MEL First lounge joins PER RSA push

[TomVexille]

champagne for breakfast is acceptable right?

Is that a serious question?

 

[yohy?!]

Is that a serious question?

"Just leave the bottle thanks I'm trying to break a frequent flyer record over the next 22 hours..."

 

[Clipped wings]

Re the SYD service I have always found the Accor staff quite indifferent (in both lounges). Certainly not what I would expect. I experienced the new Etihad lounge recently and found it far better service wise.

 

[RAM]

Well they were consumed over four hours, so we were not 'chugging' them down. And I would suggest there was no drunken behaviour.

Unfortunately the four standard drinks in four hours is ONLY accurate for the 'average' male. For females to get over the 0.05 (NSW level) can be as few as two drinks. There have been dozens of cases where the "but I only had X standard drinks in X hours" and the judge says that it is their responsibility to know their own limits etc etc and they lose.

For some reason (of course the alcohol companies are free to donate to whatever political parties they want to) neither State nor Federal Govts seem to have the desire to correct this mistaken belief that some states have in their road rules education material.

Cannot guess why?

If it is 1 drink in two hours imagine what that would do to the trade as the ladies want to leave...

 

[RAM]

Took me a while.... dish pig = washing up boy.

Equal opportunity - washing up person....

 

[N860CR]

There's a big difference between being under the legal driving limit and an establishments RSA.

RSA doesn't mean keeping patrons below the legal limit for driving, it means preventing patrons from becoming inebriated to the point of not being able to behave in a safe manner.

I'm unsure if anyone could reach that level of intoxication based on the reported alcohol consumption.

 

[RAM]

There's a big difference between being under the legal driving limit and an establishments RSA.

RSA doesn't mean keeping patrons below the legal limit for driving, it means preventing patrons from becoming inebriated to the point of not being able to behave in a safe manner.

I'm unsure if anyone could reach that level of intoxication based on the reported alcohol consumption.

Absolutely true.

However the difference for 63kg female in one court case was enormous. She was adamant she was 'setup' so she paid for a university to 'test' her and she was 0.17 after 3 hours following the supposed guidelines. So her barrister argued that the Govt was at fault in allowing incorrect guidance to be promulgated.

And judge ruled, personal responsibility etc etc. Disqualified, few thousand fine and conviction recorded. It was the conviction that was the big problem for work purposes.

I found out about this early this year and a few months back saw in HN they were selling off Digital breathalysers marked down from $99.95 to $39.99. Used the one week rule but didn't go back, however if they still have them....

 

[blackcat20]

Unfortunately the four standard drinks in four hours is ONLY accurate for the 'average' male. For females to get over the 0.05 (NSW level) can be as few as two drinks. There have been dozens of cases where the "but I only had X standard drinks in X hours" and the judge says that it is their responsibility to know their own limits etc etc and they lose.

For some reason (of course the alcohol companies are free to donate to whatever political parties they want to) neither State nor Federal Govts seem to have the desire to correct this mistaken belief that some states have in their road rules education material.

Cannot guess why?

If it is 1 drink in two hours imagine what that would do to the trade as the ladies want to leave...

It takes a lot more than four drinks in four hours for me to be intoxicated. Even if I'm over 0.05, I'm still quite sober ie I have a very high tolerance for alcohol.

and its usually two in the first hour, then one every hour thereafter.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

champagne for breakfast is acceptable right?

It's mandatory.

 

[RAM]

It takes a lot more than four drinks in four hours for me to be intoxicated. Even if I'm over 0.05, I'm still quite sober ie I have a very high tolerance for alcohol.

and its usually two in the first hour, then one every hour thereafter.

Not suggesting otherwise just that some people were interpreting driving guidance with RSA.

And for females the standard rule of thumb can be very costly. In the example above she was high range but was not 'visually' drunk (as university testing proved) despite the reality of the blood/alcohol level.

Made me wonder about some people's habit when skiing of having a round of schnaps or two at lunch - how great an impact it may have on the ladies present.

 

[Pushka]

A few years ago I was breath tested on the way home after a dinner with MrP. We had taken separate cars. Between the two of us, over a period of maybe 2hours 30 minutes we had consumed just one bottle of wine. MrP had an extra glass to me. We had eaten a two course dinner (entree and main). I blew positive (obviously) and was asked to get out of the car. They wouldn't tell me what the reading was - I am guessing it was around .05 for them to stop me. I'd say it was .04 ish. Otherwise I would have been called up for the Booze bus test. I felt perfectly fine (and don't we all say that). They then tested me again about 15 minutes later and it was fine as it was falling and not rising so my story checked out.

I will never consume more than 1 STANDARD glass of wine if I am driving later and that is only when I eat to go with it.

As far as the responsible service of alcohol, I could easily consume more than half a bottle of wine/sparkling and still be perfectly sober.

 

[blaz]

I'm going to test them out this Saturday morning at SYD for what is likely my last F lounge visit ever before dropping to SG

champagne for breakfast is acceptable right?

yes....I always order it...usually the first to do so...but after that, everyone does...you will not be alone.

 

[blackcat20]

Not suggesting otherwise just that some people were interpreting driving guidance with RSA.

And for females the standard rule of thumb can be very costly. In the example above she was high range but was not 'visually' drunk (as university testing proved) despite the reality of the blood/alcohol level.

Made me wonder about some people's habit when skiing of having a round of schnaps or two at lunch - how great an impact it may have on the ladies present.

Probably my fault for associating the two. What I was trying to say was that I was probably quite legal to drive based on what I'd drunk, so I shouldn't have been judged as drunk and therefore had RSA applied. I've never been RSAd in my entire life, when I've certainly drunk far more on occasion (I have a few contiki tours under my belt), so to have it happen in the F lounge was pretty embarrassing and insulting.

 

[JessicaTam]

Probably my fault for associating the two. What I was trying to say was that I was probably quite legal to drive based on what I'd drunk, so I shouldn't have been judged as drunk and therefore had RSA applied. I've never been RSAd in my entire life, when I've certainly drunk far more on occasion (I have a few contiki tours under my belt), so to have it happen in the F lounge was pretty embarrassing and insulting.

Ditto. Apart from the Contiki tours, that is!

 

[JohnK]

However the difference for 63kg female in one court case was enormous. She was adamant she was 'setup' so she paid for a university to 'test' her and she was 0.17 after 3 hours following the supposed guidelines. So her barrister argued that the Govt was at fault in allowing incorrect guidance to be promulgated.

And judge ruled, personal responsibility etc etc.

LOL. Yes I know it is not funny but just because someone says these are the guidelines then you shouldn't assume that you will be fine all the time following the guidelines. Body changes from day to day and what you drink today is going to affect you differently if you drink the same amount tomorrow.

In my opinion blood alcohol readings mean nothing in whether you are able to handle a car or not. I can handle a car better at 0.08 or even 0.12 than someone who has had nothing to drink.

And someone who is 0.01 can be drunk.

I find part of our laws quite funny. You blow positive at the RBT and then taken back to police station for a more accurate blood alcohol reading. You then blow 0.14 which is not high range but still quite high and at this point in time you are in a bit of trouble. They deem that you are not able to drive a motor vehicle but you are sober enough to sign important documents regarding the events that led to your arrest?

 

[QF029]

LOL. Yes I know it is not funny but just because someone says these are the guidelines then you shouldn't assume that you will be fine all the time following the guidelines. Body changes from day to day and what you drink today is going to affect you differently if you drink the same amount tomorrow.

In my opinion blood alcohol readings mean nothing in whether you are able to handle a car or not. I can handle a car better at 0.08 or even 0.12 than someone who has had nothing to drink.

And someone who is 0.01 can be drunk.

I find part of our laws quite funny. You blow positive at the RBT and then taken back to police station for a more accurate blood alcohol reading. You then blow 0.14 which is not high range but still quite high and at this point in time you are in a bit of trouble. They deem that you are not able to drive a motor vehicle but you are sober enough to sign important documents regarding the events that led to your arrest?

Extraordinary.

 

[JohnM]

LOL. Yes I know it is not funny but just because someone says these are the guidelines then you shouldn't assume that you will be fine all the time following the guidelines. Body changes from day to day and what you drink today is going to affect you differently if you drink the same amount tomorrow.

In my opinion blood alcohol readings mean nothing in whether you are able to handle a car or not. I can handle a car better at 0.08 or even 0.12 than someone who has had nothing to drink.

And someone who is 0.01 can be drunk.

I find part of our laws quite funny. You blow positive at the RBT and then taken back to police station for a more accurate blood alcohol reading. You then blow 0.14 which is not high range but still quite high and at this point in time you are in a bit of trouble. They deem that you are not able to drive a motor vehicle but you are sober enough to sign important documents regarding the events that led to your arrest?

John, you cannot be serious, surely? PUTI .

 

[basso]

In my opinion blood alcohol readings mean nothing in whether you are able to handle a car or not. I can handle a car better at 0.08 or even 0.12 than someone who has had nothing to drink.

While you might be able to point to people that should not be on the road, ever, if you think your driving is any good at 0.12 you are in cuckoo land.

 

[medhead]

I won't defend 0.12, but we all know that the blood alcohol limit was originally 0.08.

 

[JohnK]

John, you cannot be serious, surely? PUTI .

Why not? Did I say something politically incorrect again?

While you might be able to point to people that should not be on the road, ever, if you think your driving is any good at 0.12 you are in cuckoo land.

You are assuming that blood alcohol level determines how you behave and react? Wrong. And as medhead points out the legal limit was .08 for many years.

P.S. I just plucked a number out of the air with 0.12.