrary legal limits, enforced by the gestapo- then you deserve to go-however, there are many cases of drivers being punished for being 3 or 4 times over the legal limit(they should be dead!)- the reality is that no police test these days tests for capability- JUST A NOMINAL, MYTHICAL LIMIT, which, if you exceed, you are the biggest criminal around!. Get REAL- it is all revenue raising!!>

I have no idea what on Earth you are trying to express Neil. Anybod intoxicated with alcohol has a dimminished ability to drive. Choosing to be so reckless is entierly different to a general lack of driving skill. The only safe driving limit is zero alcohol in the system. Yabbering on about revenue raising when people get killed by drink drivers is crass stupidity.

That is where we disagree my friend- there are no tests of ability of dysfunction before, during, or after alcohol ingestion- as there were in the old days- do you then think that your metabolic function is exactly the same as the mythical average driver, after ingestion of an standard drink, as compared to a seasoned drinker- whose WHOLE SYSTEM has learned to use the alcohol as fuel- as compared to you- greenhorn- with your enraged reaction-"how dare anyone drink & drive!"- means you are just an uninformed selfabuser(in my humble opinion)- who, probably, after a bottle of beer, would be paralytic. Let me state this categorically- IF I WERE INCAPABLE OF DRIVING SAFELY, then I deserve to be penalised- however, I know my limits, & even carry & use breath alcohol testers- howabout that!. And to the often trotted out " your reactions slow after alcohol ingestion"- there are no tests done at license obtain or any further time including being picked up by revenue raising coppers!.

I think that hidden (well hidden) in this rant is a good point: how can anyone definitively state that a person's ability has been impaired if a) there is no baseline measurement and b) there is no current measurement of ability to compare with that baseline.

We can say that, on average, the consumption of alcohol reduces reaction times and cognitive function. We can say that all drivers have reached a minimum level of competancy, since they have all passed the driving test (well, in theory, anyway).

From these two statements we then make the corrollary that the consumption of alcohol makes people unfit to drive. This could be argued to be another misuse of statistics.

Having said that, as a student I drove home from a meal, on the basis that I'd had one glass of wine and my companion the rest of the bottle, so I was under the limit and he was not. My cognitive function was definitely impaired (probably more than his, ironically) to the point where I was aware of it. We arrived home without incident - I was being especially careful - and I have followed a "no alcohol if driving" approach ever since. My mum had a similar experience in her early 30s: she had a small glass of sherry at a Tupperware meeting (she was a rep) and driving home realised that she was feeling the effects. Result: no alcohol if driving.

I know of a number of other people whose driving abilities after a couple of drinks are still way above the abilities of a large number of sober people. This should not be taken to mean that I support drinking and driving! I think that the policing of a "personal consumption" level is impossible - and would also be unfair. Even if there were a "cognitive/motor function" test, its use would be impractical. It is far more equitable to say: this is the limit of alocohol a driver may have in his(her) blood because this IS measureable and being measureable can be reduced over time. There will be a time when that limit is zero, and I believe that that has been the long term aim all along.

On the subject of function tests - have you seen what the police are saying about drungs and driving? They don't like having to conduct the function test (walk along that white line, touch your nose etc) on drivers suspected of having taken drugs (apparantly the law regarding drunk in charge and drugged in charge are significantly different) because they take too long. I'm not convinced that we need more laws to deal with this issue; the report I heard on the news sounded as if the police want to have powers to stop and blood test anyone they choose without having due cause - after all, why would you stop and test someone unless their driving was dodgy in the first place? Without special permission from local authorities (like at Christmas), random testing is not allowed anyway.

Ok, so maybe we should get rid of any form of control on alcohol and driving - Every driver is going to think "I know my limits", and a few will carry some form of breath tester as you do. Police would nor pursue anyone who was found to be drink-driving, because there is no measure of how much their driving is impaired. That seems to be the scenario you would like. It would make life simpler, and probably fairer since the large numbers of people who drive while out of their heads on drugs get away with it. The world is full of seasoned drivers like you, who all know their limits with objective certainty. The police could stop scamming money out of drivers like yourself, and we could all feel safe on the road. I think you have advanced the case for sensible drink driving. Individuals should be free to judge for themselves how much they can safely drink before driving. Knowing that you exercise your own discretion and judgement is an example to all us young ones.

In reply to Rose( are you a bloke)? & Kris(are you a bloke)?- you seem to be ignoring my main point- alcohol is 1 of the best foods around- someone who has found this out, usually by accident, utilises this discovery- most of the most intelligent, active people I know take their food as needed- they have far less disease & illness than socalled NORMAL people- as a Dr told me at an autopsy "we dig our graves with our teeth"- I personally drink homebrew beer mainly, but also homebrew apple cider, & also homebrew red wine- I listen to what my body tells me- I also naturally, have proper minimum amounts of the proper food, & also vitamins, minerals etc etc. What I hate is for Authority to tell me what to do & not do- & then, if I fail their arbitrary generalised test for all, to be held responsible because my breath test may indicatethat I , according to their laws, are incapable of driving safely- whereas the facts are that I CAN & do drive safely. Now I will state this: The danger from drink driving is from young reckless drivers(I was once so) who drink to excess, & then go out in their powerful cars to "show all that we are someone- & wild!)". The police here are getting greater & greater powers- stopping anyone, putting workorders on cars, confiscating cars, seizing personal property, assets- ALL ON THEIR SAYSO!!. Oh & they are getting roadside drug tests too(which I have no arguement with)- the bottom line is that the coppers are revenue raising, as directed by their in power politicians- & increasingly reducing personal liberties- all in the name of "ROAD SAFETY" or "SAVING YOU FROM YOURSELF".

While I agree with the no interferrence theory..e.g. Gov't telling me I shouldn't do the wiring on my own house 'cos I'm not an Electrician (but I design Electronics for a living!)

The difference is booze impairs your judgement to make the vital 'am I ok to drive?' decision.

See my first post...#4 ? I think.

I drink very little these days... 1 pint after golf..but I can tell it has affected me...'cos I'm tired and have an empty stomach...I know if I had maybe one more the danger would be I'd think... 'I'm Ok I've only had 2...3...'

I shalln't bother rambling on about reaction times as you know for certain you are a perfect driver who never makes mistakes.... But what if someone else does...

A kid on his bike pops out in front of you...?

I agree with your philosophy of following you own bodies intuition, though many younger people today have grown up without knowing what food is ( they think it's something that goes from freezer to microwave etc). With you on that.

Homebrew - With you on that. It can be great + you know where it came from. I've tasted (well more than tasted !) some great homebrew, especially wines made from all sorts of wierd plants.

Reckless young drivers - with you on that. I don't know where you are, but in the UK young drivers are a major problem. More alarming is the frequency with which news is reported of such types killing people because they are out of their faces, or doing idiot stuff like text-messaging while driving. A typical court tariff, would allow them back on the road within a couple of years of killing somebody. On top of that, there is little deterrent for those who have no Vehicle Tax, roadworthy vehicle ('MOT') or Insurance. 'The law is an ass' as the saying goes.

In the UK 'points' are put on a license for driving offence. Get enough and you are prohibited from driving. If all offences were punished by way of points rather than fines, it would get rid of any doubt about Police being financially motivated. French police are notorious (here) for roadside fines. A foreign number plate is almost an invitation.'Points' would be a good move IMO as long as those who reached their point limit were kept off the road.

I still think that there needs to be some measure of whether alcohol plays a part in any given incident. As you rightly say, the alcohol lmit figures are just sort of 'out-of-a-hat' but I can't see a better method. I don't doubt that you are a responsible driver within the broad definitions that most of us on CR4 would apply - it's not exactly a teenage audience. The problem remains though of dealing with the inexperience/reckless types. Any measure that controls them has to be for the better, but it has to be applied to all when discussing factors such as alcohol. I can see no practical alternative.

Maybe our views are not so different (?).

Just to throw a cat in amongst the pigeons (meeooow...and keep Del company): the latest "government figures" say that drink-driving convictions are on the increase again in the UK.

Can't remember what they thought the reason was (I stopped listening, probably because I'd started ranting), but I believe it is the result of two related factors:
a) "kids" these days haven't seen the number of drink drive deaths we and our parents (or in some cases here: you and your grown up children ) saw in the past because...fewer people drink & drive

b) we no longer get as many public information films (Charlie says "we should bring them back"; Oh look that sailor's waving at me) warning of the dangers. (Or do we, I haven't had a TV for a few years!) I have seen a couple of adverts, but to be honest, I was more impressed with cinematography than the message.

I understand and share Neil's frustration at a loss of personal liberty, but this has to be balanced with protecting us and ours from the reckless and irresponsible (I was too old to be either by the time I got my first car; up till then I mostly drove vans & a 7.5t truck which belonged to an SU, so I was pretty careful!). And you have to have a system based on a measurable thing...else the system will be branded unfair.

<Sorry about the delay in responding...I forgot to click the "email me" option>

Yeh, and those speed limits are arbitary and shouldn't apply to you 'cos you know you are a safe driver.

So yeh ..drive through the housing estate at 50mph with 3 or 4 pints in you ....

Blimey the'll be expecting you to stop if you hit some one next...what an infringement of your liberty.

Sod 'em all..you go for it...

Analogous to impaired with no hangover is impairment due to lack of sleep. Many things affect a persons ability to function (including driving a truck or automobile). ddk, in your scenario someone working in say a machine shop could injure himself or others as a result lack of sleep as easily as from alcohol related impairment.

As far as driving goes if there's an accident and you've been drinking at all your gonna be found guilty regardless of who is at fault. That's about as subjective a determination as you can get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selby_rail_crash has been posted before. This illustrates what can happen in a sleep-deprived driving situation.

In a not-unrelated issue, the state of two personnel operating the rail service on the Watford to St. Albans line in the 1980s was sufficient to invoke a passenger's notification of it to the local railway area manager, with alarm. As a result of the undercover investigation that followed, it was found to be a habit and the two were dismissed from railway service on the grounds of alcohol consumption.

Depending on your previous nights consumption and your kidney/liver health, you may well have been still drunk.

Private pilots pbserve a strict "8 hours bottle to throttle" rule, and commercial pilots 12 Hours.

Sober? Phew!