i got bagged the next day!!

flanum

well last monday i had booked a half day off work (the first half) so i wouldnt be driving in the morning under the influence.
the last can i had was about 12:30 sun night, went to bed.
woke up about 11:30 mon morning, felt great, no hangover..grand.
had cup of coffee, skipped breakfast cos i was thinking id go into work 15 minutes earlier and have a lunch there!
so i was headin out the road towards work, feeling absolutely fine, in normal heading to work mode, saw checkpoint up ahead (saw it from about half mile away on big long stretch), had nothing to worry about as i knew i had a great long nights sleep and felt absolutely fine. if i had anything to have been worried about i could have easily done a "u-ey" and taken a turn off but i didnt as i thought i had nothing to worry about.
so i joined the queue of cars and there was a few pulled in both sides of the road (poor feckers i thought).
i wound down the window and gard asked me where i was going... i pointed to the factory where i was going (i was that close to work), he then said we are doing a spot check here sir and id like you to blow into this anyliser..etc.
i blew in thinking i was fine and i wasnt... fail showed up.
i was then arrested (at 12 noon on a monday), and brought in to blow into the yoke at the station.
it came out at 55. the limit apparently is 35.
im ****ed.
i went out of my way to do the right thing, i actually had half day off so i wouldnt be driving in case i was over th limit (after a feckin ten hour sleep or so)...

if i had got up early and headed in to work in the morning (obviously prob still half dopey/hungover) i would have gotten away with it as they never check at that time of morning.

im shafted... just bought a house in the middle of nowhere.... nobody within 20 miles works on my shift.

i also have to be on call once a month for a week 24/7.

all because i tried to do the right thing.

Yakult

sucks to be you. I would have thought you would be fine, but how much did you have to drink before that last can?

longshanks

what was it, a can of varnish?

AlmightyCushion

I think it takes 1 hour to break down a unit of alcohol. A can as 2 units so if you had more than 5 cans your body won't be able to break it all down in time.* Bit of a bitch but what can you do.


*This is all based on an episode of brainiac I seen ages ago so it's probably wrong.

flanum

i geuss i was carrying it over from the weekend, i was at the leitrim fleadh, lots of pints drank all day/evening saturday.
i even left the fleadh sun afternoon instead of staying on when the craic was flying, i could have rang in to work there and then and said i wouldnt be in at all monday and they would have been fine bout it, but oh no, mr conscientous here had to go home to do the right thing.
i got home sun afternoon and had big feed then had 5 cans heineken stretched from bout 6 oclock pm till bout half twelve, when i went to bed.

curse those hidden unburnt alcohol moleculey things swimming about the body from days previous!

yed be better off driving when yer steamed drunk at 7:30 on the morning!

Irish Halo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I think it takes 1 hour to break down a unit of alcohol. A can as 2 units so if you had more than 5 cans your body won't be able to break it all down in time.* Bit of a bitch but what can you do.


*This is all based on an episode of brainiac I seen ages ago so it's probably wrong.

That is vaguely how it works, 1 unit per hour but of course depends on each individuals body etc etc also now that lagers are getting stronger a 500ml can of 5% lager is actually 2.5 Units (a unit is a litre of 1% alcohol approx)

To the OP - that is fecked up as you say you thought you were doing the right thing

orestes

Sorry op, but you fukced up.

You were over the limit while behind the wheel of a car, I don't see how anyone else or the system can be blamed. Ok, you claim you were trying to do the right thing, but I gotta admit I'm having trouble having any sympathy for you.

cuckoo

flanum wrote: »

yed be better off driving when yer steamed drunk at 7:30 on the morning!

As that's really safe, and is also the 'right thing' to do.

flanum

some places in ireland believe it or not, dont have taxi services/buses/luases 24/7.
if it was an option here, id gladly leave my car at home on a monday and hop on the 64e or the metro/subway from ballyhaise to cavan town... but..its just not an option, maybe everybody in rural ireland should just give up alcohol and retreat into their homes, not call round to each others houses anymore for fear of being offered a glass of something.

dont mind me im just a bit annoyed cos my life is screwed for trying to follow the law.

Random

As part of the drink driving campaign we should all be provided with breathalisers so we can make sure we're ok to drive in the morning.

Guy:Incognito

random wrote: »

As part of the drink driving campaign we should all be provided with breathalisers so we can make sure we're ok to drive in the morning.

? No chance.

We should all just be more carefull. Even working on the rough 1 unit per hour system and add 2 hours should be enough.

flanum wrote: »

some places in ireland believe it or not, dont have taxi services/buses/luases 24/7.
if it was an option here, id gladly leave my car at home on a monday and hop on the 64e or the metro/subway from ballyhaise to cavan town... but..its just not an option, maybe everybody in rural ireland should just give up alcohol and retreat into their homes, not call round to each others houses anymore for fear of being offered a glass of something.

dont mind me im just a bit annoyed cos my life is screwed for trying to follow the law.

OR they could just not drink if they have to drive. Or is that too radical a way of thinking?

board om

Hey OP,

that is completley messed up. it really makes it hard to justify doing the right thing when something like that happens. its hard to know what to say to soemthing like that. when you think of all the prciks out there who would have kepty drinking and then just driven home afterwards without considering the safety of other people on the road.

hopefully it doesnt turn out too badly for you.

all the best

flanum

Stekelly wrote: »

?
OR they could just not drink if they have to drive. Or is that too radical a way of thinking?

LOOK do you not get it? i took a half day off work so that i would be okay to drive, i felt ok, i felt confident enough to blow into the feckin bag instead of takin a turn off when i saw them... i hadnt drank for twelve hours or so. i felt fine... i see you live in tallaght where there are buses luases and taxis! good for you and your high horse!

orestes

flanum wrote: »

some places in ireland believe it or not, dont have taxi services/buses/luases 24/7.
if it was an option here, id gladly leave my car at home on a monday and hop on the 64e or the metro/subway from ballyhaise to cavan town... but..its just not an option, maybe everybody in rural ireland should just give up alcohol and retreat into their homes, not call round to each others houses anymore for fear of being offered a glass of something.

dont mind me im just a bit annoyed cos my life is screwed for trying to follow the law.

My mother and step-dad live in Ballyjamesduff in Cavan, and they like a drink but they don't go heavy on the sauce if they have to drive to work the next day. The small town thing isn't an excuse man.

My brother who lives in Dublin is a courier. He starts work at 5 in the morning and he likes a beer or two on nights during the week, like if he's watching a match or something, but knows when to stop because he has to drive in the morning, he knows he has to keep track of his alcohol levels for the next day.

Maybe you were trying to follow the law, but that doesn't change the fact that you fukced up mate. You have no one to blame here but yourself, stop trying to play the victim

ModeSkeletor

Well what's done is done. As far as I know you will lose your license for 2 years if it is your first conviction for drink driving:

(c) Exceeding 44 microgrammes but not exceeding 66 micorgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. - 2 years First offence

Very unlucky :-( It happened to my friend a while ago aswell but he was only disqualified for 1 year. I know people here will slate you for getting behind the wheel while still over the legal limit, but I can see your point that you had no intention of doing so. The only solution for yourself in the future, and for other people reading is to purchase a good breathalyzer device and test yourself before driving making sure you are WELL under the limit.

ModeSkeletor

Stekelly wrote: »

? No chance.

We should all just be more carefull. Even working on the rough 1 unit per hour system and add 2 hours should be enough.

I don't see what your problem is with people possessing their own breathalyzers. Think about it like this: If this guy had his own breathalyzer, he would NOT have driven to work that afternoon. That equals 1 less "over the limit" driver on our roads. Which in turn equals safer roads. What is your problem with that?

flanum

yeah i know, im not playing victim here, just think its crazy that if i had gone to work in the morning when i deffo would have been over, id have been ok.
also the fact that the man involved was telling me how he was only doing his job and "hows your mother and father these days, havent seen them in a long time, has your mother gotten over the stroke" while he was dancing a jig at the side of the road, delighted he got someone, and then they pulled the roadblock straight away, let everyone else through, they were just after one arrest that day! probably a bonus for them.
also the same cnut was done for shoplifting 18 months ago and is still a garda!

CodeMonkey

LOOK do you not get it? i took a half day off work so that i would be okay to drive, i felt ok, i felt confident enough to blow into the feckin bag instead of takin a turn off when i saw them... i hadnt drank for twelve hours or so. i felt fine... i see you live in tallaght where there are buses luases and taxis! good for you and your high horse!

What's the problem with not drinking so much that you have to take a half day off so that it's ok to drive? Even with the half day you still had too much alcohol in your system because you over did it. The problem is with your drinking. How you feel at the time when you got caught has nothing to do with it.

ModeSkeletor

CodeMonkey wrote: »

What's the problem with not drinking so much that you have to take a half day off so that it's ok to drive? Even with the half day you still had too much alcohol in your system because you over did it. The problem is with your drinking. How you feel at the time when you got caught has nothing to do with it.

I think his problem is the inadequate means available to self-acknowledge if you are over the limit or not. Should we all just never drive to work the morning after drinking (or even afternoon in this case).

Guy:Incognito

ModeSkeletor wrote: »

I don't see what your problem is with people possessing their own breathalyzers. Think about it like this: If this guy had his own breathalyzer, he would NOT have driven to work that afternoon. That equals 1 less "over the limit" driver on our roads. Which in turn equals safer roads. What is your problem with that?

Who said I had a problem with people having their own? I have a problem with expecting them to be provided for them by the government.

flanum wrote: »

LOOK do you not get it? i took a half day off work so that i would be okay to drive, i felt ok, i felt confident enough to blow into the feckin bag instead of takin a turn off when i saw them... i hadnt drank for twelve hours or so. i felt fine... i see you live in tallaght where there are buses luases and taxis! good for you and your high horse!

What has feelign ok got to do with it? I get the impression from your posts that when you added up the number of pints, divided by the number of hours (sleeping slows the process afaik) that you could now see why you were over the limit.

Lets say for instance that 12 pint taken 30 mins before the breadth test results in you blowing a 55 on the test. Whats the difference between that and your 55? None because the same level of alcohol is there.

What has where I live got to do with anything? If I can go out and get home without drink driving I will, if cant I dont. I drink. Quite often I drink a lot, but I deliberatly avoind drinking on Sunday nights and other week nights. If I havent got money for a taxi, I dont go out in the first place. TBH it doesnt bother me not going out, I dont really need to drink that often.

LAst Saturday I went out fot the Utd -Chelsea game. I decided I wanted to play my game of indoor at 5:30 so I didnt drink and drank coke instead so I could drive and play. I was in the pub for a good 6 hours without drinking, it's really not hard.

ModeSkeletor

Why shouldn't they be? It would probably remove most drink drivers from our roads. The costs would be recooperated in the reduction in injuries/deaths caused by these people.

CodeMonkey

ModeSkeletor wrote: »

I think his problem is the inadequate means available to self-acknowledge if you are over the limit or not. Should we all just never drive to work the morning after drinking (or even afternoon in this case).

I've seen self breathalyzers available in pharmacies. How many people do you think have gone to the trouble of getting one or finding out where to get one.

ModeSkeletor

Well then what is the problem with self-testing and choosing whether to drive or not based on that? You would think from your attitude that you enjoyed hearing about people being caught drink driving.

Guy:Incognito

ModeSkeletor wrote: »

Why shouldn't they be? It would probably remove most drink drivers from our roads. The costs would be recooperated in the reduction in injuries/deaths caused by these people.

Why the hell should they ? It's not the governments fault you can afford to get yourself so drunk you cant drive the next day buit are too cheap to buy yourself a readily available testing device.

We're all adults here. Grow up and take responsibility for yourselves instead of whinging at the government, or anybody for that matter, to do it for you.

Random

WHy do you not think the government could provide breathilizers? Instead of all those nonsense ads on TV they could send these out to us.

Let's face it - if someone is gonna drink and drive then they're gonna do it anyway. At least this way some people will have a chance to check their "ability" first.

Guy:Incognito

random wrote: »

WHy do you not think the government could provide breathilizers? Instead of all those nonsense ads on TV they could send these out to us.
.

Should they also invest in speed limiters and force us to have them installed so we cant break that law aswell? Or is it just this you want for free?

See my post above re:taking responsibilities for your own actions and growing up.

JC 2K3

But he did take responsibility, as he understood it, by stopping drinking at 12:30 and by taking half a day off work, which he reasoned would leave him under the limit for driving.

Introducing these new harsher drink driving limits is stupid unless every driver understands the implications of this. You can't just expect every driver to have a thorough understanding of how thier body breaks down alcohol. A blood alcohol limit means nothing to a driver who doesn't really understand it. You can't take responsibility for your actions if your understanding of what taking responsibility means is insufficient, as was the case for the OP, whom I sympathise with.

Oh, and I'd support speed limiters in cars. What's the point of having a car that can go faster than the speed limit?

flanum

Stekelly wrote: »

Should they also invest in speed limiters and force us to have them installed so we cant break that law aswell? Or is it just this you want for free?

See my post above re:taking responsibilities for your own actions and growing up.

Yes for that! speed restricters for the win!! what are our road taxes being used on? id be up for that, im sure if you could take the cars not being able to go faster than the speed limit then you might find a lot less deaths on the road, im sure if you look at the stats, i doubt if there is many fatalities of monday morning, let alone afternoon, id say most road deaths are facterd to speed.
i drive a van, i doubt if it could sorpass 100 let alone 110. id like to see restrictors enforced into all cars, sure there is no need for anything faster.

EamonnKeane

Stekelly wrote: »

What has feelign ok got to do with it?

Everything, you fool. The issue is whether his ability to drive is impaired, not whether he has a high contentration of a certain chemical in his blood. A 20-y-o with 2 pints in him is probably more alert and has better reactions than a sober 80-y-o, or a doctor who's just got off a 20-hour shift.

flanum

im 38, skinnyish a wee fella (just under ten stone, five foot 3), but fairly fit and active, so i dont know how that works metabolism-wise.

Axwell

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Everything, you fool. The issue is whether his ability to drive is impaired, not whether he has a high contentration of a certain chemical in his blood. A 20-y-o with 2 pints in him is probably more alert and has better reactions than a sober 80-y-o, or a doctor who's just got off a 20-hour shift.

Feeling ok is your own personal opinion at that time on whether you feel drunk or sober or hungover still, its hardly an exact evaluation on the matter. In your example above the fact still remains the 20 year old would be over the limit no matter how alert he feels, its a breathiliser not a reactions test so feeling ok means jack at the end of the day if your still over the limit.

orestes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But he did take responsibility, as he understood it, by stopping drinking at 12:30 and by taking half a day off work, which he reasoned would leave him under the limit for driving.

Introducing these new harsher drink driving limits is stupid unless every driver understands the implications of this. You can't just expect every driver to have a thorough understanding of how thier body breaks down alcohol. A blood alcohol limit means nothing to a driver who doesn't really understand it. You can't take responsibility for your actions if your understanding of what taking responsibility means is insufficient, as was the case for the OP, whom I sympathise with.

Oh, and I'd support speed limiters in cars. What's the point of having a car that can go faster than the speed limit?

But he reasoned wrong, end of story. I really don't see how you can say he was a victim here. He misjudged the situation, that's his fault.

You say you can't expect every driver to understand how their body breaks down alcohol, should the government have a better understanding of how his body breaks down alcohol? They have set a limit based on the average persons' bodies ability to break down alcohol and still be able to drive responsibly, that's what the drink-driving limit is as far as they are concerned. If someone is getting behind the wheel of a car then it is their responsibility to make sure they are under the limit. I don't see how pleading a drivers ignorance is going to help your arguement. You are responsible for your actions, nobody else.

flanum wrote: »

Yes for that! speed restricters for the win!! what are our road taxes being used on? id be up for that, im sure if you could take the cars not being able to go faster than the speed limit then you might find a lot less deaths on the road, im sure if you look at the stats, i doubt if there is many fatalities of monday morning, let alone afternoon, id say most road deaths are facterd to speed.
i drive a van, i doubt if it could sorpass 100 let alone 110. id like to see restrictors enforced into all cars, sure there is no need for anything faster.

How exactly would speed limiters on cars work to prevent accidents? Ok, we fix every vehicle in the country so that it can't go above the maximum speed limit in the country. What exactly is to stop people from going over the limit on a stretch of road that has a lower speed limit? The vehicle can't go above 80 kph (or whatever the speed limit is), but that doesn't stop the driver doing 80 kph in a 40 kph zone. Again, take some responsibility for your actions.

Raphael

Considering navigation thingammies have some way of knowing that the speed limit is in an area, and whether you're over it, it'd probably be possible to have a limiter that figured out the speed limit in the same way.

togster

sorry to hear that OP.

mikemac

flanum wrote: »

i was then arrested (at 12 noon on a monday), and brought in to blow into the yoke at the station.
it came out at 55. the limit apparently is 35.
im ****ed.

I thought the limit was .8? Wow, .35 is far lower, I wasn't aware it had changed.

You're heading for a 2 year ban OP. The days of pleading you need it for your job, family,etc doesn't matter anymore. A judge is not going to let you off as how can they then maybe ban a local farmer who needs to drive more than you do.
You say you live in a rural area.

So you'll get two years but the good news is if you behave and stay out of trouble then you can apply to get the licence back after one year.

In the meantime, come over to this forum, all are welcome

Gummy Panda

Sorry to hear that OP but the law has to be strict on this.

IIRC, when the campaign against drink driving was pushed up the news was saying you could by the testing devices. It even had an example of guy who runs a company that sells mass wine. He was saying he was able to easily buy a device and that priests don't need to worry about mass wine as he tasted it on himself.

Sherifu

Bad luck flanum. It's not easy being without a car in the countryside.

andyl222

Thats pretty harsh OP. Did u get a urine test aswell or a blood test, or is the whole arrest based on the breathalyser??? Just talk to a solicitor about your options, but as far as i can see a 2 year ban is on the way (which can be reduced to 1 year on appeal). I seem to remember a vast amount of arrests based on breathylyser use by gardai in rural areas being thrown out of court due to misuse, and lack of training on the authorities part. You could always hope the case gets dropped through a technicality,has happened 2 people I know.

As far as people jumping on the self-righteous band wagon and cutting the OP down with replies equating to him being an irresponsible idiot, read his initial post and you will see he purposely avoided driving till the afternoon to avoid this very situation. As is common on boards, its very easy for the 'holier than thou' types to wade in and cast aspersions about anyone for their own small sense of satisfaction and supremacy at someone else's mistake. OP I can see how this situation would upset you, as you tried to do the right thing, and still broke the law.

I'm not sure what the situation is with the initial arrest when drink driving, whether you are supposed to get a secondary test,either urine or blood, but i think if the concentration level in urine n blood is above the limit,but marginally you can get a lesser sentence.
http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/drink-driving-law.html

Anyway best of luck.

Padraig Mor

What's with all the sympathy for the OP? He was WAY over the limit.

andyl222

Padraig Mor wrote: »

What's with all the sympathy for the OP? He was WAY over the limit.

I think it boils down to the OP's rational decision taking a half day in the morning to avoid driving while over the limit, leaving the fleadh early to avoid taking in too much alcohol ( as to be over the limit when he eventually did drive) etc etc. It would seem that the OP was very aware of the drink driving laws, and therefore made a concerted effort to adhere to them, the fact that he failed is unfortunate,such is life. In this country its a regular occrence to see idiots crawl into their cars off their face and drive home and not get stopped, then someone who has made the effort (after drinking the night before) to insure he is safe to drive gets stopped and is found to be over the limit, that is where the sympathy comes from.....

B00MSTICK

Indeed, unlucky flanum, hope you get it appealed somehow.

AnimalRights

Unlucky Flanum.
and he wasn't way over the limit as someone said, he was way over the new limit.

Tell you what I had a skinful last night and was going to bring my dogs to the Phoenix park this beautiful morning but **** that I'd prob fail the test and thers always lots of roadblocks on a bank holiday.

Wibbs

andyl222 wrote:

Thats pretty harsh OP. Did u get a urine test aswell or a blood test, or is the whole arrest based on the breathalyser??? Just talk to a solicitor about your options, but as far as i can see a 2 year ban is on the way (which can be reduced to 1 year on appeal). I seem to remember a vast amount of arrests based on breathylyser use by gardai in rural areas being thrown out of court due to misuse, and lack of training on the authorities part. You could always hope the case gets dropped through a technicality,has happened 2 people I know.

As far as people jumping on the self-righteous band wagon and cutting the OP down with replies equating to him being an irresponsible idiot, read his initial post and you will see he purposely avoided driving till the afternoon to avoid this very situation. As is common on boards, its very easy for the 'holier than thou' types to wade in and cast aspersions about anyone for their own small sense of satisfaction and supremacy at someone else's mistake. OP I can see how this situation would upset you, as you tried to do the right thing, and still broke the law.

I'm not sure what the situation is with the initial arrest when drink driving, whether you are supposed to get a secondary test,either urine or blood, but i think if the concentration level in urine n blood is above the limit,but marginally you can get a lesser sentence.
http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/drink-driving-law.html

Anyway best of luck.

+1

flanum wrote: »

Yes for that! speed restricters for the win!! what are our road taxes being used on? id be up for that, im sure if you could take the cars not being able to go faster than the speed limit then you might find a lot less deaths on the road, im sure if you look at the stats, i doubt if there is many fatalities of monday morning, let alone afternoon, id say most road deaths are facterd to speed.
i drive a van, i doubt if it could sorpass 100 let alone 110. id like to see restrictors enforced into all cars, sure there is no need for anything faster.

:rolleyes: Eh no. Just no. The speed of the average car has gone up massively over the last 20 years and there are more cars on the road, yet the road death rate has plateaued or gone down. The average family car of today is faster with more horsepower and better brakes than many sports cars of not too long ago. If "speed kills" to that degree you would expect the deaths to go up accordingly. You don't.

In any case 100 kph running head on into another restricted car doing 100kph and you're still dead. A hell of a lot, if not most accidents happen on country back roads in the middle of the night. A 100 kph restriction will do sweet fúck all to stop that.

Most road deaths are due to alcohol(and other drugs) over exuberant and over confident youth(usually male) and general lack of attention. Then of course the shít happens factor and pure idiocy. Put restrictors in cars and it would give carte blanche to some to think they were "safer". I know people who are quite literally too dumb to be given command of a car. Others while not thick suffer from a basic lack of coordination.

You want lower road deaths? More not less drink driving tests, drug tests, more restrictions on those with medical conditions not covered already, that may effect driving ability. Stricter criteria for getting a licence in the first place would be a biggy. I'd be checking basic intelligence and awareness, reaction time and basic coordination. Retests every few years. Get done for speeding? retest. Getting on in years? retest(while allowing for age). Fail those? take the bus.

Morgans

You were unlucky Flanum. No two ways about it. Ive noticed that there is a rush to get on the high horse once anything like this is mentioned on boards. Maybe no-body should drive to work after a night out. You took every reasonable precaution and unless you had a breathalyser on hand before you went behind the wheel.

yeah i know, im not playing victim here, just think its crazy that if i had gone to work in the morning when i deffo would have been over, id have been ok.

But you don't know that. For all you know, they could have decided to set up the checkpoint at 7am that day and you would have still been caught, so there's no point in thinking that really. It sucks that you tried to do the right thing, but the fact is you were over the limit, and as others have said, you didn't have to drink so much if you knew you were driving. It is crap that there's no public transport in rural areas, I lived in one myself for years, but you can't really use that as an excuse.

It is pretty scary though to think how many people I know who drive at 11am or so, after having been drinking late. They even look hungover and drowsy but assume its grand because they've had some sleep! I don't think most people are sure at all how long they need to het it out of their system. I'm going to warn them now anyway!

zAbbo

flanum wrote: »

yeah i know, im not playing victim here, just think its crazy that if i had gone to work in the morning when i deffo would have been over, id have been ok.

You might have been OK, but what about eveyrone else, if you were over the limit 4 hours later, it wouldn't be safe driving at 7am.

At 55mg you were waaaaaaaay over the limit, even 12 hours later, which indicates you had quite a lot to drink the day(s) before hand.

The OP has admitted to drinking all day Saturday, most of Sunday, and having 6 cans Sunday evening, going to bed at 12, and hoping to be under the limit is crazy.

Those 6 cans would be around 15 units alone. if you had of skipped the 6 pack, maybe you would have been OK for 12 the next day.

Your backstory is irrelevant, the facts are you were driving at nearly 60% over the legal limit, and in typical Irish twisted logic, blame the system and think you'd be better off not getting caught, rather than doing the decent thing and taking the necessary precautions (correctly!).

chickenhawk

Hard luck OP it is one of my biggest fears and even though i'm careful (leaving an hour per unit and eating helps) it sometimes is hard to know. I wouldn't have any sympathy for you but you tried to do the right thing.

As for the person who says cars should be limited. First of all they would have to be limited to 120km for the motorways and 120km at the wrong time will kill! Also if you had the cars limited to anything less then if you were trying to pass someone out who is doing 85km then it would take so long to pass out, chances are, someone would be coming at you in the other lane.

ninebeanrows

Should have insisted on getting a blood test OP, that wudda given you that extra 2 hours. Unlucky.

duchess

I'm sorry but well over the limit. I drive for a living and the safest way is just to never drink the night before or maybe have just one glass of wine with dinner but never a feed of drink. It's a pain in the ass but has to be done too many deaths on the roads today and i don't ever want to be part of it.

gcgirl

Stekelly wrote: »

Who said I had a problem with people having their own? I have a problem with expecting them to be provided for them by the government.



What has feelign ok got to do with it? I get the impression from your posts that when you added up the number of pints, divided by the number of hours (sleeping slows the process afaik) that you could now see why you were over the limit.

Lets say for instance that 12 pint taken 30 mins before the breadth test results in you blowing a 55 on the test. Whats the difference between that and your 55? None because the same level of alcohol is there.

What has where I live got to do with anything? If I can go out and get home without drink driving I will, if cant I dont. I drink. Quite often I drink a lot, but I deliberatly avoind drinking on Sunday nights and other week nights. If I havent got money for a taxi, I dont go out in the first place. TBH it doesnt bother me not going out, I dont really need to drink that often.

LAst Saturday I went out fot the Utd -Chelsea game. I decided I wanted to play my game of indoor at 5:30 so I didnt drink and drank coke instead so I could drive and play. I was in the pub for a good 6 hours without drinking, it's really not hard.

Sorry to hear you got caught out ! But i'm going to echoe the above but due to Gaa/rugby commitments most nights i'm on the diet coke and have a fantastic time !

Oswald Osbourne

The positive thing to take from this is at least the OP is off the road now.