Draconian drink driving laws are ridiculous

Cockford Ollie

If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

Roger Hassenforder

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

Legend!

Atlantic Dawn

A tray is not ok, 9 is fine.

fxotoole

This should be good. I’ll go get the popcorn.

normanoffside

Actually it takes 16 hours from when you start drinking them. So unless you necked 8 pints in a few minutes before midnight they should be out of your system before 16:00.

Mushy

Nah would rather stay alive thanks.

Saw a driver recently who was drunk, I'll assume it was from night before. Scary is the only way to describe it, knowing you have no control over the situation and the other is barely in control

Insect Overlord

0.5/10

Panthro

"Dink driving"... hehe!

DontThankMe

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

I'd say you wouldn't be saying the same stuff if one of your relatives or close friends were killed by a drink driver which was the case in nearly 40% of the 258 road fatalities in 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-drink-driving-enough-stalling-pass-the-bill-1.3496406%3fmode=amp

kneemos

Might be technically drunk the next morning,but you don't still have the narcotic type symptoms.

sk8erboii

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

If you have 8 pints of Guinness it takes 16 hours to leave your system, according to this:
https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator

So you finish drinking at midnight you can't drive well into the next day. Pure nanny state.

It's a brand new day, you are not incapacitated in any way. I could have several pints in a row, get in a car striaght away and be able to operate it safely, nevermind waiting until the next day.

Back in the day my father would drive home langered (very slowly) and we all in the back seat without seat belts, no harm done.

There should be no checkpoints in the mornings. Needless draconian punishment of hard working rural people forced upon us by the holier than thou anti drink brigade.

Anti drink bridage? Ahhaahhahahahaaha


Ive never met anyone more deluded than alcoholics. I mean seriously, how about you just stop drink driving and make the countty a better place for everyone to live in.

Why do alcoholics think theyre being oppressed?

Ning

It's a troll, don't feed it.

Cockford Ollie

DontThankMe wrote: »

I'd say you wouldn't be saying the same stuff if one of your relatives or close friends were killed by a drink driver which was the case in nearly 40% of the 258 road fatalities in 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-drink-driving-enough-stalling-pass-the-bill-1.3496406%3fmode=amp

There's no evidence the cause of the collision was because of drink, only that the driver tested positive for the ridiculously low levels of alcohol.

KERSPLAT!

Which Healy-Rae are you?

kneemos

Ning wrote: »

It's a troll, don't feed it.

He makes a good point in any case. How do you know if you're over the limit the following morning?
It's a bit fish in the barrel.

Richard Hillman

Money making racket. Nobody in the establishment gives 2 hoots about road safety. The government only want fine income. The media push was created by Gay Byrne and the insurance industry to jack up costs for the consumer.

Even when road deaths were 300+ per year, it was still quite low per capita. And even then, a lot of road deaths are actually suicide.

Strumms

If a ‘nanny state’ prevents fûckwits getting into a car with levels of alcohol still in their system that may impare their driving and someone is killed or injured then I’m all for the nanny state.

DontThankMe

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

There's no evidence the cause of the collision was because of drink, only that the driver tested positive for the ridiculously low levels of alcohol.

Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.

Are you denying that alcohol doesn't impair a person's driving and therefore, increase the likelihood that they will be involved in a road traffic collision that could result in a fatality.

Cockford Ollie

DontThankMe wrote: »

Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.

Are you denying that alcohol doesn't impair a person's driving and therefore, increase the likelihood that they will be involved in a road traffic collision that could result in a fatality.

Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

Sleeper12

kneemos wrote:

Might be technically drunk the next morning,but you don't still have the narcotic type symptoms.

You won't exactly have razor sharp reflexes either though

GMSA

kneemos wrote: »

He makes a good point in any case. How do you know if you're over the limit the following morning?
It's a bit fish in the barrel.

When the Garda tells you after breathalysing you at a checkpoint.

Sleeper12

KERSPLAT! wrote:

Which Healy-Rae are you?

Not the smart one, that's for sure

Zaph

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

Yes, because they were the only two cars on the road and therefore there's zero possibility of the drunk driver hitting a different car. Or a cyclist. Or a pedestrian.

There was a time trolls put a bit of effort into their threads, but I'm afraid you're so amateurish you're not even worth sitebanning.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Which Healy-Rae are you?

i think its Surly

Cockford Ollie

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

You need a boot up the backside with that devil-may-care attitude.

KERSPLAT!

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

I actually laughed at this. This is the stupidity we're dealing with

Drink more, drive faster, save lives. The new RSA slogan.

DontThankMe

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

Most collisions are just bad luck, wrong place wrong time. If someone had MORE drink, they would have left the pub later, meaning the cars wouldn't have intersected at the point in time of the collision. Or they would have driven slower and again the point of collision wouldn't have happened.

Same with the speed kills fallacy. If the cars were going faster, they wouldn't have met in the exact point in time the collision happened.

So if a drink driver swerved across the road and hit an oncoming car in the opposite lane head on and killed that person it's down to bad luck and nothing to do with them being drunk behind the wheel.

You do realise that a lot of road fatalities occur when there is no one else in the car so the speed kills fallacy has no revelance if there's no point in time when a collision between two cars happened.

Answer me this if the same make and model of car hits a wall at 100km/hr and in another instance hits the wall at 180km/hr which driver is more likely to die as a result of the crash?

gctest50

1 in 10 of all driver alcohol related collisions occurred between 7am and 11am.

lalababa

DontThankMe wrote: »

Might not have been the cause in some cases but it was definitely a significant contributing factor to the cause of the collision.



You shouldn't say that, it's unscientific and illogical.

Take a head on fatal collision with car A moving to the wrong side of the road just before a collision with car B, resulting in a fatality in car B. Car A was only a few moments into it's journey and the front demister was found to be compromsed by blockages. The driver and fatality of car B was found to have a BAC of .02. Therefore you can say alcohol WAS a factor in the fatality, or you can say it was involved /an element in the accident. These phrases and words are near meaningless to scientific road crash investigators.

Surreptitious

I ONLY drink behind the wheel. Am I doing this right?

gctest50

lalababa wrote: »

DontThankMe wrote: »

You shouldn't say that, it's unscientific and illogical.

This is plenty scientific though :


1 in 10 drink driving arrests happen between 8am and 2pm