Morning Bagging

daveharnett

The RSA have announced a major campaign for bagging drivers in the morning. What do people think about this?
It doesn't really affect me, i do wonder about it's merits.
Now i'm not defending people driving while still half-cut from the night before, but I havent seen the RSA produce any kind of evidence that this is a problem. Surely there should be some kind of justification for garda resources being spent on this project?

lightening

daveharnett wrote: »

Now i'm not defending people driving while still half-cut from the night before

Neither am I , good post though. Is there much carnage in the mornings? What are the accident stats to justify the campaign?

Fair enough, if there is a lot of injuries and deaths in the morning due to people being over the limit, go for it.

Would the money be better spent on bagging people outside golf clubs, yacht clubs, pubs, GAA clubs, wine bars, night clubs etc... in the middle of the night?

C_Breeze

Ehhh would it be safe to assume that this is not what you are reffering to?? >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article237810.ece

daveharnett

Indeed it is :P. The cops have more important things to do with their time!

ballooba

This is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. There are more accident in mornings and evenings. You need to have drank a lot of alcohol the night before to still be over the limit. You shouldn't be driving if you are over the limit. Alcohol gives you a false sense of security.

I admit that I used to drive before 9 on a sturday morning having stumbled in the door in the early hours. After one close call going around Bus Aras onto Amiens Street I have ceased that practice.

daveharnett

I agree with you ballooba. People shouldn't be driving over the limit, regardless of the time of day.

My point is that this campaign seems to be a little arbatrary. Where is the evidence that drink-driving is a particular problem in the morning?

Before starting a crusade, i think they should find out:
A: How may people are doing it.
B: Is it causing accidents.

Now it may very well be that it is a big problem and it is causing a lot of accidents. I'd just like to see research and figures to indicate that this is the best use of police time.

lightening

ballooba wrote: »

There are more accident in mornings and evenings.

Are you saying there is more accidents in the morning? The OP is looking for RSA evidence.

ballooba wrote: »

You shouldn't be driving if you are over the limit.

Nobody is saying you should be, the OP is just questioning the practicalities. The carnage is at night, not in the morning. Are they just getting numbers?

big b

daveharnett wrote: »

Before starting a crusade, i think they should find out:
A: How may people are doing it.
B: Is it causing accidents.

What better way than by breathalysing?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ballooba

See page nine here. It goes

Nightclub closing -> Pub Closing -> From Work -> To Work

in decreasing order of frequency.

daveirl wrote: »

I've no issue with bagging people in the mornings but I genuinely do think that the guy who gets a taxi home and gets up the next morning and drives and is barely over the limit shouldn't get as harsh a sentence as the guy who drives home from the pub off his game.

They're both over the limit. You're still under the influence in the morning.

ballooba

Actually, I was looking at the wrong line on the graph. Three most common times for dying on the road are:

1) Way home from work.
2) Way home from pub (not nightclub interestingly)
3) Way to work.

L1011

ballooba wrote: »

There are more accident in mornings and evenings.

(insert standard "not defending driving quarter cut after a hard night' disclaimer here)

How much of this is down to darkness rather than alcohol use I wonder; I'd also like to see the % of accidents that are in the morning and evening weighed up against the % of road use that happens - late night would likely come out wildly higher crash-for-use than morning time.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveharnett

ballooba wrote: »

See page nine here. It goes

Nightclub closing -> Pub Closing -> From Work -> To Work

in decreasing order of frequency.

They're both over the limit. You're still under the influence in the morning.

Fair play for the research. Unfortunatley, to me the graph only shows that most accidents happen during morning/evening drive time.

Again, I have no problem with morning bagging per se. But before a large scale campaign is launched, i would expect at least:
A: A survey to find out how many people drive the morning after a feed of drink and how frequently.
B: A review of the accident statistics to find out in what % of morning accidents was drink a factor.

With this information we can establish a proportional response to the problem.

The RSA gets away with this because it is politically difficult to question it's pronouncements. Anyone who argues can be accused of supporting drunk drivers.

unkel

MYOB wrote: »

I'd also like to see the % of accidents that are in the morning and evening weighed up against the % of road use that happens - late night would likely come out wildly higher crash-for-use than morning time.

Indeed. That explains the highest peak in fatal accidents of the day at about 5PM. Hardly anyone is over the limit at that time, but more than a million people are on the road going home from work

The second highest peak is after midnight. There are perhaps only a couple of thousand people on the road, but the percentage of people over the legal limit is many times higher than the percentage in the morning - leading to a relatively very high number of fatal accidents

Have I anything to back this up? No except for common sense...

ballooba

MYOB wrote: »

How much of this is down to darkness rather than alcohol use I wonder; I'd also like to see the % of accidents that are in the morning and evening weighed up against the % of road use that happens - late night would likely come out wildly higher crash-for-use than morning time.

There is very seldom one single contributing factor to an accident. It's a combination of factors. In this case the contributing ones could include:
1) Traffic Volume
2) Visibility
3) Alcohol OR (in the case of evening accidents) Fatigue

unkel wrote: »

Indeed. That explains the highest peak in fatal accidents of the day at about 5PM. Hardly anyone is over the limit at that time, but more than a million people are on the road going home from work

See point 3 above.

ballooba

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't believe there are any mitigating circumstances. Your body supposedly breaks down one unit of alcohol per hour of abstention. So if you go out and take 16 units of alcohol and sleep for 8 hours you will still have 8 units of alcohol in your system. You are the same as the guy who drove home after 8 units of alcohol. You may be less tired and their may be more light but you are just as drunk.

ballooba

daveharnett wrote: »

A: A survey to find out how many people drive the morning after a feed of drink and how frequently.

The number of people protesting against this would suggest there are quite a few. These people never mention the use of resources, only that they might get caught.

Turbulent Bill

daveharnett wrote: »

Fair play for the research. Unfortunatley, to me the graph only shows that most accidents happen during morning/evening drive time.

Again, I have no problem with morning bagging per se. But before a large scale campaign is launched, i would expect at least:
A: A survey to find out how many people drive the morning after a feed of drink and how frequently.
B: A review of the accident statistics to find out in what % of morning accidents was drink a factor.

With this information we can establish a proportional response to the problem.

The RSA gets away with this because it is politically difficult to question it's pronouncements. Anyone who argues can be accused of supporting drunk drivers.

As mentioned above, morning testing is the way to research the problem - the results would reveal the extent of the problem. I'd be interested to see the failure rate per test, rather than just the number of failures.

I don't think many people would complain about wasting money if morning-after drink driving turns out to be a minor problem - better safe than sorry.

sc4rf4ce

i would have to agree with this new plan.
I have to admit, i had to go for a quick spin last sat morning, and i had been out the night before. I certainly didnt feel 100% and soon headed home, and vowed never again.
So I can see where the RSA is coming.

L1011

ballooba wrote: »

The number of people protesting against this would suggest there are quite a few. These people never mention the use of resources, only that they might get caught.

Yeah, I frequently drive to work on a Friday morning after a late night out....





except I don't drink.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

craichoe

Silly time to be bagging people, our dependance on the road infrastucture and the amount of time required to test one person is going to:

A. Increase congestion as the Gardai will be randomly breath testing people
B. Your less likely to be caught in Heavy traffic as there will be alot more people being tested.

I recon they should target the problem areas, the ones that are flewterd drunk coming out of Clubs, Pubs, Towns, Concerts and Airports (Yes people do come off planes hammered)

The RSA tend to implement these types of countermeasures without thinking what other effects it will have.

The main thing is to catch the people that are likely to kill people and its been said time and time again that the Gardai are short on resources as it is. The OP is right, there should be numbers indicating why they are targeting morning drivers.

The same premise would not work in a business. The conversation would go:

Person A: Do we have a problem here ?

Person B: Not sure, but i think we should fix it.

Person A: How much do we need to dedicate to this ?

Person B: Don't know, but i think we should give it a LOT

Person A: How much will it cost ?

Person B: Don't know

Person A: Whats the return

Person B: Don't matter, we have an Endless money making machine!! Wooo !

Rant over

Golferx

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In all fairness this is a non-worker.
How, in God's name, could one possibly decide if one got a taxi the night before?

What about the idiot who stays at home skulling cans of Dutch Gold ? Should one be more lenient on him because he didn't drive the night before ?

Drunk drivers are drunk drivers regardless of the time of day. This is one area of Road Traffic Law where a guillotine law/sentance is required, i.e. no mercy.

As for a Silly time to be bagging people? That is absolutely ridiculous. The morning is the time when children are more likely to be pedestrians, the morning is when the roads are busiest, it is a time when it is essential drunks are taken off our road, or prevented from going there in the first place. I'm really saddened, craichoe, that you want morning drunks to remain unchallenged. (That is exactly what you have said.)

And, the RSA do not implement anything, they recommend.

peasant

I have no issue with alcohol testing at any time of the day or night.

I do have a big issue with the fact that it is not carried out as a matter of principle on the scene of an accident though.

craichoe

Golferx wrote: »

In all fairness this is a non-worker.
How, in God's name, could one possibly decide if one got a taxi the night before?

What about the idiot who stays at home skulling cans of Dutch Gold ? Should one be more lenient on him because he didn't drive the night before ?

Drunk drivers are drunk drivers regardless of the time of day. This is one area of Road Traffic Law where a guillotine law/sentance is required, i.e. no mercy.

As for a Silly time to be bagging people? That is absolutely ridiculous. The morning is the time when children are more likely to be pedestrians, the morning is when the roads are busiest, it is a time when it is essential drunks are taken off our road, or prevented from going there in the first place. I'm really saddened, craichoe, that you want morning drunks to remain unchallenged. (That is exactly what you have said.)

And, the RSA do not implement anything, they recommend.

Please point out where I said this ?

that you want morning drunks to remain unchallenged.

I want numbers .. NUMBERS.. not some heresay to know where the taxes that we pay are being spent in a proper manner. So far I don't have any numbers to tell me that this is effectively going to save any lives. This is a limited resource that they are allocating to something without any evidence.

Don't say

(That is exactly what you have said.)

When its clearly not "Exactly what i said"

daveharnett

Golferx wrote: »

The morning is the time when children are more likely to be pedestrians, the morning is when the roads are busiest, it is a time when it is essential drunks are taken off our road, or prevented from going there in the first place.

If this problem is as great as you describe (and it may be), where is the evidence to support it? Massive amounts of garda resources shouldn't be invested in a problem who's size is unknown.

Let me give an example. Suppose the RSA announce tommorrow morning that keeping spare change on one's dashboard (for toll roads/car parks/whatever) is dangerous. It makes sense - coins flying around could be hazardous in an accident. Suppose they then recommend stopping every car on the M50 to check for change. Wouldn't we all want to see evidence that the expense, use of limited garda resources and inconvienence to road users was proportionate to the risk to public safety?

Vegeta

daveharnett wrote: »

Before starting a crusade, i think they should find out:
A: How may people are doing it.
B: Is it causing accidents.
.

To do this they have to do random breath tests in the morning and test everyone in a crash

How else will they know how many people drive drunk in the morning without actually going out and testing people in the morning???

the stats gathering in accidents are so so so crap

I have always wanted to know, the most crashed car in Ireland, how many accidents involve learner drivers who are alone, how many accidents involve people with a full license for only 1-2 years, weater conditions, time of day, age of driver, sex, drink and drug test results of each driver.

Any accident serious enough to call the cops then there needs to be full stats gathering

craichoe

daveharnett wrote: »

Golferx wrote: »

The morning is the time when children are more likely to be pedestrians, the morning is when the roads are busiest, it is a time when it is essential drunks are taken off our road, or prevented from going there in the first place.

If this problem is as great as you describe (and it may be), where is the evidence to support it? Massive amounts of garda resources shouldn't be invested in a problem who's size is unknown.

Let me give an example. Suppose the RSA announce tommorrow morning that keeping spare change on one's dashboard (for toll roads/car parks/whatever) is dangerous. It makes sense - coins flying around could be hazardous in an accident. Suppose they then recommend stopping every car on the M50 to check for change. Wouldn't we all want to see evidence that the expense, use of limited garda resources and inconvienence to road users was proportionate to the risk to public safety?

Spot on .. and you beat me to it

Spending without research (which is essentially what allocating a resource is) is idiotic

daveharnett

Vegeta wrote: »

Any accident serious enough to call the cops then there needs to be full stats gathering

Absolutely agree. If we are to address road safety in a reasoned way, we need to have all the information.

Vegeta wrote: »

How else will they know how many people drive drunk in the morning without actually going out and testing people in the morning???

By asking a sample group of people confidentially. Pollsters are very clever at weeding out lies, and can provide accurate figures much faster and cheaper.

lightening

Golferx wrote: »

As for a Silly time to be bagging people?

Its not that its a silly time to breathalise people, I just feel it should be done during the optimal time of drunken accidents.

craichoe

One other point,

If you catch the person twisted on the way home, you won't have to catch him in the morning.

Golferx

craichoe wrote: »

One other point,

If you catch the person twisted on the way home, you won't have to catch him in the morning.

If someone isn't driving the previous night, they won't get caught the previous night.

It's not a question of either/or . All drunks should be taken off the road (preferably for many years), regardless of when they were caught. If it only saves the health or life, of one child, then it's worth it. Unfortunately some people need numbers to justify making our roads safer.

lightening wrote: »

Its not that its a silly time to breathalise people, I just feel it should be done during the optimal time of drunken accidents.

Please look at what you posted and tell me you don't feel a morning drunk should be overlooked because it's not an "optimum time"?


It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning. (That is, lads/lasses what you are advocating!)

Driving is a privilege not a right.
The right to travel our roads safely, is a right, not a privilege.

lightening

Golferx wrote: »

IIt really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning.

Please don't misrepresent me. I don't condone drink driving. I don't have a problem being breathalised any time of the day. I just think it would be better done near establishments that sell drink during the night. That is when people are being killed.

Its about saving lives, not getting numbers.

craichoe

Golferx wrote: »

If someone isn't driving the previous night, they won't get caught the previous night.

It's not a question of either/or . All drunks should be taken off the road (preferably for many years), regardless of when they were caught. If it only saves the health or life, of one child, then it's worth it. Unfortunately some people need numbers to justify making our roads safer.


Please look at what you posted and tell me you don't feel a morning drunk should be overlooked because it's not an "optimum time"?


It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning. (That is, lads/lasses what you are advocating!)

Driving is a privilege not a right.
The right to travel our roads safely, is a right, not a privilege.

Your completely missing the point, were saying we want numbers to indicate that its targeting a greater number of potentially dangerous drivers than the ones they are already targeting.

The Gardai are a limited resource, allocating them to one area takes away from another.

So far you have indicated that I advocate "morning drink driving" and you have also indicated this about another poster, infact you quoted me, I have asked you to point out where i wrote this and you have not.

Please retract your statement as it is slanderous. If you have misinterpreted it, then please read my post again. If you do not remove it I will have to contact a Moderator

Golferx

How can one slander an anonymous internet Bulletin Board poster?

I retract nothing. I'm ashamed to see anyone oppose a proactive measure by the Authorities to make our roads safer. For once, it's a measure that's effective and warranted and anyone who is opposed to it should be embarrassed.

I will repeat.
Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers in the morning time frame is supporting drunk driving.

It's not a question of taking resources from another task, or only targeting at so-called dangerous times. Drink driving should be targeted 24 hours a day.

craichoe

How can one slander an anonymous internet Bulletin Board poster?

If it was anonymous I would have posted unregistered in PI.

Reporting this to the Mods, you are completely bang out of order

unkel

Golferx wrote: »

It's not a question of taking resources from another task

Don't be naive. Resources are limited. Some posters here are merely discussing how the drink driving problem might be solved in a more effective / efficient way

Golferx wrote: »

It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning

That's an outrageous remark. They did no such thing! If aimed at me, I'd consider your remark deeply personally insulting. Reflect on this for a minute, retract your remark and apologise, otherwise I'll let you reflect on this for a week...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

lightening

Look Golferx. You are missing the point altogether, the OP, myself and others completly agree with breathalising. We are obviously against drink driver. For you to say otherwise is just a sly, shallow dig at us.

What is being questioned is the timing.

If there is major carnage in the morning, yes breathalise everyone.

If there isn't I would feel its a waste of money that could have been spent on breathalising people at night when there is lots of drink related accidents.

Golferx

unkel wrote: »

Don't be naive. Resources are limited. Some posters here are merely discussing how the drink driving problem might be solved in a more effective / efficient way



That's an outrageous remark. They did no such thing! If aimed at me, I'd consider your remark deeply personally insulting. Reflect on this for a minute, retract your remark and apologise, otherwise I'll let you reflect on this for a week...

I have nothing to apologise for. Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving.

Do I take it you are threatening to ban me for a week? I'm the one advocating safer roads here, not the others.

Not that it bothers me, one way or the other, moderators need to look at both sides of any debate before they make a decision. Unkel, you lack objectivity in your post.

As for personal insults? This is an anonymous Bulletin Board on the Internet. Some people need to lighten up and take a spirited debate for what it is.

Agus, anois, slán.

ballooba

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're both DUI. In my example each driver has 8 units in their system. My attitude towards speeding is that the posted speed limits is fairly irrelevant. You should drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. That's from a road safety point of view, but you should also stay under the posted speed limit because that's the law.

lightening

Golferx wrote: »

Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving.

Nobody here is opposed to it. Its about the timing and the resources. Time wasted on morning breathalising could be used saving lives at night.

Its easy to be brave behind a keyboard. Don't get yourself banned over this.

unkel

Golferx wrote: »

I have nothing to apologise for

Yes you do, you personally insulted 2 posters

Golferx wrote: »

Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving

The posters you insulted are not opposed to breathalysing. In fact they have both stated they are in favour of it

You had your chance to make amends. I doubt an apology to the posters you insulted is forthcoming so you're banned for a week

craichoe

lightening wrote: »

Nobody here is opposed to it. Its about the timing and the resources. Time wasted on morning breathalising could be used saving lives at night.

Its easy to be brave behind a keyboard. Don't get yourself banned over this.

Couldn't say it better

pa990

i dont understand why people are so opposed to alcohol tests in the morning.

if you are over the drink drive limit.. you shouldnt be driving.
It doesnt matter wheter its morning , noon or night..

Oilrig

This is a very big issue, apart from the black & white over the limit issue.

"Paddy" has always prided himself on his ability to negotiate life without the rules, uniforms and signposts attitude taken by our nearest neighbour.

This attitude is now being imposed on all of us due to the actions of a few.

It imposes restrictions on many that are seen as overkill. No more down to the pub for a few midweek etc.

I can't see people supporting this if its applied in a draconian way.

Give us the stats - how many alcohol related accidents happen between 07:00 and 10:00? - the real commuters, I suspect few. Don't give me this middle of the night till middle of the morning bull.

Another Celtic Tiger PR bull**** campaign IMHO.

I've no problem with bagging drunk drivers, but there IS a difference between the guy that weaves home at night after a feed of pints and the guy thats just over the limit on the way to work during daylight hours.

milltown

I was under the impression that mandatory breath testing at accident scenes was either implemented or imminent. Especially over the coming month, this should give enough statistical evidence to support or rubbish drink being a factor in morning and daytime accidents.

Policing our roads is, essentially, a game of percentages. The Gardai can't catch every drunk, speeder, tax dodger, lightbreaker, phone user and yellow box hogger. What they must do, if the taxpayer's money is not to be wasted, is decide which is the bigger cost to society and allocate resources accordingly. About two months ago the cops were at the M50 toll bridge, at about 10.30am, breathalysing everyone heading north through the toll. At least two dozen cops who would be better utilised (IMHO) seeing how people are driving on the roads, not how sober they are at stopping.

As an impetuous youth I often had a few pints and drove home thinking I was Ayrton Senna in my ma's AX 1.0. By the grace of God, Allah, Buddha and anyone else I forgot to mention, I never harmed anyone. Now I'm older, wiser and a family man I wouldn't dream of driving (immediately) after a few pints. If I wake up with a hangover and have to go somewhere, I'll have a pair of solpadeine with brekkie, a cup of coffee and I'll go on my way at 25mph, knowing that I'm suffering, and being extra careful because of it. Black and white of the law aside, and back to the OP's point, I doubt anybody can show me evidence to prove I'm a greater danger than the parent with screaming kids in the back to distract her, the sales rep on his mobile setting up a meeting or the hundreds of people reading their Herald AM or Metro WHILE DRIVING!

The law is the law and anyone found breaking it will be punished by the letter of the law. My, and many others' problem, is with ploughing resources into enforcing something with very limited returns, both in terms of convictions and lives saved.

galwaytt

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That sounds like a 'half a hole' or 'half an accident' or 'half guilty' leading to people who may be, as a result of their actions...........'half dead' ? I don't think so ! There are some things for which there is no room for ambiguity. Alcohol and driving is one of them.

I don't care what time you're bagged, if you're over, you're over. And if you're over, you're off the road. 20mg limit, ban and re-test for licence.

Why they don't do what they've been doing in the UK for aeons I don't know: sit outside and bag people as they leave pub car parks.

nytraveller

galwaytt wrote: »

.

Why they don't do what they've been doing in the UK for aeons I don't know: sit outside and bag people as they leave pub car parks.

I wish someone (The Garda Commissioner) would answer that question!!!
It makes perfect sense and I've no idea why they dont.

lightening

pa990 wrote: »

i dont understand why people are so opposed to alcohol tests in the morning.

Nobody is opposed to alohol tests in the morning, read the thread again.