Finished drinking vodka at 5am. Can I drive now?

17-12-2019 07:59PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Drunk driving is certainly strongly frowned upon everywhere as it should be but driving after 2 or 3 pints or the morning after a session is certainly not in my area or among people I would know or associate with. The morning after bagging is absolutely slated by pretty much anyone I've heard discuss the topic, which is a lot of people at this stage.

So, if your kid (or nephew/niece or pal's child) is knocked down on the way to school in the morning by someone over the limit where do you stand on that?

17-12-2019 08:08PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Talk about being pedantic, people use the term 2 or 3 pints to mean a small amount. Time? Normal drinking speed 20 to 30 mins a pint, maybe faster if they were very quick ones.

I would wager almost everyone who drinks in my local and has 3 pints or less drives home after it at least sometimes, particularly the early evening on the way home from work pit stop. A large proportion of the attendees of weddings I've been to over the last few years will have 2 or 3 pints between the church and reception (including the drivers of all ages). These are two fairly easy ways I judge opinion on it in my locality.

You're not painting a good picture of your locality and I'm sure there are plenty there who'd take issue with you. Name the place.

I grew up in Mayo, worked in London for years and now live in Galway city. All areas formerly had a tolerance of drink-driving but no longer is that the case in any of them. It ain't cool to risk the livelihoods of your family or the lives of others for a few pints.

bmc58 · 17-12-2019 08:09PM

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Get two Curry’s into you and drink a liter of 7up and liter of Diet Pepsi before you attempt the drive.

Jesus,do you want him to explode.

blade1 · 17-12-2019 08:13PM

bmc58 wrote: »

Jesus,do you want him to explode.

As long as he doesn't take out any pedestrians while doing so.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-12-2019 10:56PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It is true that heavy drinkers get an extra enzyme to process alcohol which makes it quicker, but it says only "slightly"

Oh, interesting! But yeah, it’s probably marginal.

FishOnABike · 18-12-2019 10:31AM

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Get two Curry’s into you and drink a liter of 7up and liter of Diet Pepsi before you attempt the drive.

bmc58 wrote: »

Jesus,do you want him to explode.

Don't forget to throw a few Mentos into the mix to freshen the breath

Electric Sheep · 18-12-2019 11:10AM

bubblypop wrote: »

More rubbish from you!

Yes, he's rather overplayed the act recently.

the beer revolu · 18-12-2019 11:15AM

Nox, a serious question.

You've stated that you think that the limit is too low.
So, lets imagine that the limit is set at whatever you deem it should be at.

In this case, would you still object to morning bagging and if so, why?

Electric Sheep · 18-12-2019 11:21AM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

You would have to laugh at people claiming they never drive the morning after a heavy night, it’s totally impractical for most people not to drive the next day be it going to work, going to get food, going home after a night out away etc etc,

Or you could not have a "heavy night".

Electric Sheep · 18-12-2019 11:21AM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

You would have to laugh at people claiming they never drive the morning after a heavy night, it’s totally impractical for most people not to drive the next day be it going to work, going to get food, going home after a night out away etc etc,

Or you could not have a "heavy night".

18-12-2019 12:09PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

Nox, a serious question.

You've stated that you think that the limit is too low.
So, lets imagine that the limit is set at whatever you deem it should be at.

In this case, would you still object to morning bagging and if so, why?

No there should be no morning bagging, I think people should be let alone to go about their business without having to sacrifice their nights out.

There is nothing gained by it either, alcohol is not causing crashes for people on their way to work. There is a list a mile long of things causing far more issues but "speed" and bagging are the easy ones to check so they massage the stats to make them look far worse than they are.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Or you could not have a "heavy night".

Look it might be an option for you but not for me, heavy nights are part of life.

Stevieluvsye · 18-12-2019 12:13PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

No, I think people should be let alone to go about their business without having to sacrifice their nights out.

There is nothing gained by it either, alcohol is not casing crashes for people on their way to work. There is a list a mile long of things causing far more issues but "speed" and bagging are the easy ones to check so they massage the stats to make them look far worse than they are.

Look it might be an option for you but not for me, heavy nights are part of life.

Can you back this up statistically................

HeidiHeidi · 18-12-2019 12:13PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

No, I think people should be let alone to go about their business without having to sacrifice their nights out.

There is nothing gained by it either, alcohol is not casing crashes for people on their way to work. There is a list a mile long of things causing far more issues but "speed" and bagging are the easy ones to check so they massage the stats to make them look far worse than they are.

Look it might be an option for you but not for me, heavy nights are part of life.

What a bizarre thing to say - what other things, out of interest? And how do you know? I'd love to see a source for those allegations......

And I have to say hats off for the supremely mé féin attitude you have, it's unashamedly all about you, despite all those other people you have to share the roads with.

the beer revolu · 18-12-2019 12:21PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

No, I think people should be let alone to go about their business without having to sacrifice their nights out.

There is nothing gained by it either, alcohol is not casing crashes for people on their way to work. There is a list a mile long of things causing far more issues but "speed" and bagging are the easy ones to check so they massage the stats to make them look far worse than they are.

Look it might be an option for you but not for me, heavy nights are part of life.

I assume you meant to say that yes, you do have a problem with bagging in the morning, even if the limit was set at what you think it should be.

Ok, please bare with me - I have another question.

Do you agree with bagging at any time of the day? (again assuming that the limit was the one that you set)

18-12-2019 12:36PM

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Can you back this up statistically................

Can you back up the opposite?

the beer revolu wrote: »

Ok, please bare with me - I have another question.

Do you agree with bagging at any time of the day? (again assuming that the limit was the one that you set)

Yes there should of course be bagging in the evening and at night, at the scene of accidents (anytime), people who draw the attention of guards (anytime) etc to watch for people absolutely hammered driving.

Even someone over the limit in the morning has had a sleep and food and their head is in a totally different place to a person on the buzz of a night out so it can't be compared imo.

the beer revolu · 18-12-2019 12:41PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Yes there should of course be bagging in the evening etc to watch for people absolutely hammered driving.

Even someone over the limit in the morning has had a sleep and food and their head is in a totally different place to a person on the buzz of a night out so it can't be compared imo.

That's nonsense and you know it.

Would you filter out the people who might get hammered in the morning ?

You're giving a free pass to anyone who wants to get plastered at any time of the day and drive so long as it isn't the evening.

For a person that often comes across as intelligent that is some seriously stupid double think, imbecilic nonsense.
Over the limit is over the limit - your reactions are affected no matter what time of the day it is .

I really can't believe that you actually believe the stupid stuff you post on this matter.

facehugger99 · 18-12-2019 12:55PM

the beer revolu wrote: »

I really can't believe that you actually believe the stupid stuff you post on this matter.

Or how many people fall for it..

Stevieluvsye · 18-12-2019 01:00PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Can you back up the opposite?

No, but i wasn't making the claim

xckjoo · 18-12-2019 01:21PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Even someone over the limit in the morning has had a sleep and food and their head is in a totally different place to a person on the buzz of a night out so it can't be compared imo.

So the lad that passes out in the Supermacs jacks at 3am after a Snack Box meal is good to drive home after security kick him out on his arse? :pac:

ceadaoin. · 18-12-2019 05:53PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

No there should be no morning bagging, I think people should be let alone to go about their business without having to sacrifice their nights out.

There is nothing gained by it either, alcohol is not causing crashes for people on their way to work. There is a list a mile long of things causing far more issues but "speed" and bagging are the easy ones to check so they massage the stats to make them look far worse than they are.

Look it might be an option for you but not for me, heavy nights are part of life.

What about alcoholics who drink in the morning and drive to work? And drive home after more drinking.Should they be let alone go about their business too?

18-12-2019 07:29PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Can you back up the opposite?

Yes there should of course be bagging in the evening and at night, at the scene of accidents (anytime), people who draw the attention of guards (anytime) etc to watch for people absolutely hammered driving.

Even someone over the limit in the morning has had a sleep and food and their head is in a totally different place to a person on the buzz of a night out so it can't be compared imo.

I asked this before but you pointedly avoided answering:

If an over-the-limit driver hits your kid (or niece, nephew, friend's kid) on the way to school in the morning where do you stand on that?

12% of drink-driving arrests take place in the morning. And yet you believe they're no risk? Incorrect. 10% of all alcohol related accidents occur between 7am and 11am. The facts are clearly against you.

And I'd also prefer if you were not hungover on the roads my kids go to school.

18-12-2019 09:30PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I asked this before but you pointedly avoided answering:

If an over-the-limit driver hits your kid (or niece, nephew, friend's kid) on the way to school in the morning where do you stand on that?

I don’t deal in what if’s, pointless talking about them. There is a far far higher chance of them being hit by someone who has no alcohol. How many kids have been hit going to school period in recent times??

Seathrun66 wrote: »

12% of drink-driving arrests take place in the morning. And yet you believe they're no risk? Incorrect. 10% of all alcohol related accidents occur between 7am and 11am. The facts are clearly against you.

And I'd also prefer if you were not hungover on the roads my kids go to school.

A very good example of massaging stats into a form to sensationalise and make the outcome look much worse. Firstly is 10% of 38% so only 3.8% of accidents and secondly the wording never claims alcohol was to blame so at the very least a good amount of that 3.8% had nothing to do with the fact one of the drivers had alcohol and it may not even be a driver as if a drunk pedestrian is hit for example then they would fall under these stats.

So in or there words alcohol is a tiny tiny factor in morning accidents yet huge resources are put into it, putting needless hardship on a lot of people while most of the far far higher causes have nothing done about them at all.

18-12-2019 10:55PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

I don’t deal in what if’s, pointless talking about them. There is a far far higher chance of them being hit by someone who has no alcohol. How many kids have been hit going to school period in recent times??

A very good example of massaging stats into a form to sensationalise and make the outcome look much worse. Firstly is 10% of 38% so only 3.8% of accidents and secondly the wording never claims alcohol was to blame so at the very least a good amount of that 3.8% had nothing to do with the fact one of the drivers had alcohol and it may not even be a driver as if a drunk pedestrian is hit for example then they would fall under these stats.

So in or there words alcohol is a tiny tiny factor in morning accidents yet huge resources are put into it, putting needless hardship on a lot of people while most of the far far higher causes have nothing done about them at all.

Fearful of answering the question about your reaction if a child you know is hit by an over-the-limit driver? You can't condone it so you swerve the subject.

You've also avoided saying where in the country you say there's an acceptance of drink-driving. State the country and I'm pretty sure there'll be someone here from that area who'll dispute your generalisation. What you're saying reflects badly on where you're from as there's a pretty clear move nationally towards stigmatising those who recklessly put others in danger.

RSA figures from 29 November 2018 -

11% of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol, occurred between the hours of 7am and 11am

Are you disputing this? It's clearly available online and is a significant figure. And gives a lie to your abject nonsense about drunk drivers not being a risk in the morning.

18-12-2019 11:10PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

RSA figures from 29 November 2018 -

11% of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol, occurred between the hours of 7am and 11am

Are you disputing this? It's clearly available online and is a significant figure. And gives a lie to your abject nonsense about drunk drivers not being a risk in the morning.

It is a small number, 89% of fatal collisions had no driver having consumed alcohol. So all the effort after the 11%?

And just to point out again, they do not state alcohol caused the accident they state alcohol had been consumed. There is a massive difference between “had consumed” and “caused”.

The very same work “speeding” states are massaged, worded in loaded ways, misrepresented and exaggerated to suit agendas.

18-12-2019 11:17PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

It is a small number, 91% of fatal collisions had no driver having consumed alcohol. So all the effort after the 11%?

And just to point out again, they do not state alcohol caused the accident they state alcohol had been consumed. There is a massive difference between “had consumed” and “caused”.

89% of fatal accidents had drivers under the limit not 91%. 11% drunk drivers.

There were 142 deaths caused by over-the-limit drivers last year. 11% of that is 16. Sixteen people that died due to irresponsible criminal drinking. Are you sure you think that's acceptable?

18-12-2019 11:27PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

89% of fatal accidents had drivers under the limit not 91%. 11% drunk drivers.

There were 142 deaths caused by over-the-limit drivers last year. 11% of that is 16. Sixteen people that died due to irresponsible criminal drinking. Are you sure you think that's acceptable?

Apologies, 89% went away from the message and came back with the wrong number in my head.

You numbers are wildly incorrect. The total road deaths in Ireland last year were 149. 38% had alcohol involved (not caused by necessarily and that includes pedestrians and cyclists). Of the 38%, 11% had alcohol consumed which gives 6.2 deaths and alcohol has not been given as the actual cause just that it has been taken. They are very careful with their wording.

So yes on the roads in the morning you are vastly more likely to be killed by a driver with no alcohol than one with it.

18-12-2019 11:38PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

Apologies, 89% went away from the message and came back with the wrong number in my head.

You numbers are wildly incorrect. The total road deaths in Ireland last year were 149. 38% had alcohol involved (not caused by necessarily and that includes pedestrians and cyclists). Of the 38%, 11% had alcohol consumed which gives 6.2 deaths and alcohol has not been given as the actual cause just that it has been taken. They are very careful with their wording.

So yes on the roads in the morning you are vastly more likely to be killed by a driver with no alcohol than one with it.

Apologies. 142 fatal crashes with 149 deaths. I wouldn't say wildly inaccurate. 11% of that still results in sixteen deaths from drunk drivers in the morning. Sixteen people who died due to reckless stupidity that you condone.

You're extrapolating figures and getting confused. 11% of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol, occurred between the hours of 7am and 11am. Read the RSA report. It's clear and simple with reliable figures. You instead are effectively saying that sixteen deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay so you and others can get wasted and drive drunk the next morning.

https://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2018/RSA-and-An-Garda-Siochana-highlight-dangers-of-driving-the-morning-after-consuming-alcohol-/

LaFuton · 18-12-2019 11:39PM

drink more

or dont

stop whining

18-12-2019 11:45PM

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You're extrapolating figures and getting confused. 11% of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol, occurred between the hours of 7am and 11am. Read the RSA report. It's clear and simple with reliable figures. You instead are effectively saying that sixteen deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay so you and others can get wasted and drive drunk the next morning.

https://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2018/RSA-and-An-Garda-Siochana-highlight-dangers-of-driving-the-morning-after-consuming-alcohol-/

I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand the figures. You are getting 11% of all deaths when you should be getting 11% deaths where alcohol was consumed which if I remember correctly is 38%.

This is a very good example people being fooled by how stats are represented, purposely wording things to look worse than they are to suit a narrative.

And as I said, it’s not stated is caused by. So the actual numbers caused by alcohol are guaranteed to be lower as statistically it’s just wouldn’t make sense to assume every single one was caused by alcohol. Also you need to account for pedestrians with drink taken.

18-12-2019 11:49PM

Magnus Famous Campground wrote: »

I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand the figures. You are getting 11% of all deaths when you should be getting 11% deaths where alcohol was consumed which if I remember correctly is 38%.

And as I said, it’s not stated is caused by. So the actual numbers caused by alcohol are guaranteed to be lower as statistically it’s just wouldn’t make sense to assume every single one was caused by alcohol. Also you need to account for pedestrians with drink taken.

The RSA report clearly states drivers.

Two simple questions:

You have any criticism of the morning drunk drivers that those people last year?

You also wouldn't criticise a morning drunk driver after hitting a child you knew?

Finished drinking vodka at 5am. Can I drive now?

Comments