On the one hand, you’ve got your friend who reckons that he rides better when he’s got a few in him. On the other hand, you have the coppers who say that “research suggests that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%* means the risk of being involved in a traffic crash is double that of a person who has not been drinking at all” in this document I have found on the interwebs.

They are both wrong.

Your friend is doubly wrong. First, because any alcohol in your system, even a little bit (although a cognac-filled praline should be all right) reduces your inhibitions. If he is riding with the attitude that booze makes him better, he is going the wrong way about it. It will just feel as if he’s better. Second, because enough alcohol will reduce not only his inhibitions but also his reaction time and his motor control. If he has enough alcohol in him, he will certainly be more likely to be involved in a traffic crash.

这是否意味着警察是正确的？

是和否。他们的毯子声明，0.08％加倍碰撞的风险是无意义的。有些人完美能够在血液中骑着更多的酒精，而其他人则会显着损害较少。即使是Coppers也承认这一点。他们说：“然而，它[损伤水平]可以从人的人那里显着变化。”但是，如果0.08％的限制实际上并没有建立在您不应该骑行的限制，甚至警方都同意，那就是什么时候？它有什么作用？

它让您更轻松地预订。

回到过去，通过看到您当时的障碍，建立了由于摄入酒精饮料而受损的损伤程度。惊人，对吗？您是否被评估了，无论您是否可以在脸上脱落，无论您是否可以直线或触摸鼻尖，或向后拼写当前的教皇的名字。无论你能说服你清醒的雀浦，换句话说。

法律的守护者并不高兴,despite it being a meaningful test. It took too much time, it was hard for them to administer, hard to assess in an unbiased way and all too easily challenged in a court of law.

Surely there was a simpler and quicker way that was also less likely to be challenged. As so often, helpful lawmakers fell back on a measure that would work for the average road user. But they were not meeting their responsibilities with such a law. If it met the conditions that applied to the average, that meant it would not meet those of the riders/drivers more—or indeed less—affected. In other words, there would be people out there who would be booked despite being perfectly able to control their motorcycles, while others would be waved on despite their being a clear and present danger to every dog, pedestrian and other vehicle on the road.

How can you possibly justify this? You are making the roads more dangerous, not less. For what? Well, for the convenience of the police force, that’s for what. They only need to check your breath for their one-size-fits-all breath alcohol limit. And if they find that you have more alcohol wafting forth than the law provides for, they can arrest you secure in the knowledge that the magistrate is highly unlikely to let you off.

That’s unless you can afford a really good lawyer, who will convince the magistrate that you had been taking pastilles against the common cold, or drinking herbal infusions to cure, oh, let’s say gout. Can’t win ‘em all, officer.

然后，我的观点是，血液酒精限制不仅无效，而且甚至是危险的。他们还抵抗人类的自然趋势，只有一两个人。正如Flann o'brien那么简洁地说，有时候“一品脱的平原是你唯一的人”。我可以找到对你的研究，违背了这一点，并声称任何酒精都是幻灯片的开始，但你去了。我也可以找到你的研究，在晚餐前索赔一杯红酒是一个福音。

The important thing here, and be very sure that if you take anything away from this little treatise it is this, is that alcohol affects everyone differently. The law says you must stay under 0.08%, so that sets an upper limit you need to obey even if you think it is too low for you. But that does not mean that you will be fine. Establish your own limit, and find a way to stick to it no matter what the temptation. That is the way of the wise who know that justice is just a word. As is sláinte.

*This is the limit in USA, Canada, and the UK except Scotland, where it is 0.05%. Australia and New Zealand limits are also up to 0.05%. In most European countries it is the same—even in Ireland—although in some it is 0%. Theoretically it is 0.03% in Japan, but in fact it’s more like zero. Keep in mind that you must stay below the figure quoted (all right, except when it’s zero).