Like a bus, you wait for ages – then several come along all at the same time!
This story from Scotland criticises Sheriff Robert McCreadie, who allowed 65-year old Wayne Barrett to keep his car – even though he admitted to two offences involving drink- and drug-driving. He was banned for two years. Barrett played the “need independence and have a sick wife” card and won.
McCreadie also banned charity worker, Daniel Peach, for two years when he should have banned him for a minimum of three, according to the law. Peach was double the current drink-drive limit, and already had a previous drink-drive conviction less than 10 years ago, which means a mandatory three year ban.
When you look at that previous story about Scotland wanting to drop the drink-drive limit, you wonder how the hell they will make it work with people like McCreadie calling the shots.
An interesting story from Scotland. According to this report they are going to introduce a lower drink-drive limit to move into line with Europe. The current limit is the same as the rest of the UK (80mg/100ml blood), but they are likely to drop it to 50mg/100ml blood.
Taken at face value, the move seems to press all the right buttons. However, Scotland already has a disproportionate number of drink drivers, and all that this change would do would be to make even more of them lawbreakers.
But you are really only breaking the law if you get caught – and enforcement is going to be a real headache.
There is also the suggestion that the change has other political forces driving it, and making the limit the same as in Europe – but different from what it is in England – is a gesture of independence by the SNP and its separatist agenda. It’s designed to break Scotland further away from the UK.
The SNP is already trying to set a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish Justice Secretary – via a spokesman – demonstrates a naïveté that would be quite cute if it wasn’t so misguided:
All the evidence shows that alcohol-related road deaths drop dramatically where the limit has been reduced to more accurately reflect when the effects of drinking impairs driving.
Well, yes. If you enforce it so that people follow it. But changing the limit will have absolutely no effect on road deaths by itself.
The minister’s naïveté was matched only by Brake – the anti-drink-drive champions – who welcomed the change, and added that it was a start on the way to lowering the limit even further.
You have to eliminate the pissheads before you can move the goalposts.
(Note: The report is inaccurate when it refers to how much beer the limits approximate to.)
A bit obscure, but this article in the John O’Groat Journal is full of genuine wisdom.
The title – “Learning to drive does not stop when you pass your test” – couldn’t be more true. The driving test is just the first step on a lifelong learning curve.
But the comment that caught my eye was this:
DRIVING – it’s the ambition of many young people and it opens up countless opportunities. It is something we want to do from a young age. Of course then we can only use toy cars but the urge is still there. Then finally you turn 17.
This is precisely what I have been saying. Perhaps now those people who deliver lessons to children – a showy philanthropic pretence – will take note, and at least admit that their clever money-making scheme has potential drawbacks.
With reference to the sale of Alcopal – an internet “medicine” which claims to reduce the apparent amount of alcohol drunk when tested by breathalyser, and which I covered in this story, and updated in this one – I got to thinking about the mechanisms involved.
There is a lot of confusion about what it does, how it does it, and whether or not it works. Even its current salesman can’t make his mind up whether it actually stops alcohol entering the bloodstream or if it just stops the breathalyser from measuring alcohol on the breath accurately.
There is also confusion about what it contains. The words “natural ingredients” and “carbon” have been mentioned, along with Simethicone – again, by the current salesman.
I did a bit of searching to see if there was any evidence that orally ingested materials could actually adsorb alcohol from the gut before it could get into the bloodstream. In the case of activated carbon, there was one article – a patent claim – which reckoned that carbon tablets could reduce blood alcohol by about two-thirds.
Just out of interest, that would mean five pints of beer would be measured as though the drinker had ingested less than two pints. This is remarkably similar to the claims being made by Kibble – the current salesman hawking these tablets.
The patent claim doesn’t ring true, because in the two examples it gives it says that blood alcohol levels actually decreased with time following treatment with activated carbon – the patent claim was based solidly on this. The problem is that activated carbon would have to adsorb the alcohol BEFORE it got into the blood stream, and it couldn’t have that effect AFTER it was already there except by other biological mechanisms, and carbon is virtually inert in this respect. In any case, only two subjects appear to have been tested.
More reliable papers, however, confirmed that alcohol concentrations in the blood are virtually unaffected by the use of activated charcoal. And this was a proper medical study:
…demonstrated in dogs that charcoal given at the same time as alcohol can reduce the blood alcohol concentration significantly. To study whether charcoal is of value in a clinical situation, a randomized cross-over study in two phases was conducted. Each person drank 88 g of alcohol and 30 min after either 20 g of activated charcoal was taken or the same volume of water was drunk. There were no significant differences in plasma alcohol concentrations with or without charcoal.
That’s fairly conclusive, and other papers report similar findings:
We compared the pharmacokinetic profile of ethanol with and without activated charcoal treatment. The fraction of ethanol absorbed was similar on both protocols. The mean peak ethanol concentration after pretreatment with activated charcoal was 8% greater than ethanol alone (p = 0.08). Thus oral activated charcoal does not significantly impair ethanol absorption and can be used in patients requiring oral ethanol.
And others make it clear that activated charcoal does not bind well with alcohols. And on top of that, side-effects from regular use include:
…constipation and black stools. More serious, but rare, side effects are a slowing or blockage of the intestinal tract, regurgitation into the lungs, and dehydration.
It is also not advised for use during pregnancy or for those with intestinal issues already. Unfortunately, some silly sites state categorically that it does remove alcohol from the gut in spite of the factual medical trials proving otherwise.
OK. So if Alcopal contains activated carbon, the activated carbon part definitely doesn’t work – not unless you’re a dog, or an idiot who believes every website contains only facts, anyway! And it is likely to be dangerous for a significant proportion of the population if used regularly.
As for the “natural ingredients” – assuming that these do not refer to carbon – anything “natural” (as in “plant extract” or “herbal”) is not going to do what Kibble is claiming.
As for Simethicone, I suspect that it’s anti-foaming properties are intended to reduce the amount of alcohol in direct contact with the stomach lining. I don’t think it has any power to adsorb/absorb alcohol. And it has a maximum daily dose of 500mg.
At the time I stuck my neck out to inform them on a certain forum (frequented by very immature people). Unfortunately – nearly a year down the line – we have heard nothing from Mike Penning (Road Safety Minister) indicating that the supposed change to the law is ever going to happen, and those immature types are becoming restless in their typically immature way! They’re about 5 minutes away from shooting the messenger.
The original reports were very specific. Penning was very specific. So it just goes to show how much you can trust a Tory politician when he says something.
Even if it came into effect next week, the total lack of communication or information to instructors (who would need to prepare) and everyone else following such an announcement is shocking.
I can see no reason to suggest that it isn’t going to happen, but the big question remains “when?” – and Penning has shown yet again what a clown he really is.
I saw this a few days ago. It tells how driving lessons are being given to young people between 15 and 19 years old in Wokingham.
I’ve written before about how lessons have been given to those as young as 11, and that that particular course was being championed by self-declared motoring guru (and former Top Gear presenter), Quentin Willson. I said then that I believe children should be kept away from cars – which are for adults – but taught road safety through cycling proficiency and things like The Green Cross Code, etc.
The reason I believe that is because this current fad is simply designed to pander to the wants of people who would otherwise break the law. The best it can achieve is to make sure they break the law slightly more safely than they would have done otherwise. More realistically, though, it is simply a unique selling point (USP) dreamed up by a handful of driving instructors, and as such I can’t fault it.
This latest example is probably just a case of jumping on the bandwagon, and I doubt that it would have happened if the other lot hadn’t done it first. Again, from the perspective of making money for driving instructors, the idea cannot be faulted.
But I will say again that cars are for adults, not children. And children shouldn’t be encouraged like this when the situation with them driving illegally is already bad enough. There’s no evidence that starting them early makes them safer drivers in later life – that’s just wishful thinking. Far too many other factors govern their behaviour, and I fear that this pandering to them is simply another factor likely to worsen their behaviour rather than improve it.
Parents (many of whom are driving instructors) should concentrate on saying “NO” to their offspring a little more instead of trying to turn them into mini-adults way before their DNA has triggered enough of the right hormones for them to pull it off.
Wokingham is at least only dealing with teenagers, but 15 is still too young for someone to be tempted with something that will become a symbol of their embryonic manhood once they turn 17.
An ATV is an All Terrain Vehicle (I guess we’d call them quad bikes over here). Well, in Canada a paediatric group is saying that children should be banned from driving them because…
…children under the age of 16 lack the knowledge, physical size, strength, and cognitive and motor skills to operate the machines safely…
…The highest risk of injury is really between sort of [ages] 10 to 25…
Physical size and strength are obviously more relevant to ATVs. But cognitive and motor skills are definitely not. And that’s one of the major reasons young drivers have accidents after they pass their driving tests.
It translates to: they’re not as good as they think they are – even up to age 25.
These misguided adults offering kiddie-lessons can’t see what they’re really doing – they’re trying to convince children that they ARE that good, when the laws of nature guarantee that they aren’t.
I’ll say again that it’s why children should be kept away from motor vehicles, and not encouraged to play with them and made to think they’re all grown up before their time.
I received an email via the contact form this morning from a guy in Bromley (his IP address comes up as Brierley Hill, so I assume it must be the Bromley in the West Midlands). He identifies himself as “Amused from Bromley”.
Just to remind people that the guy selling Alcopal is from the West Midlands, too, but that must just be a huge coincidence, and there is no connection whatsoever.
Anyway, he says:
Are you or this website trying to be satirical? If so it is only mildly funny but if not it has become amazingly hilarious!!! I have read some of your pages and sorry but you are such a bigot. Why don’t you try to write a “piece” that doesn’t involve insults? Any fool can say “Dickheads” and “chavs” as a way of demonstrating how upset you feel. Maybe if you look through a dictionary you may find some alternative words to use rather than searching the internet for other news stories that clearly contradict what you are stating as fact. Some serious research involves getting up from the desk and walking/driving to the local library and looking through some books, periodicals and newspapers (think of the tabloids as sensationalist’s not serious news!).
By the way the “reports” do lighten my day so please do not take this too seriously as we all have a right to comment.
Yours very amused.
Just to clarify what I said in my About page, this is MY blog, and I write in it what I want to write about. I don’t do group hugs (or the equivalent in blog form) and write about stuff I just agree with (maybe except under music and technology). I comment on things I have an opinion on. And I write it in my OWN style. So I’m not “trying” to be anything, and if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Let’s just remind ourselves what the purveyors of Alcopal – and those who want to buy it – are trying to do.
drink and drive
admit to being pulled for drink driving before
want to carry on drink driving
disguise the fact they’ve been drinking so that the police can’t prosecute
ignore at least one source which mentions the dangers of the active ingredients – which include possible birth defects
The dictionary definition of “bigot” comes up as:
– a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Well, the number of positive messages I get far outweighs the total of THREE I have ever received which have been critical, so my views (and there are nearly 3,000 of them so far) are at least shared by a lot of others. But let’s play along with this, and ignore the fact that just creating a blog or having an opinion on various things doesn’t in itself turn someone into a bigot (although lesser intellects reading said blog might easily convince themselves otherwise, especially if they don’t understand that definition properly), it would be fair to say that someone who is completely in favour of Alcopal and what it sets out to achieve is as much of a bigot as someone who – like myself – doesn’t see it quite so favourably.
Given the choice of being the type of bigot who wants to drink and drive, mask the fact and possibly kill people as a result, and risk begetting kids with six fingers or who have to pee out of their belly button (without being sure it won’t actually cause that), or the other kind, who is against that type of driver mentality by virtue of his profession… well, I know which one I’d choose every time.
I think it’s still fair to say that someone who really does want to promote Alcopal in any way whatsoever, knowing those facts or possible facts, could reasonably be described as a dickhead. Of course, I’m not naming any individual – Alcopal is, after all, a multi-national product, and can be pushed to the public by anyone who can afford it, just as it can be taken by any member of the public who can afford (and is stupid enough) to buy it at the present time if they so choose.
EDIT 3/9/2012: Some of the comments reacting to a post about Alcopal on another blog typify the mental capacity of the sort of people Alcopal is aimed at. If you told them the earth was flat they’d believe it if they thought there might something in it for them.
I’m surprised that no one yet has come up with any factual data from the labs. This one comes closest so far. However, as far as I know alcohol is absorbed from both the stomach and the intestines, yet they talk only of the stomach. And it repeats the claim that the pills are “herbal” and contain “carbon”. They contain Simethicone – which is less “carbon” than coal, petroleum spirit, or creosote for painting fences.
I saw this story in the newsfeeds. It’s in the Wirral Globe, and it reports how several headstones were damaged in a cemetery by a learner driver who lost control. Since one of them was that of a soldier killed on active duty, the hyenas are out in force.
Let’s just consider a few things. First of all, the story doesn’t specify whether the “learner” was with an ADI – so taking proper lessons – or out with his/her mother, father, or just his mates.
Secondly:
[Cllr Davies, the wannabe politician who has just discovered his calling in life, said]… I saw the outcome of the online survey done by the Globe which showed that people have called for it to be banned.
People HATE learner drivers for no other reason than that they are idiots. What the hell did Cllr Davies expect a “survey” – carried out in the wake of the desecration in question – to reveal? Still, at least it’s provided him with some work and a possible leg up to the next level.
If there is going to be any ban, it should be for ALL drivers, and not just learners. Learner drivers cause infinitely less damage to these places than “normal” drivers do – and that includes those going there to actually grieve, and not just using the place as a short cut or a place to eat their McDonalds or to “make out”.
Now read the part about repairing the stones:
Council officers contacted families of the five memorials affected, explaining that the memorials will all be restored or replaced via a claim on the driver’s insurance.
The “driver’s” insurance? So that means it wasn’t a proper driving instructor.
The Wirral Globe, Cllr Davies, and all the hyenas ready to swear that their lives have been ruined as a result should bear that in mind before they start egging driving school cars.
Cllr Davies doesn’t seem that clued up on grown-up politics, either. He ought to consider the possible discrimination aspect if only learners are banned from public places.
Incidentally, the idiot supervising the learner – whatever or whoever he or she is – should be taken to the cleaners for being rubbish at what they do. But the names on the headstones have absolutely nothing to do with any ban – though unfortunately, that appears to be the driving force in this case.
Instead of piddling about with petty stuff, Cllr Davies ought to throw his weight behind getting the law changed so that learners can only be supervised by ADIs. But I guess that won’t win him anywhere near as many votes come the next elections.
A reader sent me this link to a BBC story which reports that a 100-year old man reversed across a pavement and into a group of primary school children in Los Angeles. Four of the children were critically injured, but expected to survive. Some were trapped under the car.
The driver, Preston Carter, will be 101 on September 5th. The report says:
Mr Carter told a local news station: “My brakes failed. It was out of control.” He also said he had a driving licence and would be 101 on 5 September.
When asked about hitting the children, he said: “You know I’m sorry about that. I wouldn’t do that for nothing on earth. My sympathies for them.”
Police believe he was driving out of the car park of a grocery shop, but drove on to the pavement instead of pulling into the street.
A slight contradiction there, depending on who you believe, but you can work out the most likely reason it happened for yourselves. It will be interesting to see what the US legal system decides. After all, Carter does have certain “constitutional rights”.
Remember to sign Cassie’s Law – police in the UK need powers to remove dangerous elderly drivers from the roads.
More stories are now appearing on the newsfeeds. This one is from USA Today. This one in the Salt Lake Tribune. A UK one from the GazetteLive. The Lexington Herald. The Sunday Sun. The LA Times. The Tucson News Now. The Peoria Journal Star.
I do feel a bit sorry for the guy – but he simply shouldn’t be driving at 100 years old. No one should.
This came through on the newsfeeds, and I’m sure a lot of people have read about it in the newspapers today (and as of Christmas 2015, the story has become – perhaps not surprisingly – very popular again).
The story deals with Alcopal tablets, an internet “medicine” which can allegedly make a breathalyser reading read 9 times lower than it should do. In typical fashion, the Mail’s hacks demonstrate a total lack of any academic skills and write:
The pills, which are taken before and after a drinking session, are said to prevent alcohol being absorbed through the stomach and into the bloodstream.
[Kibble said]… “Because it prevents the uptake of alcohol and gives some protection to your liver and kidneys you’re more in control.”
When I read this, my first thoughts were:
how does it work?
what’s the active ingredient?
so, does it really work?
None of this occurred to the Mail’s amateur staff, though. So when I looked up the same story in The Mirror, I got a bit more information:
The pill, called Alcopal costs £20 for a pack of 20, is said to neutralise alcohol in breath samples.
Birmingham businessman Mr Kibble, who admitted he had been caught drink-driving in 2002, bragged on his website about Alcopal “making all the difference” if a motorist is breathalysed…
“And I must stress that these tablets do nothing to improve the performance of a driver who has been drinking.”
I’m not sure where the Mail got its own information from, but it sure ain’t the same as what the Mirror said – and both purport to be quoting the comedian who sells the tablets (and who looks like (and admits to) he knocks a few back anyway). Neither source seems the least bit interested in whether it really does work, and are happy to go on what the seller says.
While we’re on the Mirror story, note the moron, Karel Reil, in the comments. He thinks it’s a good idea. I wonder why?
In the Mail story, Kibble is quoted as saying his lawyers have checked the tablets and they’re not illegal. Well, it’s not illegal to harvest Unicorn horns, either – but I’m pretty certain it would become so if Unicorns actually existed. Kibble is just on borrowed time, since he will be directly responsible for the death of the first person killed by any piss artist who uses these things and then drives.
The active ingredient is called Simethicone. It is an antifoaming agent used to suppress gas in the stomach. It’s an ingredient in Alka-Seltzer and other antacid products. It also comes in some hair conditioners as a glossing agent.
It’s worth bearing in mind that anything which prevents absorption of substances through the stomach or intestinal walls can also do the same thing with other medicines. Some antibiotics specifically advise against taking any antacid product during treatment as absorption is affected.
At £1 per tablet, and supplied in a tiny plastic container, I suspect that you’d need a hell of a lot of these to absorb the alcohol in a keg of beer, because that “nine times lower” line suggests that you can drink 10 pints and give a breath reading that looks like you only drank one! So it’s highly likely that the effect is just a masking one to fool the breath testing machine (the effect on other medicines, of course, could still be significant).
Let’s face facts here. If you really could drink a vat of beer, take a tablet, and come up stone cold sober, someone much bigger than Kibble would have jumped on it a long time ago. I mean, it isn’t as if this hasn’t been looked into for all kinds of reasons.
In any case, the average piss head is hardly going to be happy necking beer without getting drunk – which would have been his primary objective when he went to the pub in the first place. That’s why alcohol-free beer doesn’t sell. So something about what the tablets do doesn’t quite fit in, does it?
Still, Kibble has got a load of free advertising to help him on his way…
Disclaimer: The term “dickhead” is a valid description for anyone who seeks to bypass the law in some way, especially when they haven’t made sure it is safe to do so. So in this case, someone selling a product which fools the breathalyser whilst leaving the drinker pissed in order to drive a car without being pulled can legitimately be labelled a “dickhead”. Similarly, anyone who buys such products in order to bypass the law (i.e. to fool the breathalyser) whilst knowing full well that they’re pissed can also legitimately be labelled a “dickhead”.
EDIT: The hits on the blog have gone through the roof since I first posted. I think most people are just interested in bypassing the law (only two out of hundreds have asked about the ingredients). If I’d have linked to Kibble’s website (which I deliberately didn’t), I’m sure it would have been clicked to death.
This Sun story today won’t be of interest to all the chavs out there who think they’ve found a miracle pill, and who wouldn’t care who they killed as a result of being off their heads, but some people just might find it educational.
The Sun story has a photo of the pills. I’m prepared to stick my neck out as a chemist here and say to anyone reading this that there is no way on earth something that small can physically stop all the alcohol in umpteen pints of beer or shots from getting into the blood stream. Knowing what the composition of Simethicone is, I can also assure people that there is no way it can prevent the body from absorbing that all of that alcohol, either. Simethicone is pretty inert pharmacologically, and it can only have any meaningful action on the actual contents of the stomach and gut. Its usual mode of action is to reduce the painful pressure formed by small gas bubbles by making them join together into bigger bubbles – resulting in burps or farts!
All Alcopal is likely to do is confuse the breath tester, which is what one of the original stories said it did when quoting the salesman behind it. If you drink 10 pints, you’ll still be pissed – even if the breath machine says you’ve only had one.
EDIT: This ITN story has a screenshot of the website. It appears that Kibble is claiming that it DOES stop alcohol being absorbed from the stomach and intestines. That’s not what he said to the Mirror – although reading it again, he might have been trying to be funny.
Trust me when I say that you’d need a shovel full of the stuff to absorb the alcohol in several pints of beer or to line the stomach – and that’s assuming that it even does either of those things. And I say again that the typical piss head won’t want to spend money if he can’t get drunk. He could buy alcohol-free beer for that.
EDIT: It would appear that the tablets being sold are made in India. The only relevance of that is that they are probably costing fractions of a penny to make. And even though there is no clinical trial research to bankroll, Kibble is selling them for £1 a pop, or £20 for a small tub. He’s also hawking them as “herbal” or “natural”, which is not correct – Simethicone doesn’t come under that heading.
EDIT: So far, I’ve not been able to locate any American information regarding the “ban”. Every news source in the entire world is just quoting exactly what is said in the tabloids over here without adding anything new.
However, Simethicone is identified as a teratogen – it can potentially cause birth defects – according to one article, though others say it is safe. Another article identifies side-effects such as hypotension, fever, weakness, nausea, and vomiting.
This could explain why it was banned in America, and why drug companies dropped it. There’s no way they would take risks like that, and the dosage levels for the purpose intended may well have had some effect on the conflicting reports on teratogenicity. The product being sold over here could cause birth defects according to at least one source. These include heart defects, extra fingers and toes, and problems with the urinary tract (hypospadias) according to the same source.
It’s available in most stores. Go to the confectionery section and look for Smarties or M&Ms. They work just as well. An added bonus is that they’re cheaper than the branded alternative.
If you are seriously thinking of using this stuff, get professional help fast.
An 
instructor (i.e. an ADI).
I’ve 