Sleep deprived too much to drive?

Later train than usual, extra money in the bag.
Two nights on the trot in work and I'm feeling pleasant - though I think a breakfast is in order as I have a driving lesson, which leads me nicely to the idea, whether I should let my instructor know or not.
I'm tired, though cheerful, is it delusion or the excited uneasiness that could be associated with roughly 9 hours of sleep in 3 days? I'm wondering what are the legal levels of sleep necessary to drive. At what point am I unfit to do so? Studies suggest that sleep deprivation accounts for between 16 and 60 percent (by primary or secondary association) of america's road accidents. Scare tactic or no, it's interesting; the suggestion that it can provide a person with the same reaction constraints as a person with an alcohol level of 0.5 or above (it could be 0.05, but give me a break, this train doesn't have wifi for me to check) which is the legal limit in europe, is alarming. what are the police able to check against this? I will notify my instructor either way, upon his head this shall rest.
I feel as if I shouldn't be behind a wheel, and bed is a necessity doubly (sp?) so as I'm out later, and in work again at 10 tomorrow.
This brings me neatly back to the idea of checks. What makes someone fit to drive? I can safely assume my reactions are still better than some on the road, even unhindered by a lack of sleep or alcohol consumption. I could most certainly walk a line and touch my nose etc, but I would like some checks to do myself, maybe stand infront of a tennis ball machine? I'll have to purchase one, that would be hilarious; 'but I'm fit to drive honest!', 'these tennis ball sized bruises suggest otherwise sir, please step away from the vehicle'.
I've recently permitted a friend to these ridiculous blogs, hopefully not hindering the content, but instead enlightening someone else's day with my deluded strife. Has this bllg changed from the others? I don't know. I haven't elaborated on the female content embellishing this Sardine Tin on the Tracks (I like that as a name for a cocktail), but then my eyes only fall on a somewhat neanderthalic specimen and two on my table that fill me with indifference.
So moving on nicely to female underwear, am I high maintenance or merely misconstrued (i feel sorry for the underwear stood in the aisle next to me either way, I think she just followed through. My appreciation knows no bounds right now).
I recently came across an incredible female in an incredible set of knickers. A female counterpart of mine suggested that it's probabky because the underwear is £50 a pair, and so my contrary nature kicked in. I tracked them to topshop online, for a mere £4 sterling. That led me to the conclusion that given the store's popularity, women of this nation as a generality, specifically go out of there way to look shit.
Now you are probably inclined to arsine that this underwear be a skimpy, stringy lace ensemble, better for flossing than wearing. Look up the satin floral designs in the topshop underwear section titled 'minis', and tell me what its impractical? Overall you are provided with silk like feel (comfy), a full piece of underwear (practical), at £4 a piece (affordable); I get the whole ' big knickers at a time of the month', but what about the other 23+/- days? Now if you're a feminist please go back to your pantaloons and kindly gtfo, I've lived with my mother and sister most of my life and my sexuality its not questionable even if your actual sex often is, you were not repressed from voting, you are not a suffragette.
Anyway back to my point; if I can choose a good looking, cheap and comfortable waterproof coat over a piece of tarpaulin I would, so why so often are people happy with tarpaulin? Yes this is an acceptable way to present it.