They do tell you what the limit is, but it gets a bit fuzzier... Following the 3 in the first hour, then a further one an hour to keep an average person under the limit. So if you had 10 drinks you're gonna have to wait 8 hours (x-2). The only problem with this is that the variation in *average* is going to be magnified over those drinks, which means you personally could be hours either side. Also, you process alcohol slower when you're asleep, so you'd have to add time for that as well, if you've been sleeping.

//that is the guideline for driving immediatly, what they should be doing as ive mentioned is publishing Guidelines for morning after as well

they're *not* different things. It takes your (average male) liver an hour to process a drink. So assuming you have more than one drink per hour after you start, it will take you x-2 (where x is the number of drinks consumed) to get back to the limit. So if you have 5 drinks in an hour, it's going to take 3 to get back to the limit. Or you can do 3 in the first hour, 1 in the second and 1 in the third, same number of drinks (5), still have to wait 3 hours if you've had 5 drinks. The reason why they don't publish guidelines is that if it happens to take your liver 70min to process a drink, and you had ten drinks, then your going to be sober 5 hours after you mate whose liver processes a drink in 50min! Then add the fact that if you go to sleep it takes longer to process the alcohol, the imprecise art of working out how many drinks you've had, the fact that it's very hard to know how long your own liver takes compared to the *standard* (and that if you've been unwell, it might be even slower), then basically the maths is all fucked to hell. Some people might have 10 drinks and be good in 5 hours. Some might take 15. Those isn't terribly useful information. (Although it is worth thinking about the fact that it can take a very long time).

I could rant some more about those ads... but one thing about the toddy ad... I do love the "Your gearbox is so different from mum's"/"Your mum's is an automatic" line.

they have a habit of putting people you hate in those ads .. . like the poser in the honda accord...'gloat*we'll be there in 10 minutes*gloat'
perhaps if they did one with tana umaga or someone famous killing themselves the message might get thru a bit better

Cognitive Dissonance and Social Judgement are both pretty reputable theories, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that they apply in this example. The LTSA's ad campaigns have high face-validity. That is, they seem like they should work, and you can even nest them in some nice psychological theories. However, that's not the same as showing that they do work. (Face-validity also makes it easy for PR people to sell).

Just to steal a little from Joanna's presentation (which she pinched from ltsa.govt.nz pretty much verbatim). LTSA claim the following
"Independent evaluation of the programme in 1998 attributed casualty reductions (after the first two years) of over 1000 fatalities and over 1000 serious injuries to the Enforcement and Advertising campaign. "
However, what is doesn't say is that it is due to both enforcement and advertising. They also found changes in attitudes, but these don't neccessarily cause the change in behaviour.
It is probably reasonable to assume that some of the ads may have some sort of effect, but it is worth bearing in mind that there is research to suggest that ads that shock (e.g., car crash ads) are generally ineffective, and that knowledge of risks generally don't predict behaviour, but benefits do (and most of the ads focus on risk).

i quite enjoy the otther one where the dudes workin a a fast food restaurant and his mates wonder where his car went, then the guy goes "working here, payin off the fine".

Bit of deja-vu. We've been down this path before. You might wish to refresh your memory (or not)

[ external link ]