Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Guy:Incognito

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm wrong you clearly said the average person processes one unit of alcohol per hour a pint is 2 units. I said if you had 8 cans you cant drive for 16 hours. 8 x 2 is 16 if I remember basic maths. Maybe you should learn basic reading and comprehension again

Are you downing all those cans one after the other in the space of a minute or 2?

Maybe you should learn basic reading and comprehension again.

If you drink 8 cans in 4 hours, the first 2 cans are gone from the system by the time you stop drinking *



* average person.

Necro

Just don't drink if you know you have to drive the next day.

It's not bloody rocket science.

The obsession we have here in Ireland with drink is ridiculous.

Maxed-irl

alan partridge aha wrote: »

The crux of this is that I understand that the body processes alcohol from the start of the session.

Not according to the government or the radio ads etc . I dont condone someone having a pint and driving home. I worked in a bar and fought with people over it. Ibe walked home rather than take a lift off a friend. But I cant see how someone cant have a few beers at the weekend and sleep and be unable to drive for 16 hours after their last beer. I understand that the calculators are just ass covering but still someone that goes out to commit drink driving after being in the pub cannot be the same as someone who has beers gets a taxi home has a chipper goes asleep wakes up has a coffee and gets in the car clearly the way it has to be dealt with is different.

Gimme A Pound

CoBo55 wrote: »

Em... What does virtue signalling mean?

Necro wrote: »

I'd also like to know this. Or preferably for people to stop using the stupid fcuking term.

It refers to when people are all talk about how something has to be done about something (but by others) or they might pay lip service but not actually do anything.

It's a valid criticism imo but of course the term gets misused frequently.

AtomicHorror

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Not according to the government or the radio ads etc . I dont condone someone having a pint and driving home. I worked in a bar and fought with people over it. Ibe walked home rather than take a lift off a friend. But I cant see how someone cant have a few beers at the weekend and sleep and be unable to drive for 16 hours after their last beer. I understand that the calculators are just ass covering but still someone that goes out to commit drink driving after being in the pub cannot be the same as someone who has beers gets a taxi home has a chipper goes asleep wakes up has a coffee and gets in the car clearly the way it has to be dealt with is different.

If the alcohol has left their system, it will be. Otherwise, why should it be?

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm wrong you clearly said the average person processes one unit of alcohol per hour a pint is 2 units. I said if you had 8 cans you cant drive for 16 hours. 8 x 2 is 16 if I remember basic maths. Maybe you should learn basic reading and comprehension again

Woah, no need to bite my head off. Relax yourself.
This is your post:

Maxed-irl wrote: »

if you have say 8 pints you cant drive for 16 hours after your last drink.

You're wrong saying 16 hours after your LAST drink.
If I had 8 pints spaced out by 2 hours throughout the day then I could drive 2 hours after my last drink.
That's all I'm saying. No need to jump down my throat.

alan partridge aha

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Not according to the government or the radio ads etc . I dont condone someone having a pint and driving home. I worked in a bar and fought with people over it. Ibe walked home rather than take a lift off a friend. But I cant see how someone cant have a few beers at the weekend and sleep and be unable to drive for 16 hours after their last beer. I understand that the calculators are just ass covering but still someone that goes out to commit drink driving after being in the pub cannot be the same as someone who has beers gets a taxi home has a chipper goes asleep wakes up has a coffee and gets in the car clearly the way it has to be dealt with is different.

So when does one start processing it at the end of the night? That's bullsh×t and lies.

Maxed-irl

alan partridge aha wrote: »

So when does one start processing it at the end of the night? That's bullsh×t and lies.

As they state it can continue to rise for up to 3 hours after your last drink so if you went on a day long bender your body wont process it until you finish drinking. This is what the campaign states.

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

still someone that goes out to commit drink driving after being in the pub cannot be the same as someone who has beers gets a taxi home has a chipper goes asleep wakes up has a coffee and gets in the car clearly the way it has to be dealt with is different.

Why?

Commiting drink driving is the act of driving while under the influence.

Whether it's that night or the morning after makes no difference. If woken up drunk and bleary eyed plenty of times after a heavy night. A shower and breakfast helps but I'm still drunk

Maxed-irl wrote: »

As they state it can continue to rise for up to 3 hours after your last drink so if you went on a day long bender your body wont process it until you finish drinking. This is what the campaign states.

It takes a while for alcohol to enter your system so it's true that your level can continue to rise.
It's why it's incredibly dangerous to drink till you pass out. You're still getting drunk while you're unconscious.

Which makes it all the more relevant why you shouldn't drive the morning after a heavy night.

Maxed-irl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Are you downing all those cans one after the other in the space of a minute or 2?

Maybe you should learn basic reading and comprehension again.

If you drink 8 cans in 4 hours, the first 2 cans are gone from the system by the time you stop drinking *



* average person.

Read how its calculated. The body takes 1 hour to process 1 standard drink. Alcohol levels can rise for 3 hours after you stop drinking. Alcohol is processed after your last drink. Clearly this is what is been said on TV radio etc. As stated before basic reading and comprehension has once again escaped the Irish youth

Maxed-irl

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Why?

Commiting drink driving is the act of driving while under the influence.

Whether it's that night or the morning after makes no difference. If woken up drunk and bleary eyed plenty of times after a heavy night. A shower and breakfast helps but I'm still drunk

So someone who has their pints goes to bed wakes up has breakfast etc is the same as a person who had 10 pints and tried to drive home.

alan partridge aha

Maxed-irl wrote: »

As they state it can continue to rise for up to 3 hours after your last drink so if you went on a day long bender your body wont process it until you finish drinking. This is what the campaign states.

Fair enough, you're the messenger and I'm not shooting you, but we're not talking about day long benders rather 3hrs.
Day long benders could be 15 -20 pints and who can afford that.

Maxed-irl

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Fair enough, you're the messenger and I'm not shooting you, but we're not talking about day long benders rather 3hrs.
Day long benders could be 15 -20 pints and who can afford that.

I'm just going on the average person being at home buying an 8 pack say starting at 8 finishing at 1they cant drive until 5 the next day. That's bull if you ask me. Anyone who intentionally drinks and drives deserves to be locked up. I'm saying that if someone had a few beers at home and got in car next day potentially they're over but they're not the same as someone who's driving home from a pub unless they were on a bender

alan partridge aha

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm just going on the average person being at home buying an 8 pack say starting at 8 finishing at 1they cant drive until 5 the next day. That's bull if you ask me. Anyone who intentionally drinks and drives deserves to be locked up. I'm saying that if someone had a few beers at home and got in car next day potentially they're over but they're not the same as someone who's driving home from a pub unless they were on a bender

The end result for me is that I'm defo buying a tester.

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Read how its calculated. The body takes 1 hour to process 1 standard drink. Alcohol levels can rise for 3 hours after you stop drinking. Alcohol is processed after your last drink. Clearly this is what is been said on TV radio etc. As stated before basic reading and comprehension has once again escaped the Irish youth

I understand that quote is from the RSA but you're not understanding it. When you drink enough to surpass the ability of alcohol to be eliminated from your blood through liver metabolism your BAC will rise for up to 3 hours.

If I drink a naggin my blood doesn't go from zero to max alcohol in 5 mins. It ramps up over time, while my liver is also working to break it down.

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So someone who has their pints goes to bed wakes up has breakfast etc is the same as a person who had 10 pints and tried to drive home.

Someone who has 10 pints could be so blind drunk they can't turn on a car.

Someone who wakes up could be drunk enough their reactions are slowed to a point where they're a danger.

Both are drunk drivers.

Maxed-irl

I'm having a few beers tonight watched the golf etc as I dont work mondays. I've to drive tomorrow but by the law I cant. I must get a breathalyser just to check as i dont want to lose my license. I agree with the law being strict against drink driving but my point is the guards are doing more breath tests in the am to catch more people for €€€. I'd prefer to see more night time testing as that's when the majority of dangerous piss heads be on the road

Maxed-irl

Twenty Grand wrote: »

I understand that quote is from the RSA but you're not understanding it. When you drink enough to surpass the ability of alcohol to be eliminated from your blood through liver metabolism your BAC will rise for up to 3 hours.

If I drink a naggin my blood doesn't go from zero to max alcohol in 5 mins. It ramps up over time, while my liver is also working to break it down.

I know its generic to cover their arses

Twenty Grand

Maxed-irl wrote: »

I'm having a few beers tonight watched the golf etc as I dont work mondays. I've to drive tomorrow but by the law I cant. I must get a breathalyser just to check as i dont want to lose my license. I agree with the law being strict against drink driving but my point is the guards are doing more breath tests in the am to catch more people for €€€. I'd prefer to see more night time testing as that's when the majority of dangerous piss heads be on the road

Life is short, enjoy yourself. A few beers is something to be enjoyed. You'll more than likely be fine to drive in the morning.

Necro

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So someone who has their pints goes to bed wakes up has breakfast etc is the same as a person who had 10 pints and tried to drive home.

Over the limit is over the limit.

That's why we have laws governing this behaviour. If you have to drive the next day, don't drink.

It's really that simple.

Maxed-irl

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Life is short, enjoy yourself. A few beers is something to be enjoyed. You'll more than likely be fine to drive in the morning.

Haha I know I'll be ok but generalising it is a bit ****. I agree I've probable been over the limit after weddings or something like that but I've slept and thought I was ok but to state that I'm not if I'm at home and drink 8 beers over 8 hours is a bit wrong.

Maxed-irl

Necro wrote: »

Over the limit is over the limit.

That's why we have laws governing this behaviour. If you have to drive the next day, don't drink.

It's really that simple.

Yeah I agree with ya I'm saying if I've 8 cans over a few hours and sleep etc I dont need 16 hours from bottle to throttle

eagle eye

I'd say the majority of people are well capable of driving a car responsibly after three pints.
Problem is that there are people who aren't capable so we need to have laws to prevent them from driving.
I'm all for the French idea where you must have a breathaliser in your car.

stoneill

vandriver wrote: »

'...I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers...'

Really?

One - One person lost is too many.

Maxed-irl

Maxed-irl wrote: »

Read how its calculated. The body takes 1 hour to process 1 standard drink. Alcohol levels can rise for 3 hours after you stop drinking. Alcohol is processed after your last drink. Clearly this is what is been said on TV radio etc. As stated before basic reading and comprehension has once again escaped the Irish youth

You are 100% wrong so stop, you are confusing people.

The minute you start drinking your body starts processing alcohol, why in earth would it wait until you finish? How does your body know you have finished?

If your body didn’t process it as you drink we wouldn’t be able to drink half as much. So you start counting from when you start drinking not when you finish.

Maxed-irl

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

You are 100% wrong so stop, you are confusing people.

The minute you start drinking your body starts processing alcohol, why in earth would it wait until you finish? How does your body know you have finished?

If your body didn’t process it as you drink we wouldn’t be able to drink half as much. So you start counting from when you start drinking not when you finish.

So you've not heard the ad on the radio that says "after your last drink" maybe I'm wrong but that's what I heard on the radio on a RSA ad. I suppose to be cautious if you've had beer the night before and dont drive if you think you're over.

Maxed-irl

Maxed-irl wrote: »

So you've not heard the ad on the radio that says "after your last drink" maybe I'm wrong but that's what I heard on the radio on a RSA ad. I suppose to be cautious if you've had beer the night before and dont drive if you think you're over.

I haven’t heard an RSA ad saying this but if they are they are wrong. It’s simple biology, it’s like saying a car doesn’t start burning petrol until you arrive at your destination.

If you used the “rule” of counting hours since your last drink people would be massively inconvienienced in their lives if they want to go out at night and drive places the next day.

TheIrishGrover

Bobtheman wrote: »

I live within a mile of ten pubs. Im really aiming at rural dwellers. Im not against drink driving laws just think they need to be moderated. Tired of virtue signalers who have no issue with the amount of booze we allow to be sold, thus costing god knows what for families/health services etc but wet themselves in virtue over drink drivers?

Ah, OK. So it's not the drink driver's fault? It's the fact that people don't want to limit the amount non-drink drivers can drink.

Understood.

So the fact that there are no laws limiting how much a person can drink (responsibly or irresponsibly) is far far worse than getting behind the wheel of a car intoxicated and potentially killing an innocent person/people.

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve seen seen lads on different occasions blow under the limit at times between 9am and noon after anything from 10 to 15 pints the night before finishing up at 2am at the earliest though which really does not tally with the number put out there.

You’ve been a passenger in cars where you’ve witnessed the driver blow under the limit after been out on the lash till 2am at Garda checkpoints or pull-overs?

On a few occasions, all in the morning time?

Maxed-irl

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I haven’t heard an RSA ad saying this but if they are they are wrong. It’s simple biology, it’s like saying a car doesn’t start burning petrol until you arrive at your destination.

If you used the “rule” of counting hours since your last drink people would be massively inconvienienced in their lives if they want to go out at night and drive places the next day.

I agree with you but that's what they're touting as I said they're probably being over cautious.

AndrewJRenko

Francis Scruffy Groin wrote: »

CoBo55 wrote: »

Em... What does virtue signalling mean?

Necro wrote: »

I'd also like to know this. Or preferably for people to stop using the stupid fcuking term.

It refers to when people are all talk about how something has to be done about something (but by others) or they might pay lip service but not actually do anything.

It's a valid criticism imo but of course the term gets misused frequently.

It's a technical term for those strange people who don't want to be killed by a drunk driver.

BPKS

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why only 1-3 miles? Why not 10 to 30 miles? What is the difference. You could easily walk 1-3 miles.

Within a few miles radius of where I live, 2 people have been knocked down and killed (not by drunk drivers) in the last 3 years. They were both p1ssed and walking home on dark, country roads.

In the road death stats, their deaths would be counted as alcohol related.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

You’ve been a passenger in cars where you’ve witnessed the driver blow under the limit after been out on the lash till 2am at Garda checkpoints or pull-overs?

On a few occasions, all in the morning time?

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

jmayo

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

Well that appears to be the argument by the those in favour of Lord rosses ideas anyway.

Danny Healy Rae, gombeen that he is, asked a legitimate question of lord ross, dept of transport, RSA, etc and AFAIK they couldn't answer.
"How many people were killed by drivers with between 50 and 80mg of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels ?"

Yes we all know that drunk drivers have killed people and we all I would say that someone with a load of drink on them should not be near a wheel.
I had no problem with the 80mg limit as it allowed someone have a couple of pint over a few hours.

But lord ross and some people want a drink drive limit of ZERO.
In other words no sherry trifle.
No drink at all.

And BPKS mentioned an issue that this whole plan will not prevent, what about drunk pedestrians ?
Should they be charged as well ?
Are the deaths of drunk pedestrians fed into the general stats on drink related deaths ?

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve seen it personally once at a random breath check point where I was a passenger and had good friends tell me they or the person driving was breathalysed in the morning on at least 3 other occasions. Two being random mandatory check points and as far as I remember the other was a pull over for something else and the smell of drink in the car prompted a check (car full of people who had been out the night before so an accumulated smell of drink rather than just the driver).

In 2 or possibly 3 of these occasions I was out with the person the night before and in one case we were stilll drinking spirits at about 5am and he was checked between noon and lunchtime and passed. I was driving home myself that morning a bit earlier than him and was sure glad to have missed the checkpoint we have no idea how he passed.

Over many years and across a large number of the people and where the majority of us would regularly drive the next morning after being out it’s not a high number of instances which I think you are suggesting in your post.

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, bar stool talk so. I'd take all that with a pinch of salt.

Aside from that one time you say you witnessed it of course.

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

Skylinehead

jmayo wrote: »

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:








:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

John_Rambo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

No I would believe it 100%, maybe your lifelong friends are liars but mine aren’t.

I just don't believe second hand drunken tales! Sure you started off saying you have seen lads getting off on a few occasions, turns out you only saw it once!

Barstool talk!

ArrBee

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if someone did this and killed a member of your family you would be ok with them not being prosecuted because they had only had the 3 pints and driving a short distance?

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

Depends what the cause of the accident resulting in death was.
To say that drink caused it, or was even a factor, simple because it was present is a bit reactionary.

I wouldn't often have much time for these new "overused terms" like snowflake whataboutry, and virtue signaling, but I think it is appropriate in this context.

Alcohol effects all the things needed to drive safely (concentration, reaction time, judgement, coordination, spatial reasoning, etc.), so it would be very hard if not impossible to conclusively determine that it did not have an impact.

jmayo

Nixonbot wrote: »

A lot of people didn't. :rolleyes:


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes some people didn't survive, but the whole idea of lowering the limit is the usual bullcr** to be seen to be doing something.

Are we going to resort to the line that we have had massive number of deaths on our roads ?
Because according to international stats we aren't all that bad.

And I do know that is cold comfort to people who have lost friends and family due to drink caused road accidents, but in the grand scheme of things we weren't as terrible as some make out.
The key to making things safer is to tackle the issues like young guys driving like lunatics at night and early morning.
And that requires investment in policing.

BTW these new measures are akin to tackling gun crime due to drugs gangs by banning licensed firearms.

Will lowering the limit to 50mg stop someone drinking 10 vodkas and redbulls, 5 pints and driving to show off to his mates ?

Years ago you could pass a country pub of a Sunday/Saturday night and have 20 cars outside.
There was a damn good bet that a fair few were drinking more than a few pints and driving home.

Enforce the rules that were there already, enforce those rules at the likes of 11pm, 12am, 2am, 3am when the real issues are happening.
Not 8.30am or 9am the following morning and checking if someone is 60mg limit.

But we know why there isn't massive enforcement at night and it is due to finances of AGS.
Easier and cheaper to send the lads out in the morning rather than have proper police force operating at night.

ArrBee

jmayo wrote: »

The weird thing is that anyone survived at all during the years when we had higher drink drive limits. :rolleyes:

Well that appears to be the argument by the those in favour of Lord rosses ideas anyway.

Danny Healy Rae, gombeen that he is, asked a legitimate question of lord ross, dept of transport, RSA, etc and AFAIK they couldn't answer.
"How many people were killed by drivers with between 50 and 80mg of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels ?"

Yes we all know that drunk drivers have killed people and we all I would say that someone with a load of drink on them should not be near a wheel.
I had no problem with the 80mg limit as it allowed someone have a couple of pint over a few hours.

But lord ross and some people want a drink drive limit of ZERO.
In other words no sherry trifle.
No drink at all.

And BPKS mentioned an issue that this whole plan will not prevent, what about drunk pedestrians ?
Should they be charged as well ?
Are the deaths of drunk pedestrians fed into the general stats on drink related deaths ?

One question I'd like answered - but can't be arsed researching myself...
what proportion of drivers with >80mg had previously been caught between 50 and 80?

i.e. was the points between 50 and 80 an effective deterrent?

It does seem odd to have instant license suspension for over 50mg now. especially when you consider the many variables around actual impairment in an individual, differences in the method of measurement (breath/blood/urine), detected level vs time passed since driving, etc.

I would say this is an indication of further change to come.
Either the 50mg limit will be lowered with points being the penalty, or expect to see 3month suspension for going 125km/h on the motorway

patmahe

I think we're asking the wrong question here. Operating a ton of machinery in a public place is not something to be done when you've consumed a substance that impairs your ability to do so. This is not virtue signaling, its common sense.

What about alternatives to driving? Taxi's, designated drivers, buses run by pubs or local authourities, car pools etc... why aren't we discussing those?

Or why not make the same brethalisers that Gardaí use, available for sale to the public so anyone who wants to can check themselves before driving to ensure they are not over the limit?

I don't buy the 3 pints and ok to drive argument at all to be honest.

garv123

Is there such a thing as an accurate, affordable, reusable breathalyzer that someone could use the morning after to check when they're ok to drive?

Necro

jmayo wrote: »

Yes some people didn't survive, but the whole idea of lowering the limit is the usual bullcr** to be seen to be doing something.

Are we going to resort to the line that we have had massive number of deaths on our roads ?
Because according to international stats we aren't all that bad.

And I do know that is cold comfort to people who have lost friends and family due to drink caused road accidents, but in the grand scheme of things we weren't as terrible as some make out.
The key to making things safer is to tackle the issues like young guys driving like lunatics at night and early morning.
And that requires investment in policing.

BTW these new measures are akin to tackling gun crime due to drugs gangs by banning licensed firearms.

Will lowering the limit to 50mg stop someone drinking 10 vodkas and redbulls, 5 pints and driving to show off to his mates ?

Years ago you could pass a country pub of a Sunday/Saturday night and have 20 cars outside.
There was a damn good bet that a fair few were drinking more than a few pints and driving home.

Enforce the rules that were there already, enforce those rules at the likes of 11pm, 12am, 2am, 3am when the real issues are happening.
Not 8.30am or 9am the following morning and checking if someone is 60mg limit.

But we know why there isn't massive enforcement at night and it is due to finances of AGS.
Easier and cheaper to send the lads out in the morning rather than have proper police force operating at night.

Got any facts to back up your anti-Garda nonsense? Any at all? Because what you're posting there is complete and utter mistruth.

If you have to drive the next morning, don't drink.

It's really, really, really simple.

I don't care about the social aspect or what Jimmy and Johnny did 10 or 20 years ago - the fact is there were less cars on the road then - and people still died because of drink driving.

The country needs to wake up to this idea that a night out or social function HAS to be accompanied by alcohol. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It is perfectly acceptable to go out and have a bit of a laugh with your mates or whoever without having a drop of alcohol.

And then you can drive from Malin Head to Mizen Head if you so wish at any and all times of the day.

xckjoo

garv123 wrote: »

Is there such a thing as an accurate, affordable, reusable breathalyzer that someone could use the morning after to check when they're ok to drive?

I'm sure there is, but not one that'll stand up in court if it conflicted with an official reading. Not a Guard, but I'd assume their breathalysers are highly regulated, calibrated and certified at regular intervals. It's not really feasible to do that at home. Expensive too.

Use them as an indicator only.

xckjoo

Necro wrote: »

I don't care about the social aspect or what Jimmy and Johnny did 10 or 20 years ago - the fact is there were less cars on the road then - and people still died because of drink driving.

It's also conveniently forgotten that if you go back slightly further than that, almost nobody had a car. Only 1 of my grandparents even had a driving license.

bodice ripper

Where are all these draconian check points? In 20 years of driving 700-1000km a week I have only been breathalysed twice, and both of them were outside festivals...

Tacklebox

Gone are the days you hear one of the lads boasting about drink driving or being better drivers after a few pints.

I knew a few of those kind of lads, most ended up overturned, dead or off the road.

Absolute knobs to be honest, driving impaired.

Trying to name drop when they're caught.

The funniest one was some guy thinking they should have let him go when his car was 200m from his house.
Got into his car absolutely hammered turned the key and drove out of the carpark, blue lights and a siren.. caught

The idiot could have walked across the road, lived in Tola Park in Shannon.
It's across the road from the Shannon Knights bar.

Absolute knob.

Necro

Necro wrote: »

The country needs to wake up to this idea that a night out or social function HAS to be accompanied by alcohol. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It is perfectly acceptable to go out and have a bit of a laugh with your mates or whoever without having a drop of alcohol.

And then you can drive from Malin Head to Mizen Head if you so wish at any and all times of the day.

Personally I’d rather stay at home if I can’t drink, I go out to drink so going out without drinking has zero appeal.