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

caught drink driving what to do now?

memeandmark

i know someone who was driving home and was caught at a check point and was bagged, he was twice the limit. fair enough its his own fault and a huge and stupid risk to take.. i am just wondering how long will he be off the road roughly.his job involves driving and his family are dependant on him to drive...thanks

Find more posts tagged with

high horses

getting drunk

Quick Links

Comments

ShiverinEskimo

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

If that is the limit of your skill, then you are correct. The speed limits suit you very well. You are an accomplished driver and I hope you do well in your driving career.

But not everyone is as skilled as you, and some are more skilled.

Their attitude is of course, a different matter.

PS thanks for the debate, I'm not sure if you're extracting the urine, but I'm enjoying it anyway!

Forgive me, have to head into work. I'll try to get back on at some point later.

How exactly does better skill change reaction and stopping distance?

Are you actually arguing with physics here?

Marcus.Aurelius

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

How exactly does better skill change reaction and stopping distance?

Are you actually arguing with physics here?

Just to finish off before I head in. Yes, your driving should maximise the distance you can see ahead so you can pre-empt that which you described before.

Your argument regarding the child who gets hit by a car at 110 kph is nonsense, they could just as easily have jumped in front of one at 80 kph. Had he been moving faster, he would have been past him/her before they jumped out.

Again, speeding is arbitrary, dangerous driving is not.

ShiverinEskimo

stevec wrote: »

I'm not trying to insult you but I don't think you've been driving all that long and there are drivers here giving opinions based on many years of experience (and in the case of Marcus, advanced Garda training), that you just aren't taking in.

Or are you just here to troll the 'idiots' like you said in the soccer forum.

I'm 26, been driving since I was old enough to drive at 17, so 9 years on the road. I freely admit I have a lot to learn and am probably quite lucky to be 9 years driving without incident.

I've not been trolling, apart from my regrettable insult towards yourself I think I've been quite composed and willing to reason my arguments.

I just think that a Garda with advanced driving skills or a person who's main concern would be why the person was there instead of why did they hit them should not be trying to justify driving over the speed limit. That is all.

Gary ITR

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

The fact remains the extra 10 or 15kmph makes a huge difference to the stopping distance of the vehicle and could be critical in avoiding injury or death to any kind of other road user up ahead.

It depends on the vehicle, driving a Ford Focus at 100km/h and jamming the brakes on the car would take a longer distance to stop than a Golf GTI doing 130km/h

The stopping distances listed in the ROTR book and the theory test book were measured in a Ford Anglia (One of the most popular family cars in the 60's)

ShiverinEskimo

Marcus - my point is that your sight is always going to be longer than your stopping distance. Yet its your stopping distance that rules whether or not you have an accident.

ShiverinEskimo

Onkle wrote: »

It depends on the vehicle, driving a Ford Focus at 100km/h and jamming the brakes on the car would take a longer distance to stop than a Golf GTI doing 130km/h

The stopping distances listed in the ROTR book and the theory test book were measured in a Ford Anglia (One of the most popular family cars in the 60's)

I'm sorry this is ridiculous - comparing different cars to talk about stopping distance??

The same car will ALWAYS have a longer stopping distance at 120kmph than at 100kmph. It does not depend on what car you're driving.

Lord bless us and save us.

[Deleted User]

Onkle wrote: »

The stopping distances listed in the ROTR book and the theory test book were measured in a Ford Anglia (One of the most popular family cars in the 60's)

With a stopping distance almost twice that of it's modern equivilant.

[Deleted User]

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I'm sorry this is ridiculous - comparing different cars to talk about stopping distance??

The same car will ALWAYS have a longer stopping distance at 120kmph than at 100kmph. It does not depend on what car you're driving.

Lord bless us and save us.

you're fixsated by the limit on the road sign, no one in their right mind is going to do 120 past a school or through a built up area, those speeds are on the other hand perfectly acceptible on the open road.

Steve

Onkle wrote: »

The stopping distances listed in the ROTR book and the theory test book were measured in a Ford Anglia (One of the most popular family cars in the 60's)

What I want to know is how in hell they got an Anglia going fast enough to perform the tests...:pac::pac::pac:

[Deleted User]

stevec wrote: »

What I want to know is how in hell they got an Anglia going fast enough to perform the tests...:pac::pac::pac:

A good push!

Gary ITR

stevec wrote: »

What I want to know is how in hell they got an Anglia going fast enough to perform the tests...:pac::pac::pac:

Towed it behind an EVO

ShiverinEskimo

Deleted User wrote: »

you're fixsated by the limit on the road sign, no one in their right mind is going to do 120 past a school or through a built up area, those speeds are on the other hand perfectly acceptible on the open road.

Where exactly in the post you quote did I even mention the speed limit? I am not fixated with the speed limits I'm fixated with the people who think its ok to break them.

[Deleted User]

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Where exactly in the post you quote did I even mention the speed limit? I am not fixated with the speed limits I'm fixated with the people who think its ok to break them.

You are fixated by the limit posted on a sign regardless of the type of road or where it is, 110 instead of 100 is no real issue on an open road, but 55 instead of 50 in an area with large number of pedestrians is unacceptible. it's not as black & white as < limit OK, > limit not OK.

ShiverinEskimo

It is - open road or not unexpected things can happen.

Example - a kid is more likely to run out on the road in a 50 zone but a blow-out is more likely to happen in a 100 zone. So yet again I reiterate, at no stage is it justifiable to exceed the speed limit.

I'm buggin out people - interesting debate and I enjoyed it. Cheers to all. Taking a long weekend to Dingle - 5 hour drive so here's hoping I've not jinxed myself with all this talk of road accidents.

Peace out.

Gary ITR

Careful now, isn't it an Daingean?

Robbo

Onkle wrote: »

Careful now, isn't it an Daingean?

Perhaps he hasn't been paying enough attention to the signs on the road...

MooseJam

Onkle wrote: »

Careful now, isn't it an Daingean?

yea I do wanna see more picks like this and no that isn't more pics like this, in fact it's some build a city online malarky which I have no interest in BOOOOO !

patmac

I regularly drive to the pub, but am never guilty of drink driving.
The secret is to consume so much alcohol that by closing time you have
completely forgotten ever owning a car.

Seth Brundle

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

As someone's sig says - never argue with idiots - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience...

Hmmm, maybe then I shouldn't continue with your quote?!?

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I'm simply saying that there is no situation that ever justifies a member of the public exceeding the speed limit.

True story:
About 18 months ago, I drove along the buslane on the N4 from woories to the M50 during morning rush hour. I was doing about 100-120km/h in my own car (its an 80km/h limit). I went onto the M50 and managed to push my way through the two lanes of queueing traffic (whilst the roadworks were taking place.
I left te M50 at the red cow junction and went along the N7 towards the city centre doing about 130km/h (60km/h limit). Instead of taking the'roundabout way onto the Long Mile road, I took a direct right turn onto it and continued at speed all the way to the Coombe as my wife who was beside me was in labour.

I broke several laws along that trip and it was entirely justified. Especially with the squad car in front of me all the way!

Now, I know you will retort and say how there wasa garda escort, etc. Then I will retort again with another anecdote where a truck in front of a bus I was on sped through a red light at the old Rathcoole junction on the N7. He did so because he reaslised that behind him the Bus Eireann bus driver's frantic beeping and flashing meant something was wrong. Indeed the truckers initiative saved the drivers life (and possibly several passengers lives) as the brakes had totally failed. There was a great big girder sticking out of the back of the bus pointing towards the driver which would have done some damage.

BTW, I can keep going with anecdotes where speed and/or other lawbreaking was necessary!

My point is that not everything is black and white! Take your head out of your bum! There is a real world outside of the interweb!

pirelli

pvt.joker wrote: »

A few km?? Hardly...

Here we have

a) kbannon (mod of motors forum) - 150kmph+ regularly

b) peasant (mod of motors forum) 130 - 180kmph+ regularly.

Anyone spot a pattern?

pvt.joker wrote: »

good work. If he had an ounce of respect for boards, he'd resign as moderator of both forums after his admittance here.

If Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson or James May was moderator of Motors would you ask for their resignation. ('m surprised that I'm the one saying this) but: the Internet forum doesn't have to be politically correct or positively discriminate all of the time. Why do motor car magazines and tv programs and even car advertisements all highlight the virtues of speed and power.

Who are their target audiences: Motor Enthusiasts. Who use the motor forums! , well the same people more or less. I would understand a forum dedicated to safe driving and traffic safety that had a moderator ( Not unlike Kbannon in his own words thought he was on the LD forum) undermining the purpose of a forum.

However I question whether it's unfair to scapegoat a motors moderator for all the personal tragedys that have happened to people. Perhaps it is retribution and maybe it is a good time to vindicate the wrongs that happen on our roads. I am not standing in the way of KBannon resigning as mod of a forum and I respect that people have a right to seek retribution.

In short I don't think KBannon should have to resign from the motors forum. It's not a road safety forum and if he does have an ounce of respect it would should be used on the LD forum.

unkel

pvt.joker wrote: »

A few km?? Hardly...

Here we have

a) kbannon (mod of motors forum) - 150kmph+ regularly

b) peasant (mod of motors forum) 130 - 180kmph+ regularly.

pvt.joker wrote: »

Anyone spot a pattern?

Me (mod of motors forum) - well over the speed limit on motorways regularly

[Deleted User]

Robbo wrote: »

Perhaps he hasn't been paying enough attention to the signs on the road...

He's too busy complying to the speed limit signs, going round bends at 100 because the sign says he can.

peasant

pvt.joker wrote: »

A few km?? Hardly...

Here we have

b) peasant (mod of motors forum) 130 - 180kmph+ regularly.

Anyone spot a pattern?

You really are a joker

Read my post properly. Not only was I doing that speed regularly, but twice daily ...on a German motorway

Seth Brundle

unkel wrote: »

Me (mod of motors forum) - well over the speed limit on motorways regularly

Hmmm, maybe the motors forum should be changed to "The Cold Blooded Murders" forum!

[Deleted User]

kbannon wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe the motors forum should be changed to "The Cold Blooded Murders" forum!

New forum theme

wiki

Marcus.Aurelius

kbannon wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe the motors forum should be changed to "The Cold Blooded Murders" forum!

Ooh, please???

giddynurse

Drink drivers are potential murderers..
i heard a story about a man who was speeding home, drunk off his head, and he didnt even notice that he hit 2 pedestrians (husband and wife..) and the womans dead body was found in a TREE.. thats how much speed he was doing, the impact was huge.. and the husband was went over the roof and broke his neck and leg..

my point is.. NO sympathy should be had for drink drivers, because they're selfish people and its only until they kill someone, or their passengers.. do they actually stop and think..

i know a guy who had a few scoops, drove home with his girlfriend and house mate.. crashed his car into a wall.. they were all luckily alive with minor injuires.. he walks up the next day to see his car.. and his lovely body kit.. unrecogniseable.. what does he do when he gets away with the cops not finding out? gets a new car.. does it again.. but gets caught! damned right.. the coward fleed to australia for 6months becoz he couldnt bare to be without a car in his local area where he was laughing stock..

drink drivers=murderers who got caught before they killed..
theres no excuse..
they know what they're doing when they take that first sip..

SCUM BAGS

Quazzie

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You were lucky you did not wake up dead, sleeping in a car with the engine ticking over deserves everything the cop threw at you.

If the catalytic convertor is funstioning correctly on the car there should be no side effects of sleeping a motionless running car.

FunkZ

I wonder if I'll ever even drink drive. Probably not