No-Doz, The Driver's Friend.

[marki]

That graph was my backup

Arrrrgh avast you land lubbers

Pirate Says !! Me I’m Dishonest. And A Dishonest Man You Can Always Trust To Be Dishonest. Honestly Its The Honest Ones You Want To Watch Out For Because You Never Know When They Are Going To Do Something Completely Stupid!


SAID BY CAPTAIN JACK SPARR

 

[Renato1]

No, it means caffeinated substances are associated with a reduced risk. It doesn't claim causation, it doesn't say that using caffeinated substances causes a reduced risk of crashing. The sentence "A reduced risk of crashing is associated with using caffeinated substances for long distance commercial motor vehicle drivers" has the same meaning as the quoted sentence, but that doesn't mean that a reduced risk of crashing causes use of caffeinated substances.

No, this means that there is a possibility that caffeinated substances could be usefully added to a strategy intended to maintain alertness while driving.

"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?

You say No, that the Study's conclusion it is not consistent with my Original and subsequent posts. So, if not, what exactly is it consistent with - the exact opposite view being espoused by my critics?
In my opinion, you can only form that view using the notion that Black equals White, i.e. totallt devoid of logic.

"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?
By your logic, caffeinated substances are a useful strategy to maintain alertness, but somehow - miraculously - do not actually contribute to the alertness.

Have fun with your semantic games but, in my opinion, what you write is nonsense as is does not follow logic.
Regards,
Renato

 

[mannej]

"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?

You say No, that the Study's conclusion it is not consistent with my Original and subsequent posts. So, if not, what exactly is it consistent with - the exact opposite view being espoused by my critics?
In my opinion, you can only form that view using the notion that Black equals White, i.e. totallt devoid of logic.

"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?
By your logic, caffeinated substances are a useful strategy to maintain alertness, but somehow - miraculously - do not actually contribute to the alertness.

Have fun with your semantic games but, in my opinion, what you write is nonsense as is does not follow logic.
Regards,
Renato

I would suggest that you have a look into the difference between causation and correlation.

That is what the other members have been trying to state.

 

[Renato1]

"Adjunct" means "joined or associated, especially in an auxiliary or subordinate relationship."

It seems to me that you are using No-Doz as a complete strategy, not an adjunct strategy.
If you are using it as an adjunct strategy, can you please let us know what your primary strategy is? It certainly doesn't seem to be any kind of fatigue management I am familiar with.

Primary strategy, drive when fresh, take breaks, stay alert on road - same as truck drivers.
Adjunct stategy, take caffeine to maintain alertness - same as truck drivers and hundreds of thousands of other motorists who stop at cafes along the road.
Regards,
Renato

This thread is stupid, I'm out.

Goodbye.
Cheers,
Renato

This thread seems to be becoming the "Ask the Pilot" of No-Doz

Thanks. Plainly, I am the most experienced here, though a few others have admitted to its effectiveness.
Cheers,
Renato

Yes I read and understood the paper.
An "association" in a research paper does not mean that one thing causes the other.
Here's some more reading which explains it.
Association, correlation and causation

Amazing is in not, that a known stimulant which has been in use for hundreds of years is associated with alertness?
How about that?
But one can't say that a stimulant known to keep people alert (or it wouldn't be a stimulant, would it?) causes alertness.
Regards,
Renato

My niece has a PhD in sleep disorders and currently works in a Uni sleep research Unit. Shall ask her.

Thanks. I shall be interested to hear what she has to say.
Cheers,
Renato

Maybe you are a freak of nature and can drive safely at high speed for hours at a time day after day.

Caffeine alters my perception of the world. Maybe you're different. I dunno.

If you want to make your holidays into driving marathons, it's a poor way to see the land in fleeting glimpses. I won't drive for more than about six hours a day, preferably with a co-driver. Stopping and exploring and taking photographs and relaxing is what makes the trip.

In a week or so, I'll jump in the car and drive up to Queensland. Fourteen hours, a lot of it on freeways. There'll be the three of us taking turns, two hours or so at a stretch, and we'll stop regularly. A route that's very familiar to us, and we'll have audiobooks to while away the hours.

I wouldn't dream of doing it by myself in one go, though.

Thanks. Fair enough. It's good that you can arrange to have friends share the driving.

Last year I pondered doing the 14 hour trip from Dubrovnik back to Italy - but decided that while I could probably do it, it would drive my wife nuts. So I only did about nine hours on the lovely Croatian toll roads, before staying at a hotel.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Austman]

Last year I drove for over 10 and half hours to the Amalfi Coast at speeds of 130kph to 140kph (when over taking trucks). Last month I drove for 10 and a half hours or more on two occasions in the USA, and for eight or nine hours on another two - for the most part at 70 or 75mph, and often creeping up to 80mph.

What car can be driven for over 10 hours at 130 km/h without stopping? That's 1,300 km non-stop?

 

[Renato1]

Trying to go too far is not an idea we would try. You need to realise life is not a dress rehearsal.
Having had two near death experiences have certainly helped make me conservative in my thinking and I don't use stimulants for driving long distances. It is downright risky to others on the road and stopping when tired always works.
Stay alive and live the dream is what I am thinking.

I can understand your wariness.
And I totally concur with your Stay Alive and Live The Dream.
But to me, the down right risky thing to do is to drive long distances without caffeine.

And think about what happens in your state, but in Victoria during long weekends, people volunteer to man roadside stops where they provide free coffees to drivers - that's caffeine they are giving them.
Regards,
Renato

Renato,

I assume you're simply trolling people with this thread.

But if you're not, here's my $0.02:



If you feel that you cannot drive safely without the use of stimulants, you shouldn't drive.

If you feel that it is your advancing age that is limiting your ability to drive, you should probably submit yourself for further drivers' licence testing.

Advancing age doesn't just impair your tolerance for long-distance driving, but also the speed of your reflexes, and your ability to make appropriate judgements.

Although you allege that your brain has appropriate stimulants and glucose, that doesn't necessarily mean that your higher function centres are working well.

It seems to me that this is the second post within a year bemoaning your reducing abilities in the face of advancing age, so perhaps you should restrict yourself to more age- and ability-appropriate pursuits. Especially when you've admitted that you have disc issues that may impair your lower limb function ie the ability to move your feet quickly from accelerator to brake.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....flying-emirates-start-training-now-70245.html

Also I would recommend that you see your GP, because perhaps you need different medication and a cardiovascular review, rather than high doses of caffeine and its attendant risks/side-effects.

If this wasn't an anonymous forum, I'd be obligated to report you to the state Transport/Driving License authority.

Otherwise, good troll! I love how you fit the stereotypical grumpy-old-man role perfectly!

Make sure that you report all those people who volunteer to man roadside stops during long weekends, giving free coffees to drivers in order to prevent accidents. And make sure you report all the drivers who stop there. And all the drivers who stop for coffee breaks along freeways and highways.

Grumpy old men are always reporting someone.
Cheers,
Renato

It just occurred to me. Renato, didn't you struggle physically with a bus ride to the plane in Dubai? On the way to Venice and something we had done and while a longish bus trip, it was in our experience, not arduous. And I think you are about my age.

Maybe you need to rethink all this. A reality check. Before you kill someone.

Yes, that was a 25 minute or so standing bus trip, with around 30C in the bus, followed by me having to carry my wife's luggage and mine up the stairs into the plane at around 45C (because my wife was close to keeling over). I did all that exertion fine, though I wasn't too thrilled about being sweaty. My main problem was that it resulted in my having swollen ankles for the next four days - something which I never get.

I cannot agree with your premise that driving on the road in a fully alert state, constitutes risky behaviour.
My premise is the exact opposite.
Regards,
Renato

I have resisted posting on this thread because when I read the OP I thought, 'Not for real! It's a wind-up'. The longer the discussion has gone on, the more I am convinced. If not, I just hope I never cross paths with the OP as I think our fundamental views of what constitutes responsible behaviour are totally opposite. Given the previous posts by this person I still think I am correct

Irresponsible behaviour is people who the most they all of the year to the supermarket, and then drive off interstate, thinking it is no different.
Responsible behaviour is people who stay highly alert on the roads.
I hope I never come across you on a long distance trip too.
Regards,
Renato

Whilst you state your wife is independent in your opinion, I don't think you can in any honesty say she is an impartial party that can verify your claims.

View attachment 74679

You effectively claim my wife would not be impartial, and be happy to drive in a car at high speed with a delusional driver? And back the delusional driver up with his subsequent assessment of his driving?

Hilarious. Have you ever been married?
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And think about what happens in your state, but in Victoria during long weekends, people volunteer to man roadside stops where they provide free coffees to drivers - that's caffeine they are giving them.
Regards,
Renato

What's the primary purpose of the roadside stops? To deliver caffeine, or to get the driver to stop, get fresh air, stretch their legs, and get oxygen/blood flowing?

 

[Walter_Plinge]

Primary strategy, drive when fresh, take breaks, stay alert on road - same as truck drivers.
Adjunct stategy, take caffeine to maintain alertness - same as truck drivers and hundreds of thousands of other motorists who stop at cafes along the road.

I don't know that this is the truck driver strategy. Methamphetamine abuse by truck drivers is a serious problem. From The Age last year:

More truck drivers are being caught driving under the influence of drugs, including ice, prompting a warning from police that a rogue element is threatening public safety on the state's roads. Victoria Police caught 156 heavy vehicle drivers operating while on drugs last year, a steep increase on the 2013 figure of 86 drivers detected under the influence.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Amazing is in not, that a known stimulant which has been in use for hundreds of years is associated with alertness?
How about that?
But one can't say that a stimulant known to keep people alert (or it wouldn't be a stimulant, would it?) causes alertness.

Regards,
Renato

Caffeine consumption does not cause a reduction in road crashes.
There is no evidence to show that it does.
The manufacturers of No-Doz do not advise using them for extended driving. From the website:
"When using caffeine tablets such as No-Doz you should:
Not exceed the recommended dosage.
Limit the use of caffeine containing medications, foods or beverages because too much caffeine may cause nervousness, irritability, sleeplessness and, occasionally, rapid heart beat.
Drive responsibly. Caffeine is not a substitute for sleep. Remember to rest every 2 hours and avoid driving if you are so tired that safety is compromised"

You find the pills useful and use them for a purpose that's not recommended by the manufacturer.

So far you haven't had an accident. Long may your luck continue.

 

[Renato1]

Yes please.

Just as you don't know.

They also independent expert observers who were unable to help them.

This test can be done quickly or very slowly and the outcome is always the same. Sharp and fast is not really a parallel but slow and insidious is a parallel.

Thank you for making my case for me.

Hi again Bill,
Sorry, but your case is far from made. Quite the oppoiste in fact.

First is your premise that my faculties are impaired by taking a No-Doz and an espresso to such an extent that I am delusional and think I am driving well, when in fact I am driving very badly - just like the people who are suffering from Oxygen deprivation.

Your premise has no basis in reality. If highish levels of caffeine made people delusional, then it would be known about - people would ineveitably getting high on coffee and No-Doz to experience the altered state of reality, people would be getting killed in all sorts of places from their delusions, and caffeine usage would be strictly controlled.

Recollect the Australian fencer who got disqualified at the Olympics for excess levels of caffeine? He didn't get disqualified because he was delusional and his performance was decreased, instead he was disqualified because caffeine was performance enhancing.

Secondly, there is the issue of reality. Reality bites. A proper paralle is to compare two cars driving along the autostrada from Bologna to Rome. One car is a standard car and being driven at 130kph by someone who has taken one No-Doz and drunk one espresso. The other car is a specially designed car where the driver has taken no caffeine, but where the oxygen levels are being reduced within the car, which is also doing 130 kph.

Your premise is that each car is equally at risk.
Care to place a wager on which car will be bitten by reality?
Regards,
Renato

Sleeping while being an "independent objective observer." Cool skills.

(Seriously, this thread has to be a wind-up.)

Someone sleeps off and on for an hour and a half to two hours during a ten or eleven hour trip - and supposedly according to you she can't be independent objective observer during the eight or so hours that she is wide awake.

Two words come to mind - acute shallowness.
Regards,
Renato

Well, from past posts by Renato this is the way he writes. So he has either been a troll all along or this is legit. Jury is out for me.

I like to think that the way I write is considered, respectful and courteous - especially in that I always try to respond to every single person who has been kind enough or interested enough to directly respond to me.

I notice that the vast majority of thread posters very often do not respond to people who have gone to the trouble of replying to their threads.
Regards,
Renato

Spoken like someone with total disregard to the welfare of other drivers. As someone who has lost a young family member to road death, I find your cavalier attitude just a wee but offensive.
Try taking a (coffee. Tea) break, a nap and or a stroll in the fresh air.

Mystifying - you are so offended by my taking caffeine in convenient pill form that your solution is that I take caffeine in coffee form.

Your position does not add up. Anyone following your advice could then be accused by you of driving with disregard to the health of others.
Regards,
Renato

Just a wee bit offensive? Let's just say I'm glad the original poster is not in the same room as me right now.

What would you do - continue trying to overwhelm me with unsupported assertions?
Regards,
Renato

All I have to say is it seems the OP has totally disproved all the TAC ads about fatigue and pulling over for a power nap.. How many millions did they waste with that research and promotion? The OP has shown all you need are a couple of No Doz tablets and the road toll will drop..

/Sarcasm mode off

I would be most pleased if you could point out where exactly I have disproved all "the TAC's ads about pulling over and taking a power nap."

If you can't do so, be advised that it is not sarcasm mode, but it is making things up mode.
Regards,
Renato

I cant believe people are still giving this thread (the OP) 'oxygen'. 12 pages:shock:. Clearly the OP can't see logic, and will no doubt blame everyone and everything else if/when something goes wrong. I just hope the OPs 'logic' doesn't affect/kill innocent people. By all means OP, kill yourself (hit a tree or something similar), just don't drag others into it. IVE SAID MY PIECE AND I WONT BE FEEDING THE OP.

To see logic requires hard fact, no unsupported assertions - just like yours.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Pushka]

I like to think that the way I write is considered, respectful and courteous - especially in that I always try to respond to every single person who has been kind enough or interested enough to directly respond to me.

I notice that the vast majority of thread posters very often do not respond to people who have gone to the trouble of replying to their threads.
Regards,
Renato

Your posts are well structured, well written and polite. However it is the subject content and your conclusions that draw issues.
Comment from Sleep Research PhD
'Well, in terms of efficacy-caffeine does help a little but the argument would always be if you're tired enough to need stimulants you shouldn't be driving. Litigation wise, if you are that fatigued I'd say you're still liable if you have an accident."

Remember if you have an injury accident you will be drug tested.

 

[Renato1]

So when I am on the road after two expresso's shots I will call you to warn you. This is going down silly street ....... Naive ....... There are far more dangerous things on the road ....... Impaired people due to drugs( ie. Cannabis which lasts much longer than caffeine. Alcohol all natural products BTW.

I think the point here is " risky ". But not illegal ! This is why you can purchase caffeine in various forms and places.

However banning it outright would be silly like turning a country into a nanny state. None of you above are wrong, for that matter but some of you are more equal than others

Good points, thanks.
Though I wouldn't say that taking a pill with vitamins and the equivalent of one cup of coffee is risky behaviour.

Claims were made by one other poster that the pills contain twice as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but it now occurs to me that if the caffeine quantity claimed on the packet is incorrect, the company would be facing big fines.
Regards,
Renato

Well I dunno? If you're talking about caffeine... well that in itself probably isn't dangerous.

But if you're talking about caffeine to specifically fight off tiredness - I don't know if that assertion is necessarily true.

The TAC (Victoria) estimates 16-20% of all accidents involve fatigue https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/tac-campaigns/fatigue.

A 2013 quote from the Centre for Road Safety in NSW states 16% of road fatalities involved illicit substances - although this could be in the 30% range now (via abc news: Drug-drivers now more prominent than drink-drivers, with 30pc of fatal road accidents involving drugs, research says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).)

At 20% (fatigue) and 30% (illicit substances) - I'd not say one is 'far more dangerous' - I think both are very dangerous.

Thanks for that. I don't know if caffeine fights off tiredness because using my strategy I never get tired.

Certainly, if I was really tired, there is no way I'd pop a No-Doz or two and just take off driving again.
Just like when I get out to take a rest when feeling tired, I wander around a lot until I suddenly feel the tiredness dissipate before taking off.
Regards,
Renato

 

[anat0l]

I like to think that the way I write is considered, respectful and courteous

Not even close... or to quote you, "Quite the oppoiste in fact".

What would you do - continue trying to overwhelm me with unsupported assertions?

You don't want to know the answer to that.

 

[Renato1]

This thread could use some humour and/or some common sense.The Op has managed to wind up a lot of respondents with responses covering high moral ground , denigration of the poster and even outright anger.


Many years ago substance abuse at the level the OP is advocating would have been so common as to elicit no comment at most social levels.
One driver of a large articulated heavy vehicle carrying massive earthmoving machines was surviving on beer and bex powders until I ended his employment.
Driving all day and then most of the night with the substance of choice propping up the eyelids was completely unremarkable across most demographic groups.


Today the level of social substance abuse and the demarcation of socially acceptable /not acceptable is perhaps a moveable feast based on demographic criteria.
Pill popping to cram for exams is socially acceptable for many.
Over indulging in alcohol/food/(your poison) and in the process costing the society considerable support funding is another socially acceptable activity.
There are many more...


I opine that the OP’s little game indicates that a lot of responders live extremely sheltered lives with little exposure to a very diverse world.
A nice tradie who visits occasionally is notable in that his ute is always heavily littered with empty Red Bull cans , he drives hundreds of km a day in his job.
The morning weeties and last nights steak ,delivered to the thread respondents , were more than likely piloted at some stage by a driver whose behaviour was affected by a substance.




Finally , just to dot the i. , I don’t condone or support the public advocacy of even benign substance abuse and the that end suggest that a moderator lock the thread.

Your premise is that taking caffeine constitues substance abuse, and you call for the thread to be closed.
I have seen surveys where numerous people have been found to drink eight or more cups of coffee a day.

Perhaps it would be better if you wrote to your parliamentarians and lobbied for the control of caffeine due it's highly undesirable effects (e.g. the effects of caffeine-fueled violence, or the fact that 100% of people assaulted and robbed when coming out of cafes, had caffeine in their system).
Regards,
Renato

 

[love_the_life]

Your posts are well structured, well written and polite. However it is the subject content and your conclusions that draw issues.
Comment from Sleep Research PhD
'Well, in terms of efficacy-caffeine does help a little but the argument would always be if you're tired enough to need stimulants you shouldn't be driving. Litigation wise, if you are that fatigued I'd say you're still liable if you have an accident."

Remember if you have an injury accident you will be drug tested.

I know Renato says he is not tired when he drives but should he ever have a accident (even small) you are right, he will be tested. It is standard practice here and in most other places.

In terms of the law in Australia, a family friend once ran off the road side-swiping a guard rail. When the police attended he said he must have been tired. He was charged with neg driving.

 

[mannej]

You effectively claim my wife would not be impartial, and be happy to drive in a car at high speed with a delusional driver? And back the delusional driver up with his subsequent assessment of his driving?

Hilarious. Have you ever been married?
Regards,
Renato

Are you being serious? By definition your wife cannot be impartial in the context of this thread.

As for your cheap shot, I will refrain from a 3 letter acronym as I can do without the infraction but yes I am happily married thank you very much.

 

[Renato1]

Quite a read, huh!

Just read through it, had to keep going to the next page! I was waiting for Barbra to appear...

For those not aware, I give you .... Barbra...http://www.australianfrequentflyer....flight-centre-vs-skyscanner-online-74290.html

Be warned, its a looong read! And about as frustrating.

In fact, Renato and Barbra, has anyone seen them in the same room??

Tiredness and fatigue are separate from Caffeine ! IMHO one should endeavour never to drive fatigued. But as I have pointed out to you all as a person very much involved in aeromedical fatigue management. A fatigued brain usually does not recognise it is fatigued so that's why it's so regulated by CASA amongst others. You fly only so many hours and that's it.



Ouch that's really getting personal there Artemis ..... I did not know that Renato was Grumpy and old.

I do a lot of driving medicals and Pilot Medicals. I do find it challenging at times balancing the communities safety, expectations and the patients needs, expectations and personal safety. Medical hammers to check for knee, ankle reflex arc. The point I am making here one cannot make assumptions about everyone. And cast their disapproving finger and play God With their inscrutable like opinions.

Everyday People drink coffee. Many in my circle around me do so as well. Some have learnt, (and everybody is different) to cope with its side effects, being-it visiting the toilet more frequently, tachycardia.......anxiety etc some tolerate caffeine some don't. Some families give the driver lots of caffeine ( coffee or tea) to encourage more stops. Why else are there free driver reviver pit stops offering the driver free coffee?

What about those drivers on the road with prescription opiates!!

Legal yes ....... But some like to take opiates to be able to drive ( otherwise they cannot due to back pain) this is where it gets iffy ...... And dangerous. IMHO. Pffft Caffeine and fatigue are not your real problems here.

Caffeine is the least of your problems. Fatigue is a killer. Agreed. And nobody should be be driving in such states. But as I said earlier a fatigued brain does not recognise that it is fatigued. So you do get a lot of accidents due to that. The aeromedical world is ruled by fatigue mitigation strategies that are adhered to via regulation. The same doctors that came up with these brilliant ideas don't seem to be able to regulate their own hours very well. For example;

Country doctors are usually 24/7 On call work the next day despite being up all night. This is crazy and dangerous. What can you do if there is an emergency after emergency. There is sometimes no let up. These situations are becoming less of an issue, manageable with staffing becoming more manageable.

Have seen young fit athletes with sudden cardiac arrests and deaths due to ingestion of Caffeine related products like red bull in large does or when mixed with other legal substances ( alcohol). These are rarer but shows the wide spectrum of side effects.

All drugs are Poisens it's the dose that matters although some even in small doses are unacceptable.

Now I await the wrath for speaking up

I'd like to unleash my wrath - but you are speaking common sense with many very interesting facts.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Princess Fiona]

I know Renato says he is not tired when he drives but should he ever have a accident (even small) you are right, he will be tested. It is standard practice here and in most other places.

In terms of the law in Australia, a family friend once ran off the road side-swiping a guard rail. When the police attended he said he must have been tired. He was charged with neg driving.

IME at least in NSW you won't be necessarily be drug tested. You will have a blood alcohol taken if you attend hospital.

One thing the OP should note is that anything posted here is available publicly via a Google search by anyone (including lawyers of course).

 

[anat0l]

IME at least in NSW you won't be necessarily be drug tested. You will have a blood alcohol taken if you attend hospital.

I guess you might only be drug tested if it were harder substances that were suspected. I wouldn't know what legal steps would be required to bring about that testing.

Negligent driving is negligent driving. Discovering that you had certain drugs in your system doesn't mean much, especially in terms of mitigating circumstances; it could just mean you are charged with a stiffer crime, though. For example, just because you claimed you had a No-Doz because it would "insure" you from driving too tired won't get you off the hook, nor would it help reduce your sentence, though had you been high on MJ or a harder substance, you would be on the hook for negligent driving as well as driving under the influence of drugs and possibly possession. And it won't give you any standing to sue the makers of No-Doz because you had an accident.

It might be a slightly different case if, say, you had a drink spiked before you started driving and it was discovered in your system. Except for certain isolated cases, I don't think being spiked with caffeine is a likely scenario, so discovering it in your system won't mean squat when you front court for the charge.

One thing the OP should note is that anything posted here is available publicly via a Google search by anyone (including lawyers of course).

It takes one thing to link a handle to a real person's details. Even if law enforcement forced AFF to hand over whatever is known about the OP (via a court order or what not), there would not be a lot of direct information that may be immediately, legally useful.

In any case, I can't see how the warning may be useful in this case. Even if the OP is somehow charged with negligent driving related to fatigue, this thread would hardly contain useful information against him (or supporting him), unless he were stupid enough to discuss the details of the case directly on this thread. Most of the other detail here is non-specific to particular cases.

Ironically, and maybe unfortunately, this thread now ranks within the first ten links in a Google search of No-Doz driving.

 

[Boca68]

I'd like to unleash my wrath - but you are speaking common sense with many very interesting facts.
Regards,
Renato

Wrath unleashed or not, I think Renatos' problem lies in the fact he believes that the 'alertness' that No-Doz gives him is somehow not making him tired.

Drinking lots of coffee or taking caffiene supplements, is akin to drinking alcohol. And before Renato gets on his high horse again, I mean in the sense, that we drink alcohol and feel great. For a short time. As with any stimulant and/or depressant, there is a tipping point, so to speak. The same sequence of events happens with No-Doz, my friend. That is the point you are missing entirely here.

Call it false bravado? Or call it overdosing? Perhaps just call it what it is, selfish, dangerous behaviour akin to a teenager that thinks he is bullet proof.

I'm seriously doubtful Renato is aware of this.

Articulate you may be, but sensible , nope!

And in addition, you state on these long haul drives, Coke Zero and other caffeine drinks are also consumed??

You don't actually say (that I can find), but how many tablets did you consume and how many caffeinated drinks as well? I'm prepared to be shocked!