No-Doz, The Driver's Friend.

[Princess Fiona]

No - the Case Study supports exactly what I wrote.
The article tries to refute the evidence within the Case study with ridiculous suppositions.

For example, one conclusion that can be drawn the article's conclusions is that drinking lots and lots of water will reduce truck crashes - because the truckers will have to stop and go to the toilet more often. The article is spurious, in my opinion, while the Case Study has the data to back up it's claims.

Regards,
Renato

No the case study does not support what you wrote at all.
From the abstract
"Conclusions: Caffeinated substances are associated with a reduced risk of crashing for long distance commercial motor vehicle drivers. While comprehensive mandated strategies for fatigue management remain a priority, the use of caffeinated substances could be a useful adjunct strategy in the maintenance of alertness while driving."

The article about the study aims to describe in plain English what the study is saying.

If you believe that the use of caffeine whilst driving long distances with no rest stops decreases your crash risk then perhaps you'll see the validity of this.

 

[PineappleSkip]

Hmmm. A lot of debate around the result of the OP's study, based on a sample size of one individual. Given the many variables involved, I think we need a larger study before we could draw any reliable conclusions about the proposition in the header.

Cheers skip

 

[marki]

Hmmm. A lot of debate around the result of the OP's study, based on a sample size of one individual. Given the many variables involved, I think we need a larger study before we could draw any reliable conclusions about the proposition in the header.

Cheers skip

Skip , the size of 1 is not large and and means the same as 0 ( zero) in terms of usefulness! Well done like your work

 

[Renato1]

I had a microsleep once and I will never ever ever do this again. I ignored the signs. And this was only for a very short trip. I was tired before I started, and almost pulled over for a 15 minute nap - which I can do when I am this tired and it really works. However the area I was going to pull over into was very busy and so I thought I would be fine. I was very very lucky the road was deserted when it happened.

I remember my father falling asleep at the wheel as a solo driver. It was on a family trip going from Adelaide to country Victoria. I was in the passenger seat next to him - I was 15 and not feeling well so as a passenger I went to sleep. Next thing we had smashed into the left side barrier wall. We could have been killed - me most certainly. And to this day if I am a passenger next to the driver I never ever go to sleep when they are driving.

It only takes a split second for a lifetime of ruin.

Thanks. You know what it is that I fear intensely, and you know that it can happen despite thinking beforehand that it wouldn't happen within that time frame.
Regards,
Renato

This is one of the reasons I like to travel by train. You never know who is on the roads.

I travel by train too.
Cheers,
Renato

On road trips that I've been a part of, it's always been a rule that the front seat passenger must keep the driver occupied no matter what. So general talks, jokes, d&m's, games, whatever will keep the driver awake and alert.

My front seat passenger keeps sleeping on those long trips.
Regards,
Renato

 

[tgh]

seriously entertaining thread….

 

[Renato1]

How do you know? Maybe it only stops 99% of micro-sleeps for you. You and your family will only find out too late.

How do I know when I get micro-sleeps (of the fraction of a second type) and when I don't?
I use a technique called observation of the bleeding obvious of what is occurring to me.

From Wikipedia, in case we are talking about different things.
"A microsleep (MS) is a temporary episode of sleep which may last for a fraction of a second or up to 30 seconds where an individual fails to respond to some arbitrary sensory input and becomes unconscious."
Regards,
Renato

 

[Conrad_S]

seriously entertaining thread….

And getting crazier as it goes by the look of it. Fatigue is a major issue for air crew. Let's hope they don't apply the same logic as the op

 

[Renato1]

Ah-a! So you're the reason why tax dollars must go towards ad campaigns about not littering, speeding, committing domestic violence (anyone recall those unbelievable "Don't rape" ads I saw in the UK), wearing a seatbelt for chrissakes, and, on-topic, driving while tired. When I see these ads I always wonder "Who the hell is stupid enough to need to be told not to do these things?"

Thanks for putting me out of my misery, much appreciated. If you could be so good to post details of your next driving holiday, I'd be much obliged too.

On the plus side, must be exciting knowing that Christmas is just a few sleeps away, eh?

Hi Happy Dude,
I really don't understand how what you say relates to what I have said.

When doing those long trips, I was wide awake and impossibly alert - the exact opposite of what you are going on about.

Or do they have ad campaigns where ever you live advising people not to drive when they are wide awake and very alert?
Regards,
Renato

I've used them a bit back when I was at uni...

Living in WA I've made many long trips up north and Perth to Kal return in a (very long)day, I have only relied on a couple cups of coffee. So 10 hours of driving is really nothing, if a couple of caffeine pills help you stay alert then that's fine but I'd say they shouldn't be relied upon.

A kindred spirit! I used them back in uni days too - extremely handy for when one suffers from insomnia the night before a big exam, as I did - I passed it with flying colours. Also handy for the occasional three hour exam (I wonder if they still have exams that length?).

I appreciate your concurrence on this issue, and no - I never use them apart from on very long distance driving, which is a rarity for me.
Regards,
Renato

The single most effective thing for me on the micro sleep front was being diagnosed with sleep apnoea and the sequential use of a CPAP. I now spend far less time sleeping and I am no longer tired. There is no question (with hindsight) that I am a safer driver now, but I had no idea, as I suspect is the case with many others

Regarding fatigue - I believe long distance driving requires short breaks every few hours, even when I as a driver do not feel tired

Yes, I've known people with bad sleep apnea - not a good thing.

I typically only need five or six hours a night now that I'm retired. When I used to work I could get by on four hours a night and a capuccino in the afternoon.
Regards,
Renato

 

[TomVexille]

I typically only need five or six hours a night now that I'm retired. When I used to work I could get by on four hours a night and a capuccino in the afternoon.
Regards,
Renato

Data point. Only having 4 hours sleep in a night leaves a person with the mental faculties of someone who is legally drunk.

 

[burmans]

How do you know? Maybe it only stops 99% of micro-sleeps for you. You and your family will only find out too late.

Sounds to me like the OP is trying to win the Darwin Award.

 

[straitman]

How do I know when I get micro-sleeps (of the fraction of a second type) and when I don't?
I use a technique called observation of the bleeding obvious of what is occurring to me.

From Wikipedia, in case we are talking about different things.
"A microsleep (MS) is a temporary episode of sleep which may last for a fraction of a second or up to 30 seconds where an individual fails to respond to some arbitrary sensory input and becomes unconscious."
Regards,
Renato

There are numerous posts here that I could quote from but I'll restrict it to this one only.

To say you know when you are going to micro-sleep is kidding yourself.

I'll draw a parallel of gradually depleting someones oxygen. They happily continue what they are doing until the point of unconscious. Quickly give the oxygen back and they can continue without ever knowing they were 'out' for the moment.

In a decompression chamber get people to perform a simple task such as writing number backward from 100 whilst depleting the oxygen. They are convinced they are doing fine until they pass out. Upon waking they find they were writing scribble. The effect of fatigue has the same effect and anyone who believes they can control the situation is kidding themselves.

 

[Virgin Bart]

I work in road safety and this post both scares and pisses me off.

 

[Renato1]

Yes, you are.



Alcohol is a natural product too. You wanna drink and drive on the basis of that? .. Fer crying out loud!!

And yes, I would say the same thing about taking multiple espresso's and driving at high speed - if you are specifically taking the espressos to combat fatigue / keep you awake.

I don't think you get it. I drink a fair bit of coffee - the argument here is not about its consumption per se - its about using it to counteract fatigue during a long drive, at high speed (or even at normal speed!). Like I said - it seems to have worked for you (so far). But like the drinker who drives 'because I'm still in control' - you'll get away with it for a while, but when you don't finally get away with it, if you are lucky you'll probably never know it - but the families of the people that might be maimed or killed along side you will know it.

So let's try follow your logic on two issues.
1. You claim that I am using an artifical stimulant.
2. I respond that i am using a natural product.
3. You respond that alcohol is a natural product too.

So how exactly does your response demonstrate that I was supposedly using the artificial stimulant that you asserted I was using? Your logic just doesn't follow, as far as I am concerned.

To compound matters further, you some how equate use of caffeine (a stimulant) to use of alcohol ( a depressant), which leaves me quite puzzled.

Second point - you are here very critical of my using caffeine. Then it transpires that you drink "a fair bit of coffee", while I typically only have one or two coffees a day.

Your logic appears to be that the natural product known as caffeine should only be used for recreational use and not for any practical use - for reasons best known to yourself. Then you mysteriously appear to claim that people who are fresh and alert on the road with caffeine are somehow dangerous drivers, while the caffeine-free tired and unalert types are presumably much safer drivers in comparison.
Regards,
Renato

This tone of this thread reminds me of discussions with anti-vaxxers. Maybe akin to a product ad on a morning show. What's even scarier is you admit to not eating, your brain needs energy (glucose) to concentrate and maintain focus, and you're effectively starving it for 10 hours and supplementing this symptom with caffeine.

But, you "endangered not a single soul", so I guess all is well?

Thanks, but I have high blood sugar - my brain gets plenty of glucose.
Regards,
Renato

Putting it out there, although I've used No-Doz here and there on drives, it's never had much of an effect on me. I've still had to always limit my drive lengths and take breaks every chance available. This is also true for coffee and energy drinks.
I've always relied on the company of the front seat passanger to keep me alert by engaging with me. I find listening to stand up comedy acts on road trips keeps me up.
Just keep it safe on the roads for you and everyone else Renato1, that's the only thing that matters in the end.

Agree - I take plenty of breaks too, and my wife is more awake than asleep most of the time. Though when driving in foreign countries I think better not to be distracted by radio and music. I only put them on if there is very little traffic about.
Regards,
Renato

It could have masked the tiredness to the point where you didn't realise you weren't thinking rationally, though.

For me, your premise is incorrect, as on me caffeine doesn't mask tiredness. There is no tiredness - for hours after I actually arrive at the destination, there is no tiredness. I have to take alcohol to induce some tiredness.

I accept that others may have a different reaction and that caffeine may have no effect on them, but I find suspect the notion that somehow caffeine becomes some sort of delusional masking agent.
Regards,
Renato

There's a reason why pure caffeine is kept in a poisons cabinet in a laboratory environment.



I did once, when I was young. It was stupid and irresponsible, I have not denied that. I'd also drunk plenty of tea, which is also full of caffeine. Its makes absolutely no difference to someone that is that tired. Not something I would ever do again because I generally try not to kill myself nor others on the road. The fact there is someone like you out on the road, tired and drugged, is far more terrifying.

Thanks for sharing your experience. But you are the victim of a common misconception that does the rounds. You can Google it if you wish, but in summary, tea leaves contain far more caffeine than the equivalent amount of coffee beans. However, when tea is made, far less caffeine is extracted than occurs with making coffee.

So that drinking a very strong cup of tea, can be the equivalent to drinking a very moderate to moderate strength cup of coffee. Extra strength tea has absolutely no effect on me in terms of keeping me alert - it just doesn't compare to an espresso or No-Doz. So I'm not surprised that caffeine had little effect in your experience.
Regards,
Renato

 

[RooFlyer]

So let's try follow your logic on two issues.
1. You claim that I am using an artifical stimulant.
2. I respond that i am using a natural product.
3. You respond that alcohol is a natural product too.

So how exactly does your response demonstrate that I was supposedly using the artificial stimulant that you asserted I was using? Your logic just doesn't follow, as far as I am concerned.

To compound matters further, you some how equate use of caffeine (a stimulant) to use of alcohol ( a depressant), which leaves me quite puzzled.

Second point - you are here very critical of my using caffeine. Then it transpires that you drink "a fair bit of coffee", while I typically only have one or two coffees a day.

Your logic appears to be that the natural product known as caffeine should only be used for recreational use and not for any practical use - for reasons best known to yourself. Then you mysteriously appear to claim that people who are fresh and alert on the road with caffeine are somehow dangerous drivers, while the caffeine-free tired and unalert types are presumably much safer drivers in comparison.
Regards,
Renato
<snip>

Oh, good grief. Really? I mean really? OK, I'll spell it out, line by line, one last time.

1. You claim that I am using an artifical stimulant.

Yes, you are using a drug to artificially stimulate your system to prevent the onset of sleep. That's what you want it to, right?

2. I respond that i am using a natural product.
3. You respond that alcohol is a natural product too.

OK

So how exactly does your response demonstrate that I was supposedly using the artificial stimulant that you asserted I was using? Your logic just doesn't follow, as far as I am concerned.

Non sequitur - unconnected statements. You are using a drug to artificially stimulate your system; caffeine is natural, so is alcohol. All three are true. You called caffeine 'a natural product' in an attempt to justify its use. I pointed out the absurdity of that argument by noting that alcohol is a natural product too, but that doesn't justify its use when driving.

Second point - you are here very critical of my using caffeine. Then it transpires that you drink "a fair bit of coffee", while I typically only have one or two coffees a day.

Selective quoting (ho-hum). This is what I said:

And yes, I would say the same thing about taking multiple espresso's and driving at high speed - if you are specifically taking the espressos to combat fatigue / keep you awake.

Did you notice that bit at the end, which I underlined just so readers couldn't miss it? :shock:

Your logic appears to be that the natural product known as caffeine should only be used for recreational use and not for any practical use - for reasons best known to yourself. Then you mysteriously appear to claim that people who are fresh and alert on the road with caffeine are somehow dangerous drivers, while the caffeine-free tired and unalert types are presumably much safer drivers in comparison.

My 'logic' and only argument is that people shouldn't drive at high speeds (or regular speeds) while drugged up on caffeine or other stimulants (or for that matter, anything else) to keep them awake. That's all. Your wilful selective quoting and misrepresentation in this thread I suggest demonstrates the complete vacuousness of the position you espouse.

I still think you are taking the pixx in this thread, and if so, I think that is frankly appalling on a topic such as this. I would equate it to having fun by boasting about drink driving. If you are not taking the pixx, and are serious, then see my comments above re the likely eventual consequences of your driving at high speeds while souped up trying to avoid sleep. BTW - I notice that you haven't given any supercilious retorts to those comments. Hopefully they have given you pause for at least some serious reflection on the possible consequences of your actions.

Oh, one last thing (and it will be my last thing here).

Are you OK to fly in a plane when the pilots are souped up on caffeine to stay awake? Consider the passengers on that plane to be your fellow road users when you are driving wide eyed through the night.

 

[Renato1]

This thread is ridiculous; the title and proposition is spurious and irresponsible.

I shall reserve my comments of the OP; needless to say it is plentifully expressed in this thread, unfortunately not to a suitable degree deserving of the degree of irresponsibility and ineptitude portrayed.

Thanks for your totally unsupported assertions and totally unsupported conclusions.
At least others have tried to put some reason and logic into what they have posted. I wonder why you haven't?
Regards,
Renato

I don't quite understand why you put yourself through the risk and torture of driving such long distances on holidays. It's not fun sitting on 140km/h for 6 hours tired and drugged up.

20+ years ago I drove to Broken Hill with mum on a Saturday and drove back via Mildura on Sunday because I thought it would be fun. It wasn't. Didn't book motel and when we got there no vacancies and got one of the final spots in caravan park. Huge storms through the night and we slept for 2-3 hours and drove off at 4:00am not knowing what to expect. We drove through partially flooded roads and the return trip was torture as my eyes were sore most of the way. Survived but I won't do that again.


Why not do that in Europe? Or at least take a train?

Hi John,
I wasn't using No-Doz during those two six hour trips across France. The first trip from Biel to Bouillon was a real grind and I was really tired, and I really wasn't looking forward to the return trip covering much the same ground from Luxembourg to Lichtenstein. But surprisingly, it was a delightful return trip.

Fortunately, my road trips weren't anywhere near as bad as what you describe on your trip.

Why do those trips? Because one can then do shorter trips, like driving all around Switzerland, then driving around Brussels, then driving around Holland and Amsterdam (including accidentally driving through Dam Square), and Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein and the Tyrol in Austria. Trains just wouldn't do it for me.

I only do the 140kph when over taking trucks and there is some traffic around which might start tailgating me at high speed. I usually stick to the 130 kph speed limit and watch all the otehr cars pass me by.
Regards,
Renato

No the case study does not support what you wrote at all.
From the abstract
"Conclusions: Caffeinated substances are associated with a reduced risk of crashing for long distance commercial motor vehicle drivers. While comprehensive mandated strategies for fatigue management remain a priority, the use of caffeinated substances could be a useful adjunct strategy in the maintenance of alertness while driving."

The article about the study aims to describe in plain English what the study is saying.

Uhhhmm - have you ACTUALLY read what you have quoted to me?
"Caffeinated substances are associated with a reduced risk of crashing for long distance commercial motor vehicle drivers."
This means that using caffeine reduces crashes. Was this not what was in my Original and subsequent posts consistent with that?

"the use of caffeinated substances could be a useful adjunct strategy in the maintenance of alertness while driving"
This means that using caffeine keeps one more alert. Was this not what was in my Original and subsequent posts?

I am unsure why you are saying that black is white.
Regards,
Renato

Hmmm. A lot of debate around the result of the OP's study, based on a sample size of one individual. Given the many variables involved, I think we need a larger study before we could draw any reliable conclusions about the proposition in the header.

Cheers skip

Hi Skip,
If you check the posts by Princess Fiona above, you'll see where she link's to an article, which could have been written by many of the critics here, which is highly critical of a Case Study where a sample of numerous truck drivers were interviewed - and guess what? Those taking caffeine were more alert and had less accidents.


As for your issue about a sample of one, put it this way - suppose I said that while I was on my long drive I developed a bad cough and chest infection and started coughing up heaps of green phlegm, and that I took four antibiotic pills and the infection went away. That's just a sample of one, right?
Regards,
Renato

seriously entertaining thread….

Seriously?
Cheers,
Renato

And getting crazier as it goes by the look of it. Fatigue is a major issue for air crew. Let's hope they don't apply the same logic as the op

You don't want the air crew to have any caffeine? No coffee?
What would you suggest - a nice cup of coco perhaps, and let the autopilot do all the work?
Regards,
Renato

 

[anat0l]

Thanks for your totally unsupported assertions and totally unsupported conclusions.
At least others have tried to put some reason and logic into what they have posted. I wonder why you haven't?
Regards,
Renato

Quite simple - this thread is about to break to about 100 posts, with a significant weight of evidence - credible evidence - to show that your viewpoint is prima facie irresponsible. And your lack of recognition of any sort let alone the inability to comprehend that irresponsibility is absolutely mindboggling, even when weighed up against any sort of credible argument you have proffered to support your stance.

By that time, it is nearly a waste of time to pursue any further attempt to convince you.

In addition to that, the words I would like to express to you would see me banned from AFF. I did weigh up whether that consequence would be a small concession in view of expressing my absolute contempt for your irresponsible viewpoint, however I thought better of it.

I will add that (a) why is this topic in Open Discussions rather than Playground, and (b) this topic I will foresee would most likely be - for better or worse - closed/locked by the moderators in the very near future.

For anyone (especially guests) who is reading this thread, please think of your health and safety first and do not take a chance on your capabilities. The advice of the original poster should not be taken as definitive nor exemplary.

 

[Renato1]

Data point. Only having 4 hours sleep in a night leaves a person with the mental faculties of someone who is legally drunk.

Not so. During the Cold War NATO did experiments on just how much sleep their soldiers needed. They found that by reducing sleep by an hour one week, then an hour the next week and so on, their soldiers and people in command centres could function quite well - provided they did not give into temptation and sleep say six hours. At which point they would have to start the process again reducing their sleep by an hour a week.

If you read Major General Jim Molan's account of his running the war for the Americans in the book "Running The War in Iraq", by your definition of lack of sleep, he would have been well beyond the legally drunk definition that you cite. And plainly, he wasn't.
Regards,
Renato

There are numerous posts here that I could quote from but I'll restrict it to this one only.

To say you know when you are going to micro-sleep is kidding yourself.

I'll draw a parallel of gradually depleting someones oxygen. They happily continue what they are doing until the point of unconscious. Quickly give the oxygen back and they can continue without ever knowing they were 'out' for the moment.

In a decompression chamber get people to perform a simple task such as writing number backward from 100 whilst depleting the oxygen. They are convinced they are doing fine until they pass out. Upon waking they find they were writing scribble. The effect of fatigue has the same effect and anyone who believes they can control the situation is kidding themselves.

I actually said that I know when I get Microsleeps, that is, I've had them and I don't like them.

Your parallel isn't a parallel at all. You cite people in a bad condition who don't know they are in a bad condition and think they are in a good condition.

Whereas I know when I am not in a good condition, and that I am entering a worse condition were in similar circumstances microsleeps are possible - and I want to avoid that at all costs.

These are two totally different situations.
Regards,
Renato

I work in road safety and this post both scares and pisses me off.

My question - are you pissed off because all those people who routinely make the evening news for killing themselves on perfect roads, in perfect weather and without anyone else causing them any issue on the road, were hyped up and fully on caffeine?

If so, you should have plenty of statistics easily at hand to demonstrate the huge magnitude of the caffeine-related road deaths problem. Hopefully we'll see a new ad campaign warning of this alarming trend in road deaths and carnage.

If you don't, I'll just lump you in with the rest of the My-Body-Must-Be-Pure fanatics.
Regards,
Renato

 

[JohnK]

I wasn't using No-Doz during those two six hour trips across France. The first trip from Biel to Bouillon was a real grind and I was really tired, and I really wasn't looking forward to the return trip covering much the same ground from Luxembourg to Lichtenstein. But surprisingly, it was a delightful return trip.

Fortunately, my road trips weren't anywhere near as bad as what you describe on your trip.

Why do those trips? Because one can then do shorter trips, like driving all around Switzerland, then driving around Brussels, then driving around Holland and Amsterdam (including accidentally driving through Dam Square), and Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein and the Tyrol in Austria. Trains just wouldn't do it for me.

I only do the 140kph when over taking trucks and there is some traffic around which might start tailgating me at high speed. I usually stick to the 130 kph speed limit and watch all the otehr cars pass me by.

Point taken about being able to drive around.

The way I would plan it is train/bus/fly from Switzerland to Brussels to Amsterdam and hire a car in each place to drive around. Sure it might cost a few dollars more than hiring one car for the whole trip but this is just a few dollars compared to what one would spend on the whole trip right?

 

[straitman]

Not so. During the Cold War NATO did experiments on just how much sleep their soldiers needed. They found that by reducing sleep by an hour one week, then an hour the next week and so on, their soldiers and people in command centres could function quite well - provided they did not give into temptation and sleep say six hours. At which point they would have to start the process again reducing their sleep by an hour a week.

If you read Major General Jim Molan's account of his running the war for the Americans in the book "Running The War in Iraq", by your definition of lack of sleep, he would have been well beyond the legally drunk definition that you cite. And plainly, he wasn't.
Regards,
Renato

I think you will find if you research further that this has later been disproven.

I actually said that I know when I get Microsleeps, that is, I've had them and I don't like them.

Your parallel isn't a parallel at all. You cite people in a bad condition who don't know they are in a bad condition and think they are in a good condition.

Whereas I know when I am not in a good condition, and that I am entering a worse condition were in similar circumstances microsleeps are possible - and I want to avoid that at all costs.

These are two totally different situations.
Regards,
Renato

Microsleeps don't wave flags they just happen. The time line you are discussing puts you in the fatigue area where they occur.

My parallel is valid as it is talking about healthy, fit individuals (military pilots) in controlled situations in a decompression chamber. They know exactly what is occurring and how and the best proof of this is to do it to only a percentage of the group at a time whilst the others watch. For what it's worth I can say been there done that to these specific and quite a few other similar type tests.

 

[Renato1]

Oh, good grief. Really? I mean really? OK, I'll spell it out, line by line, one last time.



Yes, you are using a drug to artificially stimulate your system to prevent the onset of sleep. That's what you want it to, right?



OK


Non sequitur - unconnected statements. You are using a drug to artificially stimulate your system; caffeine is natural, so is alcohol. All three are true. You called caffeine 'a natural product' in an attempt to justify its use. I pointed out the absurdity of that argument by noting that alcohol is a natural product too, but that doesn't justify its use when driving.



Selective quoting (ho-hum). This is what I said:

And yes, I would say the same thing about taking multiple espresso's and driving at high speed - if you are specifically taking the espressos to combat fatigue / keep you awake.

Did you notice that bit at the end, which I underlined just so readers couldn't miss it? :shock:



My 'logic' and only argument is that people shouldn't drive at high speeds (or regular speeds) while drugged up on caffeine or other stimulants (or for that matter, anything else) to keep them awake. That's all. Your wilful selective quoting and misrepresentation in this thread I suggest demonstrates the complete vacuousness of the position you espouse.

I still think you are taking the pixx in this thread, and if so, I think that is frankly appalling on a topic such as this. I would equate it to having fun by boasting about drink driving. If you are not taking the pixx, and are serious, then see my comments above re the likely eventual consequences of your driving at high speeds while souped up trying to avoid sleep. BTW - I notice that you haven't given any supercilious retorts to those comments. Hopefully they have given you pause for at least some serious reflection on the possible consequences of your actions.

So - when you asserted that I was using an artificial stimulant, you really meant to say that I was using a natural, non-artificial stimulant as a stimulant in an artificial way?
And you say "Oh, good grief. Really? I mean really? ". I think that I am the one who is supposed to say that.

Then you criticize me for, among other things, taking the equivalent to five or six cups of coffee driving from Las Vegas to San Francisco, when it transpires that you are a heavy coffee user (presumably four, five or six cups of coffee a day) which you apply to doing everything - including driving, mowing the lawn, going up ladders and numerous other activities which have potential for adverse consequences. You appear to spend your entire life doing activities while "drugged up" on caffeine, but can't see any irony in your position against my use of the same natural stimulant for the purposes of safe driving.


Given that in this imperfect world people do drive when tired or fatigued - often just to get home from work - your 'logic' and only argument is that people shouldn't drive at high speeds (or regular speeds) while drugged up on caffeine or other stimulants (or for that matter, anything else) to keep them awake.


So - you'd rather they drove less alert, getting drowsier by the minute, and not knowing whether they will get better or worse as time progresses? Or not drive home or to their next hotel at all - take a sleeping bag with them and crawl into the back seat of the car perhaps?


Since you don't like my position, what exactly is your position?
Regards,
Renato

Oh, one last thing (and it will be my last thing here).

Are you OK to fly in a plane when the pilots are souped up on caffeine to stay awake? Consider the passengers on that plane to be your fellow road users when you are driving wide eyed through the night.

Of course I'm okay with it.
Military pilots have been using amphetamines since the Second World War. German Pilots were using Crystal Meth.
There is no doubt as to the efficacy of stimulants to perform the task, the only problem is long term side effects on the user. And last time I looked, there wasn't anything of significance from using caffeine - that's why the sell coffee in supermarkets and not by prescription at Chemists.
Regards,
Renato.