i got bagged the next day!!

Notorious

I mis-read the thread title. Here was me expecting a funny story about you being tea bagged :pac:

faceman

supermouse wrote: »

Tough!!!!!!

There is a law in place - you broke that law - you now have to face the consequences - now you're throwing your toys out of your pram because you got caught, grow up!!!

A friend of mine was killed earlier on this year by a man who like you OP thought he was below the legal limit. He never saw the road signs coming up to a cross road and drove straight into the side of my friends car killing him nearly instantly on impact. The man in question was i think 1.5 times over the limit. ( im not 100% sure on this but i know he wasnt as high as 2 times over) Now his daughter has no father. His girlfriend no longer has her partner. Two families are broken, the one of my friend and the man who killed him. For what?? An extra can or two? There is a law in place, because this thing happens! Accidents happen the morning after as well as the night before.

How you can try justify this is beyond me. Ok you tried taking the morning off work thinking you would be ok but if you knew you were going to have a serious weekend of it why did you not take the full day off to give your body the benefit of the doubt? I understand that everyone's body works differntly and nobody can truly tell the ''wearing off time ''of a unit of alcohol as it is determined and changed by so things like weight loss but with the amount of people that are being killed on our roads in recent years would it not make you more aware of the effects your drinking and driving would have on society, your family and the family of the person you hurt?

Next time it may not be the guards that stop you but a school bus carrying 50 children that you have just plunged into the side of......

Clearly you havent read the thread.

supermouse

clearly i did....!

vic-mackey

does anyone actually have abraekdown of the figures for RTA's where the driver responsible was over the limit after the night before, as opposed to actually comming back from the session and crashing

seamus

vic-mackey wrote: »

does anyone actually have abraekdown of the figures for RTA's where the driver responsible was over the limit after the night before, as opposed to actually comming back from the session and crashing

I doubt these figures exist. There's currently no requirement to breathalyse drivers at the scene of an accident. When a fatal RTA occurs, they don't record the BAC (afaik), they simply record whether either driver (regardless of who was at fault) had alcohol present in their system and then mark it down as an "alcohol-related" RTA.

kizzyr

flanum wrote: »

what does that mean??

Anyhow im up on thursday, obviously going to lose my licence for 2 years, (no appeals etc..read the new laws), im obviously going to have to quit my job and become a burden on the state, does anybody happen to know if there is a limit on how much free rent/money you can get off the state for freeloading? im going to have to do it for the next 2 years! feckit, everybody seems to be havin better craic on the dole anyhow, (i can always do nixers anyhow, im a proffesional!).

You could always get a job where you work from home couldn't you?

SheroN

kizzyr wrote: »

You could always get a job where you work from home couldn't you?

Yea, because they're so easy to find.

faceman

supermouse wrote: »

clearly i did....!

Read it again so. The issue that this thread highlights is that not everyone is clear on what are the right guidelines for alcohol intake and when it is safe to get behind the wheel.

The OP believed he was doing the right thing. He had no practical way or official guidelines to assess if he was still over the limit.

While what he did may seem obvious to you, it wasnt obvious to him and to many other people.

Saying "tough" doesnt really address the issue or offer anything useful. If adequate guidelines and education was provided then less people would be putting lives at risk in the "next day" scenario.

kizzyr

SheroN wrote: »

Yea, because they're so easy to find.

He could try, assuming that the dole is the only option is the easy way out.
Personally I have no sympathy at all for the OP or anyone else who gets caught over the limit. The law is there, its hardly a secret. If you break it you have to accept the consequence. In this case its fortunate that no one else was involved.

DonJose

flanum wrote: »

im obviously going to have to quit my job and become a burden on the state, does anybody happen to know if there is a limit on how much free rent/money you can get off the state for freeloading? im going to have to do it for the next 2 years! feckit, everybody seems to be havin better craic on the dole anyhow, (i can always do nixers anyhow, im a proffesional!).

Crazy idea, but have you thought about renting a place closer to where you work, a place close enough that you could either walk to or cycle too. If you get a ban you should think about selling your car, so you'll have a few bob for a rental deposit and a bike.

Phibsboro

faceman wrote: »

Read it again so. The issue that this thread highlights is that not everyone is clear on what are the right guidelines for alcohol intake and when it is safe to get behind the wheel.

The OP believed he was doing the right thing. He had no practical way or official guidelines to assess if he was still over the limit.

While what he did may seem obvious to you, it wasnt obvious to him and to many other people.

Saying "tough" doesnt really address the issue or offer anything useful. If adequate guidelines and education was provided then less people would be putting lives at risk in the "next day" scenario.

I'm not sure we know what issue the thread highlights until we know how much he had to drink on Sat and Sun morning. For example... lets say he started drinking at 4pm on Sat and finished at 4am and averaged a pint per hour - based on my one experience of a seisun on the aran islands and the subsequent party, this would be a conservative estimate The OP said he then left the craic in mid swing on the Sunday so lets say he'd had 4 pints before he left. He then had 5 cans that evening. For that particular example, allowing 3 hours per pint and 2 hours per can, he would have been clear of alcohol 58 hours after he started drinking on the Sat afternoon (i.e. the 12 pints on Sat * 3 = 36 + the 4 pints on Sun * 3 = 12 + the 5 cans * 2 = 10, 36+12+10 = 58). 58 hours after a 4pm start on Sat is 2am on Tuesday...

All of those numbers are well know and if that is level he was drinking at then he should of know not to get into a car on Monday. To be honest, I think those numbers would coincide with most people's gut insinct on this issue - don't get into a car until you have a full day's no drinking under your belt after a heavy session.

C

faceman

Phibsboro wrote: »

All of those numbers are well know and if that is level he was drinking at then he should of know not to get into a car on Monday. To be honest, I think those numbers would coincide with most people's gut insinct on this issue - don't get into a car until you have a full day's no drinking under your belt after a heavy session.

C

With all due respect, we dont know the full extent of his drinking. Nobody i know has ever abstained from driving for a full day after heavy sessions with the reason being to ensure that there is no alcohol left in their system. Similarly there are no guidelines to that effect anywhere either. Perhaps there should be.

Fall_Guy

flanum wrote: »

what does that mean??

Anyhow im up on thursday, obviously going to lose my licence for 2 years, (no appeals etc..read the new laws), im obviously going to have to quit my job and become a burden on the state, does anybody happen to know if there is a limit on how much free rent/money you can get off the state for freeloading? im going to have to do it for the next 2 years! feckit, everybody seems to be havin better craic on the dole anyhow, (i can always do nixers anyhow, im a proffesional!).

I can only assume that your taking the piss here, yeah? I mean, do you think every working person in Ireland has a car??!! Get a f*cking bike, lad! And jesus, if you're only renting, rent somewhere nearer to your place of employment if its so far away that you couldn't cycle there!

flanum

Results:

2 years and 3 months ban, i can get it back after 18 months, and 400 euro fine.

the judge handed me two year ban but the solicitor piped up and asked for an extra 3 months, which the judge granted and then said i could get it back after 18 mnths.

the guy before me was got for 101 per 100 (blood or urine im not sure) and got 100 euro fine and one year ban (i was 55 per 100 breath).

another guy was 76 per 100 breath, got 350 euro fine and 3 year and one day, can get it back after 2 years.

i cant figure out where the judge was pulling these fines from?

flanum

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I can only assume that your taking the piss here, yeah? I mean, do you think every working person in Ireland has a car??!!

My job entails me going on call 24/7 for one week every month, it usually entails being called in sometimes up to 4 times per night every night (usually between 12 and 6am), i still have to go in for 7:45 in the morning of these weeks and do a full days work. the factory is about 5 miles outside of the main town along a dual carraigeway, the nearest rentable houses/flats are in the town. its basically impossible to carry out these tasks without a car, i shall probably be going to sign on the dole in october (when my ban starts).

DonJose

Thats tough but you've learned a lesson. Anyway look for a place closer to work, sell your car and find another mode of transport

http://www.raleigh.co.uk/b_range.aspx?range=Junior

flanum

DonJose wrote: »

Thats tough but you've learned a lesson. Anyway look for a place closer to work, sell your car and find another mode of transport

http://www.raleigh.co.uk/b_range.aspx?range=Junior

i dont know what part of my previous post you didnt understand?

DonJose

flanum wrote: »

i dont know what part of my previous post you didnt understand?

Maybe I was typing when you posted Anyway find your own bike, I was just being helpful

Steve

Thats harsh flanum, I think we all owe you thanks for what we learned from this.

flanum wrote: »

the guy before me was got for 101 per 100 (blood or urine im not sure) and got 100 euro fine and one year ban (i was 55 per 100 breath).

WTF? sounds unfair allright.

sdanseo

flanum wrote: »

Results:

2 years and 3 months ban, i can get it back after 18 months, and 400 euro fine.

the judge handed me two year ban but the solicitor piped up and asked for an extra 3 months, which the judge granted and then said i could get it back after 18 mnths.

the guy before me was got for 101 per 100 (blood or urine im not sure) and got 100 euro fine and one year ban (i was 55 per 100 breath).

another guy was 76 per 100 breath, got 350 euro fine and 3 year and one day, can get it back after 2 years.

i cant figure out where the judge was pulling these fines from?

That's a disgrace. Can you appeal it at all?

*Tripper*

Thats terrible Flanum, what are you going to do about working?

flanum

*Tripper* wrote: »

Thats terrible Flanum, what are you going to do about working?

Prob work till october (when the ban will take effect) then sign on dole and do as much nixers as possible. ill try and screw the system as much as possible.

Guy:Incognito

flanum wrote: »

Prob work till october (when the ban will take effect) then sign on dole and do as much nixers as possible. ill try and screw the system as much as possible.

Thats the can do attitude.:rolleyes:

kizzyr

flanum wrote: »

Prob work till october (when the ban will take effect) then sign on dole and do as much nixers as possible. ill try and screw the system as much as possible.

Well thats an admirable and grown up approach to take to things isn't it? You could also spend the time until October looking for a different job, one you can live closer to and continue to work.
Re: the sentence you got.....well I think everyone who gets caught drink driving should be banned and forced to retake their test.
I have such major problems with someone who has an attitude like yours getting my tax in the form of dole money. There is no real reason for you NOT to be able to work.

Ross_Mahon

The garda are everywhere lately, i think its that operation were they are trying to stop people driving on their provisional license.

I know a lot of people driving on provisional license and need their car to get to work, I'll remind them about public transport.

kizzyr

sdonn_1 wrote: »

That's a disgrace. Can you appeal it at all?

Disgrace? I don't think so, he was caught out fair and square. Now he's throwing his toys out of his pram.

*Tripper* wrote: »

Thats terrible Flanum, what are you going to do about working?

Terrible? What is with all the sympathy for someone who was clearly well over the limit?

flanum wrote: »

Prob work till october (when the ban will take effect) then sign on dole and do as much nixers as possible. ill try and screw the system as much as possible.

Probably work until October???? you really don't want to over do it do you:rolleyes::rolleyes:

sdanseo

kizzyr wrote: »

Disgrace? I don't think so
:rolleyes:

Compared to the other sentences it is.

kizzyr

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Compared to the other sentences it is.

Or maybe theirs were compared to his i.e. they should all have been given pretty harsh sentences IMO.

ircoha

get an electrically assisted bicycle, not an 'electric' motor bike and you will be fine. u dont need a licence for it as it is not a MPV.

For the nights u are on call get a camp bed and sleep in the factory.

For the other weeks, have u priced a LT contract with a local hackney for morning and evening

If u want to u can make thsi work, it seems to me that, as already posted u have ur mind set on being a 'victim' here, as opposed to accepting that u are the perp.

You could have killed someone so consider ur self lucky.

Canis Lupus

I'm with Flanum on this.

The system screwed you over so you may as well return the favour as well.

Unlucky man.

Steve

kizzyr wrote: »

Disgrace? I don't think so, he was caught out fair and square. Now he's throwing his toys out of his pram.

Yes he was caught, he owned up, never disputed what he did or the punishment he got for it which, given the circumstances IMO was very harsh. His story has also educated a lot of boardsies as to what can happen the morning / afternoon after and for that I for one am grateful.

I don't see any toys on the floor here and what's done is done so if you've nothing constructive to say about it then kindly refrain from posting.

Steve

ircoha wrote: »

get an electrically assisted bicycle, not an 'electric' motor bike and you will be fine. u dont need a licence for it as it is not a MPV.

AFAIK, electric bikes are classed as MPVs under current legislation. You need a license and road tax / insurance.
The only ones that are exempt are electric wheelchairs.

chump

extremely harsh IMO.

sorry to hear it OP.

For the other punters who can't even SEE how this situation may befall someone - join the real world.

Phibsboro

stevec wrote: »

Thats harsh flanum, I think we all owe you thanks for what we learned from this.
QUOTE]


For some reason I think I am asking the one sane question here (which would suggest I'm misuderstanding the situation ) ... what exactly did flatnum have to drink on Saturday and Sunday monring? I can't understand how posters can thank Flatnum for a lesson learnt without knowing how much he drank in the two days leading up to being caught drink driving. At one extreme, if he had no drink other than the 5 cans mentioned then we'd all be dead right to change our drinking patterns as that doesn't fit with the known facts at all. On the other hand if he had 20 pints in the previous days then maybe we shouldn't all be so worried...

The fact that flatnum has posted twice without answering since this quesion was last asked would suggest he knows full well how much he had drunk on Sat and Sun morn and therefore how deserving he was of the subsequent ban.

c

Steve

Phibsboro wrote: »

For some reason I think I am asking the one sane question here (which would suggest I'm misuderstanding the situation ) ... what exactly did flatnum have to drink on Saturday and Sunday monring? I can't understand how posters can thank Flatnum for a lesson learnt without knowing how much he drank in the two days leading up to being caught drink driving. At one extreme, if he had no drink other than the 5 cans mentioned then we'd all be dead right to change our drinking patterns as that doesn't fit with the known facts at all. On the other hand if he had 20 pints in the previous days then maybe we shouldn't all be so worried...

The fact that flatnum has posted twice without answering since this quesion was last asked would suggest he knows full well how much he had drunk on Sat and Sun morn and therefore how deserving he was of the subsequent ban.

c

Sane, your thinking is.
The point I was making is that his thread has highlighted to a lot of boardsies that you can and will get caught the next day.

C'mon Flanum, 'fess up.

Degag

kizzyr wrote: »

Well thats an admirable and grown up approach to take to things isn't it? You could also spend the time until October looking for a different job, one you can live closer to and continue to work.
Re: the sentence you got.....well I think everyone who gets caught drink driving should be banned and forced to retake their test.
I have such major problems with someone who has an attitude like yours getting my tax in the form of dole money. There is no real reason for you NOT to be able to work.

Why repeat their test? The fact that a person is of the road surely doesn't deminish their actual ability to drive.

Steve

Tackle69 wrote: »

Why repeat their test? The fact that a person is of the road surely doesn't deminish their actual ability to drive.

I actually agree with kizzyr on this one - there are far too many people driving around who haven't a clue about basic rules of the road. Re-sitting the test (even the theory) as part of a driving infraction could only be a good thing.

kizzyr

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm with Flanum on this.

The system screwed you over so you may as well return the favour as well.

Unlucky man.

The system did not screw him over, it caught him out when he was breaking the law.

stevec wrote: »

Yes he was caught, he owned up, never disputed what he did or the punishment he got for it which, given the circumstances IMO was very harsh. His story has also educated a lot of boardsies as to what can happen the morning / afternoon after and for that I for one am grateful.

I don't see any toys on the floor here and what's done is done so if you've nothing constructive to say about it then kindly refrain from posting.

How on earth boardsies needed this story to educate themselves with regard to drink driving I don't know. Its pretty simple really, drink less.
I, for one, do think the OP is behaving in a silly and immature fashion following his getting caught deciding he will have to give up work etc.Its pathetic.

chump wrote: »

extremely harsh IMO.

sorry to hear it OP.

For the other punters who can't even SEE how this situation may befall someone - join the real world.

I am in the real world and I think the sentence was justified. The others who weren't hit as hard got off too lightly IMO.

Tackle69 wrote: »

Why repeat their test? The fact that a person is of the road surely doesn't deminish their actual ability to drive.

The fact that they put themselves in that situation shows that they have poor judgement. I think making them take their test again is justified. The idea of having to take it again may also act as a deterrent.

faceman

kizzyr wrote: »

The system did not screw him over, it caught him out when he was breaking the law.

as the OP has pointed out and taking him at his word, had he known he was over the limit he would not have driven his car. Thus a potential accident could have been avoided. Do you think it would be more contrustive to have better education out there to avoid situations like this rather than just the current set up?

wrote:

Its pretty simple really, drink less.

Define "drink less" and how it can be measured by joe public in the same connotation as the legislation?

kizzyr

faceman wrote: »

as the OP has pointed out and taking him at his word, had he known he was over the limit he would not have driven his car. Thus a potential accident could have been avoided. Do you think it would be more contrustive to have better education out there to avoid situations like this rather than just the current set up?



Define "drink less" and how it can be measured by joe public in the same connotation as the legislation?

A good place to start with the "drink less" would to be take the amount the OP had over the weekend and at least halve it. Excessive alcohol consumption is not necessary to have a good time. In fact some would even say it inhibits it. That amount of alcohol is extremely bad for your liver to mention just one thing.
Why is it always believed to be the government's responsibility to tell us exactly how much we can drink and still get away with driving? We complain about the nanny state yet still expect to be given a blow by blow detailed analysis of exactly how much any one of us can drink and still stay within the law when driving. Anyone with an iota of basic cop on would have (or should have) felt that they were pushing it drinking that much and driving the next day.

Volvoboy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6wNDi9KdMw

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::rolleyes:

chalad07

I think a lot of people are being overly harsh on the OP. In the perfect world no-one would ever have to drive the day after drinking, but that's not going to happen. He was more responsible than a lot of people I know would have been, it just seems that he was really unlucky,

Something doesn’t sit right with me about what happened - it's not these kind of people that cause the destruction on the roads, although it always seems to be them who get punished,

Sparky14

Would like to see how many drink related accidents happen between 8-12 in the morning. Just be interested, ready to be corrected but can't imagine many accidents are caused by driving the day after drinking.

Conar

Sparky14 wrote: »

Would like to see how many drink related accidents happen between 8-12 in the morning. Just be interested, ready to be corrected but can't imagine many accidents are caused by driving the day after drinking.

Aren't the RSA always saying its one of the most dangerous times?

Conar

Just found a related RSA article:
http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/One_in_Five_Morning_After_Crashes_Alcohol_Related.html

21% of fatal road crashes that happen between 6AM and 12 noon are alcohol related. That’s according to previously unpublished findings from a Health Service Executive report , Alcohol in Fatal Road Crashes in Ireland in 2003.

The report confirms that the ‘morning after’ is a real danger zone for drink driving related death and injury on Irish roads. It also identified Monday morning as a particularly high-risk period for drink driving related ‘morning after’ crashes.

Sparky14

Conar wrote: »

Just found a related RSA article:
http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/One_in_Five_Morning_After_Crashes_Alcohol_Related.html

Find it pretty surprising, but that seems like reasonable evidence alright, considering you're never gonna get a truely independent survey on these kind of issues.

chump

kizzyr wrote: »

A good place to start with the "drink less" would to be take the amount the OP had over the weekend and at least halve it. Excessive alcohol consumption is not necessary to have a good time. In fact some would even say it inhibits it. That amount of alcohol is extremely bad for your liver to mention just one thing.
Why is it always believed to be the government's responsibility to tell us exactly how much we can drink and still get away with driving? We complain about the nanny state yet still expect to be given a blow by blow detailed analysis of exactly how much any one of us can drink and still stay within the law when driving. Anyone with an iota of basic cop on would have (or should have) felt that they were pushing it drinking that much and driving the next day.

You need to join the Preaching forum or lock yourself in a cupboard. Your contribution to this thread is completely worthless as you are clearly opposed to drinking.

Ban alcohol i say.

A few points well made in this forum

1. People are not aware of how long it takes for alcohol to leave their system, thereby there is confusion about "when" one should get behind the wheel
2. The is conflicting stories told about how much time it takes for alcohol to leave ones sytem
3. Home use breathalyser tests tend to be hit and miss
4. Stories like this, despite their arguably unfair outcomes, serve to warn us all of the risks.

What I take from it is;
There is a bloody good opening in the market for a quality home breathalyser kit and not a mickey mouse thing.

kizzyr

chump wrote: »

You need to join the Preaching forum or lock yourself in a cupboard. Your contribution to this thread is completely worthless as you are clearly opposed to drinking.

Ban alcohol i say.

A few points well made in this forum

1. People are not aware of how long it takes for alcohol to leave their system, thereby there is confusion about "when" one should get behind the wheel
2. The is conflicting stories told about how much time it takes for alcohol to leave ones sytem
3. Home use breathalyser tests tend to be hit and miss
4. Stories like this, despite their arguably unfair outcomes, serve to warn us all of the risks.

What I take from it is;
There is a bloody good opening in the market for a quality home breathalyser kit and not a mickey mouse thing.

Why? Because I don't believe it necessary to get s1hit faced to enjoy a night out? If that is considered preaching then I can live with that. I'm just glad that I don't feel myself that lacking in the ability to talk to someone, have fun and enjoy myself, that I need to get stupidly drunk.
I have nothing against alcohol in and of itself I do however have a problem with excessive consumption of it.

Golferx

chalad07 wrote: »

I think a lot of people are being overly harsh on the OP. In the perfect world no-one would ever have to drive the day after drinking, but that's not going to happen. He was more responsible than a lot of people I know would have been, it just seems that he was really unlucky,

Something doesn’t sit right with me about what happened - it's not these kind of people that cause the destruction on the roads, although it always seems to be them who get punished,

And it's excuses like this that are the reason we have a drink driving problem. This excuse for what was an idiotic thing done by the OP is pathetic.

Simple facts
1. OP completely and excessively overdosed on alcohol to such an extent that he was still drunk the following day

2. Some people will excuse anything.


I'm delighted to hear the OP got caught. Maybe next time he'll be a bit more sensible and not think a few hours rest is sufficient to clear his system of the drugs he's consumed.

The various contributions to this topic show the pathetic alcohol-fuelled attitude Ireland has to enjoyment. Anyone who needs alcohol to have a good time is suffering from a form of alcoholism. Take some and enjoy it, but if you cannot enjoy a night out without it, you have a problem.

(As for the morning-after people? Apparently the Gardai are supposed to know who was a good boy the night before, who took taxis, etc. and are supposed to not breathalyse them the following morning, regardless of how much alcohol remains in their system. FFS)

kizzyr

Golferx wrote: »

And it's excuses like this that are the reason we have a drink driving problem. This excuse for what was an idiotic thing done by the OP is pathetic.

Simple facts
1. OP completely and excessively overdosed on alcohol to such an extent that he was still drunk the following day

2. Some people will excuse anything.


I'm delighted to hear the OP got caught. Maybe next time he'll be a bit more sensible and not think a few hours rest is sufficient to clear his system of the drugs he's consumed.

The various contributions to this topic show the pathetic alcohol-fuelled attitude Ireland has to enjoyment. Anyone who needs alcohol to have a good time is suffering from a form of alcoholism. Take some and enjoy it, but if you cannot enjoy a night out without it, you have a problem.

(As for the morning-after people? Apparently the Gardai are supposed to know who was a good boy the night before, who took taxis, etc. and are supposed to not breathalyse them the following morning, regardless of how much alcohol remains in their system. FFS)

Glad I'm not the only one who feels like this.