Quantcast

Some dude on vodka binge blows 0.462

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
:eek:

:dead:




Man on vodka binge blows 0.462
www.news.com.au | December 17, 2004

BY all accounts he should be dead, but somehow Rafer Wilson survived a two-week drinking binge to record a blood-alcohol reading more than nine times the legal .05 limit.

With an empty vodka bottle lying on the passenger seat of his beige Mazda 626, the 35-year-old crashed into a parked car on Caringbah Rd, not 200m from his Caringbah home in Sydney's south.

Police evidence tendered to court revealed a man so drunk he could not stand when ordered out of the car by police.

As Wilson made that first tentative step, his legs crumpled, he collapsed to his knees, lurched forward and smacked his head on the driver's side door, police stated.

His words were close to unintelligible but he allegedly managed to reveal he had been drinking for two weeks.

It was 4.15pm and on that day alone, October 24, 2003, he had managed to finish off one-and-a-half bottles, or 35 nips, of vodka to record a blood-alcohol reading of .462.

Experts are amazed he is alive.

Forensic toxicologist Allan Hodda from the State Government's Division of Analytical Laboratories, said it was an "incredible level" of alcohol in the blood.

"Based on a lot of medical books, he should not be alive," he said.

"There are people around who can tolerate these levels but that doesn't mean their livers are not shot."

Paul Dillon from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre said people could "die from a lot less alcohol than that".

"There are people who have died from a 10th of that amount," he said.

"This bloke had an awful lot of good luck."

Mr Dillon said it was "bizarre you could physically drink that much and not pass out".

Mr Hodda said he had seen higher readings but more often than not those people were dead.

"We've had young kids who accepted dares and have tried to swallow a bottle of rum and then collapsed and died," he said.

More than 12 months on, Wilson's case is still before the courts.

He had expected to be sentenced yesterday in Sutherland Court but the matter was held over to the Downing Centre Local Court for March 3.

Wilson pleaded guilty to the high-range drink driving charge - his second. He pleaded guilty to the same charge in 1997 and was fined $600 and was disqualified from driving for two years.

This time he faces a possible jail term.

Documents lodged with the court indicate he has put himself through an eight-week rehabilitation course since last year's crash.

NSW Police confirmed the highest recorded drink driving reading in the state was a woman who blew 0.572 - more than 11 times the legal .05 limit - in Orange in 2002.

She had just dropped her children at school.
 
J

JRB

Guest
If today progresses like it is now, I may plan to out do this cat later today.
 

llkoolkeg

Ranger LL
Sep 5, 2001
4,329
5
in da shed, mon, in da shed
N8 said:
Man on vodka binge blows 0.462
www.news.com.au | December 17, 2004

BY all accounts he should be dead, but somehow Rafer Wilson survived a two-week drinking binge to record a blood-alcohol reading more than nine times the legal .05 limit.

With an empty vodka bottle lying on the passenger seat of his beige Mazda 626, the 35-year-old crashed into a parked car on Caringbah Rd, not 200m from his Caringbah home in Sydney's south.
_____________________________________

NSW Police confirmed the highest recorded drink driving reading in the state was a woman who blew 0.572 - more than 11 times the legal .05 limit - in Orange in 2002.

She had just dropped her children at school.
You should be beaten within an inch of your life for driving that drunk...AND WITH KIDS IN THE CAR! :angry:
 

Fathead

Monkey
May 6, 2003
433
0
SE TX
llkoolkeg said:
You should be beaten within an inch of your life for driving that drunk...AND WITH KIDS IN THE CAR! :angry:
DUI is totally lame, kids or not. The aussie dude is fortunate to have hit a parked car and not hurt anyone.

Now as far as getting tanked on vodka. . . it's all too easy to do. The stuff goes down like nothing. Most liquors will give me some obvious (even to a drunk person) clues when it's time to stop. Vodka just keeps going. I now have to measure and count when mixing it. . . too many nightmares off vodka/redbull.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I really don't like drunk drivers, but a 0.5 limit. I'd be over having one beer without waiting, wouldn't I? Why not just make it 0 so there's no confusion.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,302
7,735
Silver said:
I really don't like drunk drivers, but a 0.5 limit. I'd be over having one beer without waiting, wouldn't I? Why not just make it 0 so there's no confusion.
0.05, just to clarify :D . anyway, this site (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm) claims that you'd be at 0.04 with one 12 oz beer at 0 hours after consumption.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,302
7,735
Silver said:
Why not just make it a no tolerance policy then? I don't get it.
i think it's perfectly reasonable at 0.05. healthy drinking doesn't involve more than 2 drinks (* + many others if you care to google). this limit allows for someone to go to a bar, have a pint, sit around and chat with his friends for a bit, and drive home legally.
 

Barbaton

Turbo Monkey
May 11, 2002
1,477
0
suburban hell
Toshi said:
0.05, just to clarify :D . anyway, this site (http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm) claims that you'd be at 0.04 with one 12 oz beer at 0 hours after consumption.
Hey, that site's kinda fun. :dancing:


To back up Toshi's later statement, a low tolerance is always better than a 0 tolerance. Mostly this is for the reason that 0 tolerances are unenforceable. Usually this has to do with detector quality. If you have a zero tolerance and someone makes a detector that's 1000x better than the current detector that reads 0, and the new detector now reads something, the standard has shifted. The point is to have the standard set at a real number. I ran into this a lot when I used to do radiation contamination studies in an earlier life, and advising cities to set meaniningful low, but not 0, emissions policies.
 

ncrider

Turbo Monkey
Aug 15, 2004
1,564
0
Los Angeles
equipment + or - aside. Allowing for a margin of error 0.05 gives the incentive to drink untill you think you're just below that line. Consequently people all to often go over it. If you set policy at 0 then there is no incentive to drink and drive at all.

Look I enjoy haveing a beer or glass of wine when I'm out and it would suck to not be able to do that, but i still advocate 0 tolerance. However, that would never happen, think of all the lost revenue at restraunts and bars.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,302
7,735
ncrider said:
Look I enjoy haveing a beer or glass of wine when I'm out and it would suck to not be able to do that, but i still advocate 0 tolerance. However, that would never happen, think of all the lost revenue at restraunts and bars.
you don't think my stated scenario is reasonable and safe behavior?
Toshi said:
this limit allows for someone to go to a bar, have a pint, sit around and chat with his friends for a bit, and drive home legally.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Toshi and Barbaton, you're right, the zero tolerance thing is a bad idea. I never thought about the error on a detector, or the fact that a tiny bit of cough medicine would give you a DUI.
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
21,073
5,986
borcester rhymes
yeah, medicine and mouthwash both add a little to your read bac. It's better to keep it low. People should have the responsibility to say no...This allows responsible people to have a beer or two and still drive home (with a little time) which is what I sometimes do, and is good for the DD, so he can at least participate a little. If you're going to be irresponsible enough to drink and drive in the first place, your bac is going to be above the limit, regardless of whether it's 0 or .05.

i am a huuuuuuuuuuuge advocate of drinking and driving laws....but I think making zero tolerance a law would create too many otherwise avoidable issues.
 

CTR

Chimp
Sep 1, 2002
94
0
Australia
not sure if you guys have it in the US yet but in at least one state here they can now random drug test drivers for THC and meth amphetamine, it's going to be a major blow to the australia transport industry (we don't have standard rail gague across the country so most goods are trucked around)
 

DßR

They saw my bloomers
Feb 17, 2004
980
0
the DC
CTR said:
not sure if you guys have it in the US yet but in at least one state here they can now random drug test drivers for THC and meth amphetamine, it's going to be a major blow to the australia transport industry (we don't have standard rail gague across the country so most goods are trucked around)
Just out of curiousity, why is that a major blow? Are all the truck drivers hopped up on meth or smokin' the weed?
 

NastySid

Monkey
Mar 4, 2004
111
0
Sweden
The limit here is 0.02. Many have been cought with blood alcohol levels reaching 2.0 or more..

The swedish record is 6.02 promille.. That drunk **** didn't make it tho.. Crashed and burned before the alcohol could kill her..
 

CTR

Chimp
Sep 1, 2002
94
0
Australia
DßR said:
Just out of curiousity, why is that a major blow? Are all the truck drivers hopped up on meth or smokin' the weed?
well australia has only about 8 major cities with some massive distances between some of them for example it's 3000km from darwin to adelaide which is the cloest major center, and perth to adelaide it's 2800 kms, again adelaide being the cloest major center. just in the state of queensland it's 2000km from brisbane (the captial) to cairns (2nd biggest center in the state). and without a decent rail system like you guys have we have to truck everything around.

so our truckies tweek up on meth, drive for days stright, then smoke a ton of weed to get down some what at the end of it, it sounds really bad, but thats the only way they can do it to be able to meet the deadline set by the major supermarkets/transport companies.

in the first day it was introduced (only a week ago) 3 people (all truck drivers) were caught, currently the first offence is a $A300 (US$175ish) fine and then the police can search your vehicle for drugs.

i'm not sure what happens if you get caught again.
 

NastySid

Monkey
Mar 4, 2004
111
0
Sweden
Over here blood alcohol and such are mesured in "Promille" which is parts per thousand.. the % thing with another o on the end..

A normal person have decked and are snoozing it off at around 2.0 promille.. If you're an alcoholic you can have up to 2.5 or 3 and be drunk as a skunk but still sober(!?) enough to drive/walk/whatever..

At 3 and above you're dying.. You have a case of alcohol poisoning.. People that had about 6.2 were dying but a car wreck got them first..

You have a severe alcohol problem in the first place to be able to go that high..

You dont have to drink gasoline but vodka or disinfectant alcohol (96.6 vol %) stolen from a vet or a medical center will do it..

Of a LOT of beer if you have the stamina and dedication (not to mention big enough bladder) to go there..

Remember kids.. Do not try this at home ;)
 

chicodude

The Spooninator
Mar 28, 2004
1,054
2
Paradise
Okay, 'cause a 2.0 is super super deadly high, like if you drank jet fuel. It's just a normal drunkard over there.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,302
7,735
chicodude01 said:
Okay, 'cause a 2.0 is super super deadly high, like if you drank jet fuel. It's just a normal drunkard over there.
given that (in the u.s. measure) it's the % of alcohol in the blood it would be very difficult indeed to have a 2.0, or anything over or even approaching 1.0 :D
 

shocktower

Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
622
0
Molalla Oregon
Ok I know one of her friends ,she lives in Silverton ,and I got to help the local police load her in the car ,but she only blew a .22 and that would put most of us to sleep not drive 28 mile to be in my hood ( forest) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: