Three beers, with a meal, doesn’t seem like driving drunk to me.
Does four beers, without food, seem like driving drunk to you? 'Cause that’s what Larry had, according to the OP.
And even after three beers and food (given the time frame in the OP), ExTank would likely have blown (if not close to, then well over) the legal limit, had he been stopped on his way back to the watering hole/back home.
One does not have to be stumbing/swerving/slurring drunk to be driving drunk, and the fact that ExTank chose to go back and make sure that he wasn’t going to incur the ire of staff at his “local watering hole” instead of calling the police to let them know there was a very angry drunk riding around on a bike indicates (to me) that his judgement may have been a tad fuzzy. YMMV.
Alternatively, it indicates excellent judgement - it would hardly have been to his benefit had the police asked him to blow!
I think your diapers are on too tight.
What a pair of asses.
How do you two know I was well over the legal limit?
How do you two know I was drunk? Did I specify the time period covered? Granted, I sucked down the first beer pretty quick, but spaced the next three out over the better part of three hours, with a pretty hefty meal thrown in.
If you’d read a little more carefully the OP, you’d see that I never intended to involve the waitstaff over this, and that I picked up the tab, just to shut Larry up and get him out of there.
Larry showed no signs of motor impairment; no slurred speech, no stumbling, no knocking over drinks. Just this fairly sudden rage. Coming from a family of alcoholics (on my Dad’s side), I am well familiar with the type:
Instant Asshole: Just Add Alcohol. It’s a sign of a fundamentally unhappy, angry, mean person, no matter how nice and reasonable they appear (as Larry appeared) before taking that first drink.
Since the Yards didn’t seem too concerned over Larry’s behavior (at least not concerned enough to involve the law), I wasn’t. They just wanted his beligerent ass out the door.
And Maryland Yards, just like any other establishment that serves alcohol in Missouri, is liable. So I figured that they had the better “read” on the whole situation.
So excuse the fuck out of me for deferring to the judgement of professional restaurant/bar managers, with their own ass substantially on the line, in a friendly, neighborhood bar.
As far as being on motorcycles goes, there’s this: Larry’s danger wasn’t how much he had to drink. It was his emotional state. Angry on a bike or angry behind the wheel, neither is good. At least on a bike, any damage he does by letting his anger override his judgement would most likely be substantially less than if he was behind the wheel of a 2,000+ pound car.
And Larry seemed like the type that was going to be angry as long as he was in/near/outside the Yards. Hell, he seemd like the type that was going to be angry for the next three weeks! So “cooling off” in the parking lot probably wasn’t an option. I think he might’ve talked himself into going back inside and, at a minumum, shooting off his mouth (and perhaps, worse) even more.
Finally, it’s not my job to play “cooler” to the human race. Larry was just some guy who pulled into the Yards the same time as I. He has no claim to kin or friend of mine. While I don’t wish him any harm, and would try to help him inasmuch as was within my power, I think I did just about all I could getting him out the door without getting his ass stomped by the manager and staff (should Larry have started anything “physical”), or, more likely, tossed in jail on-the-spot.
If you feel you could’ve done better, come on down to the Yards and wait for the next crazy to wander into my life. I’d appreciate the help.
Apparently, it is very hard to convict a bar of over-serving a customer in Missouri.
What time frame was given in the OP?
::shrug:: As I said, YMMV. As someone who spent over ten years working with addicts/alcoholics (as well as being married to a certified trainer for one of the local “drunk driving schools”), I admit this is a situation I tend to err on the side of caution on. Especially when someone appears rational and chatty one minute, and completely OTT off-their-rocker threatening the next.
Oh, sigh.
First, I said you would blow well over the legal limit, not that you were.
Let’s say you left after “finish(ing) up my beer, settl(ing) my tab and Larry’s, coax(ing) him out the door, and down the road.” Then your drive-about, then back to the bar. We’ll say all that took 15, maybe 20 minutes. There is a reason why most (reasonable) police officers re-check a BAC (either another breathilyzer or a blood test) after observing a suspect for a period of time. It’s because shortly after your last drink, there is still a significant enough amount of alcohol in your mouth/throat to blow a high BAC.
But, just for argument’s sake, let’s see if you would have been considered drunk. You’re a guy, which is one point in your favor. You ate, but you ate AFTER you started drinking. So the first- let’s say two- beers were absorbed into your bloodstream before the food. You had four beers over “the better part of three hours” but the standard is one drink per hour (under IDEAL circumstances, which these obviously were not) to allow for absorption. Plus you left after finishing your last drink- meaning that that beer was still in the process of being absorbed along with the others (standard wait time, again under ideal circumstances, is one hour). You ended the evening in a poor mood- agitated, nervous, whatever you would like to call it- which adds all sorts of other problems on top of the alcohol. Additionally, if you are coming from a family of alcoholics (assuming you’re not adopted), you have a lower genetic trigger/tolerance for alcohol (so even if you think you’re doing just dandy, your BAC may tell a different story).
Therefore, I don’t think it’s hugely out of the realm of possibility that you were near the legal limit. However, if you would like to estimate the amount of blood in your system (in deciliters), I could give you a better idea if you were or not.
I stated clearly that one does not need to be stumbling, slurring, or otherwise behaviorally impaired to be drunk, or a danger to themselves/others. No one is asking you to be a “cooler” or to take on the problems of the world. You were concerned enough about his behavior to go back to the bar, make sure they knew he was unrelated to you, AND clue them in on the threats he was making. Yet you were not concerned about him driving in an agitated, drunken state. I find that odd, which is why I brought it up.
I also happen to have issues with people who think that they’re “just fine to drive” because it’s typically the people who have no clue how impaired they are that do the most damage- to themselves and innocent bystanders- which is why I questioned your own state.
On preview, in response to Frank- I started the imaginary clock at “We introduce ourselves, and sit down to a couple of cold ones” and ended when they left. Taking into account the waitress’ delay, the time it typically takes to order, receive, and eat food, (while consuming four drinks), I thought I was being generous with giving the OP four hours. Turns out I was a shade off. However, that particular comment was referring to the time frame where the OP finished his drink, paid the bill, got Larry on his way and returned to the bar (as I mentioned above, the timing is important due to what a standard BAC test would show had he been pulled over). If all that took more than 20 minutes I’d be surprised.
Bobkitty, did you even read the OP’s response?
The DMV says to account for 1 hour per drink for it to clear your system. What’s the problem? Cripes. Just because you work with addicts doesn’t make everyone who drinks one.
Is that to maintain a 0.0 BAC? (Or as close to it as the body naturally gets?) 'Cause I don’t see how four beers (and a meal) in three hours (unless they were 32-ouncers or something) is going to get your average guy even close to the limit.
Of course we don’t know if you were drunk, ExTank, but from what you’ve described, it sounds like both of you would have been over the legal limit or borderline, but the point of not drinking and driving isn’t to see how close you can get to legally impaired before you’re over; the point is that four beers in your belly make you a danger to yourself and others when you start driving. Look at Larry’s behaviour; does that look like the behaviour of someone who wasn’t impaired by alcohol? I would back off of you on this (I truly don’t care about your drinking habits) , except it’s not just you that you affect when you drink and drive.
In my experience, bar managers don’t particularly care how much their patrons drink before they drive home. You might have bar managers who call a cab for their patrons or question them about their intention to drive drunk in your part of the world, but I have never personally seen or heard about this, and I go to a local pub quite often.
And yes, my diapers might also be on too tight, but I thought we, as a society, were trying to do away with drinking and driving because of the hazards it creates, not pooh-pooh it.
Nonsense.
The 0.08 limit is one of the very few limits based upon sound science. IIRC there is no significant risk until around 0.12 for most people, and the outliers (i.e. those who start getting riskier earlier) don’t start earlier than 0.08.
In other words, 0.08 is criminalising a few safe people. Fine, they know the limit.
But at 0.08 most people should be safe. Especially if, like Extank, their BAC is decreasing - a decreasing level of X is always better than an increasing level of X.
I thought we were trying to do away with drunk driving. They’re not the same thing.
Okay, doing a little research into BAC over time for an average guy, I take it back - you and Larry probably weren’t legally impaired. You probably wouldn’t have been okay to go to work in a transportation job, but not legally impaired to drive a passenger vehicle.
Since Larry wasn’t drunk (unless he was on something as well as the alcohol), he’s a really poor excuse for a human being.
Interesting point - I actually thought we WERE trying to do away with drinking and driving - no alcohol while driving period, because a 0.0 BAC is the only safe level of BAC.
That seems to be the one thing in this thread we’re not arguing about! 
That is both unrealistic and simplistic.
But this is not true, my communist friend.
First of all, ones body naturally produces alcohol. It is present in almost all foods and drinks (infact, Lucozade was recently declared halal in the UK as the Muslim loony-mullahs recognised that the alcohol in it was not significant).
The much more important point, though, is that risks don’t start becoming statistically significant significant until 0.08. So why criminalise safe behaviour?
In fairness, that’s not quite so. Risks take a dramatic jump at about 0.08 or even a little above, but they begin to increase at about 0.04. Not dramatically, but a bit. Drivers who are affected at that rate (or at any rate) can still be arrested for drunk driving even though they are below the limit. The limit merely sets an automatic drunk driving level.
I never, ever said he was an addict. I said, and I quote, that he would likely have blown at, if not over, the legal limit if he had been pulled over. Had this happened, no matter how awesome he is at driving after 4 (or even 8 or 12) beers, he would have been charged with drunk driving. In a followup post, I said that the reason he would have blown a higher BAC was because he had JUST finished his fourth beer- therefore (and hopefully Cryptoderk is also paying attention here), his BAC was not decreasing. It had not, in fact, reached its peak yet, because he had not metabolized the last beer.
Not only did I clearly say in my reply that the standard time for absorption was one hour per drink (and that he would’ve been in the clear an hour after finishing that last beer), but I also gave him extra bonus points for a) being a guy, and b) eating (though I took a couple points away for eating after he started drinking, and for being in a bit of an emotional state).
Look, at the end of the day I don’t give a flying fuck if ExTank wants to tool around town after having a few beers, despite his previous insistence that he doesn’t drink and ride. I don’t even really give a flying fuck if Larry wants to do the same. I simply thought the ire in the OP was oddly placed- the situation in the bar had been handled, there was likely no longer any danger to the staff there, but there was still a POSSIBLE threat to the folks who were sharing the road with an angry cyclist. Yet the OP felt it more critical to smooth things over with the staff than make a simply (anonymous) phone call. Over in one of the other forums there was a thread praising a driver for calling in (and following) an impaired driver- but here we have a credible threat (possibly times two) with nothing done about it.
If you disagree with my curiosity over the OP’s actions, fine. But don’t paint me out to be some prude who sees addicts hiding around every corner, especially when it’s clear from your reply that you didn’t read my post.