Morning Bagging

craichoe

One other point,

If you catch the person twisted on the way home, you won't have to catch him in the morning.

Golferx

craichoe wrote: »

One other point,

If you catch the person twisted on the way home, you won't have to catch him in the morning.

If someone isn't driving the previous night, they won't get caught the previous night.

It's not a question of either/or . All drunks should be taken off the road (preferably for many years), regardless of when they were caught. If it only saves the health or life, of one child, then it's worth it. Unfortunately some people need numbers to justify making our roads safer.

lightening wrote: »

Its not that its a silly time to breathalise people, I just feel it should be done during the optimal time of drunken accidents.

Please look at what you posted and tell me you don't feel a morning drunk should be overlooked because it's not an "optimum time"?


It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning. (That is, lads/lasses what you are advocating!)

Driving is a privilege not a right.
The right to travel our roads safely, is a right, not a privilege.

lightening

Golferx wrote: »

IIt really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning.

Please don't misrepresent me. I don't condone drink driving. I don't have a problem being breathalised any time of the day. I just think it would be better done near establishments that sell drink during the night. That is when people are being killed.

Its about saving lives, not getting numbers.

craichoe

Golferx wrote: »

If someone isn't driving the previous night, they won't get caught the previous night.

It's not a question of either/or . All drunks should be taken off the road (preferably for many years), regardless of when they were caught. If it only saves the health or life, of one child, then it's worth it. Unfortunately some people need numbers to justify making our roads safer.


Please look at what you posted and tell me you don't feel a morning drunk should be overlooked because it's not an "optimum time"?


It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning. (That is, lads/lasses what you are advocating!)

Driving is a privilege not a right.
The right to travel our roads safely, is a right, not a privilege.

Your completely missing the point, were saying we want numbers to indicate that its targeting a greater number of potentially dangerous drivers than the ones they are already targeting.

The Gardai are a limited resource, allocating them to one area takes away from another.

So far you have indicated that I advocate "morning drink driving" and you have also indicated this about another poster, infact you quoted me, I have asked you to point out where i wrote this and you have not.

Please retract your statement as it is slanderous. If you have misinterpreted it, then please read my post again. If you do not remove it I will have to contact a Moderator

Golferx

How can one slander an anonymous internet Bulletin Board poster?

I retract nothing. I'm ashamed to see anyone oppose a proactive measure by the Authorities to make our roads safer. For once, it's a measure that's effective and warranted and anyone who is opposed to it should be embarrassed.

I will repeat.
Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers in the morning time frame is supporting drunk driving.

It's not a question of taking resources from another task, or only targeting at so-called dangerous times. Drink driving should be targeted 24 hours a day.

craichoe

How can one slander an anonymous internet Bulletin Board poster?

If it was anonymous I would have posted unregistered in PI.

Reporting this to the Mods, you are completely bang out of order

unkel

Golferx wrote: »

It's not a question of taking resources from another task

Don't be naive. Resources are limited. Some posters here are merely discussing how the drink driving problem might be solved in a more effective / efficient way

Golferx wrote: »

It really beggars belief that we have contributors, like lightening and craighoe, advocating drunk driving in the morning

That's an outrageous remark. They did no such thing! If aimed at me, I'd consider your remark deeply personally insulting. Reflect on this for a minute, retract your remark and apologise, otherwise I'll let you reflect on this for a week...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

lightening

Look Golferx. You are missing the point altogether, the OP, myself and others completly agree with breathalising. We are obviously against drink driver. For you to say otherwise is just a sly, shallow dig at us.

What is being questioned is the timing.

If there is major carnage in the morning, yes breathalise everyone.

If there isn't I would feel its a waste of money that could have been spent on breathalising people at night when there is lots of drink related accidents.

Golferx

unkel wrote: »

Don't be naive. Resources are limited. Some posters here are merely discussing how the drink driving problem might be solved in a more effective / efficient way



That's an outrageous remark. They did no such thing! If aimed at me, I'd consider your remark deeply personally insulting. Reflect on this for a minute, retract your remark and apologise, otherwise I'll let you reflect on this for a week...

I have nothing to apologise for. Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving.

Do I take it you are threatening to ban me for a week? I'm the one advocating safer roads here, not the others.

Not that it bothers me, one way or the other, moderators need to look at both sides of any debate before they make a decision. Unkel, you lack objectivity in your post.

As for personal insults? This is an anonymous Bulletin Board on the Internet. Some people need to lighten up and take a spirited debate for what it is.

Agus, anois, slán.

ballooba

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're both DUI. In my example each driver has 8 units in their system. My attitude towards speeding is that the posted speed limits is fairly irrelevant. You should drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. That's from a road safety point of view, but you should also stay under the posted speed limit because that's the law.

lightening

Golferx wrote: »

Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving.

Nobody here is opposed to it. Its about the timing and the resources. Time wasted on morning breathalising could be used saving lives at night.

Its easy to be brave behind a keyboard. Don't get yourself banned over this.

unkel

Golferx wrote: »

I have nothing to apologise for

Yes you do, you personally insulted 2 posters

Golferx wrote: »

Anyone who is opposed to breathylising drunk drivers is in favour of drink driving

The posters you insulted are not opposed to breathalysing. In fact they have both stated they are in favour of it

You had your chance to make amends. I doubt an apology to the posters you insulted is forthcoming so you're banned for a week

craichoe

lightening wrote: »

Nobody here is opposed to it. Its about the timing and the resources. Time wasted on morning breathalising could be used saving lives at night.

Its easy to be brave behind a keyboard. Don't get yourself banned over this.

Couldn't say it better

pa990

i dont understand why people are so opposed to alcohol tests in the morning.

if you are over the drink drive limit.. you shouldnt be driving.
It doesnt matter wheter its morning , noon or night..

Oilrig

This is a very big issue, apart from the black & white over the limit issue.

"Paddy" has always prided himself on his ability to negotiate life without the rules, uniforms and signposts attitude taken by our nearest neighbour.

This attitude is now being imposed on all of us due to the actions of a few.

It imposes restrictions on many that are seen as overkill. No more down to the pub for a few midweek etc.

I can't see people supporting this if its applied in a draconian way.

Give us the stats - how many alcohol related accidents happen between 07:00 and 10:00? - the real commuters, I suspect few. Don't give me this middle of the night till middle of the morning bull.

Another Celtic Tiger PR bull**** campaign IMHO.

I've no problem with bagging drunk drivers, but there IS a difference between the guy that weaves home at night after a feed of pints and the guy thats just over the limit on the way to work during daylight hours.

milltown

I was under the impression that mandatory breath testing at accident scenes was either implemented or imminent. Especially over the coming month, this should give enough statistical evidence to support or rubbish drink being a factor in morning and daytime accidents.

Policing our roads is, essentially, a game of percentages. The Gardai can't catch every drunk, speeder, tax dodger, lightbreaker, phone user and yellow box hogger. What they must do, if the taxpayer's money is not to be wasted, is decide which is the bigger cost to society and allocate resources accordingly. About two months ago the cops were at the M50 toll bridge, at about 10.30am, breathalysing everyone heading north through the toll. At least two dozen cops who would be better utilised (IMHO) seeing how people are driving on the roads, not how sober they are at stopping.

As an impetuous youth I often had a few pints and drove home thinking I was Ayrton Senna in my ma's AX 1.0. By the grace of God, Allah, Buddha and anyone else I forgot to mention, I never harmed anyone. Now I'm older, wiser and a family man I wouldn't dream of driving (immediately) after a few pints. If I wake up with a hangover and have to go somewhere, I'll have a pair of solpadeine with brekkie, a cup of coffee and I'll go on my way at 25mph, knowing that I'm suffering, and being extra careful because of it. Black and white of the law aside, and back to the OP's point, I doubt anybody can show me evidence to prove I'm a greater danger than the parent with screaming kids in the back to distract her, the sales rep on his mobile setting up a meeting or the hundreds of people reading their Herald AM or Metro WHILE DRIVING!

The law is the law and anyone found breaking it will be punished by the letter of the law. My, and many others' problem, is with ploughing resources into enforcing something with very limited returns, both in terms of convictions and lives saved.

galwaytt

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That sounds like a 'half a hole' or 'half an accident' or 'half guilty' leading to people who may be, as a result of their actions...........'half dead' ? I don't think so ! There are some things for which there is no room for ambiguity. Alcohol and driving is one of them.

I don't care what time you're bagged, if you're over, you're over. And if you're over, you're off the road. 20mg limit, ban and re-test for licence.

Why they don't do what they've been doing in the UK for aeons I don't know: sit outside and bag people as they leave pub car parks.

nytraveller

galwaytt wrote: »

.

Why they don't do what they've been doing in the UK for aeons I don't know: sit outside and bag people as they leave pub car parks.

I wish someone (The Garda Commissioner) would answer that question!!!
It makes perfect sense and I've no idea why they dont.

lightening

pa990 wrote: »

i dont understand why people are so opposed to alcohol tests in the morning.

Nobody is opposed to alohol tests in the morning, read the thread again.

peasant

Oilrig wrote: »

I've no problem with bagging drunk drivers, but there IS a difference between the guy that weaves home at night after a feed of pints and the guy thats just over the limit on the way to work during daylight hours.

Now imagine for a minute you had children (won't somebody pleeeze think of the children )

Would you put them on a schoolbus in the full knowledge that the driver was on the tear the night before and is currently nursing a bit of a hangover ??

lightening

peasant wrote: »

Now imagine for a minute you had children (won't somebody pleeeze think of the children )

ha!:o Not the trildren!

ballooba

Oilrig wrote: »

I've no problem with bagging drunk drivers, but there IS a difference between the guy that weaves home at night after a feed of pints and the guy thats just over the limit on the way to work during daylight hours.

The point is that you would need to drink A LOT to be still over the limit after 8, 7 or even 6 hours sleep. Why would you need to drink moire than 8 units of alcohol on a school night unless you have a drink problem? That's over 4 pints?

ballooba

milltown wrote: »

If I wake up with a hangover and have to go somewhere, I'll have a pair of solpadeine with brekkie, a cup of coffee and I'll go on my way at 25mph, knowing that I'm suffering, and being extra careful because of it. Black and white of the law aside, and back to the OP's point, I doubt anybody can show me evidence to prove I'm a greater danger than the parent with screaming kids in the back to distract her, the sales rep on his mobile setting up a meeting or the hundreds of people reading their Herald AM or Metro WHILE DRIVING!

It's always somebody else's fault. All the people in the examples above should be prosecuted. You included. If you don't feel up to driving at an appropriate speed you should not be driving.

craichoe

Well i firmly believe that anyone that gets into a Car and operates it while under the influence of alcohol needs to be caught and put off the road, or in circumstances where it will cause their dependants hardship, they should be made go to a 20 hours education course and be made display a Plate indicating their on probation, maybe something similar to what they have in the UK with R plates for learners.

Even perhaps that they can only drive their vehicle during certain hours of the week. Or even perhaps have (at their own cost) one of those devices fitted in the car that will not let you drive without breathalysing you first.

Its all a PR stunt really, with limited resources you need to target the Highest risk areas, to do this you need numbers on when the highest amount of accidents occur, the circumstances etc. Without these numbers your just throwing money at a problem without any sort of an action plan and in business this (which in my opinion is the way some government organisations should be run) wouldn't work.

Also, "Under the Influence" isn't just Alcohol,

Theres Narcotics and Prescribed medication that recommend against operating Heavy machinery. On top of that, if you mix Prescription medication (or narcotics) with even a small amount of Alcohol, your ability to drive is severely impaired, even if you only have a small amount of alcohol in your blood, well below the legal limit.

We have a problem, but we need to know where best to target it and how to send a message to the ones doing it that "You will be caught".

ballooba

The RSA today said that 1 in 5 morning accidents is alcohol related.

Nine out of ten caught drink driving are men.

See today's Irish Times.

Alun

ballooba wrote: »

The RSA today said that 1 in 5 morning accidents is alcohol related.

I wonder how they know that seeing as until recently there was no obligation to breathalyse people involved in accidents (and even now isn't it only ones involving serious injury or death ?)

Also, what's the definition of 'morning'. Are we counting the 'car collided with a tree at 3am' type accidents in with this statistic?

ballooba

They were referring to fatal accidents.

They define it as between 6am and noon.

craichoe

ballooba wrote: »

They were referring to fatal accidents.

They define it as between 6am and noon.

Yes, they say

Nine out of 10 drunken drivers are men

Nine out of 10 drivers found to be be over the limit at Garda random alcohol checkpoints are men, and one in five "morning after" fatal road crashes is alcohol-related, according to new figures realeased by the Road Safety Authority (RSA). Login or subscribe for more.

1 in 5 morning after accidents is alcohol related ? .... morning after what .. their statement makes no sense ..

is it 1 in 5 drink driving related accidents happens in the morning

I don't get it ... what is a "morning after" fatal road crash

Can anyone find a link to where the RSA have published this ?

milltown

ballooba wrote: »

It's always somebody else's fault. All the people in the examples above should be prosecuted. You included. If you don't feel up to driving at an appropriate speed you should not be driving.

I never said anything was anybody else's fault.

If you pay attention and try and take in the whole post, you will see that one of my points is that anyone found to have broken the law will get what they deserve. Me included.

My other point, and the original point of this whole thread, was that there is no statistical evidence, apart from what the RSA have made up, to suggest that morning breath tests are a good use of limited Garda resources.

If you got down off your pious soapbox and read what people are saying, you might see that nobody is condoning drink driving here. Instead, you are like a tabloid newspaper trying to sensationalize what people are saying.