Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Dial Hard

bodice ripper wrote: »

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...

Outside every church in Healy-Rae territory, if you were to believe their nonsense.

bodice ripper

Dial Hard wrote:

Outside every church in Healy-Rae territory, if you were to believe their nonsense.

Well, it would certainly brighten my day...

Cienciano

Steve wrote: »

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

This reminds me of the senator who wanted all playstations and xboxes "chipped" so they go off after 2 hours.

eagle eye

Cienciano wrote:

This reminds me of the senator who wanted all playstations and xboxes "chipped" so they go off after 2 hours.

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so it’s very much the opposite direction things are going.

xckjoo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so it’s very much the opposite direction things are going.

Ya that's exactly what's going on.

Hard to drive a car with no heat controls. Can distract you physically or fog up windows, etc. So the lack of control can be a greater distraction than the physical act of controlling it. Not really the same thing with changing music. Just don't turn it on in the first place if it's going to be such an issue.

Cienciano

eagle eye wrote: »

Doesn't seem anything like it to me. One is that people don't have distractions whilst driving.
The other is some crazy notion that would try and prevent people gaming for over two hours.

It's similar because it's an ill thought out plan that's intention is to help, but will have ways around it and will effect millions of people that don't have a problem with a phone while driving.


Your data wouldn't work while walking or jogging at 5kph. And your phone could still distract you, just because data isn't on doesn't mean people won't use their phones for other things.
There's a lot of things that could be done that "might" save 1 life. But like this idea, they're stupid, so they aren't done.

Here's more problems. Location services off. Phone doesn't know how fast your going, therefore I can post my selfie to instagram and run over a schoolkid at the same time. Also, mobile data off doesn't stop people texting. Or going through a phonebook to make calls. I can't use google voice command now because I don't have poxy data as I'm driving over 5kph. Never mind passengers not being able to use their phones, commuters (over 100k in Dublin alone a day commute using public transport) now can't use a service they're paying for because of this ridiculous law.

eagle eye

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

A certain level of distraction just has to be accepted as being part of driving otherwise we might as well just ban driving.

Why? I drive over 1000km most weeks. I keep my eyes on the road. I use music quite a bit but put it on before I start driving.
I have at least one close call per day, usually in urban areas, and a lit if the time it's to do with drivers using their phones.

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

Operating the touch screen heating in many cars is no better and possibly worse than operating Spotify for example and very soon all manufacturers will have heating as a touch screen operation so it’s very much the opposite direction things are going.

Touch screen is a big mistake. Pack in what you can on the steering wheel and forget the other stuff

Bobtheman

Tacklebox wrote: »

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.

Is that a true story?

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Why? I drive over 1000km most weeks. I keep my eyes on the road. I use music quite a bit but put it on before I start driving.
I have at least one close call per day, usually in urban areas, and a lit if the time it's to do with drivers using their phones.

Because I change what I’m listening to often while driving. It can all be done through the cars radio without even looking at the phone. As I said I can also have messages read to me and respond again without touching the phone. Everyone takes their eyes of the road for a second here and there it’s nonsense to claim otherwise, it’s just part of driving.

eagle eye wrote: »

Touch screen is a big mistake. Pack in what you can on the steering wheel and forget the other stuff

Touch screen are brilliant in cars but personally I’d prefer heating controls kept to dials and buttons. I’ve driven some cars that the only way to control the heat is to cycle to the correct menu, find the correct touch buttons and press them you have to look at the acreen to do it. It won’t be long before all cars have all controls on the screen.

xckjoo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Because I change what I’m listening to often while driving. It can all be done through the cars radio without even looking at the phone. As I said I can also have messages read to me and respond again without touching the phone. Everyone takes their eyes of the road for a second here and there it’s nonsense to claim otherwise, it’s just part of driving.

Agreed. We can't stay completely focussed on the road for prolonged amounts of time. But that's why it's not a good idea to purposefully introduce additional distractions.

lawred2

bodice ripper wrote: »

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...

I've never been breathalyzed in twenty years of driving.

lawred2

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

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.

grand stay at home then

safer for everyone including yourself

jmayo

Necro wrote: »

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

I can only speak as a motorist for nearly 30 years.
And I bet others will back up my point about Garda presence at night as well.

In fact Gardai have admitted to me they aren't out at night because of lack of resources and decisions of superiors.

Over the years I have come across a few speedchecks at night or very early morning, once a late night checkpoint to check if drivers had been on that road a week previous when a burglary took place and a couple of checkpoints for tax/insurance after the scandal about all the bogus records came out.

Speaking of which how can you argue with facts about Garda checkpoints when they were found to be fraudulently fudging the facts?
Or would pointing out that be anti-Garda as well ?

BTW it is a bit rich you complain about others speaking utter mistruths with respect to the Garda when if anything the AGS have been the biggest purveyor of mistruths over the last number of years. :rolleyes:

Necro wrote: »

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.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't ever drink and/or someone that has the privledge of adequate public transport options. :rolleyes:

lawred2 wrote: »

I've never been breathalyzed in twenty years of driving.

I have never been breathalyzed in nearly 30 years driving in Ireland, but have been breathalyzed in France, Australia and New Zealand.

xckjoo

jmayo wrote: »

Spoken like somebody who doesn't ever drink and/or someone that has the privledge of adequate public transport options. :rolleyes:

Spoken like someone who thinks their fun trumps everyone else's right to safety?

lawred2

jmayo wrote: »

Spoken like somebody who doesn't ever drink and/or someone that has the privledge of adequate public transport options. :rolleyes:
.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

I've never been breathalyzed in twenty years of driving.

I’ve been breathalyzed twice in 17 years driving, one of the times I had actually had a drink too but passed easily.

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’ve been breathalyzed twice, one of the times I had actually had a drink too but passed easily.

The time you'd had a drink, what did you blow?

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

The time you'd had a drink, what did you blow?

Think it said zero on the machine but I was just told I passed and drive on. Was one pint drank about 15 mins before being checked.

Autecher

jmayo wrote: »

I have never been breathalyzed in nearly 30 years driving in Ireland, but have been breathalyzed in France, Australia and New Zealand.

Why were you breathalyzed in those countries? Were they checkpoints?

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Think it said zero on the machine but I was just told I passed and drive on. Was one pint drank about 15 mins before being checked.

You can't really say you passed easily then, all you know is you passed.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

You can't really say you passed easily then, all you know is you passed.

I’m fairly certain the machine said zero as I could see it, also it gave a result quick. The people I know who have barely passed the machine took ages and the guard said as much to them, the fact it took ages meant they were very borderline and lucky to pass.

xckjoo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’m fairly certain the machine said zero as I could see it, also it gave a result quick. The people I know who have barely passed the machine took ages and the guard said as much to them, the fact it took ages meant they were very borderline and lucky to pass.

It'll need x amount of time to get an accurate reading no matter what the blood alcohol level.

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’m fairly certain the machine said zero as I could see it, also it gave a result quick. The people I know who have barely passed the machine took ages and the guard said as much to them, the fact it took ages meant they were very borderline and lucky to pass.

And you were there to see this?

I doubt the length of time it takes for the machine to give a result has anything to do with the levels being blown, probably more to do with the strength of the blow into it in the first place.

I think you're making stuff up to suit your agenda, you've already backtracked once having claimed to have seen lads (plural) pass the test after being out drinking only to later change it to 1 lad and heard stories of others.

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.

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.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

And you were there to see this?

I doubt the length of time it takes for the machine to give a result has anything to do with the levels being blown, probably more to do with the strength of the blow into it in the first place.

I think you're making stuff up to suit your agenda, you've already backtracked once having claimed to have seen lads (plural) pass the test after being out drinking only to later change it to 1 lad and heard stories of others.

Look believe what you want, I would trust a good friend the same as if I saw it myself hence why I said I had seen it.

I can guarantee you that a guard said the fact it takes longer is a bad thing to a friend who was bagged, he was absolutely positive he was going to fail also as it was morning after a feed of drink the night before. Now maybe it’s not actually true (that it takes longer if there is alcoho) lbut I am 100% positive it was said to him as I would believe my good friends (obviously many here have no trust in their friends).

I have absolutely no reason to make stuff up.

ArrBee

amcalester wrote: »

And you were there to see this?

I doubt the length of time it takes for the machine to give a result has anything to do with the levels being blown, probably more to do with the strength of the blow into it in the first place.

I have a feeling there is a relationship between speed of result and amount of alcohol.
but it is the reverse of what was suggested!

In my tests with a home machine, I found that it took longer to register a zero result but if I'd had a few beers it have a result very quickly.
Different machine, I know, so it may not be this way at a checkpoint but it stands to reason I guess... The more alcohol present the easier it is to detect?

amcalester

ArrBee wrote: »

I have a feeling there is a relationship between speed of result and amount of alcohol.
but it is the reverse of what was suggested!

In my tests with a home machine, I found that it took longer to register a zero result but if I'd had a few beers it have a result very quickly.
Different machine, I know, so it may not be this way at a checkpoint but it stands to reason I guess... The more alcohol present the easier it is to detect?

I'm not sure either, but the one time I was tested I hadn't had a drink in days and was getting nervous with the amount of time it was taking to give a result.

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Look believe what you want, I would trust a good friend the same as if I saw it myself hence why I said I had seen it.

I can guarantee you that a guard said the fact it takes longer is a bad thing to a friend who was bagged, he was absolutely positive he was going to fail also as it was morning after a feed of drink the night before. Now maybe it’s not actually true (that it takes longer if there is alcoho) lbut I am 100% positive it was said to him as I would believe my good friends (obviously many here have no trust in their friends).

I have absolutely no reason to make stuff up.

You may not be making stuff up but you're not exactly a reliable source (and I don't mean that to be insulting), simple fact is that for a lot of what you're posting here as fact you didn't witness, it's second hand info and as such should be taken with a pinch of salt.

xckjoo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Look believe what you want, I would trust a good friend the same as if I saw it myself hence why I said I had seen it.

I can guarantee you that a guard said the fact it takes longer is a bad thing to a friend who was bagged, he was absolutely positive he was going to fail also as it was morning after a feed of drink the night before. Now maybe it’s not actually true (that it takes longer if there is alcoho) lbut I am 100% positive it was said to him as I would believe my good friends (obviously many here have no trust in their friends).

I have absolutely no reason to make stuff up.

It's more that human memory isn't the best and people don't remember things correctly, stories mutate to suit unconscious biases, etc. Sure maybe your mate was still too drunk to remember correctly :pac:

TBH I'd say the Guard was just making it up to make your friend sweat. Looking up how they work, there's no obvious sign that the alcohol concentration is a factor in how long it takes to get a result.

alan partridge aha

ArrBee wrote: »

I have a feeling there is a relationship between speed of result and amount of alcohol.
but it is the reverse of what was suggested!

In my tests with a home machine, I found that it took longer to register a zero result but if I'd had a few beers it have a result very quickly.
Different machine, I know, so it may not be this way at a checkpoint but it stands to reason I guess... The more alcohol present the easier it is to detect?

How much is one of these devices and does it give you a proper reading.

jmayo

xckjoo wrote: »

Spoken like someone who thinks their fun trumps everyone else's right to safety?

What a load of shyte.
You know exactly jack shyte about me or probably for that matter most people who do see huge issues where there is little or no public transport.

Of course we all want to go out, get lamped and then go on a killing spree. :rolleyes:

Down our way we have a term for people like you that jump to massive assumptions about other people.

Just because some people can actually countenance how some people might actually only be able to avail of their own private transport if they chose to go out and they might like a drink in moderation.
The issues isn't old Jimmy down the road going down to the local pub and having a couple of pints over 3 or 4 hours.
It never was and it never will be.

On the other hand the guy at the other end of the bar having 4 or 5, before going round to his mates house or a local disco and having a feed more, plus possibly some controlled substances before then driving is the huge fecking problem.

No one is looking for no drink driving rules, bar a few lunatic attention seekers, and I don't think anyone looked for the limit that has been in place for years to be highered.
The solution is not screwing with the limits, but policing them when they should.

Autecher wrote: »

Why were you breathalyzed in those countries? Were they checkpoints?

France was coming off dual carriage and checkpoint at top of ramp roundabout and it was about 9pm and dark.
Australia was a Sunday afternoon in rural Western Australia and local petrol station guy said it was to catch guys heading back after weekend drinking in the big smoke.
New Zealand was police stop at night in Queenstown.

So contrary to some I wasn't on a global fun drinkaton to wreak havoc on poor unsuspecting law abiding individuals. :rolleyes:

BTW the most I have ever had to drink in nearly 30 years driving in 10 odd countries was once a mouthfull of cider.
And I wasn't meant to drive that evening, but had to leave very early.

Cienciano

alan partridge aha wrote: »

How much is one of these devices and does it give you a proper reading.

I have one, about 10 or €15 will get you one. It won't be as accurate as the gardai one, but it'll give you a good idea. I use mine the next morning a few times and got the bus instead.
You know those mornings where you know full well you must have alcohol in your system.

ArrBee

alan partridge aha wrote: »

How much is one of these devices and does it give you a proper reading.

I got 3 cheap ones from china.... about 5e each delivered.
Thought I'd take a gamble.

Not reliable enough TBH.

So since then did a little research and there are some that get recommended at about £100
Something about the method of detection being the same type as the cops use.
fuel cell Vs condenser or something.

this write up was especially detailed...
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/accessories-tyres/98271/best-breathalysers-2018

ArrBee

Cienciano wrote: »

I have one, about 10 or €15 will get you one. It won't be as accurate as the gardai one, but it'll give you a good idea. I use mine the next morning a few times and got the bus instead.
You know those mornings where you know full well you must have alcohol in your system.

You're lucky!

2 of mine can (inconsistently) show 0% after 3 pints!

blade1

Would the guards breathalyse you if you asked them?
In the interest of safety they should but as it would mean them not nabbing someone, I reckon they would have no interest.

xckjoo

jmayo wrote: »

What a load of shyte.
You know exactly jack shyte about me or probably for that matter most people who do see huge issues where there is little or no public transport.

Of course we all want to go out, get lamped and then go on a killing spree. :rolleyes:

Down our way we have a term for people like you that jump to massive assumptions about other people.

Just because some people can actually countenance how some people might actually only be able to avail of their own private transport if they chose to go out and they might like a drink in moderation.
The issues isn't old Jimmy down the road going down to the local pub and having a couple of pints over 3 or 4 hours.
It never was and it never will be.

On the other hand the guy at the other end of the bar having 4 or 5, before going round to his mates house or a local disco and having a feed more, plus possibly some controlled substances before then driving is the huge fecking problem.

No one is looking for no drink driving rules, bar a few lunatic attention seekers, and I don't think anyone looked for the limit that has been in place for years to be highered.
The solution is not screwing with the limits, but policing them when they should..

That's all nice waffle and all but if you notice I posted 1) a question and 2) in response to you posting an assumption about a different poster and their experiences. It was more to highlight your blanket dismissal of their opinion with broad assumptions than some kind of accusation.
So tell me again the story about what ye call people that jump to conclusions about other people?

Eggs For Dinner

Bobtheman wrote: »

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

If you've never done it, how do you know it's OK to drive with pints on board

Autecher

jmayo wrote: »

France was coming off dual carriage and checkpoint at top of ramp roundabout and it was about 9pm and dark.
Australia was a Sunday afternoon in rural Western Australia and local petrol station guy said it was to catch guys heading back after weekend drinking in the big smoke.
New Zealand was police stop at night in Queenstown.

So contrary to some I wasn't on a global fun drinkaton to wreak havoc on poor unsuspecting law abiding individuals. :rolleyes:

BTW the most I have ever had to drink in nearly 30 years driving in 10 odd countries was once a mouthfull of cider.
And I wasn't meant to drive that evening, but had to leave very early.

Thanks for that. If it seemed like I was having a go at you I wasn't, I was and am interested in how other countries do things like this.

davidk1394

blade1 wrote: »

Would the guards breathalyse you if you asked them?
In the interest of safety they should but as it would mean them not nabbing someone, I reckon they would have no interest.

No they wouldn’t breathalyse you. I asked them to test me and they wouldn’t. I was in college and they were in a car and if I passed the test I would have drove to college.

AlekSmart

jmayo wrote: »

What a load of shyte.
You know exactly jack shyte about me or probably for that matter most people who do see huge issues where there is little or no public transport.

Of course we all want to go out, get lamped and then go on a killing spree. :rolleyes:

Down our way we have a term for people like you that jump to massive assumptions about other people.

Just because some people can actually countenance how some people might actually only be able to avail of their own private transport if they chose to go out and they might like a drink in moderation.
The issues isn't old Jimmy down the road going down to the local pub and having a couple of pints over 3 or 4 hours.
It never was and it never will be.

On the other hand the guy at the other end of the bar having 4 or 5, before going round to his mates house or a local disco and having a feed more, plus possibly some controlled substances before then driving is the huge fecking problem.

No one is looking for no drink driving rules, bar a few lunatic attention seekers, and I don't think anyone looked for the limit that has been in place for years to be highered.
The solution is not screwing with the limits, but policing them when they should.

France was coming off dual carriage and checkpoint at top of ramp roundabout and it was about 9pm and dark.
Australia was a Sunday afternoon in rural Western Australia and local petrol station guy said it was to catch guys heading back after weekend drinking in the big smoke.
New Zealand was police stop at night in Queenstown.

So contrary to some I wasn't on a global fun drinkaton to wreak havoc on poor unsuspecting law abiding individuals. :rolleyes:

BTW the most I have ever had to drink in nearly 30 years driving in 10 odd countries was once a mouthfull of cider.
And I wasn't meant to drive that evening, but had to leave very early.

You are on the money there..spot-on !

Even the briefest of reads through this fellah's rap sheet underlines the truth of your point of view...but i suspect it will be fought tooth and nail....

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-37-who-previously-knocked-down-and-killed-two-french-tourists-is-jailed-for-driving-at-garda-37957287.html

A man previously jailed for knocking down and killing two French tourists has been sentenced to three and half years in prison for driving at a garda while trying to escape arrest for burglary.

John Cash (37) was jailed for eight years in 2008 after he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the death of friends Martine Talon (54) and Martine Liotard (53) on the Kylemore Road in Dublin on May 16, 2007.

The court heard during that sentence hearing, before the late Judge Katherine Delahunt, that Cash had drank 14 cans of cider, a bottle of whiskey and taken Prozac tablets before driving the car. He had been banned for driving for 20 years the previous year after he was convicted of dangerous driving.

Since killing TWO innocent people obviously does'nt qualify one for significant punishment,then the question is exactly what value the State places on the ordinary law-abiding citizen,over and above the repetititive leniency shown to the likes of Mr Cash...

He has 30 additional previous convictions which were all dealt with in the District Court and he was disqualified from driving at the time.

Thankfully,Mr Cash had the services of a Legal Professional to offer us some insight into his clients mind...

David Staunton BL, defending said his client acknowledged that he was wrong and was very regretful. He said he had been out of prison since 2014 and submitted to the judge that he was “not a person beyond reform”.

“He is acutely aware of his behaviour and wishes to amend his ways,” counsel submitted.

John Cash's original two French victims are 12 years dead now,so the elequent BL is to be praised for such fulsome service to his client on this additional matter.

14 Cans of Cider,a bottle of whiskey,and Prozac.

Plenty of dodged questions here,for sure.

James Brown

Bobtheman wrote: »

We lose people in all sort of ways. Why hammer drink drivers in particular?

Because there's more chance of you killing yourself or more importantly others with drink than without.

Also it's the old dog bite analogy. A dog bites you and the owner is all 'He never did that before', but you're still bitten. Like crashing after a few pints, 'I've driven with a few pints on me, never crashed before'. Should never take the chance with the lives of others.
If you live rural, thems the breaks. Get a bike, that way you'll likely only be run over and not doing the running over.

Bobtheman

My bottom line is the law was fine as it is. There are hardly any check points as it is We are great at passing laws but useless at enforcement.
I feel it for rural drinkers and wonder if cops could be a bit more flexible but given our hysterical media that can't work.
We do as a society need to get used to not drinking when we socialise. That would solve the issue for a lot of people but it ain't easy

AndrewJRenko

Bobtheman wrote: »

My bottom line is the law was fine as it is. There are hardly any check points as it is We are great at passing laws but useless at enforcement.
I feel it for rural drinkers and wonder if cops could be a bit more flexible but given our hysterical media that can't work.
We do as a society need to get used to not drinking when we socialise. That would solve the issue for a lot of people but it ain't easy

As St Augustine supposedly said "Please God, make me good, but not just yet".


How long do we have to wait for people to stop drink driving?

alan partridge aha

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As St Augustine supposedly said "Please God, make me good, but not just yet".


How long do we have to wait for people to stop drink driving?

Probably wont matter in a few years with the introduction of autonomous vehicles.

Pissartist

Drink driving will never stop no matter how much faux outrage there is,
Just look at the figures of people getting caught every year.
As long as there is drink, there will be drink driving.

golfball37

I’ve yet to hear of a drink driving related death on a busy road to workplaces on the following morning from someone who had a few pints the night before. Checkpoints that are needless and really inconvenient will turn people off this whole worthwhile campaign. I say this as a tee totaler for nigh on 5 years now who has been late for 2 important meetings in the last 6 months due to tailback delays from checkpoints

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

golfball37 wrote: »

I’ve yet to hear of a drink driving related death on a busy road to workplaces on the following morning from someone who had a few pints the night before. Checkpoints that are needless and really inconvenient will turn people off this whole worthwhile campaign. I say this as a tee totaler for nigh on 5 years now who has been late for 2 important meetings in the last 6 months due to tailback delays from checkpoints

Very often, we don’t hear the reasons why accidents happened. There are inquests, I’m sure, but they’re hardly all publicised.

blackwhite

BBFAN wrote: »

I don't agree with driving with 3 or 4 pints but I do agree that it's very hard to know if you're going to over the limit the morning after the night before and catching people out like this is a bit ott.

I heard a radio article about it before when a woman was breath tested at a checkpoint and found to be over the limit so she was arrested and brought to the Garda station and tested there. She was fine when she got to the Garda station and was let go but what I didn't realise is that still goes down as an arrest on your record! Like wtf?? Arrested on suspicion of something is still an arrest.

That has an effect on someone who needs Garda clearance for their work and that's very serious. I think the limit is so low now that even alcohol in mouthwash is going to be picked up which is just going too far.

No it doesn't.

If subject to Garda vetting, then only Criminal record (i.e. convictions) is disclosed, unless you will be working with "vulnerable" people.

For those working with vulnerable people, additional information is still limited to information that leads to a bona-fide belief that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable people.

So no - being arrested at a check point but passing the breath test in the station would never be disclosed.

seamus

People will often say anything to justify their own behaviour. Same as "I don't smoke that much" or "I don't smoke around the kids", as if that somehow negates the effect on their own health or the people around them.

There isn't really any excusing it. "Sure it's grand, they're just going over the top with all this enforcement" is just a form of self-denial because you know that sometimes you're driving the next day when you shouldn't be. But rather than correct your own behaviour, it's the rules that are wrong.

If I know I have to drive the before lunchtime the next day, I either don't bother drinking at all or I'll limit myself to two or three pints. It's not difficult, and I've driven home enough times following a wedding or a night away, to know that surprisingly little drink onboard leaves you feeling "iffy" the next day. So you're better off just not.

blackwhite

blade1 wrote: »

Would the guards breathalyse you if you asked them?
In the interest of safety they should but as it would mean them not nabbing someone, I reckon they would have no interest.

8-10 years ago one of my mates went through about 9 months off drink. Still came socialising on weekends with us (and turned out to be a great free taxi service )

We encountered a drink-driving checkpoint one night on our way into town, having had some drinks in the local pub before heading in.

They were happy to let all 3 passengers blow once the driver had passed.

Thinking back, they were probably happy to see it as a way to increase the number "tested" for the checkpoint!