i got bagged the next day!!

vote4pedro

Anyone have the statistics for how many of our road deaths come at 12 noon or later in the afternoon? Also, are Gardaí under any requirement to fulfill a certain number of hours checking for drink driving? I know if I was them I'd rather be doing checks at 1pm rather than 3am.

As for someone earlier disregarding the idea of people being given personal breathalyser...while perhaps that would be cost prohibitive, I don't see why a Garda couldn't administer a breathalyser on request. At electric picnic last year there were a que of people in the morning asking gardai for a test before they got in their cars just to be doubly sure. The Garda refused and said that it was that its up to the individual to look after themselves, but that they'd better be sure there's no drink in them as there'll be numerous checkpoints on the roads surrounding electric picnic.
Common sense policing ftw

Dave!

Sorry to hear that OP. Might be better off starting a thread looking for suggestions of how to remedy this, how to work, etc. You're just asking for the high horse merchants to post in here.

Pete4779

I've done a breathalyser on myself a few times and even after a few bottles, I am nowhere near the limit, and withing 10 mins or, I don't register at all. However, it depends on how much you drink. If you are the sip-a-bottle-over-an hour type, you'd probably remain sober and under the limit.

For you to be over the limit at lunchtime on Monday, you must have had an astonishing amount of alcohol throughout Saturday and Sunday. Any idea how many you had?

Dragan

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!

You are just pissed off because you got burned. You tried to do the right thing but were still driving over the limit because you were working off conjecture and assumption.

No ones fault but your own mate.

Cianos

If I was in the OPs position I definitely would have thought that I'd be safely under the limit. Although I never drink that much, so maybe I would have been grand.

I think the best solution is for anyone who ever feels they're touching the line on this to get themselves a breathalyser kit.

JC 2K3

orestes wrote: »

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.

Really? In my eyes it's just a random figure they keep gradually lowering to win public approval.

And if the government are going to enforce such a low limit, people are going to need personal breathylisers, and they really need to stress that everyone should have one, if they don't give everyone one.

Overheal

or you know, you all could just quit drinking. you'd think the staggering road death toll would be enough convincing but no.

harsh on the OP obviously but you know now where you went wrong with the weekend.

sure after a 21st i got about 3 hours sleep before a long haul flight but while i felt sober enough, logically I wasnt. There was an open bar and I let myself go nuts on Jameson dont worry I wasnt doing any driving unless you count pushing luggage. we may never notice it ourselves but it can still impair us.

jetsonx

orestes wrote: »

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.

Oh I love this self-righteous, smug and mealy-mouthed comment...Did Orestes ever drive the morning after a night out I wonder?

Keano

DaveMcG wrote: »

Sorry to hear that OP. Might be better off starting a thread looking for suggestions of how to remedy this, how to work, etc. You're just asking for the high horse merchants to post in here.

I will have to +1 we got no thanks in AH!

OP you story is not unique but just move on try resolve the situation as best you can.

kaizersoze1980

Keano A Legend wrote: »

I will have to +1 we got no thanks in AH!

OP you story is not unique but just move on try resolve the situation as best you can.

I agree.

What a shower of miserable high horse riding idiots we've seen post in here.

The lad thought he was doing the right thing, he booked a half day off work for f *ck sake, how many of you people would even do that?

Unlucky OP, put it down to experience, and don't mind what these self righteous c*nts say, 90% of them probably would have drove the next morning at 9am unlike you who tried to do the sensible thing.

abcxyz123

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

I agree.

What a shower of miserable high horse riding idiots we've seen post in here.

The lad thought he was doing the right thing, he booked a half day off work for f *ck sake, how many of you people would even do that?

Unlucky OP, put it down to experience, and don't mind what these self righteous c*nts say, 90% of them probably would have drove the next morning at 9am unlike you who tried to do the sensible thing.

+1

cuckoo

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

I agree.

What a shower of miserable high horse riding idiots we've seen post in here.

The lad thought he was doing the right thing, he booked a half day off work for f *ck sake, how many of you people would even do that?

Unlucky OP, put it down to experience, and don't mind what these self righteous c*nts say, 90% of them probably would have drove the next morning at 9am unlike you who tried to do the sensible thing.

Great view from up here on the high horse, btw. I've made dodgy decisions myself after a few drinks (beer goggles anyone?), but cannot sympathise with the OP on this one.

The sensible thing for the OP to have done would have been to drink less on the Sunday, or to have not driven. Simple as.

There's been a lot of posts here that say the OP was 'unlucky' - i think they were lucky that they weren't involved in an accident, and were giving the 'i felt sober enough' story to a guard as part of the investigation into a road death.

Miss Fluff

Ah you poor thing OP, awful when you were trying to do the right thing too. I work with a girl who is from down the country and was staying with her family last weekend. Garda checks are so frequent in that part of the world that they have a breathaliser in the house - it was 7pm on the Sunday evening (after being out the night before) before she was ok to drive to Dublin. She felt fine all day too. Just goes to show you that eventhough you feel fine you're judgement can still be impaired for ages after. Hard lesson learned OP. In saying that, I guess you would feel a million times worse had you knocked down a child.

AlmightyCushion

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

I agree.

What a shower of miserable high horse riding idiots we've seen post in here.

The lad thought he was doing the right thing, he booked a half day off work for f *ck sake, how many of you people would even do that?

Unlucky OP, put it down to experience, and don't mind what these self righteous c*nts say, 90% of them probably would have drove the next morning at 9am unlike you who tried to do the sensible thing.

Less of the abuse.

Tigrrrr

flanum wrote: »

it came out at 55. the limit apparently is 35.
im ****ed.

55mg/ml is quite a high figure man, and you would have been visibly drunk at that level of intoxication, with altered or slurred speech and dodgy balance.

Take your conviction on the chin when you get it, and be glad that's as far as the damage goes.

Mossy Monk

Oh ffs. You were caught drunk driving. It matters not what preventative measures you took. You were still over the limit. Tough **** really.

AckwelFoley

Sorry flanum.. thats pretty tough.

On appeal you will have your licence back in 6 months

flanum

its gotten to the stage now im totally paranoid, didnt drink at weekend, bought 4 cans heineken today, just nervously having the first one now, i have to go to work at 7:45am. i should be ok by then if i just drink 3 cans now i think.

Jimbo

Tigrrrr wrote: »

55mg/ml is quite a high figure man, and you would have been visibly drunk at that level of intoxication, with altered or slurred speech and dodgy balance.

Take your conviction on the chin when you get it, and be glad that's as far as the damage goes.

I agree. Dosen't 35mg/ml equate to approx. 2 pints? No wonder you didn't have a hangover yet. Did you feel hungover afterwards?

ninty9er

Tigrrrr wrote: »

55mg/ml is quite a high figure man.

That's definitely not a mg/100ml reading. there are a number of readings but the mg/100ml is 80 IIRC, any Gardaí around that could confirm?

JC 2K3

I think the limit is 35micrograms/100ml of breath and 80mg/100ml of blood.

Considering alcohol vapourises at 78 degrees celcius, if your breath was 55mg/100ml alcohol, and your mouth wasn't on fire, it would mean alcohol would be pouring out of your mouth

ninty9er

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think the limit is 35micrograms/100ml of breath and 80mg/100ml of blood.

Considering alcohol vapourises at 78 degrees celcius, if your breath was 55mg/100ml alcohol, and your mouth wasn't on fire, it would mean alcohol would be pouring out of your mouth

That's probably what I was getting at.

seamus

Weathercheck wrote: »

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

The choice is for the Garda to make.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And if the government are going to enforce such a low limit, people are going to need personal breathylisers, and they really need to stress that everyone should have one, if they don't give everyone one.

It's not the government's responsibility to help people stay within the law. People should want to. The relevant bodies and the media have been stressing for the last two years that people need to watch out for the day after, and there are personal breathalysers available in almost every chemist in the country. It's not like people are being restricted, or that people are being randomly pulled out of their cars for nothing.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think the limit is 35micrograms/100ml of breath and 80mg/100ml of blood.

Yep. This tends to confuse people. Personal breathalysers (or at least the ones I've seen), try to estimate your blood alcohol content from your breath sample. However the ones the Gardai use, show the alcohol content in the breath.

su_dios

The RSA should make a campaign about incidents like this! I'm sure..like the OP, there are many people unaware of how long it might actually take for it to clear out of your system. In fact..just ask a few of your friends next time your in the pub and most of them will give you a different answer.

Although the OP was over the limit, had he have known he wouldn't have driven. If there were successful campaigns about this on tv then maybe this incident would not have happened. This is hardly comparable to someone who gets in his car in the pub carpark and drives home despite being over the limit. It was not intentional, and we should not be so hard on the OP. It was a mistake and thanks to his mistake it may have made plenty of boards readers aware of how easy it is to make this mistake.

Volvoboy

I'm not going to ride in on the high horses here but lots of people think they are ok to drive even when the soberest person can plainly see they are pissed.

A drunk driver hit me on St Stevens night just gone and i'm still in physio for my injurys to my back.

Your reactions would'nt still be ''fine'' regardless of how you felt.

The fella who hit me felt fine and was 2 times over the legal limit.


You got caught plain and simple, regardless of how you ''felt''.

Fall_Guy

Very hard luck i have to say, OP. Personally if i've had a heavy weekend i wouldn't normally feel up to driving until afternoon or evening on the monday, but last weekend i drove from dublin to limerick at a similar time to you after what sounds like a similarly heavy weekend (all be it an earlier finish on the sunday!). Chances are i would have been no different to you if i was tested. and i'm sure, whether they would admit it or not, some of the less sympathetic posters in this thread have unwittingly drove over the limit following a night out on occasion.

Needless to say i'll be taking every precaution in the future, but i do sympathise with you.

for those who are almost attacking the guy for venting his frustration here, a little persepective wouldn't go amiss. the man had been asleep for the guts of twelve hours, i for one don't blame him for thinking he would be clear in the morning/afternoon. I'm not saying he deserves to get off scot-free due to ignorance, but i do feel that he was unlucky rather than some careless fool with no regard for the safety of others as some would seem to think.

Cunny-Funt

ffs the guy stopped drinking at half 12 and went to bed. And went to work about 10 hours later.

He wasn't knocking back a bottle of vodka while on the road.

What happened to the OP was BS.

*Tripper*

Sorry to hear that Flanum, sucks big time.

Supercell

Jesus, many a time I've left driving the next day until around midday thinking I was "safe" then, think I have to put a stop to that.
Hard luck OP, sounds like you were trying to do the right thing, hope it works out for you in the end.
Think I'm going to get one of those home breathalisers - I live in the country too and loosing my license would mean having to move house which just isnt on at all.

Guy:Incognito

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

What happened to the OP was BS.

Whats the difference between him being over the limit with his reading and a guy drinking a couple of cans , getting stopped 10 mins later and blowing the same reading as the op?

Heres a clue: nothing. same level of drunkeness.

If the OP had been in an accident and run over someone in your family, I'm sure him story would be pretty irrelevant to you.

cooperguy

The OP did better than most people would. By right 5 pints finished at 12 the previous night should have had the OP under the limit. You were very unlucky OP.

I have two further points 1) These breathalysers everybody keeps talking about are pointless. Breathalysers need to be calibrated regularly or else they are not accurate. The ones you buy in the shop might work once or twice but are no good after that. The Gardaí calibrate theirs at least once a week

2) The speed limiters people are going on about are ridicules. Most crashes do not happen because of cars being driven over the speed limit. This was said by one of the chief road crash investigators on today fm only last week. Inappropriate speed limits on some minor roads are a huge problem though. As well as all that sometimes it is necessasary to be able to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.

Spook_ie

Lots of people saying get a personal breath tester, do you not think that will have people drinking till they are just under the limit. In my view if you're driving then don't drink .... period

And with 25000+ taxis and hackneys in Ireland theres no excuse anyway :rolleyes:

lodgepole

A two year driving ban for the original poster is unfair. That he was breaking the law shouldn't be in dispute, but a "tough ****" attitude is nonsense, given how much two years off the road will effect his life. People mention personal respobsibility as if had he been in an accident it would have been attributed to the alcohol, which isn't necessarily the case. A hefty fine, a mandatory course... Somebody asked what the difference was between the OP and somebody necking two cans and jumping into a car. The difference is intent, and the punishment should be dealt out accordingly.

Guy:Incognito

aidanpower wrote: »

Somebody asked what the difference was between the OP and somebody necking two cans and jumping into a car. The difference is intent, and the punishment should be dealt out accordingly.

Intent has no standing in it. Theres a limit, he was over it. That makes it fairly black and white. Anyone could stand up and say they stopped drinking hours ago and thought they were under. Who's to say they arent lieing?

For all a gard knows the op was at the party, got up, horribly hung over and decided to have a curer in the morning.

Theres no real way to tell if someone had far too much the night before (op) or had a can or two the in the morning before the test, Hence the very simple limit and punishement if your over said linit. Either scenario is as bad as the other, and again, if you or a family member was in a crash and a gard told you the other person was over thelimit but that they said it was a hangover, would you be fine with that and just pass it off?

lodgepole

Stekelly wrote: »

Intent has no standing in it. Theres a limit, he was over it. That makes it fairly black and white. Anyone could stand up and say they stopped drinking hours ago and thought they were under. Who's to say they arent lieing?

A judge.

Guy:Incognito

aidanpower wrote: »

A judge.

A judge can have an opinion, he wasnt there and doesnt know. It's basically down to how well someone can lie. Doesnt make it true.

lodgepole

Isn't the job of a judge to use evidence to make a decision? As in, "you necked a couple of cans and then went driving, two year ban" or "you made an effort but still broke the law, a fine and a mandatory course in safe driving".

Or should we hand that power over to the Gardai?

Guy:Incognito

aidanpower wrote: »

Isn't the job of a judge to use evidence to make a decision? As in, "you necked a couple of cans and then went driving, two year ban" or "you made an effort but still broke the law, a fine and a mandatory course in safe driving".

Or should we hand that power over to the Gardai?

The only eveidence in the scenario is what the person says. Two people with the same hard luck story show up in court with the same reading from the test. One knows he had a couple of cans that morning and the other knows he drank his own weight in vodka over the preceedign couple of days. How does thew judge knwo the difference?

Why should there be a difference? They are both over the limit when stopped. When the alcohol was drunk is irrelevant, the result is the same.

JC 2K3

Stekelly wrote: »

Hence the very simple limit and punishement if your over said linit.

But if a driver can't tell if they're over the limit and can therefore only make a vague guess as to the amount of alcohol in their bloodstream, it's hardly a fair system.

lodgepole

Stekelly wrote: »

The only eveidence in the scenario is what the person says. Two people with the same hard luck story show up in court with the same reading from the test. One knows he had a couple of cans that morning and the other knows he drank his own weight in vodka over the preceedign couple of days. How does thew judge knwo the difference?

Why should there be a difference? They are both over the limit when stopped. When the alcohol was drunk is irrelevant, the result is the same.

There's potentially lots of evidence. There's the fact that he had the morning off work. He possibly has a taxi receipt or bus ticket from getting home the previous day. The Garda in question appears to know him and can testify as to whether the story is believable or not. There is no difference in the law that has been broken, but there should be a difference in the punishment that is doled out.

If all of what the original poster said is true, then a two year driving ban is far too severe a punishment.

Guy:Incognito

aidanpower wrote: »

There's potentially lots of evidence. There's the fact that he had the morning off work. He possibly has a taxi receipt or bus ticket from getting home the previous day. The Garda in question appears to know him and can testify as to whether the story is believable or not. There is no difference in the law that has been broken, but there should be a difference in the punishment that is doled out.

If all of what the original poster said is true, then a two year driving ban is far too severe a punishment.

I still dont agree. The result of an accident would be the same in both cases. The law shoudl be strict on these things. The OP knew he had to go to work on Monday morning yet spent the weekend drinking, then after leaving early went home and drank more.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But if a driver can't tell if they're over the limit and can therefore only make a vague guess as to the amount of alcohol in their bloodstream, it's hardly a fair system.

Over compensate then there wont be a problem. I dont drink at all if I know I have to do anything involving driving in at least the first part of the following day. Better safe than sorry hasnt failed me yet.

It is a fair system btw , no one forces you to drink.

lodgepole

Stekelly wrote: »

I still dont agree. The result of an accident would be the same in both cases. The law shoudl be strict on these things. The OP knew he had to go to work on Monday mornign yet spent the weekend drinking.

Afternoon actually, not morning. Of course the result of the accident would be the same... But in the case of a fatal car accident, you don't just dole out a mandatory sentence... There is a trial where all factors are taken into consideration. I don't think every over the limit driver should be submitted to a trial at that level, but to have a mandatory two year ban is ludicrous. This will potentially put the OP into the red for years to come, and that's unfair. The law should allow leniency in cases where it is applicable.

Guy:Incognito

aidanpower wrote: »

Afternoon actually, not morning. Of course the result of the accident would be the same... But in the case of a fatal car accident, you don't just dole out a mandatory sentence... There is a trial where all factors are taken into consideration. I don't think every over the limit driver should be submitted to a trial at that level, but to have a mandatory two year ban is ludicrous. This will potentially put the OP into the red for years to come, and that's unfair. The law should allow leniency in cases where it is applicable.

We dont have to be pedantic here, he was caught either just before or just after 12. Specifing afternoons kind of suggests 3 or 4 o'clock, which it wasnt.

Its supposed to be a deterrant. It's obviously not enough of one for a lot of people.

It's like all that crap of people getting leniencey because they need their car for work. IMO it worse for those people to be doing it in the first place because they know how much they need the car.

flanum

okay total paranoia here, but im going to bed at 1am. (an experiment), im about to finish my fourth and last can of heineken, i finished my first about 10pm, average 1 per hour since. ill get up with alarm at 7:35, i bought one of those disposable baggy breath test things, if i fail ill ring a taxi to work. if i fail then its time to re-evaluate my life and maybe contemplate getting my kidneys checked if they werent fit to process that!
ill post results 2morro evenin after work.


(edit to add, i havent drank in a week, so its just the 4 cans).

JC 2K3

Stekelly wrote: »

Over compensate then there wont be a problem. I dont drink at all if I know I have to do anything involving driving in at least the first part of the following day. Better safe than sorry hasnt failed me yet.

It is a fair system btw , no one forces you to drink.

Yes, but our culture revolves around alcohol, and people have busy lives. Ideally, everyone would be knowledgable and know how to overcompensate, but overcompensation doesn't mean much to your average driver. The OP's idea of overcompensation was to sleep for 12 hours, taking half a day off work.

Guy:Incognito

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, but our culture revolves around alcohol, and people have busy lives.

Bull. Mine doesnt. I am well able to choose when to drink and when not to. This whole alcohol culture is used as an axcuse for people not being adult enough to look after themselves and make decisions. People need to grow up and take responsibility.

If people have busy lives they should take tiem out from drinking to recharge and not get caught drink driving.

faceman

unlucky situation OP, no point in getting on your case here as you have enough problems ahead of you. The important point here is that you did what you believed to be the best thing to avoid breaking the law. Analogies comparing your situation to someone blatently breaking the law only further highlight a flaw in the system. (or I could use an analogy of u being a doctor on your way to save someone's life etc)

There is very little official guidance on next day alcohol limits. The gov has to take some responsibilty to educate people on a law that us being updated regularly. And before someone again says "no they shouldn't", give me one reason why it would be a bad thing? The gov provides guidance on credit cards, loans, what to do during nuclear fallout, so why not alcohol limits? The only official word is 'don't drink and drive'.

I have a big issue with enforcement for traffic laws and the alcohol limit is one of them. There is a reduction on the cards but it seems to me to be a publicity stunt. I've never been breathalysed. If the limit had been reduced years ago n I was drunk driving at some stage, would it have helped improve road safety? Of course not. Garda prescence and enforcement are the only things that will make a difference

On a side note there are proposalsat the moment to review the blanket 1 sentence fits all punishment to a tiered approach. A number of doctors have also voiced concern at the proposed reductions

Thomas_S_Hunterson

My advice: get a bike (assuming you're not very very far away from your place of work). It might take you an hour to get to work but it's better than losing your job if you lose your licence.

And you'll be fit as a fiddle in no time.

lodgepole

Stekelly wrote: »

We dont have to be pedantic here, he was caught either just before or just after 12. Specifing afternoons kind of suggests 3 or 4 o'clock, which it wasnt.

I wasn't going for pedantic, he took the morning off of work which is contrary to what you said about him. If lunchtime is more accurate for you, I can go with lunchtime.

Its supposed to be a deterrant. It's obviously not enough of one for a lot of people.

It has worked for a lot of people. But we shouldn't be over-punishing people for the sake of it being a deterrant, it's still effective even if everybody doesn't get taken off the roads for two years at first sign of a failed test.

It's like all that crap of people getting leniencey because they need their car for work. IMO it worse for those people to be doing it in the first place because they know how much they need the car.

Personally I think he should get leniency because of the facts leading directly up to the failed test, not because he needs a car (though I suspect he needs the car for more than just work, living rurally). But I can't get behind the idea that he is as worthy of a two year ban as somebody who knowingly drove while over the limit.

JC 2K3

faceman wrote: »

There is very little official guidance on next day alcohol limits. The gov has to take some responsibilty to educate people on a law that us being updated regularly.

But sure if we all followed the government's advised daily/weekly alcohol limits, we'd all be fine.... :rolleyes: