The New Garda Drink Driving Advert on RTE

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

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

This is very simple to fix, just do not mention alcohol in the law. As the poster said "your motor skills are obviously impaired and thus you should not be driving." shouldn't matter if they were drinking or not.

So it doesn't matter if you are tired or on medication, they are no excuse. Studies showed driving while tired is on a par with drink driving, but how do you go about checking how much sleep they got. And like drinking someone with 4 hours sleep or 4 pints might be able to pass a test better than someone with 12 hours or no drink.

Andy From Sligo

Talking about walking whilst drunk, does the law still hold (or was there ever a law in Ireland) about being intoxicated in a public space? If so I would like to class pavements, verges and roadsides as a public place!

Chancer3001

The breathalyser also takes off a large percentage of your actual reading. I think it's about 20%.

So if you're at 100, they'll give you the score of 80.

So only people who are well over the legal limit fail.

Heckler

Treadhead wrote: »

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.

The liver starts processing straight away. Its a misconception to start that clock from the moment you stop drinking. The clock actually starts from the minute you start drinking.

And whoever said that ad was well acted.....It was brutal.

Also theres different levels depending on your license. Provisional v full.

Michael D Not Higgins

Treadhead wrote: »

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.

I think you're thinking of UK units. A pint is two units in Ireland, 20g of alcohol, and the liver can process 10g an hour. I don't see why you wouldn't count from the start.

Mint Sauce

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think you're thinking of UK units. A pint is two units in Ireland, 20g of alcohol, and the liver can process 10g an hour. I don't see why you wouldn't count from the start.

Personally my self, if I consumed 10 units of Alcohol between 9 and 12 pm on a night out, I would not be feeling fit to drive and 7am (10 hrs after my first pint).

I would have thought the later pints could take longer as the liver could be struglling under the backlog of earlier pints.

If I go out on a Saturday night, I'm making sure I have no where to go until mid or late afternoon on the Sunday.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

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.

On more than one occasion I've seen people pass a breath test in the early afternoon after seriously heavy sessions the night before, double figures of pints and shots drinking till 5 or 6am type stuff.

In one of the cases the person even had a cure pint with lunch (on top of the heavy night before) and still passed the test.

CathalDublin wrote: »

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

Almost sure I've seen "Zero" appear on the machine one of the times I was breathalysed, it stood out to me as I had actually had a pint so wasn't expecting "zero".

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Personally my self, if I consumed 10 units of Alcohol between 9 and 12 pm on a night out, I would not be feeling fit to drive and 7am (10 hrs after my first pint).

You must have a terrible tolerance for alcohol if 5 pints between 9 and 12pm would make you feel unfit to drive at 7. I wouldn't even feel that I'd been drinking never mind feel unfit to drive.

CathalDublin

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I think you're thinking of UK units. A pint is two units in Ireland, 20g of alcohol, and the liver can process 10g an hour. I don't see why you wouldn't count from the start.

all pints are not = two units though, 2 Irish units per pint is based on the alcohol content being 4.3%

Bud, Carlesberg, Guinness would average 4.3 but alot of the never craft beers would be well over 5%, even heineken is 5% AFAIK(import/export differs), hop house is 4.5% these small differences in percentages can make a huge difference when having 5+ pints.

I think it's a good ad, it sends the right message out, I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you've a skinful the night before work you probably shouldn't be driving to work the next morning.

maudgonner

Gerardo Mysterious Tourniquet wrote: »

You must have a terrible tolerance for alcohol if 5 pints between 9 and 12pm would make you feel unfit to drive at 7. I wouldn't even feel that I'd been drinking never mind feel unfit to drive.

Feeling ok to drive is a terrible measure of fitness though. How many times have you heard a person slur out "I'm grand, I'm fine to drive", when they can barely stand?

Samaris

rubadub wrote: »

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.


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.



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

Hm, okay, well argued!

I don't see drunk walking ever getting banned here. The pubs would raise absolute stink, not to mention the general Irish public. If we -did- ban it, it'd only be after everyone else in the EU had and we fell in line for sheer embarrassment

I do still think that the worst aspect of drunk-driving is the far more likely issue of collatoral damage to other people. Okay, you might get the odd case of a drunk pedestrian wandering out into the road and causing a crash where he's not injured buuuut I think it's a lot rarer overall.

Drunk cycling is an odd one. Overall, I don't approve of, but on the other hand, I think a drunk cyclist is again more likely to end up falling off long before a motorist has chance to hit him. I dunno, law or no law, it's not something I'd do myself. I'd be in a hedge too quickly!

As for other things...I can't think of anything offhand.

MarkAnthony

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.

If you drink and drive and kill someone, you can rot in a 4x4 jail cell for the rest of your life.

There is literally no excuse for it.

After that I'd say the last thing you want them in is a 4x4 :eek:

mfceiling

The last scene should have been his wife calling him a fùcking idiot and him shouting "fùck this I'm off to the pub....has anyone seen the car keys"

BeardySi

Heckler wrote: »

The liver starts processing straight away. Its a misconception to start that clock from the moment you stop drinking. The clock actually starts from the minute you start drinking.

Of course it does, but the advice is to count from the end of the session. I'd imagine it's to account for the fact that nobody keeps a record of what was drank and when and to include a big margin for error. It's a rule of thumb not an exact measure.

And yup, am working on UK units. tbh I didn't realise there was a different system in use in Ireland.

Dave_The_Sheep

Treadhead wrote: »

Of course it does, but the advice is to count from the end of the session. I'd imagine it's to account for the fact that nobody keeps a record of what was drank and when and to include a big margin for error. It's a rule of thumb not an exact measure.

I keep a record mentally, unless I'm going on an absolute bender with different drink types involved. It's not that hard, particularly when in rounds, to keep a tally of the number of pints you have had.

I personally start counting from when I start drinking, then generally add on an hour at the end, just to be safe.

Treadhead

Treadhead wrote: »

Of course it does, but the advice is to count from the end of the session..

It makes no sense to count from the end of the session, you are adding hours to how long it takes you to get back under the limit and you also need to factor in that the limit is not zero so the first pint doesn't even count in the calculations.

People have things for doing and places for going we don't all have the luxury to not drive the next morning after a being out. If you go out once a month maybe you can say "well I don't drive until the evening to be sure". But those of us who go out a few times a week can't be doing that.

_Kaiser_

Ad in the OP is very good and a lot more realistic I think than some of the previous ads we've seen.

rubadub wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ImpGEKRfo

This one always left me with mixed feelings TBH..

While I of course feel for the woman for the loss of her son, it happened because he was drunk after a night with friends and swayed out into the path of a car.

But what about the poor guy/woman in the car that hit him? What about the impact to their lives?

2 victims here IMO.

Mint Sauce

Gerardo Mysterious Tourniquet wrote: »

You must have a terrible tolerance for alcohol if 5 pints between 9 and 12pm would make you feel unfit to drive at 7. I wouldn't even feel that I'd been drinking never mind feel unfit to drive.

I dont have a teribble tolerance, I simply know my limits, amd whilst that limit is certainly more than 5 pints, I wont be in a hurry to go anywhere first thing the next morning.

It doesn't make me less of a person, if my body cant recover as quickly as others, and if I am not prepared to take a chance behind the wheel.

rubadub

Gerardo Mysterious Tourniquet wrote: »

You must have a terrible tolerance for alcohol if 5 pints between 9 and 12pm would make you feel unfit to drive at 7. I wouldn't even feel that I'd been drinking never mind feel unfit to drive.

I reckon I would be as impaired after those 5 pints as after a single pint during the day -i.e. not very noticeable at all.

If driving at 7am I am probably up at 6am and so not got a decent sleep either, as drinking impairs you sleep too so its not like you even had a proper 6 hours. Tired driving is recognised as being on a par with drink driving. So if the law says I am unfit to drive after 1 pint then the same should apply.

cson

If you were borderline would the time it takes to get from where you were stopped to the station & tested there make any difference I wonder? Isn't it the machine in the station that's the key to it?

cson

cson wrote: »

If you were borderline would the time it takes to get from where you were stopped to the station & tested there make any difference I wonder? Isn't it the machine in the station that's the key to it?

Because the alcohol levels fluctuate, part of the offence is that the level of alcohol in the sample exceeds the prescribed amounts within 3 hours of driving ie. the test has to be administered in that time. This can result in cases being dismissed where the test falls outside that time, especially if they are providing a blood sample and the local doctor is busy with other patients, it's a remote station etc.

cson

cson wrote: »

If you were borderline would the time it takes to get from where you were stopped to the station & tested there make any difference I wonder? Isn't it the machine in the station that's the key to it?

It is common I would say especially if you are just over, I've seen it happen more than once on those shows following the police around. It always takes time between the road side test and getting to the station so this time could be vital.

Also I think you can or certainly could request a blood test, this may also buy you extra time as the doctor has to be called and if you are lucky is busy.

Little CuChulainn

cson wrote: »

If you were borderline would the time it takes to get from where you were stopped to the station & tested there make any difference I wonder? Isn't it the machine in the station that's the key to it?

The machine at the station subtracts 17% from the reading before providing a result. So if you were truly borderline on the roadside you should pass in the station.

kala85

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The machine at the station subtracts 17% from the reading before providing a result. So if you were truly borderline on the roadside you should pass in the station.

How do you know this.

Little CuChulainn

kala85 wrote: »

How do you know this.

Common knowledge.

melissak

Samaris wrote: »

I'm not watching that, I still get traumatic flashbacks to the ones from the '90s. Those things needed a watershed.

Yes. That one with the little girl ruined "what a wonderful world" for me. Can't listen to it at all since i had children. Shame cos it is a lovely song.

melissak

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The machine at the station subtracts 17% from the reading before providing a result. So if you were truly borderline on the roadside you should pass in the station.

Is this true?

rubadub

melissak wrote: »

Is this true?

well if it is it is most certainly not "common knowledge" so seeing as he is certainly bullshitting about that, he could be knowling lying about the original statement too.

Andy From Sligo

another powerful ad - but i gets me dizy watching it ...

Little CuChulainn

rubadub wrote: »

well if it is it is most certainly not "common knowledge" so seeing as he is certainly bullshitting about that, he could be knowling lying about the original statement too.

It was one of the first things challenged when the breath machines were brought out.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/intoxilyzer-drinkdrive-case-halted-for-high-court-ruling-26129750.html

And yes, it is common knowledge to anyone who has been involved with a drink driving case.