The New Garda Drink Driving Advert on RTE

Wanderer78

Good thread but I think I'm becoming more worried about drugged drivers nowadays

The flying mouse

It was very acceptable to drink and drive back in the 70,s early 80,s, I remember being the driver on many occasions and people actually getting me a short as a thank you for me driving them home later,Also the huge cabarets ?? Pubs dotted all around the city and country, in which the car parks be full every weekend, at closing we would all jump in and drive home, crazy **** when you look back on it...

maudgonner

bigroad wrote: »

The message from this drink driving add is,if you are going to drink drive ,DO NOT drive in the bus lane or you will be caught.

Or if you're really drunk, just steal a bus.

AudreyHepburn

I think it's a great ad....in many ways it's just as hard hitting as those that show all the gory details of a crash.

Personally, and I know this sounds harsh, but I think anyone who drinks and drives, even the morning after, deserves to be caught.

How any can be so selfish and thoughtless is beyond.....forget about the driver themselves, how many innocent lives are they putting in jepordy by getting behind the wheel?

TerrorFirmer

Good ad. I suppose it's amazing the amount of people who drink drive and don't realise that they're doing it. Most people think of a lad sinking pints in the pub and then getting behind the wheel whenever the phrase is mentioned - not the next morning. For some reason, it is a genuine mistake.

Little CuChulainn

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I love the very 'technical' breathalyser the gard uses, does it really just have the word 'FAIL' on the LCD screen when you er .... fail? - dont it show anything like figure mg of alcohol in the blood or anything techie like that?

The roadside one is simply a pass or fail.

Simon2015 wrote: »

What happens if you don't blow into the breathalyzer ?

Due to a lung condition that I have I could legitimately claim that I would not be able to blow into a breathalyzer if I was stopped by the gardai.

If you can't give a breath sample and advise the Garda of the emdical condition he can do a blood urine test instead. If you fail to give blood or urine you will be prosecuted and the punishment will be the maximum available to the judge.

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

looking from the outside in I think the Garda do their bloody good job ... and then the case comes to court and then either a bloody doddery old fart of a judge or dippy woman judge throws the bloody case out of court on a 'technicality' or loophole meaning all that fannying about that the Gards done to get it to court has been a complete and utter waste of time and resources. Not saying it happens a lot of the time but I do hear it quite occasionally.

It definitely happens a lot.

hatrickpatrick

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

looking from the outside in I think the Garda do their bloody good job ... and then the case comes to court and then either a bloody doddery old fart of a judge or dippy woman judge throws the bloody case out of court on a 'technicality' or loophole meaning all that fannying about that the Gards done to get it to court has been a complete and utter waste of time and resources. Not saying it happens a lot of the time but I do hear it quite occasionally.

10000%. And this is true for all crime in Ireland. The Gardai constantly get attacked for not tackling scumbags, when in reality their morale and enthusiasm for the job must take a serious hit every time they put in the grunt work only for a judge to let the feckers off.

seamus

daRobot wrote: »

But all the same, the actor doesn't appear to be someone over three times the limit. I've been on some seriously heavy nights, and it takes a good lot to even be over by a little on the machine. Then again, that's reading at 2pm onwards, not 8.30am!

I don't know what constitutes a heavy night for you, but after a serious late night bash (like a wedding that end at 4 or 5am), I've tested at 0.14+ at lunchtime the next day. Granted, that's a "home" breath test that's deriving the BAC from breath. But needless to say, any kind of serious drinking will put you over the limit for at least 12 hours after your last drink.

If you go to the pub midweek with your mates, end up having 5 pints instead of your usual 4 and finish your last one at midnight, you're most likely going to be over the limit at 7am if you're planning on driving to work.

I think this is the bare reality that a lot of people aren't willing to accept because 5 pints doesn't seem like a crazy night, and dammit we have to get to work the next day.

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Garda in the Advert is a bit lax at the beginning, "Ah sure you were driving in the bus lane" oh was I?, didnt realise - "ah sure your grand so" -

Yeah, but this is more realistic. A Garda coming off all stern and serious about someone driving in the bus lane would be comical, because that doesn't really happen.

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I love the very 'technical' breathalyser the gard uses, does it really just have the word 'FAIL' on the LCD screen when you er .... fail? - dont it show anything like figure mg of alcohol in the blood or anything techie like that?

The roadside tester is an indicative test and cannot be used to prosecute you. Having it display a number would actually be counter-productive. The person who was stopped could make some claim that the machine must have been faulty because it had a reading of 0.2 when they'd only had a glass of wine. Or the Garda might look at a marginal result and say, "Ah sure don't worry about it, head on there". The simple pass or fail leaves no wiggle room for anyone.

The test taken in the station is the evidential one that's used to charge you.

CathalDublin

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I love the very 'technical' breathalyser the gard uses, does it really just have the word 'FAIL' on the LCD screen when you er .... fail? - dont it show anything like figure mg of alcohol in the blood or anything techie like that?

It does indeed. All it says is either PASS or FAIL, no readings.

Michael D Not Higgins

seamus wrote: »

If you go to the pub midweek with your mates, end up having 5 pints instead of your usual 4 and finish your last one at midnight, you're most likely going to be over the limit at 7am if you're planning on driving to work.

Really? The standard given is that the liver processes a unit of alcohol an hour. If you started at 9pm and had 5 pints (10 units), you should be clear by 7am.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

10000%. And this is true for all crime in Ireland. The Gardai constantly get attacked for not tackling scumbags, when in reality their morale and enthusiasm for the job must take a serious hit every time they put in the grunt work only for a judge to let the feckers off.

It's a very technical offence. I mean, you may have your career and livelihood ended by a reading provided by a machine, it is only right and proper that every single step in the process be subject to scrutiny and possible challenge.

Plus, Judges don't let people off for the hell of it. They dismiss cases because the Gardaí/State has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, or have erred somewhere in the process.

listermint

Big fella like him, Suprised he was 63mg tbh. Id imagine he would have been under in the station. Just going on the science.

ScumLord

It's a good ad, I was arrested once (not for drink driving) and when they start reading out the law you broke and your rights and stuff it really does put a shiver down your spine, you know you're ****ed when they do that and it's a feeling of dread. The cold bureaucratic way they ream it out just confirms your done.

BeardySi

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Really? The standard given is that the liver processes a unit of alcohol an hour. If you started at 9pm and had 5 pints (10 units), you should be clear by 7am.

One pint of 4% beer is 2.3 units. Guinness and most of the bogstandard lagers are about 4.3% so that's nearly 2.5 units/pint or 12.5 units in total. The recommendation is to start the clock when you stop drinking so assuming an 11pm finish it'd be lunchtime before you're good to drive.

ScumLord

Treadhead wrote: »

The recommendation is to start the clock when you stop drinking so assuming an 11pm finish it'd be lunchtime before you're good to drive.

But the liver has been processing that alcohol since the start. I wonder could you measure how many pints of piss you've made since starting drinking and work out how much of the alcohol has been processed so far and deduct it from the total amount drank? While steaming drunk obviously.

Buona Fortuna

ScumLord wrote: »

But the liver has been processing that alcohol since the start. I wonder could you measure how many pints of piss you've made since starting drinking and work out how much of the alcohol has been processed so far and deduct it from the total amount drank? While steaming drunk obviously.

I believe there's an app for that.

It comes witha funnel so that you can wazz thru your phone

Buona Fortuna

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I believe there's an app for that.

It comes witha funnel so that you can wazz thru your phone

Is that Wazzapp?

Buona Fortuna

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that Wazzapp?

That's the one

biko

That's it, I'm moving to a country where you can drink and drive.

Indonesia, here I come!
http://www.driverabroad.com/driving-facts/world-drink-drive-limits/

222233

I don't think this ad is very effective at all actually, made the whole thing seem like a very quick and not invasive process. No mention of losing the licence, just seemed to be a walk through of the process of being caught with alcohol in ones system....

Samaris

Never Ever Drink and Drive.

Could you live with public transport?

mgbgt1978

Deleted User wrote: »

Ad actually sent shivers down my spine.

Looking at yer man driving at the start and realising that that was me about 2 years ago. I'd say i was actually at it more than yer man in the ad.

And trust me when I tell you, although I've changed my tune since then, I was awake at night almost in tears over it back then. Heed my advice: Never, ever, drive a 407. Sure, they're good looking and comfortable. But they're horrible bastards when they go wrong. No wonder the Garda pulled him.

09 D 12406 (the reg number mentioned by the Girl Guard in the Ad) is a VW Scirroco.I know, I know.. it's a bit pedantic ( especially for AH), but you'd think they could at least use a reg from a 407. Or a fictitious reg.

Little CuChulainn

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a very technical offence. I mean, you may have your career and livelihood ended by a reading provided by a machine, it is only right and proper that every single step in the process be subject to scrutiny and possible challenge.

Plus, Judges don't let people off for the hell of it. They dismiss cases because the Gardaí/State has failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, or have erred somewhere in the process.

Judges look for every excuse to let off drink drivers. The most recent bull**** with the Irish is prime example. Let's not forget the handcuff excuse and the steam off your piss excuse that came before them.

rubadub

Sonics2k wrote: »

At this point I'm of the opinion that anyone who drinks and drives and ends up killing themselves deserves it and have no sympathy at all.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Have to admit, when I see the drink-drive ads with real people who were in an accident whilst they themselves were drink-driving and are in wheelchairs etc.; I feel no pity for them.

Are there any other activities people could be doing where they die mainly due to alcohol where you would similarly have absolutely no sympathy/pity?

e.g. walking home instead of getting a taxi and getting hit by a car.

Are there any other activities you would like to see made illegal after drinking?

Samaris

rubadub wrote: »

Are there any other activities people could be doing where they die mainly due to alcohol where you would similarly have absolutely no sympathy/pity?

e.g. walking home instead of getting a taxi and getting hit by a car.

Are there any other activities you would like to see made illegal after drinking?

Ah now, that example (and question) is a little unfair.

Personally, I don't agree with the other two posters, I -would- have pity for someone who was killed or horrendously maimed for life for an idiotic mistake. But the biggest issues with drinking and driving are

1) It is not you that will necessarily pay the price for your stupidity. Too often it is some innocent sod (perhaps that one that walked rather than get a taxi!) that was in the wrong place at the wrong time that you in your protective metal cage just squashed.

and 2) There is really no excuse for it these days. It's been drilled into us and drilled in more, over and over through ad campaigns, through schooling, in driving lessons, in general society. Do not drink and drive. Have some foresight and organise another method of getting home.

That doesn't apply to walking rather than getting a taxi - even the biggest chap is unlikely to actually marmalise someone by walking into them! And the question of "anything else you'd like to see made illegal" is a bit silly. This isn't a suggestion or up for debate about being illegal, it downright IS illegal.

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Judges look for every excuse to let off drink drivers. The most recent bull**** with the Irish is prime example. Let's not forget the handcuff excuse and the steam off your piss excuse that came before them.

I'm not sure you have read up about the sensitivity of the Lion Intoxilyser, which was the urine steam one, and issues with alcohol presence in the air and calibration.

If the State could not demonstrate that the machine was not susceptible to giving incorrect readings, I'm not sure why the Court would give any other verdict. In fact, since that case, the machines have been updated with a model that is supposed to self calibrate and shut itself down if there is alcohol in the air - such as others brought in with alcohol on their breath.

Samaris

In some ways, the most efficient measuring might still be the old "walk in a straight line" thing. If you can't do that, your motor skills are obviously impaired and thus you should not be driving.

Just sometimes numbers may not be the be-all and end-all. Having said that, I guess they have to draw a line somewhere.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

In some ways, the most efficient measuring might still be the old "walk in a straight line" thing. If you can't do that, your motor skills are obviously impaired and thus you should not be driving.

The difficulty with that was the old on medication/tired after work lines.

The offence now isn't even drunk driving in the ordinary sense of those words. It's actually having an excess of alcohol in a sample of blood, urine or most commonly breath. It's much more technical, to remove the subjective element as much as possible.

mfceiling

rubadub wrote: »

Are there any other activities you would like to see made illegal after drinking?

Table Tennis and Hedge Cutting

rubadub

Samaris wrote: »

2) There is really no excuse for it these days. It's been drilled into us and drilled in more, over and over through ad campaigns, through schooling, in driving lessons, in general society.

There are a few ads about drunk walking on tv, perhaps if there were a few more you might not think it so stupid or unfair a question.

People appear to have black and white views on stuff like this, they proclaim cyclists "fcuking mad" if they do not wear a helmet, yet more than likely cycled themselves without a helmet. They drive and walk drunk with no helmet while it is said to be offer more protection to motorists to wear a cycling helmet than a cyclist, and that takes into account seatbelts and airbags.

This is why I am interested to hear peoples opinions on what also should not be done while drinking, which is not openly campaigned against. People could be doing something right now that they will consider utter madness in 20 years time, like the cycling helmets which were available when I went to school but only 1 kid wore one.

Samaris wrote: »

That doesn't apply to walking rather than getting a taxi - even the biggest chap is unlikely to actually marmalise someone by walking into them! .

I have seen many a drunk idiot stumbling onto the road which could cause an accident. I expect many drunk pedestrians have caused car crashes where they were not injured at all.

Samaris wrote: »

And the question of "anything else you'd like to see made illegal" is a bit silly.

Don't see why. Banning drunk walking was considered by the "silly" Spanish.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/25/spain-wants-to-ban-drunk-walking-what-next-for-pedestrians

Drunk tourists staggering down Spanish streets at night might need to pay more attention this summer. In a crackdown on dangerous walking, Spain’s Directorate General of Traffic plans to introduce breathalyser tests for pedestrians. They also suggest introducing an off-road speed limit for joggers. The proposals, buried among other road safety suggestions, would give pedestrians responsibilities akin to drivers – and ought to inspire other new laws in their footsteps.