# Drunk' cyclists investigated by Mersey tunnels police



## Andy Roadie (31 Dec 2015)

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...cyclists-investigated-mersey-tunnels-10663935

Looking at the video they seem to be capable of "proper control" of a bicycle so don't seem to have broken any laws.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Dec 2015)

"We wouldnt have done it if we were sober". I think that is a bit of a give away.
Drunk in charge of a bicycle is an offence.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

Andy Roadie said:


> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...cyclists-investigated-mersey-tunnels-10663935
> 
> Looking at the video they seem to be capable of "proper control" of a bicycle so don't seem to have broken any laws.



I agree, they should plead not guilty.

The video doesn't disclose a great deal, other than cyclists riding where they were legally allowed to do at that time of night.

There is the statement from one of the lads to say they had been on a night out and they'd 'had a few drinks', but that shouldn't be enough to convict them of cycling under the influence later that same night.

The lad does say 'we wouldn't have done it if we were sober', but the comment about sobriety is one anyone could make about having a few drinks.

Presumably there's no medical evidence.

The video and the comments are not enough, in my view, to satisfy a panel of magistrates so that they are sure the cyclists were drunk.


----------



## snorri (31 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Drunk in charge of a bicycle is an offence.


What is the definition of "drunk" in relation to cycling?


----------



## Mrs M (31 Dec 2015)

I'd be more concerned with the people in the car, not concentrating on their driving.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> What is the definition of "drunk" in relation to cycling?



The cyclists have been charged under Sect 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Quoting:

"A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence."

Seems to me the video does not show they were incapable of proper control of the bicycles.

There may be a statement(s) from car drivers/passengers of which we are unaware.

It will be up to the magistrates to judge, but the standard of proof is high, they need to be 'satisfied so that they are sure' of guilt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/30


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Dec 2015)

The article focuses on cycling not being allowed at that time in the tunnel. And they are in control. So I'd say it's a slap on the wrist of being where they shouldn't, not hard time for being drunk in charge.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> The article focuses on cycling not being allowed at that time in the tunnel. And they are in control. So I'd say it's a slap on the wrist of being where they shouldn't, not hard time for being drunk in charge.



The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.

If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Dec 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.
> 
> If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.


Oh right, my mistake then. I read am to pm.

The cops should investigate and let them go, in that case.

Sounds like a nice way to finish an evening (safely)


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Sounds like a nice way to finish an evening (safely)



It certainly does, which is another reason why I suspect the magistrates will be reluctant to convict.

Even though, strictly speaking, they should view the incident in isolation.


----------



## DaveReading (31 Dec 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.
> 
> If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.



Which makes the Wirral Mayor's comments daft and irrelevant:

"You can cycle at certain times, but people are probably going to think automatically they can cycle through at any time on the bikes. We need to review the rules, and maybe make them more explicit."

Doh.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

DaveReading said:


> Which makes the Wirral Mayor's comments daft and irrelevant:
> 
> "You can cycle at certain times, but people are probably going to think automatically they can cycle through at any time on the bikes. We need to review the rules, and maybe make them more explicit."
> 
> Doh.



Quite so, and the worrying thing is the likes of the town mayor is the type of local worthy who will also be a magistrate.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Dec 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.
> 
> If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.



Maybe so but they were still drunk.

The fact that they can control their bikes is immaterial. I arrested a guy for driving a car. He controlled the car OK, he looked and talked OK and was three times over the legal limit. Does that mean I should have had a quiet chat about drink driving and let him go? Of course not.

As always, you dont get the full story in the newspapers.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Dec 2015)

some drunk cyclists who did zero harm are getting more press attention than drunk drivers who kill.


----------



## Crandoggler (31 Dec 2015)

Jesus wept. One rule for cyclists and another for motor vehicle users? The hypocritical and self righteous comments from some on here are laughable.

How many motor users drink and drive on a road they're allowed to use and cause any harm? Absolutely idiotic to think that this isn't an offence.


----------



## Lonestar (31 Dec 2015)

I can't see much difference to which road vehicle you are driving.We are still road users like car drivers so why should we get special rules? IMHO.


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2015)

Lonestar said:


> I can't see much difference to which road vehicle you are driving.We are still road users like car drivers so why should we get special rules? IMHO.


There are obvious differences to how much harm you can do but regardless of "should", the law is currently different between motorised and not.


----------



## Crandoggler (31 Dec 2015)

Well maybe the rules should be changed?

As for damage, it doesn't take much to swing into another carriageway and hit an oncoming vehicle.


----------



## Lonestar (31 Dec 2015)

They are laughing about that in the video,there's nothing funny about it.


----------



## si_c (31 Dec 2015)

Presuming that the Police breathalysed them to ensure they were drunk, it would seem a slam dunk. If they didn't then that's another question. Nice christmas gift for the tunnel popo though, my understanding is that they are incredibly bored year round.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Maybe so but they were still drunk.
> 
> The fact that they can control their bikes is immaterial. I arrested a guy for driving a car. He controlled the car OK, he looked and talked OK and was three times over the legal limit. Does that mean I should have had a quiet chat about drink driving and let him go? Of course not.
> 
> As always, you dont get the full story in the newspapers.



It's a different law isn't it? That's why blood alcohol levels apply to cars not bikes.

And in reality it's different - pissed with a ton of metal and a hundred horsepower or so, as opposed to 0.1 horsepower and a hire bike.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Dec 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Well maybe the rules should be changed?
> 
> As for damage, it doesn't take much to swing into another carriageway and hit an oncoming vehicle.



No they shouldn't be changed to be equitable, because they are materially different.

Chill out.


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Well maybe the rules should be changed?


Nope. They are currently roughly proportionate to the probable harm.


Crandoggler said:


> As for damage, it doesn't take much to swing into another carriageway and hit an oncoming vehicle.


 And what is the likely outcome if the swinger is on a bike compared to that if they're driving a car?

Drunk-riders are primarily a danger to themselves. Drunk-drivers are primarily a danger to others. So shouldn't policing and laws prioritise stopping drunk-drivers over drunk-riders?



si_c said:


> Presuming that the Police breathalysed them to ensure they were drunk, it would seem a slam dunk. If they didn't then that's another question.


IIRC refusing to provide a breath sample doesn't prove any drunk-cycling offence like it does drunk-driving, but I suspect it's possible to contrive a related offence for failing to comply with a police instruction if they want. Maybe it's classed as terrorism these days?


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Dec 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Well maybe the rules should be changed?


Go on - show us the photos of the reflectors you have fitted to the pedals of your car


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Maybe so but they were still drunk.
> 
> The fact that they can control their bikes is immaterial. I arrested a guy for driving a car. He controlled the car OK, he looked and talked OK and was three times over the legal limit. Does that mean I should have had a quiet chat about drink driving and let him go? Of course not.
> 
> As always, you dont get the full story in the newspapers.



Yes, but you get the full story from the relevant Act of Parliament which tells us the fact they can control the bikes, far from being immaterial, is all that matters.

This is not a motor car, it's a bicycle, the law says: 'is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle)'.

Thus the prosecution has to prove the the cyclist was cycling, and was incapable of proper control of the bike.

Clearly the bikes were being ridden, but I don't believe the video even suggests, let alone proves, the riders were not in proper control.


----------



## sidevalve (31 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> And what is the likely outcome if the swinger is on a bike compared to that if they're driving a car?


Yes very funny - if the 'swinger' causes a 'ton' of metal to try to dodge him [and yes most drivers would try strangely enough] the outcome could be terrible. I'm afraid it is attitude like this - the old famous five getting a little tipsy on shandy and falling off into the hedge giggling crap that points cyclists out as irresponsible fools. Grow up and accept responsibility. Drinking and travelling on the public roads in or on anything puts others at risk - get over it


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Yes very funny - if the 'swinger' causes a 'ton' of metal to try to dodge him [and yes most drivers would try strangely enough] the outcome could be terrible.


It _could_ be terrible, but the outcome of a motorist sneezing _could_ be terrible too, but it's highly improbable. Basically, you've left reality if your basing your approach to traffic laws on the most contrived worst cases: the roads would soon be unusable.


sidevalve said:


> Drinking and travelling on the public roads in or on anything puts others at risk - get over it


Blimey - therefore people should only drink where they're going to sleep?  That's a pretty absurd position, even for a motoring supremacist.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Dec 2015)

I feel a False Equivalence scoreboard coming on...I'm not sure who to award the first point to though!


----------



## Hip Priest (31 Dec 2015)

Whenever we drove through the mersey tunnel, my parents used to tell me we had to keep the windows closed because the fumes would kill us.

The lying b******.


----------



## snorri (31 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Blimey - therefore people should only drink where they're going to sleep?


Not nowadays, the safe limit for driving in Scotland would make it inadvisable to take alcohol the evening before driving in the morning.


----------



## Hip Priest (31 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Maybe so but they were still drunk.
> 
> The fact that they can control their bikes is immaterial. I arrested a guy for driving a car. He controlled the car OK, he looked and talked OK and was three times over the legal limit. Does that mean I should have had a quiet chat about drink driving and let him go? Of course not.
> 
> As always, you dont get the full story in the newspapers.



The laws for drunk driving and drunk cycling are very different, which renders this analogy pointless.


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> Not nowadays, the safe limit for driving in Scotland would make it inadvisable to take alcohol the evening before driving in the morning.


You fall foul the same way in England, too, although it's harder. But I didn't say how long they'd have to sleep and the travel ban wasn't limited to driving: under the Sidevalve Law, you can't cycle, walk, be a passenger (hey, they may grab the handbrake or wheel) or anything. Did some publican bar him?


----------



## Andy Roadie (31 Dec 2015)

It is illegal to be drunk on any highway or other public place even as a pedestrian but the Police never enforce this law. Drunk pedestrians do cause road traffic accidents. 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/94/section/12


The blood alcohol limit clearly applies to drivers of motor vehicles and section 30 of the RTA is clear that a cyclist in proper control is cycling legally. The Police can ask for a breath sample but the cyclist (or pedestrian) is under no legal obligation to provide one.


----------



## Drago (31 Dec 2015)

Unfortunately, the video on display here is one shot by a passing motorist, and not the one the officers shot with their BWV, so any judgement based upon it is flawed.

They have their own multiple videos, multiple statements from officers, they're screwed. Going not guilty will only get the punishment shoved even further up their arses.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Dec 2015)

The Famous Five drank ginger beer, dunno what version you read but they never got drunk in the books.


----------



## Dogtrousers (31 Dec 2015)

But Councillor Les Rowlands, Wirral mayor and a Merseytravel committee member said ... “You can cycle at certain times, but people are probably going to think automatically they can cycle through at any time on the bikes. We need to review the rules, and maybe make them more explicit.”

This is pretty explicit. How much more explicit can it be?

_14.*Can I ride my bicycle through the tunnel?*

Bicycles are not permitted through the Kingsway Tunnel. Through the Queensway Tunnel, they are not allowed between the hours of 6:00am to 8:00pm, Monday to Friday, 7:00am to 8:00pm on Saturday and 8:00am to 9:00pm on Sunday. Please note, the time limits during a Sunday are only operational between 1st April and 30th September inclusive._


----------



## oldroadman (31 Dec 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, but you get the full story from the relevant Act of Parliament which tells us the fact they can control the bikes, far from being immaterial, is all that matters.
> 
> This is not a motor car, it's a bicycle, the law says: 'is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle)'.
> 
> ...


I'm fairly sure there is some case law which refers to what being in control amounts to, and the view in the case was that if they didn't reel about and fall off, it could be reasonably judged that they had control of the bicycles. A smart brief who knows the RTA will see this never gets past a magistrates hearing, if the only evidence is the in car video.


----------



## steveindenmark (31 Dec 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> It's a different law isn't it? That's why blood alcohol levels apply to cars not bikes.
> 
> And in reality it's different - pissed with a ton of metal and a hundred horsepower or so, as opposed to 0.1 horsepower and a hire bike.




I think its a case of size doesnt matter. Especially if the car is swerving to miss the pixxed cyclist. You can be a hazard on the road if you are a truck or a bike.


----------



## mjr (31 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I think its a case of size doesnt matter. Especially if the car is swerving to miss the pixxed cyclist. You can be a hazard on the road if you are a truck or a bike.


OK, but is a bike simpler to control and less likely to do damage than a truck? (Hint: which requires passing multiple tests and being licensed?) Which would you prefer a mildly intoxicated human to be in charge of?


----------



## DaveReading (1 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Most drunk driving arrests (IIRC around 60%) take place the morning after. It seems that many drivers just don't understand how alcohol and their bodies work.



This response to an FOIA request

http://www.autoglassnews.co.uk/inde...id=180&cHash=a897c30ee876f274e867a1934427b408

would suggest that the proportion of "morning after" arrests is much lower than that (it quotes 13%, which sounds more realistic).


----------



## Dogtrousers (1 Jan 2016)

In Finland they do morning spot checks. The police put a checkpoint on the road and breathalise everyone coming through. I didn't see any cyclists when I went through one


----------



## mjr (1 Jan 2016)

User said:


> I have a breathalyser and use it if I've had more than about 6 units the night before.
> 
> Oh - and it isn't a 'safe limit for driving' - it's the legal limit
> 
> The safe limit for driving is zero.


So after you show a legal breathalyser reading, you wait another five hours before driving? That's the time it takes to go from legal limit to zero.

I feel that's excessively cautious but I'd rather people did that than be excessively optimistic.


----------



## subaqua (2 Jan 2016)

User said:


> I set the breathalyser to zero.
> 
> I'd support an absolute ban. It's perfectly possible.



http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150305-the-man-who-gets-drunk-on-chips
how do you legislate for that then .

FWIW if I am driving the next morning, then I am not drinking the previous evening . Not because the Law says , but because I don't want to have the "what if" if there ever is an incident.

I would support a reduction to network rail limits, which is what the company I work for has set the limit at for people in work, even head office .


----------



## CopperCyclist (2 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Most drunk driving arrests (IIRC around 60%) take place the morning after.



I'm not sure about this ... I've arrested a lot of drink drivers in the last 12 years, and only recall one ever saying he had only drunk the night before, so the 60 percent would surprise me if true. 

Doesn't negate your point at all though. 

I'm also for a zero limit - if I'm driving I just don't drink anything. That said, ironically I would put the "zero" limit as around 5mg of alcohol in breath, as I think there needs to be some leeway. 5mg would be low enough to get across the message "if you are driving tonight, don't drink at all" while allowing a reasonable room for honest error from the day before.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Jan 2016)

A tiny limit also gets rid of what we might call the Iron Jelloid defence.


----------



## buggi (2 Jan 2016)

You can't be convicted if there is no evidence and saying you had a drink doesn't constitute evidence as only a breathalyser or blood alcohol test can prove you're over the limit. Police have no case.


----------



## Colin_P (2 Jan 2016)

Booze is so over rated, as one gets older it almost becomes habitual. I went from being one of those habitual drinkers who even made their own and would routinely drink about four pints every evening to giving it up completely. So I may evangalise a little on the merits of being booze free.

Only once you have effectively given up do you realise how silly and pointless it is.

But for those that do wish have a 'few' and ride a bike I think it should be the as for car drivers. Drunk cycling may not be punishable anything nearly as badly as drink driving as there is no licence to suspend but the consequences can be the same. As a drunk cyclist you may be ok yourself if there were no other traffic on the road and may be ok even if you fell off but it is the consequential damage that may be caused that cannot be overlooked.

Stating the obvious,a drunk cyclist not only puts themselves in danger, but everyone else as well. I wouldn't want to be the motorist through no fault of their own who runs over a drunk cyclist no more than being hit by a drunk driver in another car.

I say fine them and fine them big!


----------



## subaqua (2 Jan 2016)

User said:


> It's so rare as to be irrelevant. It's the usual schtick put forward by the drink drive supporters...


Again you read what you want to and reply what you want to don't you ... And so rare I know 3 people in our company who have the doctors letter on file ready for when they blow over the lower limit we have. Which if you could be bothered to read my post properly you would see I am an advocate of for being the drink drive limit .


----------



## mjr (3 Jan 2016)

Colin_P said:


> Drunk cycling may not be punishable anything nearly as badly as drink driving as there is no licence to suspend but the consequences can be the same.


Since http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/section/146 the law allows for a driving licence be suspended for drink cycling, in addition to the hefty fine. I don't think they imprison drink cyclists yet, but drunk drivers usually have to be more than three times over the limit to suffer that.

And once again, the consequences _can_ be the same but a drunk cyclist will probably be less damaging than a drunk driver. Laws must not be designed to treat the averages as if they are the same as the worst possibility. Plus, a cycle is easier to control than a motor vehicle so can be operated safely with a greater impairment and the current law correctly recognises that.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Jan 2016)

A quick Google finds no reports of it in the UK.
Sussex police apparently arrested someone for drunk cycling in 2010. Doesn't seem to be as pressing an issue as all that...
Plus, I have (allegedly) cycled 8 miles home in a state of severe refreshment. Perhaps. I defy anyone to show I was not in comp!ete control of my bike, given that I didn't fall off, crash or even stop for a nap.


----------



## Colin_P (3 Jan 2016)

There are course no Police on the roads anymore to catch anyone.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Jan 2016)

Well, they'd probably not have even bothered with me.
If you want to lobby lawmakers then go ahead. Us cyclists don't make policy. Sadly.
It's amazing how these non-existant police stop drink drivers though.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Jan 2016)

[QUOTE 4084820, member: 9609"]I did come across this a little while ago and not sure what to make of it - has it ever happened, and could it - @Pale Rider

146 Driving disqualification for any offence.
(1)The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence.
(2)Where the person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 109(2), 110(2) or 111(2) above, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if the words “instead of or” were omitted.
(3)A court shall not make an order under subsection (1) above unless the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that the power to make such orders is exercisable by the court and the notice has not been withdrawn.
(4)A court which makes an order under this section disqualifying a person for holding or obtaining a driving licence shall require him to produce—
(a)any such licence held by him together with its counterpart; or
(b)in the case where he holds a Community licence (within the meaning of Part III of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988), his Community licence and its counterpart (if any).
(5)In this section—
“driving licence” means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part III of the M2Road Traffic Act 1988;
“counterpart”—
(a)
in relation to a driving licence, has the meaning given in relation to such a licence by section 108(1) of that Act; and
(b)
in relation to a Community licence, has the meaning given by section 99B of that Act. [/QUOTE]

The act quoted is a general powers of sentencing one.

It certainly doesn't apply directly to cyclists, if it applies at all.

What the courts like to call 'ancilliary orders' are usually relevant to the offence, thus someone who is cruel to animals may get a general sentence - community work, prison, whatever - and banned from keeping animals.

Or a child abuser will be banned from unsupervised contact with children in addition to whatever sentence he gets.

You don't need a driving licence to ride to bicycle, so I can't seen your licence being removed as part of a cycling prosecution.

However, the prosecution is under one of the Road Traffic Acts, so it may be there is the power to ban anyone who is prosecuted under those acts.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Jan 2016)

I once knew a bloke who told me that his uncle was prosecuted for "furious pedalling". Mind you he may have made it up, or he may have told the truth but his uncle may have lied about it. Or indeed I may have made it up.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 Jan 2016)

subaqua said:


> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150305-the-man-who-gets-drunk-on-chips
> how do you legislate for that then .



Why does it require different legislation?

If their body converts carbohydrates to alcohol, and it is above the legal alcohol level in the blood. Then they cannot drive, it's no different to drinking alcohol and driving. I don't understand why there would be any difference.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jan 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Why does it require different legislation?
> 
> If their body converts carbohydrates to alcohol, and it is above the legal alcohol level in the blood. Then they cannot drive, it's no different to drinking alcohol and driving. I don't understand why there would be any difference.



because if a zero limit was in place ........


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 Jan 2016)

subaqua said:


> because if a zero limit was in place ........



Then they won't be allowed to drive. Unfortunately, medical conditions exclude others from driving too, as they're deemed dangerous.

Why is it ok to be physically drunk, and way over the legal limit, just because you didn't drink it? It doesn't matter what the medical condition, they're not fit to drive a motor vehicle.


----------



## subaqua (3 Jan 2016)

whoosh


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (3 Jan 2016)

subaqua said:


> whoosh



Explaining your point is generally a more effective method of debate.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jan 2016)

righty ho then.

1 ) a zero limit is not workable due to several factors. I highlighted the extreme cases where a medical condition puts well over the current limit. there are lots of ( despite Regs assertion it is sooo rare) people who produce alcohol in the gut but well below network rail limit. several people on our rail projects have discovered this as D and D mandatory testing happens at induction. a few people were very shocked to see a measurable level despite not having had any alcohol for several days.
2) "aunt mildreds" sherry trifle , Rum n raisin Ice cream/Fudge ( yes it does actually contain rum)
3) alcohol had gel does get absorbed into the blood stream.
4) ever had a mild tummy upset where the bacteria imbalance gets skewed. perfect conditions for a natural alcohol to occur.

I personally would be very happy to see the limit in the UK as low as the Network rail levels (13mg) or lower. BUT NOT ZERO .


----------



## mjr (4 Jan 2016)

Relatedly, how accurate are the "reference only" breathalysers that Maplin are clearing out? Why would you want one that isn't a known accuracy? http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/alcohol-breath-tester-n87nc


----------



## subaqua (4 Jan 2016)

so* all* rum and raisin ice cream contains only rum flavouring . and the same for fudge ? I think the appletons that went into mine was real rum . was bloody lovely too.


----------



## subaqua (4 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Reading comprehension not your strong point?



just trying to see what its like as you for a bit. I don't like it. its a bit knowally . I shall return to being a decent person


----------



## Scoosh (4 Jan 2016)

*MOD NOTE:*
Some posts have been Deleted, some Edited.

Please stop the personal (and rather petty) stuff.

Thank you


----------



## Andy_R (4 Jan 2016)

cheeesus......put the handbags away girls, and get back on topic......happy new year and peace and love to all, etc., etc.....


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Jan 2016)

If I remember rightly, drinking and driving is a misnomer. We always refer to it a drink driving but actually it is Driving under the influence of alcohol. I dont think it mentions how the alcohol gets into your system. If you inject alcohol you will still be over the limit but you hav'nt drunk it.

I have never heard of this medical condition but it is interesting.


----------

