nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Bobtheman

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jmayo

Nixonbot wrote: »

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes some people didn't survive, but the whole idea of lowering the limit is the usual bullcr** to be seen to be doing something.

Are we going to resort to the line that we have had massive number of deaths on our roads ?
Because according to international stats we aren't all that bad.

And I do know that is cold comfort to people who have lost friends and family due to drink caused road accidents, but in the grand scheme of things we weren't as terrible as some make out.
The key to making things safer is to tackle the issues like young guys driving like lunatics at night and early morning.
And that requires investment in policing.

BTW these new measures are akin to tackling gun crime due to drugs gangs by banning licensed firearms.

Will lowering the limit to 50mg stop someone drinking 10 vodkas and redbulls, 5 pints and driving to show off to his mates ?

Years ago you could pass a country pub of a Sunday/Saturday night and have 20 cars outside.
There was a damn good bet that a fair few were drinking more than a few pints and driving home.

Enforce the rules that were there already, enforce those rules at the likes of 11pm, 12am, 2am, 3am when the real issues are happening.
Not 8.30am or 9am the following morning and checking if someone is 60mg limit.

But we know why there isn't massive enforcement at night and it is due to finances of AGS.
Easier and cheaper to send the lads out in the morning rather than have proper police force operating at night.

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

Alcohol effects all the things needed to drive safely (concentration, reaction time, judgement, coordination, spatial reasoning, etc.), so it would be very hard if not impossible to conclusively determine that it did not have an impact.

ArrBee

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if someone did this and killed a member of your family you would be ok with them not being prosecuted because they had only had the 3 pints and driving a short distance?

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

I just don't believe second hand drunken tales! Sure you started off saying you have seen lads getting off on a few occasions, turns out you only saw it once!

Barstool talk!

Skylinehead

jmayo wrote: »

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

jmayo

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

Well that appears to be the argument by the those in favour of Lord rosses ideas anyway.

Danny Healy Rae, gombeen that he is, asked a legitimate question of lord ross, dept of transport, RSA, etc and AFAIK they couldn't answer.
"How many people were killed by drivers with between 50 and 80mg of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels ?"

Yes we all know that drunk drivers have killed people and we all I would say that someone with a load of drink on them should not be near a wheel.
I had no problem with the 80mg limit as it allowed someone have a couple of pint over a few hours.

But lord ross and some people want a drink drive limit of ZERO.
In other words no sherry trifle.
No drink at all.

And BPKS mentioned an issue that this whole plan will not prevent, what about drunk pedestrians ?
Should they be charged as well ?
Are the deaths of drunk pedestrians fed into the general stats on drink related deaths ?

[Deleted User]

John_Rambo wrote: »

You’ve been a passenger in cars where you’ve witnessed the driver blow under the limit after been out on the lash till 2am at Garda checkpoints or pull-overs?

On a few occasions, all in the morning time?

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

BPKS

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why only 1-3 miles? Why not 10 to 30 miles? What is the difference. You could easily walk 1-3 miles.

Within a few miles radius of where I live, 2 people have been knocked down and killed (not by drunk drivers) in the last 3 years. They were both p1ssed and walking home on dark, country roads.

In the road death stats, their deaths would be counted as alcohol related.

[Deleted User]

Francis Scruffy Groin wrote: »

CoBo55 wrote: »

Em... What does virtue signalling mean?

Necro wrote: »

I'd also like to know this. Or preferably for people to stop using the stupid fcuking term.

It refers to when people are all talk about how something has to be done about something (but by others) or they might pay lip service but not actually do anything.

It's a valid criticism imo but of course the term gets misused frequently.

It's a technical term for those strange people who don't want to be killed by a drunk driver.

Maxed-irl

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I haven’t heard an RSA ad saying this but if they are they are wrong. It’s simple biology, it’s like saying a car doesn’t start burning petrol until you arrive at your destination.

If you used the “rule” of counting hours since your last drink people would be massively inconvienienced in their lives if they want to go out at night and drive places the next day.

I agree with you but that's what they're touting as I said they're probably being over cautious.

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve seen seen lads on different occasions blow under the limit at times between 9am and noon after anything from 10 to 15 pints the night before finishing up at 2am at the earliest though which really does not tally with the number put out there.

You’ve been a passenger in cars where you’ve witnessed the driver blow under the limit after been out on the lash till 2am at Garda checkpoints or pull-overs?

On a few occasions, all in the morning time?

TheIrishGrover

Bobtheman wrote: »

I live within a mile of ten pubs. Im really aiming at rural dwellers. Im not against drink driving laws just think they need to be moderated. Tired of virtue signalers who have no issue with the amount of booze we allow to be sold, thus costing god knows what for families/health services etc but wet themselves in virtue over drink drivers?

Ah, OK. So it's not the drink driver's fault? It's the fact that people don't want to limit the amount non-drink drivers can drink.

Understood.

So the fact that there are no laws limiting how much a person can drink (responsibly or irresponsibly) is far far worse than getting behind the wheel of a car intoxicated and potentially killing an innocent person/people.

[Deleted User]

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So you've not heard the ad on the radio that says "after your last drink" maybe I'm wrong but that's what I heard on the radio on a RSA ad. I suppose to be cautious if you've had beer the night before and dont drive if you think you're over.

I haven’t heard an RSA ad saying this but if they are they are wrong. It’s simple biology, it’s like saying a car doesn’t start burning petrol until you arrive at your destination.

If you used the “rule” of counting hours since your last drink people would be massively inconvienienced in their lives if they want to go out at night and drive places the next day.

Maxed-irl

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

You are 100% wrong so stop, you are confusing people.

The minute you start drinking your body starts processing alcohol, why in earth would it wait until you finish? How does your body know you have finished?

If your body didn’t process it as you drink we wouldn’t be able to drink half as much. So you start counting from when you start drinking not when you finish.

So you've not heard the ad on the radio that says "after your last drink" maybe I'm wrong but that's what I heard on the radio on a RSA ad. I suppose to be cautious if you've had beer the night before and dont drive if you think you're over.

[Deleted User]

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Read how its calculated. The body takes 1 hour to process 1 standard drink. Alcohol levels can rise for 3 hours after you stop drinking. Alcohol is processed after your last drink. Clearly this is what is been said on TV radio etc. As stated before basic reading and comprehension has once again escaped the Irish youth

You are 100% wrong so stop, you are confusing people.

The minute you start drinking your body starts processing alcohol, why in earth would it wait until you finish? How does your body know you have finished?

If your body didn’t process it as you drink we wouldn’t be able to drink half as much. So you start counting from when you start drinking not when you finish.

stoneill

vandriver wrote: »

'...I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers...'

Really?

One - One person lost is too many.

eagle eye

I'd say the majority of people are well capable of driving a car responsibly after three pints.
Problem is that there are people who aren't capable so we need to have laws to prevent them from driving.
I'm all for the French idea where you must have a breathaliser in your car.

Maxed-irl

Necro wrote: »

Over the limit is over the limit.

That's why we have laws governing this behaviour. If you have to drive the next day, don't drink.

It's really that simple.

Yeah I agree with ya I'm saying if I've 8 cans over a few hours and sleep etc I dont need 16 hours from bottle to throttle

Maxed-irl

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Life is short, enjoy yourself. A few beers is something to be enjoyed. You'll more than likely be fine to drive in the morning.

Haha I know I'll be ok but generalising it is a bit ****. I agree I've probable been over the limit after weddings or something like that but I've slept and thought I was ok but to state that I'm not if I'm at home and drink 8 beers over 8 hours is a bit wrong.

Necro

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So someone who has their pints goes to bed wakes up has breakfast etc is the same as a person who had 10 pints and tried to drive home.

Over the limit is over the limit.

That's why we have laws governing this behaviour. If you have to drive the next day, don't drink.

It's really that simple.

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm having a few beers tonight watched the golf etc as I dont work mondays. I've to drive tomorrow but by the law I cant. I must get a breathalyser just to check as i dont want to lose my license. I agree with the law being strict against drink driving but my point is the guards are doing more breath tests in the am to catch more people for €€€. I'd prefer to see more night time testing as that's when the majority of dangerous piss heads be on the road

Life is short, enjoy yourself. A few beers is something to be enjoyed. You'll more than likely be fine to drive in the morning.

Maxed-irl

Twenty Grand wrote: »

I understand that quote is from the RSA but you're not understanding it. When you drink enough to surpass the ability of alcohol to be eliminated from your blood through liver metabolism your BAC will rise for up to 3 hours.

If I drink a naggin my blood doesn't go from zero to max alcohol in 5 mins. It ramps up over time, while my liver is also working to break it down.

I know its generic to cover their arses

Maxed-irl

I'm having a few beers tonight watched the golf etc as I dont work mondays. I've to drive tomorrow but by the law I cant. I must get a breathalyser just to check as i dont want to lose my license. I agree with the law being strict against drink driving but my point is the guards are doing more breath tests in the am to catch more people for €€€. I'd prefer to see more night time testing as that's when the majority of dangerous piss heads be on the road

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So someone who has their pints goes to bed wakes up has breakfast etc is the same as a person who had 10 pints and tried to drive home.

Someone who has 10 pints could be so blind drunk they can't turn on a car.

Someone who wakes up could be drunk enough their reactions are slowed to a point where they're a danger.

Both are drunk drivers.

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Read how its calculated. The body takes 1 hour to process 1 standard drink. Alcohol levels can rise for 3 hours after you stop drinking. Alcohol is processed after your last drink. Clearly this is what is been said on TV radio etc. As stated before basic reading and comprehension has once again escaped the Irish youth

I understand that quote is from the RSA but you're not understanding it. When you drink enough to surpass the ability of alcohol to be eliminated from your blood through liver metabolism your BAC will rise for up to 3 hours.

If I drink a naggin my blood doesn't go from zero to max alcohol in 5 mins. It ramps up over time, while my liver is also working to break it down.

alan partridge aha

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm just going on the average person being at home buying an 8 pack say starting at 8 finishing at 1they cant drive until 5 the next day. That's bull if you ask me. Anyone who intentionally drinks and drives deserves to be locked up. I'm saying that if someone had a few beers at home and got in car next day potentially they're over but they're not the same as someone who's driving home from a pub unless they were on a bender

The end result for me is that I'm defo buying a tester.

Maxed-irl

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Fair enough, you're the messenger and I'm not shooting you, but we're not talking about day long benders rather 3hrs.
Day long benders could be 15 -20 pints and who can afford that.

I'm just going on the average person being at home buying an 8 pack say starting at 8 finishing at 1they cant drive until 5 the next day. That's bull if you ask me. Anyone who intentionally drinks and drives deserves to be locked up. I'm saying that if someone had a few beers at home and got in car next day potentially they're over but they're not the same as someone who's driving home from a pub unless they were on a bender

alan partridge aha

Maxed-irl wrote: »

As they state it can continue to rise for up to 3 hours after your last drink so if you went on a day long bender your body wont process it until you finish drinking. This is what the campaign states.

Fair enough, you're the messenger and I'm not shooting you, but we're not talking about day long benders rather 3hrs.
Day long benders could be 15 -20 pints and who can afford that.