embraer170 wrote: » I know nothing about inquests but I am amazed at how this ends up as death by “misadventure”. Driving a car with your entire family when you are 3 times above the legal limit is no misadventure.
embraer170 wrote: » http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html 3 times the 80mg limit would be 240mg. If the above link is to be believed, that would probably be 6 or more pints.
embraer170 wrote: » The root cause was whatever caused him to decide that driving on the slip was a good idea. A contributory factor might have been the state of the slip. Edit - The legal limit is 80mg. The inquest was told he was three times above the legal limit. That is 240mg or the equivalent of 6 pints for a normal sized male (not even accounting for the alcohol the body processes while drinking). http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html
embraer170 wrote: » My mistake re the 240mg. 159mg is still 4 pints. That is not much better.
embraer170 wrote: » The root cause was whatever caused him to decide that driving on the slip was a good idea. A contributory factor might have been the state of the slip.Edit - The legal limit is 80mg. The inquest was told he was three times above the legal limit. That is 240mg or the equivalent of 6 pints for a normal sized male (not even accounting for the alcohol the body processes while drinking). http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html
anewme wrote: » Without any alcohol would Mr. mcGrotty haven driven onto the slipway at all? We did not know, but it would certainly be considered when reaching the verdict.
John_Rambo wrote: » It's not. Go away and learn all about slipways, algae and the legal drink driving limit before furiously typing in indignation.
tayto lover wrote: » I don't believe it goes by the actual amount you drank. 4 pints to one man is a lot but to another is very little. The amount of sleep, food, body weight etc also comes into it.
A doctor who conducted the postmortem into the five deaths said that there were indications of “elements of intoxication” in the blood and urine of Mr McGrotty.
tayto lover wrote: » Who told you he only had three?
embraer170 wrote: » And keep sticking your head in the sand about how alcohol impairs judgement.
John_Rambo wrote: » An educated guess to be honest Tayto lover. One drink would usually mean 50mg or thereabouts. The deceased was 159mg. I'm saying three drinks or less as apposed to the drama knee jerk six pints guess. But... I know you have a point I could be wrong.
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » As soon as that vehicle started sliding the doors should have been opening Unless you were comatose the natural reaction is to get out
tayto lover wrote: » If you are not used to drinking 2 pints might have you on your ear. If you have not slept the same thing could happen after 2 pints no matter how big a drinker you are. Food is another factor, Body weight, regularity of drinking, humour etc. There are so many factors. I don't believe it goes by the amount of drink as two people could drink the same amount but act considerably differently.I won't even have one pint and drive nowadays.
embraer170 wrote: » tayto lover wrote: » I don't believe it goes by the actual amount you drank. 4 pints to one man is a lot but to another is very little. The amount of sleep, food, body weight etc also comes into it. Quote from the Irish Times: Dr Dillon could not say whether the level of alcohol in Mr McGrotty’s system had impaired his driving. That would depend on a number of factors including whether he was a habitual drinker, she added. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/buncrana-tragedy-driver-three-times-over-alcohol-limit-inquest-told-1.3300894
Dr Dillon could not say whether the level of alcohol in Mr McGrotty’s system had impaired his driving. That would depend on a number of factors including whether he was a habitual drinker, she added.
Deleted User wrote: » People know damn well the risks involved driving with drink taken. What lessons could be learned? What "good" as another poster mentioned, could possibly come from the inquest verdict? At the end of the day a family died tragically. A woman is broken. A man will forever carry the moment he saw in to that car. May the rest in peace.
Allinall wrote: » SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » As soon as that vehicle started sliding the doors should have been opening Unless you were comatose the natural reaction is to get out How do you know the natural reaction would be to get out? Have you been in that situation? I haven't , but before this tragedy, I would think my natural reaction would be to try and reverse back up the slipway.
Roger_007 wrote: » While that is important, there is another factor which seems to have impeded any rescue efforts, and that is the inability to open the doors or windows of the car and allow at least some of those inside to escape, or be rescued. Unfortunately there are many instances where vehicles go into water. Not enough attention is paid as to to how those inside are to escape, especially children who, by law, must be strapped into rear seats.
Roger_007 wrote: Cars should be fitted with an emergency button or handle which would release all seat belts and door locks.
John_Rambo wrote: » Same here and I agree with every part of your post. I know where you're coming from. But, experience tells me the slip, the algae, the pitch, the incline and the water had more to do with the tragedy.
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » Did the inquest give an indication of what speed the vehicle entered the water?
screamer wrote: » My heart goes out to the poor woman and her little girl. It's awful to have to go through an inquest a month before Christmas. What difference it makes as to who did what etc I don't know. It won't bring them back. I hope she can find peace and some way to keep going in what must be a nightmare situation for her. I wish her and her little girl nothing but the best, they deserve that.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » Did the inquest give an indication of what speed the vehicle entered the water? I didn't see any mentioned in the media, to me it looked more like the driver perhaps parked on the slipway to watch the scenery and then when they decided to move off there was zero traction as the tyres were on the moss/algae and the car pretty much slid in to the sea and then off the edge of the submerged slipway in to deep water. The Q7 is nearly 2.5 tons in weight.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » I didn't see any mentioned in the media, to me it looked more like the driver perhaps parked on the slipway to watch the scenery and then when they decided to move off there was zero traction as the tyres were on the moss/algae and the car pretty much slid in to the sea and then off the edge of the submerged slipway in to deep water. The Q7 is nearly 2.5 tons in weight.
