i got bagged the next day!!

Guy:Incognito

faceman wrote: »

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

Who said guidance shouldnt be given (although I do refer back to my post about taking responsibility for yourself) , I objected to people expecting the government to dole out a couple of million free breadthalisers.
People are well able to jump on to the internet nowadays and find out about pretty much anything yet people want to bury their heads on issues when it suites them and blame the government on not educating them. The government wont be able to tell you anything you cant find out online anyway, it'll just take longer and be more expensive to wait for them to do it for you.

nkay1985

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.

So what would you define "the first part of the following morning"? Because it seems to me that the OP took the exact same precaution as you would have.

Stekelly wrote: »

Better safe than sorry hasnt failed me yet.

And with regard to it not having failed you yet, how many times have you taken a breath test the day following drinking. I know that I've been driving for over three years and have never been tested. Not once.

So, unless you are one of the people who has gone and gotten themselves a breathalyser (which you must have done, seeing as it's so easy according to you), you can't know whether your policy has failed you yet.

The OP was being conscientious and making an effort to be responsible, and it's turned around and bit him in the a$s.

Blisterman

What a load of crap.

You'd most likely be better off driving slightly over the limit, in daylight, having had a full nights sleep, then you would be driving home at night, not having drank at all, but being tired.

Most accidents are caused by people waaaayy over the limit. Not someone who still had a bit of alochol in their system from the night before.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Blisterman wrote: »

Most accidents are caused by people waaaayy over the limit. Not someone who still had a bit of alochol in their system from the night before.

I'm guessing that someone in all the countries that have introduced super-low alcohol driving limits has done a bit more research on the matter than you.

faceman

Stekelly wrote: »

Who said guidance shouldnt be given (although I do refer back to my post about taking responsibility for yourself) , I objected to people expecting the government to dole out a couple of million free breadthalisers.
People are well able to jump on to the internet nowadays and find out about pretty much anything yet people want to bury their heads on issues when it suites them and blame the government on not educating them. The government wont be able to tell you anything you cant find out online anyway, it'll just take longer and be more expensive to wait for them to do it for you.

I have no issue with the fact the OP was done for being over the limit. I would challenge whether he was "drunk driving" but he was over the limit.

As far as he was concerned he exercised his best judgement. Now while that was good enough (or good enough for many of the uneducated) it still highlights that despite his best efforts and intention, he was over the limit. Had he been educated correctly, it seems he may not have been in that situation.

I dont think sending a breathalyser to every home is necessary, but a fact sheet with charts outlining what a unit is, and giving some detail on how the body breaks down alcohol would go a long way. The over the coutner breathalysers arent worth much. The cost of a reliable one ranges for €120 - €200.

The current system criminalises people who are doing their best not to be criminals. Thats not a fair system.

As for your comments about going on the internet, well thats not really the best thing to do. The internet isnt regulated. Is there an irish website, with good credentials, that gives detail on this? Im sure there is somewhere, although i have never come across it.

Not to sound pedantic, but you compared the OP's situation to a guy downing 2 pints and hopping in his car 10 minutes later. He wouldnt show up as over the limit right away by the way dependant on the circumstaces. Lets hope no google searches bring anyone to your post so they can put it to the test!

seamus

Blisterman wrote: »

Most accidents are caused by people waaaayy over the limit. Not someone who still had a bit of alochol in their system from the night before.

Not entirely true. There are five main "peaks" of road deaths - Midnight (coming home from pub), 3am (coming home from club), 8am (leaving for work), 2pm and 6pm (leaving to go home).

The 8am, 2pm and 6pm peaks, indicate that there is a strong correlation between tiredness and road deaths. While people may not necessarily be over the limit at 8am and 2pm, drinking prevents you from getting a decent night's sleep and no doubt contributes to the deaths at these times, even if people are under the limit.

The best defence is to not drink heavily the day before, if you know you need to drive the next. If you drink heavily, then you won't sleep properly, regardless of how early you go to bed. The complexities of breaking down alcohol can also be frustrated by whatever else you're taking into your body - the liver may "put off" processing the alcohol while it breaks down other substances. So while you may feel OK at lunchtime, your liver may not have yet processed 3 of those 12 pint you downed yesterday because of something you ate/took before you went to bed.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

seamus wrote: »

Not entirely true. There are five main "peaks" of road deaths - Midnight (coming home from pub), 3am (coming home from club), 8am (leaving for work), 2pm and 6pm (leaving to go home).

The 8am, 2pm and 6pm peaks, indicate that there is a strong correlation between tiredness and road deaths. While people may not necessarily be over the limit at 8am and 2pm, drinking prevents you from getting a decent night's sleep and no doubt contributes to the deaths at these times, even if people are under the limit.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, but it is worth noting that US military sleep researchers have found that all people (even people who haven't been drinking) have peaks of tiredness at 3am and 2pm. Even for people who have had the necessary amount of sleep.

kizzyr

JC 2K3 wrote: »

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.

or people could just not drink if they are going to be driving the next day. It is possible to go out and have a good time without drinking.

JC 2K3

Talking practically, in terms of saving lives, are you suggesting that telling people "guys, just don't drink if you're driving the next day, you don't need to drink to have fun!" is really a sensible policy?

Golferx

The OP seems convinced he did the "right thing" and seems to be under some illusion he is hard done by. Simple facts are that he only did 50% of the right thing, and didn't verify he was OK to drive when he did.
It was his responsibility to drink responsibly, and his responsibility to verify he was no longer under the influence the following day.

It makes me laugh to hear so many calls for someone, somewhere, to make sure people don't drive when drunk (which the OP was), when it was the simple responsibility of one person to verify everything was in order.

Ireland is a country obsessed with alcohol, and some of the replies to this thread bear this out. If someone needs to consume so much alcohol to be still drunk so longer after their "session", they have a problem. A few months off the road will be a chilling reminder to someone that they have not been unfortunate, but lucky.

kizzyr

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Talking practically, in terms of saving lives, are you suggesting that telling people "guys, just don't drink if you're driving the next day, you don't need to drink to have fun!" is really a sensible policy?[/. IQUOTE]

How is it not? As a nation we really are obsessed with drinking and believing that alcohol (often in large quantities) is necessary to having fun. Overall I think it is a silly immature attitude.
Take the OPs story. He was a fleadh which is a fun event in and of itself. He decided to drink heavily in the belief that it would make an already fun event even more fun. How this works given that drinking alcohol means you need to go to the toilet more frequently (so missing some of the events), dulls your senses (so dulling the music and events you went there to experience in the first place) and so would actually lessen the enjoyment of the fleadh.
Then not content with having (admitted by himself) spent the weekend drinking heavily at the fleadh, he drank a further 6 cans at home that evening.
I am not putting forward a suggestion that people never drink again, I have no problems with people having and enjoying a drink. I do however have a problem with the total over indulgence and the way in which people wear their hangovers as a badge of honor and pride. Thatis silly.

faceman

Golferx wrote: »

The OP seems convinced he did the "right thing" and seems to be under some illusion he is hard done by. Simple facts are that he only did 50% of the right thing, and didn't verify he was OK to drive when he did.
It was his responsibility to drink responsibly, and his responsibility to verify he was no longer under the influence the following day.

No one is doubting an individual's responsibility. But again, how does he verify he is ok? Unreliable over the counter breathalyers? Ask the garda to breathalyse him before commencing his journey? (they will refuse) Phone the RSA and ask them to advise?

Again Im not trying to justify those who are fond of a drink here. Its far to easy to sit on a high horse and tell the OP he should have known better, when its clear he didnt. The reality of the situation is the OP's scenario is very common. Due to poor prescense and enforcement, we dont hear of it that often, but it doesnt make the problem go away.

So whats your solution?

joejoem

kizzyr wrote: »

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Talking practically, in terms of saving lives, are you suggesting that telling people "guys, just don't drink if you're driving the next day, you don't need to drink to have fun!" is really a sensible policy?[/. IQUOTE]

How is it not? As a nation we really are obsessed with drinking and believing that alcohol (often in large quantities) is necessary to having fun. Overall I think it is a silly immature attitude.
Take the OPs story. He was a fleadh which is a fun event in and of itself. He decided to drink heavily in the belief that it would make an already fun event even more fun. How this works given that drinking alcohol means you need to go to the toilet more frequently (so missing some of the events), dulls your senses (so dulling the music and events you went there to experience in the first place) and so would actually lessen the enjoyment of the fleadh.
Then not content with having (admitted by himself) spent the weekend drinking heavily at the fleadh, he drank a further 6 cans at home that evening.
I am not putting forward a suggestion that people never drink again, I have no problems with people having and enjoying a drink. I do however have a problem with the total over indulgence and the way in which people wear their hangovers as a badge of honor and pride. Thatis silly.

Could we please keep it down, this is not helping my hangover at all.

Golferx

faceman wrote: »

No one is doubting an individual's responsibility. But again, how does he verify he is ok? Unreliable over the counter breathalyers? Ask the garda to breathalyse him before commencing his journey? (they will refuse) Phone the RSA and ask them to advise?

With all due respect, that is his problem, and his problem only. If he cannot verify his sobriety, they he should not drive. Simple, really.

It is not the responsibility of either the Gardai or the RSA to provide such a service.

kizzyr

joejoem wrote: »

kizzyr wrote: »

Could we please keep it down, this is not helping my hangover at all.

Your hangover must be very bad, I didn't shout that much at all really:D Just remember not to drive anywhere today;)

kizzyr

Golferx wrote: »

With all due respect, that is his problem, and his problem only. If he cannot verify his sobriety, they he should not drive. Simple, really.

It is not the responsibility of either the Gardai or the RSA to provide such a service.

+1

Blisterman

seamus wrote: »

Not entirely true. There are five main "peaks" of road deaths - Midnight (coming home from pub), 3am (coming home from club), 8am (leaving for work), 2pm and 6pm (leaving to go home).

That doesn't prove anything. Of course there's going to be a peak in road deaths at 8am, 2pm and 6pm. There's more people on the road and pedestrians around at those times than any other.

JC 2K3

kizzyr wrote: »

How is it not?

Saving lives by being realistic and practical vs. taking an unrealistic moral highground and expecting people to adhere to it? You tell me.

seamus

Roundtower2 wrote: »

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, but it is worth noting that US military sleep researchers have found that all people (even people who haven't been drinking) have peaks of tiredness at 3am and 2pm. Even for people who have had the necessary amount of sleep.

Interesting to know. I was wondering where the 2pm peak came from, I assumed that the 2pm peak was people who had been out drinking and were feeling the effects of lack of sleep.

Blisterman

Probably because people get tired after eating lunch.

cooperguy

Golferx wrote: »

With all due respect, that is his problem, and his problem only. If he cannot verify his sobriety, they he should not drive. Simple, really.

It is not the responsibility of either the Gardai or the RSA to provide such a service.

How could he have done that any better than he did. He stopped drinking at 12 the previous night and took a half day off work. Even the maths that the government say to do of 2 hours per pint was adhered to! He also felt perfectly capable of driving. He took all the reasonable precautions without being able to take a breathalyser test

Jigsaw

Hard luck OP. However, to put a positive spin on things, if cycling to work is a viable option, this could be a great opportunity to get in shape. I can imagine how you feel, especially if you live in a rural area. Hopefully you will just get a one year ban. It is black and white - you broke the law but it is clear from your actions that compliance with the law was your intention.

To all the high horsers, there is no question that the OP is responsible for his actions but can none of you see the distinction between someone like the OP who took several steps to ensure that he would be complying with the law, and someone who rolls out of a pub totally locked and gets into a car. Get a life tbh.

Malice

kizzyr wrote: »

As a nation we really are obsessed with drinking and believing that alcohol (often in large quantities) is necessary to having fun. Overall I think it is a silly immature attitude.
Take the OPs story. He was a fleadh which is a fun event in and of itself. He decided to drink heavily in the belief that it would make an already fun event even more fun. How this works given that drinking alcohol means you need to go to the toilet more frequently (so missing some of the events), dulls your senses (so dulling the music and events you went there to experience in the first place) and so would actually lessen the enjoyment of the fleadh.
Then not content with having (admitted by himself) spent the weekend drinking heavily at the fleadh, he drank a further 6 cans at home that evening.
I am not putting forward a suggestion that people never drink again, I have no problems with people having and enjoying a drink. I do however have a problem with the total over indulgence and the way in which people wear their hangovers as a badge of honor and pride. Thatis silly.

Well said kizzyr! I'm not much of a drinker, especially not at gigs/festivals or whatever. If I'm there to enjoy the music then that is what I will do, not queue up for ages to be charged an extortionate price for a plastic glass of lukewarm lager!
OP, sorry to hear you got done. Hopefully this is an experience that we will all learn from.

mdebets

kizzyr wrote: »

or people could just not drink if they are going to be driving the next day. It is possible to go out and have a good time without drinking.

That's just crazy talk.
Weren't you listening to the posters before and the vintner's federation. An Irish person can only have a good time if he is drunk.
no alcohol = no good time and you will stay at home and just be a sad old loney looser
and drink-driving, who really cares, as long as you had a good time

Golferx

cooperguy wrote: »

How could he have done that any better than he did. He stopped drinking at 12 the previous night and took a half day off work. Even the maths that the government say of 2 hours per pint was adhered to! He also felt perfectly capable of driving. He took all the reasonable precautions without being able to take a breathalyser test

in the event this is not a piss-take, I'll reply. It's obvious the OP was drunk and should have used a taxi/hackney, or bummed a lift.

Given the ludicrous amount he drank, it's wrong to say he took

all the reasonable precautions

.

Captain Darling

mdebets wrote: »

That's just crazy talk.
Weren't you listening to the posters before and the vintner's federation. An Irish person can only have a good time if he is drunk.
no alcohol = no good time and you will stay at home and just be a sad old loney looser
and drink-driving, who really cares, as long as you had a good time

Methinks you are wagging us.

mdebets

cooperguy wrote: »

How could he have done that any better than he did. He stopped drinking at 12 the previous night and took a half day off work. Even the maths that the government say of 2 hours per pint was adhered to! He also felt perfectly capable of driving. He took all the reasonable precautions without being able to take a breathalyser test

I always feel quite capable of driving when I'm drunk, but this doesn't mean that I am.
Have you ever seen one of these programs where they get people drunk pint by pint and then let them drive in a simulator after each pint? They mostly feel capable before they drive, but are quite shocked after.

kizzyr

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Saving lives by being realistic and practical vs. taking an unrealistic moral highground and expecting people to adhere to it? You tell me.

I'm not taking any kind of moral high ground. I am commenting on the fact that Irish people (for the most part) are convinced that a good time cannot be had unless excessive amounts of alcohol are consumed.
The OP, in his own story, told by himself, drank a lot of alcohol over the weekend, in fact he drank a lot of alcohol in his own house the night before he got stopped by the Gardaí. Excessive drinking causes lots of problems and costs lives in ways other than road deaths.
When it comes to saving lives on the roads, alcohol and people being over the limit is only one factor. Drugs are all to obviously used by many people and they (both the legally available and illegal drugs) affect people's ability to drive safely. Use of mobile phones when driving, people driving too close to the car in front, driving too fast, driving when tired etc all contribute to accidents on the roads and cost lives.

DonJose

flanum wrote: »

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.

I had to check the first post to see if you were the OP!!! You were caught drink driving, and how you are trying an experiment by drinking 4 cans and checking in the morning to see if you are over the limit using a mickey mouse device bought in your local centra. If you fail you'll take a taxi, if you pass you'll drive to work???

Steve

Jigsaw wrote: »

To all the high horsers, there is no question that the OP is responsible for his actions but can none of you see the distinction between someone like the OP who took several steps to ensure that he would be complying with the law, and someone who rolls out of a pub totally locked and gets into a car. Get a life tbh.

+1 to that.

Take something much more serious like murder.
Is it still murder if it was not intended?....... oh wait, it's not.

The singlemindedness in some of the high horse posts is pathetic.

kizzyr

stevec wrote: »

+1 to that.

Take something much more serious like murder.
Is it still murder if it was not intended?....... oh wait, it's not.

The singlemindedness in some of the high horse posts is pathetic.

Yeah....or maybe they have been involved in a crash with someone who was over the limit while driving, or lost a family member in such a way.........if so they are fully entitled to their seat on what you see as a high horse.
Being over the limit while driving is breaking the law simple as. The OP thinks he took adequate precautions by taking a half day at work and is now feeling hard done by because he got caught. Perhaps the precautions he should have (and indeed would have been better advised to take) would have been to simply drink less alcohol, even (throwing caution to the wind here) forgoing the 6 (seemingly necessary) cans he drank at home that night. Maybe then he wouldn't have been over the limit the next day.

JC 2K3

kizzyr wrote: »

The OP thinks he took adequate precautions by taking a half day at work and is now feeling hard done by because he got caught.

No, I reckon he's feeling hard done by because he clearly thought he'd be fine, and wasn't. Nothing to do with being caught, he willingly took the breath test, if you read his post properly:

flanum wrote: »

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.

kizzyr wrote: »

Perhaps the precautions he should have (and indeed would have been better advised to take) would have been to simply drink less alcohol

That's just it though, where was he supposed to get this advice?

johnnyrotten

longshanks wrote: »

what was it, a can of varnish?

Get a grip!

kizzyr

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No, I reckon he's feeling hard done by because he clearly thought he'd be fine, and wasn't. Nothing to do with being caught, he willingly took the breath test, if you read his post properly:


That's just it though, where was he supposed to get this advice?

I did read his post properly:) If he is feeling hard done by then he only has himself to blame. Yes he thought he'd be fine and he clearly (by the reading on the test) wasn't. He has no one to blame for this but himself, no one forced the drinks on him.
Re: where to get the advice...........basic common sense tells you that if you drink the amount he tells us he did, you cannot drive the next day at all. General guidelines are available but that is all they can ever be, general. Each body and each situation is different and so the rate of alcohol breakdown will be different.
Actually basic common sense tells us that drinking the amount of alcohol he drank in any given weekend is bad.

kida

Hold on - he failed and was proved to be over the limit so what does his opinion before that count for as he was proved to be drunk when making it.

faceman

Golferx wrote: »

With all due respect, that is his problem, and his problem only. If he cannot verify his sobriety, they he should not drive. Simple, really.

If i drank till late on a saturday night and didnt drink on a sunday, but hop in my car on a monday morning to drive to work still feeling tired, how do i verify my sobriety any more than the OP could?

Golferx wrote:

It is not the responsibility of either the Gardai or the RSA to provide such a service.

actually it is the responsibility of the RSA to promote safe and responsible driving.

kizzyr wrote: »

I'm not taking any kind of moral high ground. I am commenting on the fact that Irish people (for the most part) are convinced that a good time cannot be had unless excessive amounts of alcohol are consumed.

Thats not really the issue here, but it is an important point. Given there is a high dependency on alcohol as a form of social outlet, then more should be done to promote safe driving.

Lets look at it from a different angle. Lets say someone in the exact position the OP's was in drove to work and there was no check point. He knocks down and kills a pedestrian and is arrested for being over the limit etc. now as far as the individual was concerned, he took what he deemed necessary precautions, (rightly or wrongly) before getting behind the wheel based on the limited knowledge he had. Now if there was clearer guidelines on alcohol limits available, if the gov in some shape or form promoted it and the individual had have been aware of it, its fair to say an accident could have been avoided.

togster

Everyone should have one of those portable alcoholic tester thingys. We have one at our appartment and it has saved us lots of times. To the posters who said the OP took all reasonable precautions, well he didn't really. For me a reasonable precaution is having a portable alcoholic tester thingy so i can blow into it and check my own level. Then there's no doubt. I do have sympathy for the OP to a degree.

Popinjay

tbh

Important bit

Where's the 'intent'? I seem to recall a recent case in Ireland where a law was considered unConstitutional because there was no possibility for a defense of 'it was an honest mistake.'

OP had no intent to break the law.

kizzyr

togster wrote: »

Everyone should have one of those portable alcoholic tester thingys. We have one at our appartment and it has saved us lots of times. To the posters who said the OP took all reasonable precautions, well he didn't really. For me a reasonable precaution is having a portable alcoholic tester thingy so i can blow into it and check my own level. Then there's no doubt. I do have sympathy for the OP to a degree.

I think the best and safest thing to do is to drink less. The portable testers are not recognised by the Gardaí and if your one tells you your safe to drive but the Guard's one says you're over, their tester is going to be the one that is accepted.
A reasonable precaution is to drink less.

togster

Popinjay wrote: »

OP had no intent to break the law.

People who kill people accidentally have no intent either. i don't see your point

togster

kizzyr wrote: »

I think the best and safest thing to do is to drink less. The portable testers are not recognised by the Gardaí and if your one tells you your safe to drive but the Guard's one says you're over, their tester is going to be the one that is accepted.
A reasonable precaution is to drink less.

Meh that's not going to happen in the near future. the portable test would have told the OP he was a long way over the limit. Granted they are not recognised by the Guardai but it would give you a fair estimate of your level.

kev_s88

kizzyr wrote: »

I think the best and safest thing to do is to drink less. The portable testers are not recognised by the Gardaí and if your one tells you your safe to drive but the Guard's one says you're over, their tester is going to be the one that is accepted.
A reasonable precaution is to drink less.

and what about the people whose body takes longer to break down the units of alcohol.the guy who goes out and has 2 or 3 pints and stops drinking at 10pm but drives the next morning after taking a half day??? the guidelines that are set out are rubbish.everyones body varies.

the Government and the RSA are not doing enough to educate us on these sort of situations.and while im not expecting them to go around and give everyone their own breathalyser, im sure there is more they could be doing to prevent this happening.as the OP said he could have easily taken the full day off work but he didnt because he thought he would be allright.and apart from the home breathalysers (which are dodgy at best) there was no other way for him to know if he was over the limit

i do feel sympathy for the OP as its a sh1te situation to be in

kizzyr

togster wrote: »

Meh that's not going to happen in the near future. the portable test would have told the OP he was a long way over the limit. Granted they are not recognised by the Guardai but it would give you a fair estimate of your level.

I'm not saying that they're useless and in this case would have (I hope) told the OP that he was way over the limit.
As for saying "its not going to happen in the near future".........well why not? I remember many people (who smoked) being adamant that the smoking ban would never come in and that, if somehow it did come in, it would never be enforced..... I really don't see why it can't happen. If we teach our children and lead by example that being able to drink your own weight in pints isn't clever, funny, brave and is full of risks then it can happen.

seamus

Popinjay wrote: »

OP had no intent to break the law.

I'm not sure if the same criteria are being set out.

The OP knew what he was doing and understood the implications of his actions. Whether or not he "intended" to break the law, he understood that he may be breaking the law, he just assumed that he wasn't.

"Honest mistake" really only applies where the person on trial couldn't (or had no need to) verify whether or not they were breaking the law. The case that brought it up occured because someone had sex with an underage girl. His defence was that she told him the incorrect age and he accepted that as reasonable. That is, he wasn't "IDing" her before having sex, but he had no cause to suspect that he was even breaking the law, far from it.

To apply a drinking analogy, the defence may possibly be used if someone is handed a drink which has been inadvertently spiked (say with a shot of vodka), and after consuming it take to the road. They had no cause to check/know that they were breaking the law, as they had correctly assumed that they were not.

In this case, the OP had cause to suspect that he may have been breaking the law (he had been drinking the day before), but incorrectly assumed that he wasn't.

Conar

Hard luck Flanum.
I also rely on my car as I live nearly 30 miles from work and public transport isn't an option.
You did try to do the right thing but unfortunately what you thought was the right thing was completely wrong.
I'm 30 now and I still drink regularly but believe me, if I drank pints most of the day then went home and had 6 cans (even forgetting the heavy session on Saturday) before going to bed at 12:30am there is absolutely no way I would be even remotely safe to drive at noon the next day. It seems that the older I get the longer it takes to recover.
I think you just need to re-evaluate how much drink you can have on a day/night out if you expect to drive the following day.
Its unfortunate that it has taken a drink driving charge to figure this out but better that than a person dieing.
You mention doing a test with 4 cans. Man if You were so worried that you didn't drink for a week then had to have 4 cans up until 1:30AM the night before you go back to work then maybe you've got more of a problem than you think.
Why not do that test on a night when you don't have work the following day? Seems like madness to me!

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.

I'm sick of this whinging about people in the country not being able to drink.
You chose to live in the countryside because of its benefits so you need to accept the shortfalls.
If you are the type of person that needs to drink a lot then move to a town/city.
I call complete BULL$HIT on this whole sob story about drink driving laws tearing apart communities. If I want to see my friends I need to either drive and stay sober or arrange to stay over or something. There are plenty of group hobbies that don't involve drinking, like poker, bingo, bowls, football, dominoes etc.
I moved to a more rural area because the houses were cheaper, bigger, more greenery etc, but I accepted I would be giving up some comforts.
Do the people in Tallaght have a right to complain about how clean your air is, or how big your garden is? Are city people being denied the right to have peace and quiet?

Sorry for that turning into a sermon, I got started and couldn't stop!

kizzyr

kev_s88 wrote: »

and what about the people whose body takes longer to break down the units of alcohol.the guy who goes out and has 2 or 3 pints and stops drinking at 10pm but drives the next morning after taking a half day??? the guidelines that are set out are rubbish.everyones body varies.

the Government and the RSA are not doing enough to educate us on these sort of situations.and while im not expecting them to go around and give everyone their own breathalyser, im sure there is more they could be doing to prevent this happening.as the OP said he could have easily taken the full day off work but he didnt because he thought he would be allright.and apart from the home breathalysers (which are dodgy at best) there was no other way for him to know if he was over the limit

i do feel sympathy for the OP as its a sh1te situation to be in

Oh come on! With the amount of alcohol the OP said he consumed over the whole weekend it would have been common sense for him to realise (or even guess and so err on the side of caution) that he could still have been over the limit.

DanGerMus

Well my driving instrutor once told me something that really is quite profound and i think the same principle can be applied here, regarding speed restrictions, 'they are limits, not targets'

_feedback_

Conar wrote: »

I'm sick of this whinging about people in the country not being able to drink.
You chose to live in the countryside because of its benefits so you need to accept the shortfalls.
If you are the type of person that needs to drink a lot then move to a town/city.

It's not just people living in rural areas that are affected by sh1t public transport. I live in the middle of a town, but work 40 miles away. I have no way of getting there without driving.

People are forced in to driving. Unfortunately we have to sacrifice for work.

DanGerMus wrote: »

Well my driving instrutor once told me something that really is quite profound and i think the same principle can be applied here, regarding speed restrictions, 'they are limits, not targets'

I think your instructor must be a boards reader/poster !

Sully

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.

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.

They can. Its not like the Guards are the only one with the ability. Most good chemists and some off licenses provide a test.

zAbbo wrote: »

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!).

Agreed. Its a shame, you honestly thought you would be okay. However, the problem seems to be you didn't think outside the box and realise that the drink from previous days carried over and added up. At the end of the day, you should be "punished" for going a considerable amount over the limit but at the same time consideration given (partly) to all circumstances.

Conar

elviscostello wrote: »

It's not just people living in rural areas that are affected by sh1t public transport. I live in the middle of a town, but work 40 miles away. I have no way of getting there without driving.

People are forced in to driving. Unfortunately we have to sacrifice for work.

True. I kind of went of on a tangent rant there about the whole country life being torn apart thing.
The matter in hand is the same for both rural and suburban people.
If you are working the next day and need to drive to work then you need to accept that you can't get totally sh*tfaced.