Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Draconian drink driving laws are ridiculous

Options
  • 08-01-2019 12:12am
    #1
    Cockford Ollie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 217 ✭✭


    If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
    https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

    So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

    It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

    Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

    There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
    https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

    So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

    It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

    Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

    There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

    Legend!


  • Options
    #3
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,736 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    A tray is not ok, 9 is fine.


  • Options
    #4
    fxotoole
    Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    This should be good. I’ll go get the popcorn.


  • Options
    #5
    normanoffside
    Registered Users Posts: 9,973 ✭✭✭normanoffside


    Actually it takes 16 hours from when you start drinking them. So unless you necked 8 pints in a few minutes before midnight they should be out of your system before 16:00.


  • Options
    #6
    Mushy
    Registered Users Posts: 21,216 ✭✭✭✭Mushy


    Nah would rather stay alive thanks.

    Saw a driver recently who was drunk, I'll assume it was from night before. Scary is the only way to describe it, knowing you have no control over the situation and the other is barely in control


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    0.5/10


  • Options
    #8
    Panthro
    Registered Users Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    "Dink driving"... hehe!


  • Options
    #9
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
    https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

    So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

    It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

    Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

    There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

    I'd say you wouldn't be saying the same stuff if one of your relatives or close friends were killed by a drink driver which was the case in nearly 40% of the 258 road fatalities in 2017.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-drink-driving-enough-stalling-pass-the-bill-1.3496406%3fmode=amp


  • Options
    #10
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,416 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Might be technically drunk the next morning,but you don't still have the narcotic type symptoms.


  • Options
    #11
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
    https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

    So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

    It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

    Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

    There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

    Anti drink bridage? Ahhaahhahahahaaha


    Ive never met anyone more deluded than alcoholics. I mean seriously, how about you just stop drink driving and make the countty a better place for everyone to live in.

    Why do alcoholics think theyre being oppressed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Ning
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭Ning


    It's a troll, don't feed it.


  • Options
    #13
    Cockford Ollie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 217 ✭✭Cockford Ollie


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    I'd say you wouldn't be saying the same stuff if one of your relatives or close friends were killed by a drink driver which was the case in nearly 40% of the 258 road fatalities in 2017.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-drink-driving-enough-stalling-pass-the-bill-1.3496406%3fmode=amp

    There's no evidence the cause of the collision was because of drink, only that the driver tested positive for the ridiculously low levels of alcohol.


  • Options
    #14
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    Which Healy-Rae are you?


  • Options
    #15
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,416 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Ning wrote: »
    It's a troll, don't feed it.


    He makes a good point in any case. How do you know if you're over the limit the following morning?
    It's a bit fish in the barrel.


  • Options
    #16
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Money making racket. Nobody in the establishment gives 2 hoots about road safety. The government only want fine income. The media push was created by Gay Byrne and the insurance industry to jack up costs for the consumer.

    Even when road deaths were 300+ per year, it was still quite low per capita. And even then, a lot of road deaths are actually suicide.


  • Options
    #17
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,953 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    If a ‘nanny state’ prevents fûckwits getting into a car with levels of alcohol still in their system that may impare their driving and someone is killed or injured then I’m all for the nanny state.


  • Options
    #18
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    There's no evidence the cause of the collision was because of drink, only that the driver tested positive for the ridiculously low levels of alcohol.

    Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.

    Are you denying that alcohol doesn't impair a person's driving and therefore, increase the likelihood that they will be involved in a road traffic collision that could result in a fatality.


  • Options
    #19
    Cockford Ollie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 217 ✭✭Cockford Ollie


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.

    Are you denying that alcohol doesn't impair a person's driving and therefore, increase the likelihood that they will be involved in a road traffic collision that could result in a fatality.

    Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

    Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.


  • Options
    #20
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,958 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    kneemos wrote:
    Might be technically drunk the next morning,but you don't still have the narcotic type symptoms.


    You won't exactly have razor sharp reflexes either though


  • Options
    #21
    GMSA
    Registered Users Posts: 281 ✭✭GMSA


    kneemos wrote: »
    He makes a good point in any case. How do you know if you're over the limit the following morning?
    It's a bit fish in the barrel.

    When the Garda tells you after breathalysing you at a checkpoint.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,958 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    KERSPLAT! wrote:
    Which Healy-Rae are you?


    Not the smart one, that's for sure


  • Options
    #23
    Zaph
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 47,284 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

    Yes, because they were the only two cars on the road and therefore there's zero possibility of the drunk driver hitting a different car. Or a cyclist. Or a pedestrian.

    There was a time trolls put a bit of effort into their threads, but I'm afraid you're so amateurish you're not even worth sitebanning.


  • Options
    #24
    i57dwun4yb1pt8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭i57dwun4yb1pt8


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    Which Healy-Rae are you?

    i think its Surly


  • Options
    #25
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

    Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

    You need a boot up the backside with that devil-may-care attitude.


  • Options
    #26
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

    Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

    I actually laughed at this. This is the stupidity we're dealing with :D

    Drink more, drive faster, save lives. The new RSA slogan.


  • Options
    #27
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Cockford Ollie wrote: »
    Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

    Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

    So if a drink driver swerved across the road and hit an oncoming car in the opposite lane head on and killed that person it's down to bad luck and nothing to do with them being drunk behind the wheel.

    You do realise that a lot of road fatalities occur when there is no one else in the car so the speed kills fallacy has no revelance if there's no point in time when a collision between two cars happened.

    Answer me this if the same make and model of car hits a wall at 100km/hr and in another instance hits the wall at 180km/hr which driver is more likely to die as a result of the crash?


  • Options
    #28
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    1 in 10 of all driver alcohol related collisions occurred between 7am and 11am.


  • Options
    #29
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭lalababa


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.



    You shouldn't say that, it's unscientific and illogical.

    Take a head on fatal collision with car A moving to the wrong side of the road just before a collision with car B, resulting in a fatality in car B. Car A was only a few moments into it's journey and the front demister was found to be compromsed by blockages. The driver and fatality of car B was found to have a BAC of .02. Therefore you can say alcohol WAS a factor in the fatality, or you can say it was involved /an element in the accident. These phrases and words are near meaningless to scientific road crash investigators.


  • Options
    #30
    Surreptitious
    Registered Users Posts: 8,130 ✭✭✭Surreptitious


    I ONLY drink behind the wheel. Am I doing this right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    lalababa wrote: »
    DontThankMe wrote: »


    You shouldn't say that, it's unscientific and illogical.

    This is plenty scientific though :


    1 in 10 drink driving arrests happen between 8am and 2pm


Advertisement