Article: Michael Fitzgerald & Drink Driving

Stark

Vegeta wrote:

All I am saying is be careful and the only 100% way to know for sure you are not over the limit is to not drink on Sunday night or have a few non alcaholic Becks or something awful tasting like that.

Ah yes, non-alcoholic Becks. By far and above the best way to get a hangover without drinking alcohol.

ambro25

hawker wrote:

I was simply asking a question in order to put my mind at ease if I felt like a few pints during the week.

Noted. Irrelevant, tbh. Put your mind at ease with drinking sensibly and check your own "processing rate".

el tel

hawker wrote:

If I wanted to go out on a Sunday night for a few pints where do I draw the line? Can I have 5 pints and be happy in the knowledge that I could safely pass a random breath test the next morning? Can I have more than that? It seems there is no definitive guide to how long it takes alcohol to leave your system before you are deemed safe to drive. It's impossible to know the morning after a few pints.

The question on one's mind should not be "How much booze can I get away with and still pass the breathalyser test?" but more "To what extent will my driving be impaired?". When it comes to assessing your 'chances', if there is a doubt, then there's no doubt.

oleras

Stark wrote:

I wonder if his admittance is enough to convict him of a drink driving offence and get him a driving ban.

Why should it ? last time i read the law its not an offence to drink and drive....has it changed ?

alias no.9

What a gob****e. I hope he's dismissed from fine gael asap. This other gob****e didn't go so far as to admit drink driving, though he did advocate turning a blind eye to drink driving for rural dwellers in much the same way, but I'd hazard a guess that fianna fail has taken no action.

In fact, it seems they've since elected him Mayor.

Back to Hawker's question, remember when you're counting your units of alcohol, 1 pint = 2 units, a rough guide is that the body metabolises 1 unit per hour but this can be affected by a number of factors such as food, sleep and being still dehydrated from the skinful you had on saturday night.

Guy:Incognito

hawker wrote:

Well to be honest I don't agree with these morning check points at all. People are good enough to leave cars at home on a night out and need their cars if they want to get to work the next morning. What if a person is living 20/30/40 miles from work? Are these people not entitled to a few pints on a Sunday night?

I think it's going too far and it's ruining the pub culture in this country.

Its the same thing. If you go out and have 10 pints at night and are still over the limit in the morning its the same as having one or two for breakfast. If your over the limit your over the limit, just because it was hours ago doesnt mean you arnt over the limit anymore.

NUTLEY BOY

Over the limit = over the limit. QED.

Your responsibility is to make sure that you are on the right side of the limit WHENEVER you take the wheel.

This is real Councillor Larry O'Hooligan stuff that brings back the best days of Halls Pictorial Weekly.

Stiil, you can never beat those Fine Gael councillors for devising challenging approaches to rural life.

Wasn't it some other FG councillor in a different part of the country who once suggested that members of certain families should be microchipped ?? I think that went down just as well at party HQ !

maidhc

Christ. I don't approve of drink driving, I rarely even drink, but all this political correctness is sickening.

Living in rural Ireland, I see the point he is making. There is a far greater margin for error stealing along a country road at 40k (as many of these guys used to do) compared to do 130k on a motorway. The rules DO discriminate against rural dwellers, taxis, car sharing, designated dessies etc are not really options here, and for many the pub and a few beers is the only place to meet a few friends.

Because something is law or otherwise does not mean it is perfect or infallible. Ask a Jew who lived in Europe (including Ireland) in the 1930s.

Personally I don't think there can be any other workable solution other than the one we have. I don't think it should be any stricter, and probably not much more lenient either.

But this stupid hysteria must stop. NOW.

colm_mcm

kinda thing.....

heggie

yet almost all road deaths are in rural areas, another 3 tonight. You know the signs in dublin that say 'xx killed on north/south dublin roads in the past 3 years' south is something like 60, which considering the population is very low.

maidhc

heggie wrote:

yet almost all road deaths are in rural areas, another 3 tonight. You know the signs in dublin that say 'xx killed on north/south dublin roads in the past 3 years' south is something like 60, which considering the population is very low.

In Cork County ALONE there are 7500miles of road. People do far more driving. They are tired, stressed, make mistakes, some indeed are probably drunk, lads from the city come out the act the maggot on the quiet roads. You get all sorts.

And it is hard enough to kill yourself in a city centre car crash (so long as you are not a pedestrian or cyclist!).

Guy:Incognito

maidhc wrote:

In Cork County ALONE there are 7500miles of road. People do far more driving. They are tired, stressed, make mistakes, some indeed are probably drunk, lads from the city come out the act the maggot on the quiet roads. You get all sorts.

And it is hard enough to kill yourself in a city centre car crash (so long as you are not a pedestrian or cyclist!).

All that is exactly the reason why people in rural areas should NOT be allowed to drink and drive aswell.

So if the rule is changed to allow ruural people to drink and drive, is it then not discriminating against people in urban areas by forcing them to pay to get to and from the pub?

maidhc

Stekelly wrote:

So if the rule is changed to allow ruural people to drink and drive, is it then not discriminating against people in urban areas by forcing them to pay to get to and from the pub?

Driving isn't free last time I checked!

This really is a uniquely Irish problem. No where else in Europe do we have such a weird settlement pattern of houses scattered all over the countryside. It is a difficult problem, and there is no easy solution. I don't know if there is a solution.

Being hysterical about a councellor who flagged this as a real issue isn't the way forward though.

AMurphy

The councillor, who has a previous conviction for drink-driving, claims motorists under the influence of alcohol are being wrongly targeted for causing the ongoing carnage on Ireland's roads.

I don't remember reading this in the article. Though there was something about driving after 3~4 pints.

Big difference between 3~4 pints and DUI.

You'd need to have had more than 3~4 or even 5 to still be drunk the next morning.

While foolhearty, he is telling it as it is.

And why is he being singled out and made a scapegoat for his bad example. when your Fearless Leader has no problem buzzing villates at 90mph, or was it much less, eg 75.

As the man said, "The law is the law and must be upheld"...... indeed, that and other fairystories....:rolleyes:

alias no.9

maidhc wrote:

Christ. I don't approve of drink driving, I rarely even drink, but all this political correctness is sickening.

Living in rural Ireland, I see the point he is making. There is a far greater margin for error stealing along a country road at 40k (as many of these guys used to do) compared to do 130k on a motorway. The rules DO discriminate against rural dwellers, taxis, car sharing, designated dessies etc are not really options here, and for many the pub and a few beers is the only place to meet a few friends.

Because something is law or otherwise does not mean it is perfect or infallible. Ask a Jew who lived in Europe (including Ireland) in the 1930s.

Personally I don't think there can be any other workable solution other than the one we have. I don't think it should be any stricter, and probably not much more lenient either.

But this stupid hysteria must stop. NOW.

It's not political correctness, it's peoples lives. Maybe theres an argument for being a little more lenient on blood alcohol levels between 80mg alcohol / 100ml blood and say 100mg alcohol / 100ml blood, if enforcement is increased with more checkpoints and breath tests and those who're quite clearly taking the piss >150mg alcohol / 100ml blood automatically do porridge and get 5 to 10 year driving bans.

What I don't get is why this always comes back to the oh we have to drink and drive, there's no other option. If rural pubs are dying, where's the initative? Have a courtesy bus. One model that I've seen and I think would be great if it were more widespread is a minibus that collects you and brings you to the pub for free, meaning the cars are left at home removing temptation, and then passengers pay the equivalent of the local taxi/hackney fare to be brought home.

oleras

alias no.9 wrote:

Have a courtesy bus.....................

passengers pay the equivalent of the local taxi/hackney fare to be brought home.

Then it would not be a courtesy bus.......

maidhc

alias no.9 wrote:

It's not political correctness, it's peoples lives. Maybe theres an argument for being a little more lenient on blood alcohol levels between 80mg alcohol / 100ml blood and say 100mg alcohol / 100ml blood, if enforcement is increased with more checkpoints and breath tests and those who're quite clearly taking the piss >150mg alcohol / 100ml blood automatically do porridge and get 5 to 10 year driving bans.

Lots of things save lives, and alcohol testing is one of them. However I don't think that silly school boy Enda Kenny will achieve much by a "zero" alcohol/blood limit, nor do I think the FG councilor should automatically be lynched because he went a bit against the grain of middle class feeling in sub/urban Ireland.

Drink driving is an issue of road safety, but only one issue, and probably not the most important one (nowadays anyway). I found it disturbing to hear a garda on the radio saying: "most accidents happen between 1 and 2, that is when people are coming out of pubs, most accidents are caused by drink, qed". But it is also the time when people are tired, are tempted to drive fast, may be on drugs, or, to use a an A-team quote, "on the jazz".

A more graduated penalty system (we have a bit of one already) is a very sensible solution. Perhaps a bit of a carrot wouldn't go amiss either, e.g. subsidised minibus home as you suggest. But then we would have other (shrill) people saying the government was condoning "binge drinking".

alias no.9

maidhc wrote:

Perhaps a bit of a carrot wouldn't go amiss either, e.g. subsidised minibus home as you suggest. But then we would have other (shrill) people saying the government was condoning "binge drinking".

I don't think the government should be subsidising busses to pubs, I think the publicans should. They're the ones crying that their trade is being hurt by the enforcement of drink driving laws, in most industries you need to invest to protect and grow your turnover and profit, why not rural pubs?

Victor

VERYinterested wrote:

But if you are over the limit at night and you have had a skin full, the chances are that you will be over the limit the next morning and just as capable of causing carnage, so why do people feel that it is unjust to be caught the next morning.

And if one gets done in the morning, how bad was one the night before?

hawker wrote:

Well to be honest I don't agree with these morning check points at all. People are good enough to leave cars at home on a night out and need their cars if they want to get to work the next morning. What if a person is living 20/30/40 miles from work? Are these people not entitled to a few pints on a Sunday night?

A few yes, but how did they get home. And a few pints (2-3) generally won't show up the morning after.

I think it's going too far and it's ruining the pub culture in this country.

Is that the pub culture of fights in the chipper afterwards or go home first and beat the wife?

Heraldoffreeent

Look lads,
Accidents happen on country roads beacause the country roads are in a terrible condition, we have more than twice the amount of cars on the roads now than we had 10 years ago, we have more than 200,000 people on the roads with provo licences, 20% of accidents are found to be caused by people with drugs in their system.

There are many causes of accidents, to listen to people on this board you would think nobody in Dublin takes a drop and drives,( by the way I live in dublin, before you call me a culchie) with the amount of high moral ground in some of posts here you could look down on the spire!

Victor

Heraldoffreeent wrote:

There are many causes of accidents, to listen to people on this board you would think nobody in Dublin takes a drop and drives,

The difference is most either walk, get a bus or a taxi home.

Heraldoffreeent

The difference is most either walk, get a bus or a taxi home.
__________________


Not according to the Garda blitz over Halloween.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

Is that the pub culture of fights in the chipper afterwards or go home first and beat the wife?

Come off it. 99.99% of people are able to have a few drinks and a bit of a laugh, stop when they have had enough, and go home.

Victor

maidhc wrote:

Come off it. 99.99% of people are able to have a few drinks and a bit of a laugh, stop when they have had enough, and go home.

Indeed 99.99% don't kill someone on the way home either, but 400 deaths per year means we don't like inappropriate behavior on the roads.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

Indeed 99.99% don't kill someone on the way home either, but 400 deaths per year means we don't like inappropriate behavior on the roads.

It does, but 400 people are not killed from "drink driving". The longer politicians can rant about whether we have a 0 or 80mg limit, the longer they can avoid issues relating to education, licencing, infrastructure, etc etc.

All I am saying is a sensible attitude to this is required, not a high and mighty, self righteous one.

ambro25

Funnily enough, maidhc, the one really bad accident I was in (obliquely referred to in my earlier post) involving a drunk driver was in rural France some 25-odd years ago, with a farmer coming home from the local. On a rural road. He was so drunk he was zig-zagging all over. We saw him a good 300 yards off (road straight as an I, slightly inclined, him coming from top) - the only thing I remember about the minute or so preceding the crash was my Dad saying 'look at that idiot, he must by totally loaded'. My dad slowed down to less than a crawl, yet he still front-ended us at over 80 kph (gendarmes' estimate). I'll pass on the car roll, the eventual tree impact and the scars I still have to this day.

But, by your reasoning, he probably thought he was doing 40 kph, and probably thought he was alright on them quiet back roads :mad:

Well f*ck that - and it don't come from political correctness.

BTW - the farmer was much less than OK, after my Dad was done beating the absolute sh1te out of him during all of the 20 mins it took the gendarmes to arrive. As I understand it to this day, his injuries were sustained during the crash. Better than any points or fine or ban, I tell ya. :mad:

hawker

Victor wrote:

And if you get done in the morning, how bad were you the night before?

A few yes, but how did they get home. And a few pints (2-3) generally won't show up the morning after.

Is that the pub culture of fights in the chipper afterwards or go home first and beat the wife?

First of all I do not drink and drive.

Obviously you know some unsocialable people if the pub culture you know is fights in chippers and wife-beating. It's not one I'm familiar with at all.

Victor

hawker wrote:

First of all I do not drink and drive.

Apologies, it wasn't directed at you personally.

Changed from "And if you get done in the morning, how bad were you the night before?" to "And if one gets done in the morning, how bad was one the night before?"

Seth Brundle

I have previously confessed to having driven under the influence on quite a number of times on here. In fact I think it might be truthful to say that I possibly had a problem with the stuff. I used to drink 4 or 5 pints every single night and drive 2 miles home (rural rather than urban drive if it makes a difference).
I believe that I became somewhat tolerant of the amount of alcohol within my system which is what these idiot politicians are claiming. However, I may have been under an incorrect impression because of the amount of alcohol within my system (the "look at me, Im superman" syndrome).
Eventually, I realised the stupidity of my actions. I believed that I was safe because I had been lucky enough not to be involved in an incident with a ditch/car/pedestrian. Had I managed to kill someone I was in the wrong (even if they were dancing in the middle of the road). Would I have been able to live with it? Nope!

Nowadays I don't drink alcohol if Im driving, opting for Becks NA or if Im lucky Erdinger or some other decent beer! I still get to have a few beers, the craic, the viscious hangovers (from Becks) and the ability to go through a garda checkpoint without worrying.