"Driving the morning after"

thirtythirty

What are people's views on this Christmas campaign?

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, it basically just says booze takes a while to leave your system. I've heard (down in the pub) that the Guards are also running "Operation Viper" over this period to target people who still have booze breath in the morning.

I have a fundamental issue with the campaign in that they offer nothing by way of statistics relating to the frequency and seriousness of accidents directly attributable people still "drunk", by blood alcohol level defintions, while driving in the morning.

After a heavy night, I often feel wobbly and "not quite right" in the morning, and I don't drive until that feeling has left. However I would guess that sometimes even then I would indeed still have more than the 20mg in my blood. But I'm unconvinced that a plus 20mg "drinking" driver and a plus 20mg "recovering" driver are exactly the same in terms of driving ability.

For instance I would like to see information on the physiological affects of equivalent amounts of alcohol in the blood "on the way up", i.e. while drinking, and "on the way down", i.e. recovering - e.g. is brain impairment vs motor impairment different in each case?

Maybe it is the exact same, but I just don't think you can run a campaign asking you to "think about whether they still have alcohol in their system" just like that. I don't know, is there a case for higher blood alcohol levels to be allowed in the morning? I mean like the old rates.

jonnyfingers

spottyelephant wrote: »

But I'm unconvinced that a plus 20mg "drinking" driver and a plus 20mg "recovering" driver are exactly the same in terms of driving ability.

I can see what you're saying but it's a moot point in my opinion.

The whole campaign is to be sensible when on a night out. Drinking copious amounts of alcohol until 3 in the morning and then getting up and driving to work is not on. It's not safe, and it's illegal if your blood/alcohol level is above the legal limit. Driving ability has nothing to do with it.

In the past I, like almost everyone, have driven the morning after when I probably shouldn't have. But back then I never really understood how slowly it can take the body to absorb the alcohol. I now have a long commute to work everyday so I am extra vigilant about drinking the night before when I know I have to drive in the morning.

I'm all for the guards cracking down on it because if you're caught you don't really have an excuse. You know the risks, you can roughly do the maths so you really shouldn't be in a position to get caught. If you have to drive the next morning, just stop drinking early enough.

CiniO

Alcohol blood lever has direct impact on reaction time.
And even if it's just left-over in the morning, your reaction time will be impaired.

I'm definitely in support of operation "viper"

Atomic Pineapple

I'm in support of it too but people simply aren't aware of how much they still have in their system the next morning so i think the government should subsidise Garda grade breathalysers so the general public can afford them and therefore check if they are safe to drive the next morning.

spottyelephant

spottyelephant wrote: »

What are people's views on this Christmas campaign? ...........

I think it's brilliant, they should run it all year round.

draffodx wrote: »

........... i think the government should subsidise Garda grade breathalysers so the general public can afford them and therefore check if they are safe to drive the next morning.

Government subsidy is essentially paid for by the tax payer.

mathepac

draffodx wrote: »

... so i think the government should subsidise Garda grade breathalysers so the general public can afford them ...

What happened to personal responsibility, maturity, moderation in drinking because alcohol is physically and psychologically damaging in quantities less than those which might cause you to fail a roadside breathalyser test?

I'd insist on more tests if I could and on screening for people in certain employments for alcohol or drugs (e.g. emergency services, hospital staff, teachers, builders, drivers, etc.) In other words people who if intoxicated at work might be a danger to others. Failure to take a test or failure to pass a test would have serious consequences for the employee concerned.

.... Garda grade breathalysers are not conclusive anyway, hence the bloodtest requirement.

Personally I think being over the limit the next day is not the same as being over the limit after a night out. In the morning you have slept, eaten and are not in the same high spirits etc that you are during a night out which would be a major source of distraction

I'm not talking about stopping drinking at 5am and driving at 7am. More getting to bed at 2 or 3am and driving at say 10am the next day where you may still be around the limit or a bit over it. I think breathalyzing at 10am or later in the morning is totally unfair and I am very much against it, especially as there is no evidence or statistics ever presented to show that there is any actual need for this. i.e. You never really hear of crashes at this time of the day.

Atomic Pineapple

RoverJames wrote: »

Government subsidy is essentially paid for by the tax payer.

Yes, but I didn't suggest a new tax to pay for it.

mathepac wrote: »

What happened to personal responsibility, maturity, moderation in drinking because alcohol is physically and psychologically damaging in quantities less than those which might cause you to fail a roadside breathalyser test?

You don't think someone willing to buy a breathalyser to check to make sure they are safe to drive is responsible or mature?

Anaya Lazy Teakettle

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

.............. You never really hear of crashes at this time of the day.

You've never seen a crash on the way to work or heard one mentioned on the morning radio?

Most of the crashes I see are in rush hour in the morning.

draffodx

draffodx wrote: »

Yes, but I didn't suggest a new tax to pay for it.
..............

I never said you did.

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

You've never seen a crash on the way to work or heard one mentioned on the morning radio?

Most of the crashes I see are in rush hour in the morning.

Harmless fender benders mostly, with nothing to do with alcohol you can be sure. Where is the evidence of alcohol related crashes in the mornings, especially if they are serious crashes then this should be reported on.

Its getting a bit too nanny state, up until the last 3 or 4 years nobody even mentioned the driving the next day. We all used to drive to work after big nights out and being over the limit never entered anyones head. Now they are trying to dictate how we spend our night out as basically you cant drive somewhere the next day without running the risk of getting stopped.

All this after going to the effort of getting a taxi or a lift home after the night out.

Anaya Lazy Teakettle

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

Harmless fender benders mostly, with nothing to do with alcohol you can be sure.

Its getting a bit too nanny state, up until the last 3 or 4 years nobody even mentioned the driving the next day. We all used to drive to work after big nights out and being over the limit never entered anyone head. Now they are trying to dictate how we spend our night out as basically you cant drive somewhere the next day without running the risk of getting stopped.

Sure 30 years ago you could drive at night well p1ssed, was that ok?

There is a limit, how is anyone to know when the drink was consumed if a driver is over the limit?

draffodx wrote: »

..............

You don't think someone willing to buy a breathalyser to check to make sure they are safe to drive is responsible or mature?

Well if you know you are driving at a certain time in the am drinking in moderation as required I would consider responsible and mature, no need for a breathalyser than.

L1011

I doubt there's any difference between a 20mg "drinking" *tired* driver and a 20mg "recovering" *also tired* driver. There is bound to be a difference between someone recovering and fully awake.

But this is entirely unquantifiable, there is no metric they can use to determine how wrecked you are, so the figures stand. They can't go unscientific for a few hours when the figures are otherwise science based.

MugMugs

Garda in Blanch years ago used to prey on morning after lads making the brekkie roll dash. They called him The Knight Rider. I had to drive home last Sunday. Left it till three and was still a little unhappy about it....

MugMugs

Garda in Blanch years ago used to prey on morning after lads making the brekkie roll dash. They called him The Knight Rider. I had to drive home last Sunday. Left it till three and was still a little unhappy about it....

Fiona

When I go out drinking I will not get in my car until at least 1/2pm the following afternoon. I will avoid it if I can altogether.

If I have to use my car earlier than that then I drink less, it's really as simple as that and I don't understand why people can't just do that.

It's not rocket science, you make the choice to get drunk, well if you drive the next day and your over the limit then tough titty :rolleyes:

Anan1

spottyelephant wrote: »

But I'm unconvinced that a plus 20mg "drinking" driver and a plus 20mg "recovering" driver are exactly the same in terms of driving ability.

For instance I would like to see information on the physiological affects of equivalent amounts of alcohol in the blood "on the way up", i.e. while drinking, and "on the way down", i.e. recovering - e.g. is brain impairment vs motor impairment different in each case?

Maybe it is the exact same, but I just don't think you can run a campaign asking you to "think about whether they still have alcohol in their system" just like that. I don't know, is there a case for higher blood alcohol levels to be allowed in the morning? I mean like the old rates.

I would guess that 20mg in the morning is a lot more dangerous than 20mg the previous evening. The morning driver will be tired, hung over and probably dehydrated.

mrs crilly

mrs crilly wrote: »

When I go out drinking I will not get in my car until at least 1/2pm the following afternoon. I will avoid it if I can altogether.

If I have to use my car earlier than that then I drink less, it's really as simple as that and I don't understand why people can't just do that.

It's not rocket science, you make the choice to get drunk, well if you drive the next day and your over the limit then tough titty :rolleyes:

One example would be heading out with a group of friends on the beer, staying at a friends spot for the night but obviously needing to head off the next morning (11am say) so as not to be imposing on his house mates, needing to get home for some reason or other, going to watch a match etc etc. I don't agree with having to change my plans on a Sunday just because I head out on a Saturday night.

By the way I am not saying people should drive if the feel they would actually be a danger on the roads etc if the night turned into a serious session altogether or something.

bcmf

CiniO wrote: »

Alcohol blood lever has direct impact on reaction time.
And even if it's just left-over in the morning, your reaction time will be impaired.

Spot on.
Alcohol slows down your reaction time.
In a normal situation ,ie sober and alert, your eyes spot something sends it to the brain and you react in a split second. Before you are conscious of what you saw your brain/foot/leg or whatever has started to move.
When there is alcohol interfering in the process your eyes -> brain still work as fast but your reaction time slows dramatically.
Cant remember where I saw it but they used the idea of throwing and catching a tennis ball with and without alcohol present to make the point. With alcohol interfering it was remarkable how many times the tennis ball was dropped.

bcmf

bcmf wrote: »

Cant remember where I saw it but they used the idea of throwing and catching a tennis ball with and without alcohol present to make the point. With alcohol interfering it was remarkable how many times the tennis ball was dropped.

Funnily enough and I'm not saying its in anyway conclusive but I was working at a science exhibition recently and of course I was as hungover as a dog.

They had a thing at it for testing reaction times and just for LOL's I gave it a go (Knowing I was in a bad state and I would not have been in a condition to drive that afternoon coincidently and no way I would have), 100's if not 1000's of people used it all day and the lad running said my reaction time was in the top few percent and I more or less had the shakes from drink doing it.

Anan1

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

I don't agree with having to change my plans on a Sunday just because I head out on a Saturday night.

But that's not what happens, is it? It's your current BAC that determines whether you can drive or not, not whether you went out. I suspect the current limits are too low myself, but we do need limits.

Danbo!

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

One example would be heading out with a group of friends on the beer, staying at a friends spot for the night but obviously needing to head off the next morning (11am say) so as not to be imposing on his house mates, needing to get home for some reason or other, going to watch a match etc etc. I don't agree with having to change my plans on a Sunday just because I head out on a Saturday night.

By the way I am not saying people should drive if the feel they would actually be a danger on the roads etc if the night turned into a serious session altogether or something.

I don't see why people rely on a magical sleep to get over a night out. I know people who will drink heavily until 5am and then sleep for 4 hours and drive to work. Absolutely ridiculous.

Your attitude of 'i shouldn't have to change my Sunday plans if I drink on a Saturday' is also a irresponsible in my opinion. You say it like you're forced to drink on a Saturday and forced to change your plans because of ye drink in your system on a Sunday. If you HAVE to get off your friends couch or whatever then drink an amount that will leave you of a fit state by that time.

I can't get my head around the attitude towards drink in this country. Like getting banjaxed is a right and getting breathalysed is unfair. It doesn't matter if the gardai stop you leaving the pub car park or driving to work the next day. If you're over the limit youre driving illegally and that's that. There is no difference between 20mg at night and 20mg in the morning. Yeah there might be big people who can drink 5 pints and be fine, and smaller people who would be destroyed after 5 pints, but there's currently no method to distinguish between them, so the breath test will have to suffice.

The other issue with the attitude to drink driving that irritates me is the whole time people worry about meeting a checkpoint and getting caught, rather than worry about crashing their car into another car, tree, pedestrian etc. driving hungover when there is probably some alcohol left in your system means youre concentration and reaction time is impaired, no question.

A friends brother recently read ended someone at 7 am and when they got out to exchange details the woman smelt drink, called the gardai and he was done for drink driving. The reaction from friends was astounding, how it was 'so unfair' while maintaining that 'the other drink driving' is terrible and people should be locked up, key thrown away etc. The mind boggles.

Fighting Irish

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

Harmless fender benders mostly, with nothing to do with alcohol you can be sure. Where is the evidence of alcohol related crashes in the mornings, especially if they are serious crashes then this should be reported on.

Its getting a bit too nanny state, up until the last 3 or 4 years nobody even mentioned the driving the next day. We all used to drive to work after big nights out and being over the limit never entered anyones head. Now they are trying to dictate how we spend our night out as basically you cant drive somewhere the next day without running the risk of getting stopped.

All this after going to the effort of getting a taxi or a lift home after the night out.

I'm totally against the nanny state but only when it prevents you from harming yourself, drink driving is a different kettle of fish

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

But that's not what happens, is it? It's your current BAC that determines whether you can drive or not, not whether you went out. I suspect the current limits are too low myself, but we do need limits.

I totally agree we need limits, but its not being completely drunk and driving the next morning I am talking about. Its the maybe maybe not mornings where you end up driving and in reality are ok to drive but yet you are worried about being stopped.

There are plenty of times I would not drive until later the next day as I would not feel right, however these would be days I wouldn't need to drive as I would know I wouldn't be able the next day.

Even if they left the limit the way it was it would have made a big difference as I know some friends who have been bagged in the morning on the old limit and they have no idea how they blew zero as they had serious sessions the night before.

Fighting Irish

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

Funnily enough and I'm not saying its in anyway conclusive but I was working at a science exhibition recently and of course I was as hungover as a dog.

They had a thing at it for testing reaction times and just for LOL's I gave it a go (Knowing I was in a bad state and I would not have been in a condition to drive that afternoon coincidently and no way I would have), 100's if not 1000's of people used it all day and the lad running said my reaction time was in the top few percent and I more or less had the shakes from drink doing it.

waheeey, this guy just proved science wrong, lets all go drink driving :pac:

Reg'stoy

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

One example would be heading out with a group of friends on the beer, staying at a friends spot for the night but obviously needing to head off the next morning (11am say) so as not to be imposing on his house mates, needing to get home for some reason or other, going to watch a match etc etc. I don't agree with having to change my plans on a Sunday just because I head out on a Saturday night.

By the way I am not saying people should drive if the feel they would actually be a danger on the roads etc if the night turned into a serious session altogether or something.

Why should you feel so hard done by, especially considering you choose to drink the night before. I don't really understand what you're so aggrieved about.

As for the OP's original post, I personally have no problem with the possibility of being breathalysed the next morning. Before the proverbial high horse accusations are released, yes I have gone out drinking and yes I have gotten drunk.

My normal nights drinking is about 4 or 5 pints watching a match or out with family and friends and we normally finish up before 12. If I plan on a bender/wedding I make arrangements to have the next day off work.

I'm heading to a party next friday and will be staying over for two nights as there will be no way I'll be good to drive on saturday, so we'll hang around the next day use the hotel pool and sauna; make a weekend out of it.

thirtythirty

Anan1 wrote: »

I would guess that 20mg in the morning is a lot more dangerous than 20mg the previous evening. The morning driver will be tired, hung over and probably dehydrated.

I'm not necessarily talking about the morning - could be early afternoon. I suppose what I'm getting at is that;
at that time with that much alcohol in my blood, but with coming up on 10 or 12 hours since my last drink, I would think that I'd be in a very different physiological state than the same amount of alcohol having only had the drink 30 minutes previously.

Perhaps muscular reaction time is still delayed due to the alcohol yes, but I just don't think "brain and balance" would be in the same state in both those scenarios. You could then argue that my delayed reaction time is still better than some 'aul granny on any given day, some taxi man whos been working for 9 hours, or just some dude with man flu.

So while the alcohol level is definately affecting driving ability to a point, it's not to the same level as "actually drinking". Hence why I think the morning limit levels could get away with being at the old rates, simply because it seems unfair to me to target people who might have done all the right things but isn't fully flushed.

I base the above on zero evidence of course, but it seems rational enough to me! That's why I'd love some stats, facts, and studies on this.

Yakuza

Danbo! wrote: »

Your attitude of 'i shouldn't have to change my Sunday plans if I drink on a Saturday' is also a irresponsible in my opinion. You say it like you're forced to drink on a Saturday and forced to change your plans because of ye drink in your system on a Sunday. If you HAVE to get off your friends couch or whatever then drink an amount that will leave you of a fit state by that time.

Well said.
@Bishop Careful Ewe - If you're planning to go out on the lash on a Saturday, fair play, no one is stopping you, but if you want to drive the next day (legally) then you should plan accordingly - cut down on what you drink / stop drinking earlier or make sure you can lounge about on your friend's sofa for longer. A few hours' sleep won't magically wipe your system of alcohol.

pm.

have to say we are becoming more and more a nanny state.... yes im 100% against drink driving but when you abide by the rules go out have 4/5 pints leave the car get a taxi home at a decent hour and get up for work the next day can you be done ??? Dont know because its unclear its different for everyone

But if you want you can ram as many drugs down and get away with it much eaiser than having 2 pints and getting behind the wheel

pm.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

My normal nights drinking is about 4 or 5 pints watching a match or out with family and friends and we normally finish up before 12. If I plan on a bender/wedding I make arrangements to have the next day off work.

.

But the experts say thats binge drinking :rolleyes::rolleyes: will 5 pints have you over the limit if you finish your last pint at midnight and leave the house for 7:30am ?

Fighting Irish

Fighting Irish wrote: »

waheeey, this guy just proved science wrong, lets all go drink driving :pac:

I think its obvious that's not what I meant I was just telling the story as I found it quite funny at the time!

WebGeek

Well, the moral police are out in force as usual.

Atomic Pineapple

RoverJames wrote: »

Well if you know you are driving at a certain time in the am drinking in moderation as required I would consider responsible and mature, no need for a breathalyser than.

Of course that's a given but sometimes you still just don't know and what if you hadn't planned on driving the next day but something came up meaning you had to?

Fiona

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

One example would be heading out with a group of friends on the beer, staying at a friends spot for the night but obviously needing to head off the next morning (11am say) so as not to be imposing on his house mates, needing to get home for some reason or other, going to watch a match etc etc. I don't agree with having to change my plans on a Sunday just because I head out on a Saturday night.

By the way I am not saying people should drive if the feel they would actually be a danger on the roads etc if the night turned into a serious session altogether or something.

Mate can I ask what age you are as this response seems very childish to me!

I went out on Saturday night to a 30th in Kilcullen but I had to drive from Ashbourne and stay on the dry, I had to change my plans to do this so can't see what the issue is!!

Just drink 3/4 drinks less, replace them with softdrinks and you still get your night out, you might even feel a little bit better in the morning for it :rolleyes:

If your willing to put your life and others in danger for the sake of a night out then you don't deserve your licence at all. I take no prisoners when it comes to drink driving.

Reg'stoy

pm. wrote: »

But the experts say thats binge drinking :rolleyes::rolleyes: will 5 pints have you over the limit if you finish your last pint at midnight and leave the house for 7:30am ?

If like last night when I had 3 pints watching the match, absolutely (first pint at 7.30 and left at 10.30).

Lets say last night I started drinking at half seven and had five pints. The first pint would be absorbed (roughly) by half nine, next by half eleven, next by half one, half three and last by say half five in the morning.

If I had started at nine it would be roughly say eleven when the first pint was absorbed and then one, three, five and last one around seven so probably ok. In saying that to be honest, I could count on a hand after a run in with a lawnmover the number of times I've had 5 pints and finished at midnight when I've had work the next day.

Of course all the figures above are purely uneducated guesses.

But all the numbers and is he/she ok next morning, does not absolve the individual of their own personal responsibility. The whole 'nanny state' red herring is a load of bull, we elect goverments who make laws for the betterment of us all.

As for 'having' to drive next day, again it's you as the individual who's making the choice to drive and if you just don't know is it worth the risk? The "I read on-line that if I had to drive because.......it would be ok" excuse won't hold much water I would imagine.

draffodx

draffodx wrote: »

Of course that's a given but sometimes you still just don't know and what if you hadn't planned on driving the next day but something came up meaning you had to?

Had to? As in drive someone to A&E or something similar of an emergency nature?

Or had to as in visit the inlaws, go to the shop, go put a bet on......... etc etc.

I'd sooner have someone drive just over the legal limit if it meant someone getting to A&E or dying but the other had to situations I wouldn't see as justification.

Anan1

spottyelephant wrote: »

So while the alcohol level is definately affecting driving ability to a point, it's not to the same level as "actually drinking". Hence why I think the morning limit levels could get away with being at the old rates, simply because it seems unfair to me to target people who might have done all the right things but isn't fully flushed.

I base the above on zero evidence of course, but it seems rational enough to me! That's why I'd love some stats, facts, and studies on this.

I'd love to see studies too, but in the meantime i'd suspect the opposite.:)

Atomic Pineapple

RoverJames wrote: »

Had to? As in drive someone to A&E or something similar of an emergency nature?

Or had to as in visit the inlaws, go to the shop, go put a bet on......... etc etc.

I'd sooner have someone drive just over the legal limit if it meant someone getting to A&E or dying but the other had to situations I wouldn't see as justification.

I'm not justifying driving over the limit the next morning I'm putting forward a case where a personal breathalyser would be useful.

I've no doubt they are useful, I just don't agree that they should be subsidised by the government

mrs crilly

mrs crilly wrote: »

Mate can I ask what age you are as this response seems very childish to me!

I went out on Saturday night to a 30th in Kilcullen but I had to drive from Ashbourne and stay on the dry, I had to change my plans to do this so can't see what the issue is!!

Just drink 3/4 drinks less, replace them with softdrinks and you still get your night out, you might even feel a little bit better in the morning for it :rolleyes:

If your willing to put your life and others in danger for the sake of a night out then you don't deserve your licence at all. I take no prisoners when it comes to drink driving.

I'm 26.

It's not too bad at the moment as for instance I walk to work so getting in after midweek nights out is not a problem on sundays it would usually be early afternoon when I need drive so should be close to ok, though the new disgrace of a limit might be a bit tougher to get under.

However there was a time where it would have severely effected my nights out, for instance when I was an undergrad we would have a session on a Thursday night, we had fridays off and I used to work on the Friday, but that was a few years ago before all this morning bagging nonsense so I could go out every Thursday and happily get to work on the Friday morning (I may or may not have been over the limit I suppose), where I would spend the day driving heavy machinery without any difficulty.

Golf on Sunday mornings would have been the other thing when I was big into it a few years ago, out Saturday night and golf around 11am on Sunday mornings wouldn't have been doable with the new limit and added risk of getting caught now.

As I said I have a friend who blew zero (old limit) at 11am who was drinking from 7pm until 5am and drinking very heavily in that time so its hard to know really whats what the next day without your own breathalyzer. Another had a very heavy night out went into town had a roll and a pint for the cure and was bagged on the way back at about 12pm again passed with flying colours..

ciotog

Anan1 wrote: »

I'd love to see studies too, but in the meantime i'd suspect the opposite.:)

I was having a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content - the cited material seems reliable enough. Now for some really rough extrapolations - I'm not backing this up with any hard science/research, just the charts. If I take the example of ending up at 20mg (0.02) after 10 hours sleep.
Assuming the .015 / hour elimination after drinking and a 73kg male (picked for convenience off the chart).

Then my interpretation of that chart is you would have had the cumulative effect of 7/8 of their standard drinks at the point you stopped drinking (0.02 + (0.015*10) = 0.17). So on the basis that you're eliminating alcohol while you're drinking then you've probably had 5-6 pints over a few hours the evening before. http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Some-Facts-On-Alcohol-and-Driving-/ seems to be similar with their standard unit/ hour eliminated.

Fiona

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

I'm 26.

Your young you will grow up and realise a night out is not the bee all and end all of life! And no im not a boring woman who has no life. Im a petrol head and my licence is more important to me than a night out on the beer!

irishgrover

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

I'm 26.

Anaya Lazy Teakettle wrote: »

It's not too bad at the moment as for instance I walk to work so getting in after midweek nights out is not a problem on Sundays it would usually be early afternoon when I need drive so should be close to ok, though the new disgrace of a limit might be a bit tougher to get under.

However there was a time where it would have severely effected my nights out, for instance when I was an undergrad we would have a session on a Thursday night, we had Fridays off and I used to work on the Friday, but that was a few years ago before all this morning bagging nonsense so I could go out every Thursday and happily get to work on the Friday morning (I may or may not have been over the limit I suppose), where I would spend the day driving heavy machinery without any difficulty.

Golf on Sunday mornings would have been the other thing when I was big into it a few years ago, out Saturday night and golf around 11am on Sunday mornings wouldn't have been doable with the new limit and added risk of getting caught now.

As I said I have a friend who blew zero (old limit) at 11am who was drinking from 7pm until 5am and drinking very heavily in that time so its hard to know really what’s what the next day without your own breathalyser. Another had a very heavy night out went into town had a roll and a pint for the cure and was bagged on the way back at about 12pm again passed with flying colours..

I'm not being smart, but I've two comments which I think are relevant.

First off, your whole angle on this is related to how the new law interferes with your ability to get wasted and then drive the next morning to go to work/match/golf etc. I think you should modify your view, as previous poster suggested, and consider what impact your actions (driving next day) could have on your health or other road users etc.
The breath test is the most effective, cost efficient way of measuring the residual alcohol is your system, ergo, your ability to safely operate a car.

Secondly, and I'm not being smart, sounds like you have a healthy social life. Consider giving up just one night, and use the saved money to buy a good breathalyser. You can then start measuring the impact alcohol has on your own readings (hell, you can play drinking games with it), and then you have a better idea of what alcohol does to you, and also can bag yourself in the mornings....

ardmacha

If you haven't drank excessively and have had 8 hours sleep then you shouldn't have a problem. If you have had a lot less than 8 hours sleep then you will be tired as well as slightly drunk, so it is likely that your performance is reduced and so some restriction is appropriate.

The Guvnor

Not read the thread but it all depends on how much you had the night before and how much time elapsed etc.

One could get one of those breath checkers to be on the safe side.

TonyStark

CiniO wrote: »

Alcohol blood lever has direct impact on reaction time.
And even if it's just left-over in the morning, your reaction time will be impaired.

I'm definitely in support of operation "viper"

Not to mention the general tiredness that goes without having a good nights sleep.

daveharnett

spottyelephant wrote: »

I have a fundamental issue with the campaign in that they offer nothing by way of statistics relating to the frequency and seriousness of accidents directly attributable people still "drunk", by blood alcohol level defintions, while driving in the morning.

I started the same thread four years ago when the 'morning after' campaigns started (link), and I have yet to see the RSA produce any evidence to support the allocation of Garda resources that are already stretched at this time of year.

I can appreciate that overspending on a particular element of enforcement (in the short term) can pay off in terms of long-term public awareness, but I would like to see the RSA (as my old maths teacher would say) show their workings before they start a campaign.

irishgrover

irishgrover wrote: »

Secondly, and I'm not being smart, sounds like you have a healthy social life. Consider giving up just one night, and use the saved money to buy a good breathalyser. You can then start measuring the impact alcohol has on your own readings (hell, you can play drinking games with it), and then you have a better idea of what alcohol does to you, and also can bag yourself in the mornings....

I would definitely buy one, if I could be guaranteed that its reading was reliable. If I could use my one and be 100% sure that the guards one would produce the same result it would be a brilliant investment but I just don't trust the ones you can buy for home use.

-Chris-

WebGeek wrote: »

Well, the moral police are out in force as usual.

And what are your thoughts on the matter?

-Corkie-

I never ever drink when I have to drive the next morning. If I am going to Dublin on the beer I get the train up. Its so much more relaxing not worrying about meeting the cops too.